summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
It was right to remove Morsi, a democratically elected president from power even with military support - CMV | Turkey has had the same thing happen what, three times? People object because they are unsure of the military. Ataturk's legacy has been a progressive and liberal military that is the army of the Turkish people. Egypt does not have this tradition as strongly inlaid, as such people worry. | cmv |
It was right to remove Morsi, a democratically elected president from power even with military support - CMV | While yes a change in power is essentially good for Eygpt. The need to use military force every time they wish to see a change in power is not something you want to see happen. As previously pointed out Turkey has tried three times to get to a government the people will like and yet their are still revolutions going on. The problem would be is that while it might be a growing number of people against this president. There was still people who supported him leading to fights and deaths in the coup. So it is not what all of Egypt wants and who's to say in a year or two the the majority wont be on the other side. The honest truth, look at the US a land with democracy we vote on our president and still people are disappointed but in Egypt those people has figured out they can just start a revolution. | cmv |
It was right to remove Morsi, a democratically elected president from power even with military support - CMV | If the opposition really had as claimed 22 million supporting it, why couldn't they wait for the parliamentary elections scheduled for later in the year? with such a large support from'' the people'' surely they could have gained a majority? even impeached Morsi if they felt it necessary. The opposition camp seems to want democracy only for themselves and others with different ideas can board a rocket to the moon and gtfo. Anyway whoever gets to'' lead'' Egypt after all this will be just a front for the real powers - the military hierarchy and the Mubarak era judiciary that was never removed. | cmv |
It was right to remove Morsi, a democratically elected president from power even with military support - CMV | The forced change in regime shows, IMHO the Egyptian people don't reflect the nature of democracy themselves. A stable society starts with mutual trust between the people and its governance. When the government does not deliver what it promises, there are other channels of change people can pursue, such as by legal means. A government must be able to work with its people and vice versa. If the government still does not deliver, then its time to elect another one. However if the regime insists, then its time to go to the streets. The mistrust and strife created by the forced removal is a bigger threat to stability in Egypt than the Mursi regime IMO. When the military and the government are in tension, the country is going to have a bad time. | cmv |
I believe a politician who regularly told the truth would be unelectable. CMV | Pandering to constituents does not make you dishonest. A politician can get on stage and speak his mind whole - heartedly on any number of issues, only to turn around and support an issue based on his voter's wishes ; this does not make him dishonest, this makes him the epitome of democracy. The entire point of ( America's at least ) democratic government is to vote in a representative of the majority that put them there in the first place. | cmv |
I believe a politician who regularly told the truth would be unelectable. CMV | With such broad and / or numerous portfolios it can be hard for them to have in - depth knowledge of issues when random questions are fired at them. That can lead to vague and indirect answers sometimes. Later they may ask for a briefing from staff and get up to speed. | cmv |
I believe a politician who regularly told the truth would be unelectable. CMV | I agree with you that it is not possible for a politician to be elected if he or she does not bend the truth occasionally. But remember Truth can be a hard thing to determine precisely. The things most debated in politics are those we don't have firm objective answers for ; if we did they wouldn't be debated. Politicians operate by making this uncertainty certain, i. e. claiming either more or less guns will affect crime. | cmv |
I've been raised to believe that any and all drugs are bad i. e. pot, hookah, alcohol. CMV. | we do plenty of things that aren't safe or healthy, for sheer enjoyment. smoking weed is just one of those things. you're eventually going to end up dying anyway, so you may as well enjoy the experience of life while it lasts. if people enjoy smoking weed, and they can live otherwise normal lives, why is that bad? | cmv |
I've been raised to believe that any and all drugs are bad i. e. pot, hookah, alcohol. CMV. | The main reason pot is a gateway drug is not because of the drug itself, but because of where you have to get it from. If you don't have a green card you have to get it from a dealer. The dealer could sell you other, harder drugs, or even mix them in with the pot. However, a regulated, controlled, industry of selling pot would remove the other harder drugs from possibly being sold to the buyer. Also, thc can not cause a physical addiction, where the body actually NEEDS it to perform at a baseline level but both nicotine and caffeine can cause this kind of addiction | cmv |
I've been raised to believe that any and all drugs are bad i. e. pot, hookah, alcohol. CMV. | I used to think that pumpkin pie was disgusting, but then I tried it and now I think pumpkin pie is amazing. Not to suggest that all " drugs " are " amazing ", just that you should only rely on your own experience as " truth ". Also, pot is about as addictive as going to the movies. | cmv |
I've been raised to believe that any and all drugs are bad i. e. pot, hookah, alcohol. CMV. | Depends on how you define bad. Sure it has some negative effects, but so does almost everything on the shelves in a supermarket. Humans can take a little bad, hell we can take a lot of bad. I know this isn't really convincing you that drugs aren't all bad but bad things aren't always that bad : P | cmv |
Rather than legalizing gay marriage, I think marriage should be removed from government altogether. CMV | I think the government still has to be involved to some extent for tax purposes, especially in the instance of a marriage in which only one person works. Consider the following ( fairly common ) scenario. Two people are married, living together, and sharing finances. However, only one of the two works and has an income. If government were not involved in marriage, then that one person's income would be taxed at the individual tax rate. However, this is unfair because the income is being used to support two people. With government involvement, the income can be taxed at a lower rate to reflect this fact. | cmv |
Rather than legalizing gay marriage, I think marriage should be removed from government altogether. CMV | Marriage is a long standing tradition. The reason the gov is involved is to regulate what happens in divorce, death, children and other issues. You need divorce laws and death benefit laws. You need custody laws because some people shouldn't be parents etc. Care to elaborate an alternative to marriage? How would health insurance work? What would happen when someone in a couple died? What would happen when someone got sick and family only could visit? | cmv |
Rather than legalizing gay marriage, I think marriage should be removed from government altogether. CMV | You can never get government out of marriage. Marriage is a legal contract, it comes with dozens of benefits and obligations. Government gives you tax breaks, taxes you on different things, recognizes guardians and assorted other things - like who has the right to pull the plug on life support. There are so many ways that the government is effected by a marriage that it is impossible to keep them out and not involved without having negative effects on those who're married. There are divorce laws, death benefit laws, inheritance laws, etc. all of which the government is involved in, and without which marriage wouldn't be able to properly function. There are also assorted guarantees the US has given. The right to marriage is one of them, as signed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By that alone it means they need to be involved and regulate it. | cmv |
Rather than legalizing gay marriage, I think marriage should be removed from government altogether. CMV | If the government will not perform marriage, who will perform many marriages? Places of worship wouldn't perform many marriages. Certainly churches wouldn't perform gay marriages, but they also wouldn't perform interfaith marriages, or marriages of divorcees, or marriages of atheists. I'm unsure of other religions'stances on these issues, but I can't see them being okay with performing these marriages either. What other institutions have the authority to perform marriages, besides the government and places of worship? If government marriages were taken away, where would people being excluded from religious marriages go to get married? | cmv |
Rather than legalizing gay marriage, I think marriage should be removed from government altogether. CMV | u / frotc914 / gave a great answer, but that's not the whole story. Some people fall in love so hard they want to make a lifelong commitment to the object of their affection. They don't want it to be extremely public, but they do want some kind of official record. Those people are sometimes atheists and want nothing to do with churches or religion. Civil ceremonies tick all the boxes for those people. Source : Describing myself there, and my wife. We've been happily married six and a half years. | cmv |
Rather than legalizing gay marriage, I think marriage should be removed from government altogether. CMV | I don't believe that government should be involved in marriage, however I would say that civil unions would be fine. All marriage certificates become civil unions. Anybody who wants protections, benefits, tax deductions, etc get civil unions. It would be fair ( as everybody gets them ) and then marriage can go back to being a private institution. | cmv |
Rather than legalizing gay marriage, I think marriage should be removed from government altogether. CMV | If you take government completely out of marriage then you must also take out any government tax benefits, programs, grants and medical programs. Another aspect to consider is that this would also remove many of the stronger police protections for domestic violence that protect married people. Also there would not be the same legal protections in place after divorce. ( alimony, child support, etc ) | cmv |
I believe that if you are an ethical vegetarian who believes that it is wrong to kill animals, you should be pro - life. CMV. | The difference is quite simple though. Fetuses and embryos occupy a woman's body and change it in various ways during a pregnancy ( often without the consent of the woman ). This is similar to parasitism. You being the type of vegetarian you are, would you not remove a tick or leech if it were stuck on you? The reason one camp is called the " pro - choice " camp is that they believe in a woman's right to make choices about her own body. Her body should not be taken hostage because of circumstances she may not have agreed to or expected. Not eating meat keeps animals from being killed, but those animals have no effect on your life if they live and are not eaten. If a child lives and is not aborted then it alters not only your physical body but also your entire life. | cmv |
I believe that if you are an ethical vegetarian who believes that it is wrong to kill animals, you should be pro - life. CMV. | Well, many vegetarians believe that animal life is valuable because animals have some sort of intelligence or conciousness. Following similar logic, many believe that abortion is not wrong because a fetus does not have any apparent intelligence or consciousness. Now, I'm not here to try to convince of the latter, but I'm just pointing out that these opinions are both widespread and not mutually exclusive. Also, many vegetarians may be vegetarians for other reasons like personal health or concern over the environment, but I think you've covered that in your OP | cmv |
I believe that if you are an ethical vegetarian who believes that it is wrong to kill animals, you should be pro - life. CMV. | Let me ask you this : do you think eating animals should be illegal? To me, being vegetarian or vegan is equivalent to being personally against abortion, but okay with it being legal. I am a vegan myself, but I don't use force to prevent others from eating meat. Likewise, I would strongly object to the mother of my child to get an abortion, but I wouldn't force her or anyone else to carry the baby to term as long as the abortion occurred before the fetus is viable. If anything, I think torturing and killing animals for food is morally worse than getting an abortion. To think that aborting a fetus in early stages with no sentience and direct dependence on a fully sentient human is as bad or worse than killing a fully sentient animal purely for pleasure is backwards to me. | cmv |
The Zimmerman case has me rethinking modern Liberalism. CMV. | Honestly, I think just looking at your title should be enough to change your view. Some case which has been butchered by mass media an beaten to death efore the trial even started is having you rethink a political ideology based on Keynesian economics and socially progressive policies? Well, what is the alternative belief for you then? | cmv |
The Zimmerman case has me rethinking modern Liberalism. CMV. | I haven't actively followed the case, but these kinds of tragedies remind me how little attention the media pays to broader socio - economics, i. e. " class " versus " race. " That's not to say that the two are mutually exclusive by any means, however I do believe that, perhaps sadly, socio - economic prospects for African - Americans / minorities / immigrants / the poor / etc. are unlikely to improve if all that is occurring is discourse, and worse yet, narrow discourse. | cmv |
The Zimmerman case has me rethinking modern Liberalism. CMV. | As to the fact that he " wasn't white, " I'd like to add the sociological phenomenon of passing. How others identify your race has very little to do with your actual ethnic origin, it has to do with what your physical characteristics most resemble. I am half black and half other things. My parents and grandparents all identify themselves as black even though my dad's father is 100 % of African origin and my mom's mother is only a quarter. In fact, my mother's parents had trouble dating in the beginning because my grandfather was too dark for the white bars ( that my grandmother could go to ) and my grandmother was too light for the colored bars ( that my grandfather would go to ). Both are " black, " but to society, one was " white " and one was " black ". Further complicating things, people of Hispanic origin have their own set of unique complicated racial identity issues, hence the fact that white / Hispanic and non - white Hispanic are distinct options on the census. | cmv |
The Zimmerman case has me rethinking modern Liberalism. CMV. | It's not guilt that drives liberals, it's compassion and empathy. I seriously wonder if conservatives are simply unable to'put themselves in another man's shoes'so to speak. For example, I've known conservatives guys - pretty nice, upright, good people for the most part - who deny up - and - down that racism is a problem in this country. But suggest to them they didn't get a job or accepted into a college because of'racial quotas'and these same people will go nuts with irrational anger. How do you explain someone who shrugs off the daily experiences others have with racial discrimination yet loses their cool at even the slightest hint that they may have been discriminated against? All I can figure is someone like this simply can't imagine what it feels like to be someone else. So the result is we see this pattern where conservatives love the government programs that support them, but see all the programs that help other people as useless. So the retired conservative loves Social Security and Medicaid, the conservative injured at work loves disability, the politician with a gay child supports gay rights, etc. Meanwhile, the rest of the conservative politicians seem completely unable to ask themselves how they'd feel it was there son or daughter who was being discriminated against. | cmv |
I have no problem with cannibalism or necrophilia CMV | On the canabilism front, as long as there is legal signed documents saying the person says that after their death its cool, then i have no moral objection against it. I guess same goes for necrophilia. You would really need to make a specific legal system for this though which could be tough. | cmv |
I have no problem with cannibalism or necrophilia CMV | It's easy to change your mind. Someone can volunteer to inflict these things on you and I am sure that just before you lapse into unconsciousness from blood loss, after someone has cut off your legs and starts roasting them, you will think - cannibalism sucks. I hope he doesnt defile my corpse too. | cmv |
I have no problem with cannibalism or necrophilia CMV | I've got no issues with either one of those things... I've never talked to some one with the same view... The only problem with making human meat legal to consume though, would be that the flesh trade would grow and people would probly start offing people to sell their meat. ( I know this is a super old post and know one is even really having this conversation anymore.. ) | cmv |
I have no problem with cannibalism or necrophilia CMV | What about symbols? The rational man has no problem burning or destroying a symbol of what he values - in the right context, for a good reason. Because he knows the symbol has no intrinsic value in and of itself. But under normal circumstances the symbol is not desecrated, because the action of desecration is symbolic of the destruction / betrayal of the values he holds. It is " in honour " and for the sake of his non - physical abstract values, that he respects the physical symbol - not for the sake of the physical symbol itself. The human body is such a symbol. It represents human life, in concrete form, for it is the physical structure which gives rise to the functionality and expression of our consciousness. In art it can represent our highest ideals, our most sacred values - made visible in a marble statue, or a fictional hero, or for many, even via some model in a pretty dress. Continued respect for the corpse as a symbol of what was valued and what still is being valued is thus for the better part civilised and rational behaviour. | cmv |
I have no problem with cannibalism or necrophilia CMV | I think the issue is that there really isn't a source of dead human bodies for eating or fornication that is acceptable. It is unlikely that you'd find many people who would agree to their body being used for such purposes after they die. Personally I don't care what happens to my body after I die. After I die if someone wants to get friendly with my cavities just before feasting on me I don't care but I'm not going to go out of my way to authorize this either. So without a reliable source of bodies the presumption is that the body was made dead for the above purpose rather than it being a natural death. When science figures out how to grow human flesh and organs in a lab you should re - ask this question but until then it's going to come down to sourcing. | cmv |
I think the British Empire was far worse than the Nazis or any other regime and they have gotten away scot - free for their crimes. CMV. | You seem to be wanting things both ways. Your title claims that the British Empire was worse than " any other regime " then in the original post claim that the Brits should not be compared to their contemporaries. This makes the CMV about whether 18th century empires were worse than the Nazi state, not about the British Empire as " worst ever. " OP, why should we not compare the British to other empires of the time? Can a conquerer be better or worse than another conquerer? If not, how could analysis be done on which is worst? Also, presentism. | cmv |
I think the British Empire was far worse than the Nazis or any other regime and they have gotten away scot - free for their crimes. CMV. | Well, the Brits didn't systematically exterminate 9 million people, kill another 90 million in one war, level hundreds of cities, and preform lethal medical experiments on prisoners, did they? Also, the world was at a different time : cruelty was the norm. You don't see then doing that kind of thing today, do you? No, because what is acceptable changed. | cmv |
I think the British Empire was far worse than the Nazis or any other regime and they have gotten away scot - free for their crimes. CMV. | I am not going to be able to find a source, but I remember a good analysis on the impact of the British Empire that I read somewhere. A lot of places that the BE touched were incredibly disorganised and corrupt. The British introduced taxation that actually fed back into the community, helping with infrastructure and jobs. As bad as the mentality was behind Britain going around claiming all these places, they didn't necessarily treat them without regard for their wellbeing ; they treated them as an investment. | cmv |
I think the British Empire was far worse than the Nazis or any other regime and they have gotten away scot - free for their crimes. CMV. | Two thousand years ago the people who occupied ( because genetically I doubt Italians share much in common with them ) my historical homeland conquered, enslaved and raped 1 / 3 of all humans on earth. One in three. But guess what? Rome's glory is unmatched. For all of human history Rome shall be glorified for winning. Winning matters, not how you win. The Americans committed genocide against hundreds of thousands of natives. They won. And had the right to call the Nazis bad guys because they won against the Nazis. You dont have to accept that these atrocities are justified through historical relativism if you dont want to, but you do have to accept that force is the only currency that history can bank on. | cmv |
I think the British Empire was far worse than the Nazis or any other regime and they have gotten away scot - free for their crimes. CMV. | Former British colonies are far more developed, wealthy, and peaceful than former French colonies - even in the same area. The reason for this difference is that the British genuinely tried to rule well. We can name hosts of bad things they did, but at the same time they tried to administer their territories fairly, and succeeded better than could be expected. They were the most benign conquerors the world has seen since Alexander the Great. | cmv |
I think the British Empire was far worse than the Nazis or any other regime and they have gotten away scot - free for their crimes. CMV. | Scotland never actually resisted British influence. They had a few small issues but in large part Scotland would be barren without English intervention after the potato famine. Ireland did after American Independence, but was largely just following suit. Britain actually shot themselves in the foot on that one, letting a minority seize control of the Irish Parliament. | cmv |
I think the British Empire was far worse than the Nazis or any other regime and they have gotten away scot - free for their crimes. CMV. | I think a big difference here is the motivations of the British and the Nazi Germans. The British Empire was primarily driven to acquire new territories in order to gain access to resources and fuel their industrial revolution. The Nazis were mainly driven by racial and nationalistic ideals of German - Aryan superiority and sought the extermination and / or oppression of non - Aryans. That does not excuse some of the brutal practices of the British, but I think the reasons behind why the British Empire operated can be applied to many other powerful societies throughout history. | cmv |
I believe multiculturalism is absolute nonsense and the death of cultural diversity. CMV | The life you are advocating sounds extremely boring. Being surrounded by people that think like me? Follow all of my customs? Eventually everyone would look like me too? Man, I'm getting bored just thinking about it. | cmv |
I believe multiculturalism is absolute nonsense and the death of cultural diversity. CMV | Multiculturalism is being aware of and tolerant towards the legal practices of other cultures and their right to have those practices outside of what is considered conventional for your country. I don't generally fast for Ramadan, but I respect the right of Muslims to do so. I don't force people to dress a certain way and don't respect the right of anyone else to do so. Multiculturalism isn't some PC watchword, its just accepting a persons right to live the way they want to. Which is the most American thing in the universe, and thus they are all good Americans : D. | cmv |
I believe that the government should either take partial ownership or break - up companies which are " too - big - to - fail ". Can you CMV? | There is a tremendous potential for corruption and moral hazard when the government tries to run private businesses. A far cleaner, and fairer solution would be to simply end the'to big to fail'mindset. Modify bankruptcy laws as necessary, but when a company is going to fail, let it fail. Markets and shareholders adapt quickly, and when the safety net is taken away, they will DEMAND boards of directors take better care of their money / investment. No cost to the taxpayer, no arguments about which companies to save and which to ignore, no playing favorites. | cmv |
I believe that the government should either take partial ownership or break - up companies which are " too - big - to - fail ". Can you CMV? | Your OP never addressed the solution that the American government actually decided on in the Dodd - Frank legislation it passed in response to the financial crisis of 2008. In case you are not aware, Dodd - Frank created a new " resolution regime " and required large financial institutions to submit periodic resolution plans to the FDIC. This solution represents a third potential option you never mention. How do you feel about this solution? Is it an acceptable plan? If not, why not? | cmv |
I believe that the government should either take partial ownership or break - up companies which are " too - big - to - fail ". Can you CMV? | Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are govt run / backed corporations and also the archetypal " too big to fail " bank. Their government support allowed them to grow so big in the first place, and because when they are successful they make money for the government there is no incentive to limit them until after trouble starts. Source. Maybe the govt should have better rules governing big companies, but owning them is a bad idea and actually incentivizes the govt not to place limits on them until they actually start to fail. | cmv |
Our political " packaging " of positions on various issues is arbitrary, irrational, and undemocratic CMV | In America, as I assume you're talking about, we are able to vote on many individual issues. There is nothing preventing you from voting for the death penalty and against gun rights. Just because you vote a Republican candidate into office doesn't mean you have to favor all of their platforms. If you're complaining about the two - party system we have going on, that's a result of marketing and pandering to the largest demographic, but that's inherent to any system where the few are trying to garner support from the many. The positions popularly held by top candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties are a result of decades of acquiring large voting blocs on single issues. Even if they don't agree with every position held by their candidate, these groups will continue to vote for that candidate because they know it's their best chance of getting what they want. This is a result of having many different interests among a wide variety of people. It's kind of crummy, but the larger the number of voters, the more you're going to have to pander to large, vague issues and try to grab as many of them as possible. | cmv |
I believe the US Post Office is a drain on the government's resources and does not need to exist anymore - CMV | It's a public service that runs about as efficiently as any service can. The numbers that come up as a loss provide an important, low cost service that enables commerce. I sell cards online somewhat regularly. It costs. 46 to ship any object thin enough for their machines. Without the USPS, shipping small items for commercial purposes would be a lot less financially viable. Other postal services are already overcosted - - without the USPS to keep them in check, costs would likely rise even higher among privately run shipping companies. | cmv |
I believe the US Post Office is a drain on the government's resources and does not need to exist anymore - CMV | The USPShas been profitable and is only in the red because of new pension funding rules. The money the USPS collects from sales exceeds the costs of sending mail. It doesn't add to the debt. In 2012, the postal service lost $ 16 billion, largely due to the 2006 Postal Accountability Enhancement Act ( PAEA ) which mandates that the Postal Service fully fund retiree health benefits for future retirees. This is the only time Congress has demanded universal health care coverage. The USPS doesn't exist to provide jobs. You are right that in the long run, private industry would hire those displaced workers. But it does exist to provide mail service to areas where individual companies would not. Privatizing an industry is not a benefit in itself. | cmv |
I believe the US Post Office is a drain on the government's resources and does not need to exist anymore - CMV | Private companies are not a good replacement. ( 1 ) The USPS is required by law to deliver to any and all places in the US, even those rural areas that are less profitable. FedEx and UPS are not required to do that, removing the USPS would essentially cut off some areas of the country from physical delivery. ( 2 ) The USPS is pennies compared to FedEx and UPS. Even when shipping packages with all the bells and whistles like on - line order tracking and sign on delivery can be half or less the cost of shipping them by private company. ( 3 ) The USPS has been an autonomous entity since 1983 and has not taken government money ( except in direct return for doing government work like discounted elections materials ) until last year ( and that was because Congress messed the USPS pension fund ). ( 4 ) There has also been a blanket ban since the 1950s on the USPS bidding for mass freight delivery ( such as factory to factory parts delivery ) as they would underbid all private options. They were declared too cheap and efficient that it would drive all private options out of business. ( 5 ) The USPS is the cheapest postal system in the first world. It does the same job for less, and by simply matching what deliveries cost in other countries it would become a profit filled machine. | cmv |
I think that the United States needs to draw up a new Constitution / Bill of Rights for the 21st Century. CMV. | OP, what will a new Bill of Rights accomplish if we don't even follow the existing one? The current US Bill of Rights is an amazing piece of work... but it has been weakened completely by various interpretations by the Supreme Court, as well as being trampled upon by a Federal Government which seems to take on more authority than it was supposed to have. So, let me ask you this : what good is it to revise or update things if we can't even hold the Government to abide by what we already have? Furthermore, what do you suggest to revise? In my opinion, the 1st and 2nd Amendments are still relevant today given any changes in technology and protect the rights of modern Americans... to the extent which our government allows ( which is the biggest problem in the first place ). | cmv |
I think that the United States needs to draw up a new Constitution / Bill of Rights for the 21st Century. CMV. | The role of the constitution isn't to keep up with changes. The articles outline the function and powers of our governmental branches. The amendments outline rights considered fundamental to our society. The changes you're thinking of are addressed in the millions of federal and state statutes, and case law, that constitutes the American legal system. | cmv |
I think that the United States needs to draw up a new Constitution / Bill of Rights for the 21st Century. CMV. | Turning the constitution into a fluid document sets a dangerous precedent. What happens when the government decides that the fourth amendment needs to be modernized. The purpose of the constitution is to provide an unmoving rock of principle. | cmv |
I believe that the logical corollary of being pro - choice for women is that men should be able to " opt - out " of fatherhood. CMV. | Refusing to have a child is a big difference from refusing to raise a child. You can argue that the decision of whether to keep a child should be more inclusive and the man should have greater say regardless of the decision but abortion does not equal abandonment. Once the life is brought into the world the dynamic changes entirely. | cmv |
I believe that the logical corollary of being pro - choice for women is that men should be able to " opt - out " of fatherhood. CMV. | I'm going to present the State's view of things. ( I don't necessarily agree with it ). The State believes that the child is wholly innocent, and the right of the child dwarfs the elective spending rights of the father. Now the father in this definition does not have to consent, or even be the biological father. A man ( S. F. v. Alabama ), or 15 year - old boy ( San Luis Obispo Co. v. Nathaniel J ) can be raped, and still be liable for child support. In fact, the father in most instances is defined as the " presumed father ". As in if the mother lies about paternity, and the non - biological parent believes the lie and raises the child for a period of time, he is liable for child support even if he finds out later, and proves that the child is not his. The reasoning is that the child would be hurt if he is not liable. Based on these cases, I assume the opt - out option will not be legislated unless the courts do a 180, as it definitely runs counter to the interest to the child. | cmv |
I believe that the logical corollary of being pro - choice for women is that men should be able to " opt - out " of fatherhood. CMV. | I think you're misunderstanding the foundation of the pro - choice argument - we are arguing for bodily autonomy, not for abortions. The chance to have an abortion is the result of allowing women full bodily autonomy and is not necessarily an end in and of itself. Men, obviously, don't have any issues with being denied this right and are thus excluded from the conversation. Once a child is born, the parents do have the right to mutually decide to give up the child for adoption ; or if only one parent is present they can do it unilaterally. Men have this right the same as women. In all other cases, both parents are equally responsible for the child. | cmv |
I believe that the logical corollary of being pro - choice for women is that men should be able to " opt - out " of fatherhood. CMV. | The problem here is that pro - choice comes from a place that women ought to be able to determine what happens with their own bodies. Once the child is born, the equation changes to one of what's best for the child, so they're not at all equivalent To set up an equivalency, After the child is already born, the mother and father both have to decide to put the child up for adoption. Should the mother give the child to the father, he may sue her for child support. | cmv |
I believe that the logical corollary of being pro - choice for women is that men should be able to " opt - out " of fatherhood. CMV. | While I agree with you in principle there is one huge difference between a women getting an abortion and a man opting out of fatherhood and that is the consequences on the child. If a women get's an abortion, the child never existed. If the man opts out of parenthood the child is born without a father figure to a single parent and will likely suffer because of it. Sure it may be unfair to the father that didn't want the kid, but it's even more unfair to the child who simply doesn't have a father. So in short, it's different because the life of a child is effected if a man opt's out while it isn't effected with an abortion. | cmv |
I believe that the logical corollary of being pro - choice for women is that men should be able to " opt - out " of fatherhood. CMV. | You can't base public policy 100 % on ethical philosophy. Running a civil society requires a level of pragmatism and consideration for real world consequences. What you are proposing would lead to hundreds of thousands of men ( if not millions? ) abandoning their financial responsibility for their biological offering, which would have horrible real world societal outcomes. It's hard enough to get men to stick around AFTER the child is born as it is, let alone if they had the option to walk away during pregnancy. It also puts 100 % of the responsibility and potential consequence of sex on the women, because the man can just walk away no matter what happens. | cmv |
I believe that the logical corollary of being pro - choice for women is that men should be able to " opt - out " of fatherhood. CMV. | ∆ Honestly, I had no idea that agreed so wholeheartedly with your stance. With that said, there is a daunting hole in your argument. It begs the question : When does the decision to bring the child to term leave the possession of the Male? In my estimation, he has relinquished his ability to decide the fate of the Sperm once it has left his body. While he was the carrier of the sperm, the choice to release it was his and his alone. You wouldn't say that a SO had rights to his sperm simply because they engage in Sex, so why would you say the opposite? You are granted rights in relation to the child when it is birthed... prior to that it is merely a process occurring in her body, and thus all decisions related to that process are hers and hers alone, IMO. | cmv |
I believe that the logical corollary of being pro - choice for women is that men should be able to " opt - out " of fatherhood. CMV. | Just curious : how would your system deal with fathers who couldn't be traced or contacted until it was too late? how would it deal with fathers who changed their minds and wanted to re - establish fatherhood? what burden would it place on mothers to make reasonable efforts to contact the potential father? what would happen in the case of grown - up children of such a system who wanted to trace their biological parents the way adopted children do? how would you prove that the relevant discussion had taken place before the sex? He - said she - said is going to be a nightmare. | cmv |
I believe that the logical corollary of being pro - choice for women is that men should be able to " opt - out " of fatherhood. CMV. | Abortion is an invasive procedure. As is having a child. To weigh one against the other on that merit alone is already a huge problem for women. Then there are moral, psychological, social issues etc etc. None of which the father is exposed to if he doesn't wish it. Then there is money ( for the mother too, not just for the father! Having a child means a lot of financial loss for a woman ). For the father it's just money - he doesn't even need to change jobs / positions / investments due to having a child around. Why should we create a law that basically makes abortion as " yet another birth control " ( which it absolutely, positively is not, nor will it ever be ) and basically equates the non - application of that physically and emotionally invasive procedure with the fathers oversight to use a condom? | cmv |
I believe that the logical corollary of being pro - choice for women is that men should be able to " opt - out " of fatherhood. CMV. | What occurs in a situation where the woman is unaware that she is pregnant until after the " abortion window "? Obviously this means the man also finds out after its too late for him to opt out. Will this be a special case for the courts to decide whether the man was given reasonable chance to opt out and if not extend that period? | cmv |
I believe that the logical corollary of being pro - choice for women is that men should be able to " opt - out " of fatherhood. CMV. | " As a final caution ; if you intend to argue that consent to sex is an implicit consent to fatherhood, than i shall say the same about motherhood, and demand that a scrictly pro - life stance is taken by that person. " I take issue with this premise. There are many reasons why abortion is legal, but the biggest argument, and where the difference lies between a man and woman's choice, is that a woman's right to choose abortion is a protection of the right to make decisions about one's own body. No such right is implicated with the father. | cmv |
I believe that the logical corollary of being pro - choice for women is that men should be able to " opt - out " of fatherhood. CMV. | I don't understand what you mean by should be able to opt out. They do. Every single day. And most pay no support in spite of " laws " stating otherwise. Likewise, if you don't get your opt - out feature, the law should obligate you fathers to spend time with their children, not just get a crappy low wage job for'support '. Unfortunately, a certain mindset of fathers think they have it so hard just for simply offering a paltry amount of money. I know this will come as a shock but, it takes infinitely more than money to raise a proper happy child, suitable for the world. | cmv |
Protests cause more harm than good. CMV | It depends on what is being protested and how well it is organized. The civil rights protest of the 1950s and 1960s were very successful and very necessary. Without the public demonstrations nothing would have ever changed, the same can be said of the modern civil rights protest being held by / for homosexual, for equal rights under federal ( and now for state ) laws with regard to marriage equality. Protest bring a plight to the public eye. If the protest is for a good cause and is conducted properly and sustained until change is realized, the harm that comes with them is the price that must be paid for liberty and equality. | cmv |
Protests cause more harm than good. CMV | I think the Occupy movement fundamentally changed the tone of American politics. Before that, all anyone was talking in economic terms about was cutting taxes and all that, basically the tea party agenda. It wasn't until the Occupy movement that people started talking again about the 99 % vs the 1 %, the growing divide between the rich and the poor in this country, and the declining middle class. I think that had an impact on the 2012 election, and in the long run, I think it's going to have a big impact on our political culture. You can say that it " only makes people angrier and angrier ", but it does more then that ; it gets people who were previously apathetic or uninformed and gets them involved in politics, brings them into the system, and gets them to start fighting to change things. | cmv |
Protests cause more harm than good. CMV | It's easy to forget how important the ability to effect government policy is when you've had it your whole life or it has never conflicted with you values / put you at a disadvantage. Protests only cause more harm than good if there are alternative effective means of enacting change in government ( at any level ) policy. If voting, petitions, town hall meeting etc don't sufficiently enable the will of a populace to be converted into policy then protest is justified. It is a last resort that relies on the harm it causes to send a message to obstructionist / authoritarian political elites. The reason most protests seem ineffective is because they are a reaction to a government that is refusing to enact change. The government has already done what it can to prevent the public from effecting political change and it will continue to do so in the face of protests. However short of civil war, foreign intervention or collaboration with some branch of the government / military ( Eg The Egyptian Military with its recent support of protestors ) protest is the only option the public has. | cmv |
I believe people can change. Please CMV. | It's common knowledge people can change. This is pretty much a no brainer. People choosing to change, is quite different. First they have to actually realize or acknowledge they have a a toxic or flawed behavior. Then they have to actually give a damn and put forth some effort to change it. So in short, yes, the capability to change is physically there, but they have to want to first. | cmv |
I believe people can change. Please CMV. | Maybe the willingness and ability to change ( or lack thereof ) is a thing in itself that doesn't change. Also, the context can change. Maybe the cheater just lost incentive to cheat. | cmv |
I Believe That Elections Should Take Place Across an Entire Week, Rather Than a Single Day. CMV | There are a number of logistical problems with week - long voting. Consider where most voting locations are - schools, churches, and other venues with have an alternate function. Its tolerable to shut down portions of these buildings for a day, but it may not suit at all for an entire week. Second, poll workers are not paid. They are volunteers and keeping those slots filled is already a challenge... Weeklong voting would require vastly more volunteers, which may or may not be available / reliable. The potential for fraud / cheating goes up with every overnight period the vote goes on. While I would support going to a 2 day system ( Saturday / Sunday ) to maximize the opportunity... a full week opens up a lot of problems and doesnt add a tremendous amount of utility. | cmv |
I Believe That Elections Should Take Place Across an Entire Week, Rather Than a Single Day. CMV | Well, early voting happens in places like Florida for several days in those same polling locations and it seems to still not be enough. I would say, at a minimum, it seems to make sense to have voting take place all day Friday, Saturday and Sunday. We vote on a Tuesday because farmers needed time to trek to town with enough time to vote and then head home by Wednesday ( market day ). | cmv |
I Believe That Elections Should Take Place Across an Entire Week, Rather Than a Single Day. CMV | The number one reason this couldn't happen is that there is just too much time to tinker with the results. So many changes could be made to a locked cabinet full of votes. People barely trust things the way they are, this would make it worse. Plus if a landslide starts to happen, people on the losing side would be less inclined to vote, which would make the landslide even worse. Sure a spirited might think " The other side is winning. I better get out and vote! " But alot of people would just think, " The other side is winning. My vote won't make a difference. " So this would alienate voters. | cmv |
Victim Blaming and offering practical advice on avoiding becoming a victim are not necessarily synonymous. CMV | I do agree with you, but keep in mind that presentation is everything. Giving advice is, of course, helpful when you strip away all tone, but that's often not how it comes off as. I think that the issue is more how things are said as opposed to what is said, which is the real issue that must be addressed. | cmv |
Victim Blaming and offering practical advice on avoiding becoming a victim are not necessarily synonymous. CMV | Every woman knows how to minimize their chance of being raped. They just have to never leave home after dark, never go on dates, and never show anything resembling sexual interest to anyone. The problem is that almost nobody is actually willing to live this way. So most women take an informed risk, and occasionally do some of these things. You're not actually providing new information when you offer your " practical advice " ; you're just reminding victims of the horrible fact that simply having a vagina is a huge risk factor for rape. | cmv |
Victim Blaming and offering practical advice on avoiding becoming a victim are not necessarily synonymous. CMV | At least in the US, women are already inundated with you'practical advice'on how to avoid getting raped. We have an entire culture that focuses on how women should avoid getting raped ; that treats rape as a woman problem. Since it happens to women, it's up to women to prevent it from happening. There is very little focus on men, and on saying it's something that those who perpetuate rape and sexual assault should not do. Any time you choose to focus on this practical advice for women on how to avoid rape while not bothering with practical advice for men on not raping, you are contributing to the overall culture. And in the end, the overall culture is blaming women, simply by putting on the focus on'women should know how to avoid getting raped'and little to no focus on'men should not rape.'disclaimer : sometimes women commit rape, and sometimes men get raped. My gendered writing is rather lazy on my part, but mostly reflects the fact that rape usually, though not always, follows those gender roles. However, I don't mean to pretend that only women are ever raped, or only men ever rape. | cmv |
Victim Blaming and offering practical advice on avoiding becoming a victim are not necessarily synonymous. CMV | You like to give advice to females who were raped, and don't want any backlash from giving advice, presumably no matter how callous it may sound and irregardless of the timing or tone of your statement. That's fine, I'm not going to stop you and you could potentially help a lot of women. But, here is my advice to you : if you enjoy going around doing that on a frequent basis, do it anonymously and behind the veil of the internet, because at some point, someone is going to punch you in the face. Mind you - I'm not blaming you for being punched in the face, I'm just giving you cold, purely intellectual practical advice which you should thank me for and have no emotional reaction to whether positive or negative. | cmv |
I believe the free market is responsible for creating more harm than good, CMV. | The transition of China over the past 40 years from a command economy to a [ quasi ] free market offers a great example of the pros and cons of the free market. Pro : China has transformed from one of the poorest nations on earth to a mid - tier GDP - per - capita economy, and the vast tidal wave of wealth is still spreading. 600 million people have been raised from desperate poverty to middle class. Drastic improvements in life expectancy, infant mortality rates, nutrition, and almost all measures of quality of life from entertainment options to healthcare. Con : A degraded environment ( locally and globally ), depletion of resources, rampant materialism. In my opinion, China is also suffering from spiritual impoverishment : the pursuit of wealth chokes out the traditional values for a lot of people. Whether this is the result of materialism or the Maoism that came before it, I don't know. Also, Chinese students are driven to succeed or perish and this puts many of them in a constant state of misery, but the same was true in their pre - capitalist days. I can only offer anecdotes, but I do have lots of Chinese friends ( starting with my spouse ), and without exception they all believe capitalist China is MUCH better off than pre - capitalist China. TL ; DR ( sort of ) : perhaps there is an underclass in capitalist society, but the underclass in non - capitalist society ( China at least ) was much bigger and much worse off. | cmv |
I believe the free market is responsible for creating more harm than good, CMV. | Freed markets wouldn't lead to mega - corporations ; at present corporations exist because government laws around intellectual property exist. And because they're very good at leveraging the state to keep competition out, receive our money, and so on... I think the state is probably the biggest defender of corporate power around. There's lots of libertarian / ancap argumentation around getting rid of IP and how it would not lead to Mad Max ; suggest you look into that if you think society would dissolve into nothingness without IP. | cmv |
I believe the free market is responsible for creating more harm than good, CMV. | I don't want to change your view because I share it. Just thought you would want to have a look into the German economic system. It's a social economic market system which is compared to most other systems, very advanced considering regulation and social safety. Homeless people in Germany exist only by choice for example ( at least in theory according to current laws ). | cmv |
I believe the free market is responsible for creating more harm than good, CMV. | Capitalist economies with the most well - defined and enforced property rights are inextricably linked to higher standards of living, and have raised that bar to levels unimaginable in earlier ages. Free trade is beneficial to people because it allows for mans desire to increase his wealth to be satisfied through exchange instead of by violence / coercion. Trade should be unrestricted because it is the means to the most socially optimal end : that all resources are allocated to individuals that personally value them the most. It is important to remember that inequality is not the result of capitalism. Inequality of resources is the reason that we voluntarily engage in trading our X for their Y. And if you reject free markets based on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, you must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action in a planned economy. | cmv |
I believe the free market is responsible for creating more harm than good, CMV. | Churchill once said that democracy was " the worst form of government, except for all the others. " The same could easily be said about capitalism as an economic system. What do you propose could replace it that doesn't come with a bevy of problems of its own? | cmv |
I believe that bodily autonomy is insufficient to justify abortion by itself. CMV. | Let's imagine we're in a country / region where kidney dialysis machines don't exist. I can keep my patient alive for nine months until the new kidney arrives in the mail from a sleazy guy in Shanghai but I need a " volunteer " to stay hooked up to him in the next bed to do the extra work until then. Now of course you're welcome to refuse this arrangement but you'll be responsible for his death. How do you feel about this? | cmv |
I believe that bodily autonomy is insufficient to justify abortion by itself. CMV. | The z / e / f is not an individual, as it is totally dependent on the woman it is growing inside of. She is biologically enmeshed with it, and her life depends on it's successful removal ( or she will bleed to death ) at whatever point it leaves her body, viable or not. No person has the right to use your body for their survival, no matter your relationship with them. By giving the z / e / f this right, you are giving it MORE rights than any other person. Parents are not legally obligated to donate organs to their children. Violent attackers are not legally obligated to give even an ounce of blood to their victims. Even after death, no one may use your organs ( which you are not using anymore! ) without consent - even if you consented once, it will still be checked again at your death, and your nearest and dearest will be asked about it. | cmv |
I believe that bodily autonomy is insufficient to justify abortion by itself. CMV. | If another grown adult is touching, using, endangering a woman's body, she has the right to make them stop if she so wishes. Of course, she's only allowed to use as much force as she has to to stop that person from doing things to her body, because otherwise that would be unreasonable. However, in the case of a fetus, the only ways to make that fetus stop using that woman's body result in the death of the fetus. I think that's unfortunate, but I think all people have a right not to be forced to let others use their body, even assuming the fetus is a full person deserving of normal rights. | cmv |
I'm a liberal who isn't comfortable with abortion or the pro - choice agenda. CMV. | " Most liberals believe late - term abortion is okay " You completely miss the point behind that bill and what all the protests are about. It's all the other restrictions that are being placed on abortions to make the bar so high that the people who need them could not possibly have them. Every single bill out there does this sort of thing. From requiring someone to check into a doctors office two days consecutive in order to / take a pill / to making it impossible for most abortion clinics in the state to operate and all sorts of other crazy restrictions in between. | cmv |
" CMV " The world has always been a violent place and terrible things have always happened. | Not to change your view, but offer an explanation : The past 100 years or so has been the first time in human history when information about current events around the whole world has been widely available. This moment in time ( as will all moments after it assuming technology continues to progress ) will be the current highest point in human communication capabilities. If we say that roughly, the Earth has been at the same level of human violence for a long time, the factor that is changing is our ability to be acutely aware of that violence around the world at all times. So while it appears that the world is getting more violent, it's really just that our ability to notice the violence is getting exponentially better as time passes. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 07 / 09 / 13 | Aw I was really excited reading this, then scrolled down to nothing... Well, no major changes here, except that I found out I am not a " slow reader " as I once thought, I just needed to take the time. Just finish Hemingway's For Whom The Bell Tolls within two weeks, which is very fast for me. I suppose it helps that it is such an engaging story. I guess I changed my view of myself? I hope this encourages me to tackle even bigger beasts... Damn you Tolstoy, I will get you yet. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 07 / 09 / 13 | Andrew Sullivan had a great post today While he may not have changed any views per se, he did crystallize for me that the entire world is currently undergoing the same transformation, brought about by the Information Age. I know that ignorance is the greatest threat to our civilization, and I don't always agree with Sullivan on how to combat it, but he focused the issue for me and explained a lot of seemingly unconnected events impressively. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 07 / 09 / 13 | When I found how much more expensive a death penalty case is to the taxpayers than life imprisonment ( 2 to 3 times as much ), I changed my support for the death penalty cases to instead be life without parole. I still believe we have a right to execute murderers... but its not worth it. Better to let them rot in a cell for the rest of their lives and spend that money on other things. The murdering prick doesnt get to stay in the news for a decade as his appeals keep him front and center, there is zero chance that we kill an innocent man, and the taxpayers get him removed from society for a fraction of the cost. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 07 / 09 / 13 | When i first entered university, I personally never saw myself working in academia ie research mainly due to the lack of income and always having to find someone to fund your research. However after doing summer research with a professor and talking to him about this work, he completely changed my view on working in academia. Never talked to anyone that was that passionate and excited about their job and that even the road blocks that occur when researching were exciting to overcome. Completely changed my view, unfortunately life got in the way and I didn't go into research. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 07 / 09 / 13 | The Young Man's Guide to Late Capitalism changed my perspective on the pursuit of money. It's not worth it over family or relationships. I would recommend this book with all my heart, I read it in two sittings. | cmv |
I Identify as an Anarcho - Capitalist. CMV. | To me the counter - argument sounds really simple, maybe I am missing something? Governance service means the ability to easily outgun and take to court even the best armed criminal syndicate. Good governance means we don't have to have a bloody civil war and shoot up half the town to take Tony Montana to court right? When taking a criminal to court means that your house got bombed as collateral damage that is governance done badly, right? This what good governance in the sense of serving justice and providing public order means, right? That Al Capone must have no real chance to fight back? So we want governance service providers to be able to outgun everybody easily right? But if there are any competing service providers, they too have to be pretty powerful to offer anything like that, a large mercenary army. But if they exist, they can turn around, not provide governance services, and be the criminal gang lord themselves right? So whenever there is a chance to that then there is governance not done right? | cmv |
I don't believe legal consequences should exist for any other purpose than to influence future behavior. CMV | Are you speaking only about the criminal justice system? Because the civil system exists not only to deter future wrongs but to redress previous ones. Those " legal consequences " exist to help pay the medical bills of someone who is wrongfully injured, to ensure that a contract is written fairly, to make the ownership of property meaningful. There are many more purposes to the law than what you're representing here. And even within the criminal system, crimes like malpractice exist so that doctors and lawyers cannot mistreat their patients / clients with impunity. | cmv |
I don't believe legal consequences should exist for any other purpose than to influence future behavior. CMV | You are mostly right that we don't really choose anything at all, everything we do is a byproduct of everything that has come before it. But what you are missing is that the fear of punishment is an influential factor in the decision making process. The punishments are a strong deterrent for the majority of people. By having potential negative consequences for our actions, we must weigh up the risk and reward for what we do. That in itself justifies the punishments. But you NEED to enforce them when people do break the rules, otherwise that deterrent loses its power. You could justify that because X got away with it, you could too ( think gambling, even though the chance of success is so low, people still do it all the time ). But if it appears as though there is no chance of success, you wouldn't do it. | cmv |
I don't believe legal consequences should exist for any other purpose than to influence future behavior. CMV | I agree in part, that legal consequences exist to influence future behavior ( by acting as a deterrent and by rehabilitating wrong - doers ). However, that's not the only reason. Jails and / or things like the death penalty can also be used as a means to remove dangerous people from society. A person who has demonstrated themself to be dangerous to society should be removed for society's safety. | cmv |
I don't believe legal consequences should exist for any other purpose than to influence future behavior. CMV | It seems you are a utilitarian. That being the case, you seem to account for using justice as a means to improve society. Retribution can have a utilitarian role, precisely because psychologically we have deep seated desire for life to be fair. So, punishing a criminal may improve the aggregate good in society because it gives more pleasure to the community as a whole, who will feel that justice has been done, than it does harm to the perpetrator. Further, retribution is an important consideration in some cases not so much to increase punishment, but to limit it when a punishment is wildly disproportionate to the crime. For example, it may well benefit society at large to create extreme punishments for minor crimes in order to discourage an activity. However, as individuals, we rebel at the idea of an 18 year old being thrown in to prison for life for stealing a $ 50 radio. If punishments become too harsh, though they may dissuade some from crimes, perhaps the sheer sense of injustice and oppressiveness will begin to outweigh those benefits. | cmv |
I live in New Zealand. I believe that the indigenous here ( the Maori, who are a minority ) get too many extra benefits which should be removed, as it is unfair that they exist for the rest of us. CMV. | The natives were there first. The white people came to their country and took over without the natives'consent. So now the white people's government is doing a few small things to try to make up for taking over another people's land and nation, and you think this is somehow unfair. You shouldn't be asking why these people " get " to have free housing or an advantage in attending university, but why you think you're entitled to live in their country in the first place. Yeah, I know it's not practical to expect everyone who's not Maori to just up and leave New Zealand any more than it's practical for everyone who's not a Native American to up and leave the United States. But is it really such a hardship to toss a bone to the people who's country your occupying every once in a while? | cmv |
I don't approve of gay pride parades. CMV. | The thing is, gay pride parades are not for the benefit of straight people. They exist, as the name implies, for the gay community to get together and show, to each other before anyone else, that they are proud to be who they are and that they don't need to hide as they have been forced to for centuries. Let me repeat, the object is not to convince straight people that gay people deserve the same rights as them. They are not there as a PR stunt of the gay community. They are an expression of a community of people that until very recently were told they were morally corrupt deviants who should be ashamed of themselves and were legally and extra - legally oppressed. The entire point of gay pride is that they don't care what straight people think ; it's precisely the day for them to say " I am who I am and I am doing nothing wrong, I don't have to hide because you don't approve of me! " And don't worry ; aside from gay pride parades there is a ton of activism being done by men and women in suits, who understand that they also need to dress in a " respectable " manner to reach out to certain groups. | cmv |
I don't approve of gay pride parades. CMV. | While this is a common stereotype, I would like to challenge this on a couple of viewpoints. 1. Yes, its true that in the earliest stages some parades must have been like this. However, is it necessarily the case that they are all like this today? 2. Gay pride parades were necessarily made so that LGBT individuals could have a day to act in a fashion that only heterosexual individuals are given a pass to do on a daily basis without judgment. As an LGBT individual, I cannot help but wonder if they feel like they're being judged every time they show off any sort of sexuality ( for full disclosure, I am asexual ). This is the one day in the year where such individuals are accorded the same privileges that any other heterosexual person might have. | cmv |
I don't approve of gay pride parades. CMV. | Bottom line : they want to be accepted for who they are. This is who they are. Not all gay people are going to participate and DO " blend in " and are " family friendly ". Also, there are plenty of straight people that participate in those parade. And there are plenty of parades that have just people in crazy outfits and make up and everything. | cmv |
I instantly lose respect for people who use their military history to justify / prove their position on gay rights & other positions. CMV | Well, I am a veteran, I hope that doesn't offend your sensibilities. I have used my personal military history to advocate for an end to the wars we are in. I also cite it when dealing with encroachments on civil liberties by law enforcement. The premise is that my service was to the constitution ( I did swear an oath to it ). However, it is always an argument from authority, so I see why you could take issue with it. There is one thing you cannot be opposed to veterans using their " veteran status " for and that is : Veterans Issues. Pensions, healthcare, college money. The lobbying of veterans was a huge contributing factor to the new Post 9 / 11 GI Bill being created. | cmv |
I instantly lose respect for people who use their military history to justify / prove their position on gay rights & other positions. CMV | First, let us agree that we are arguing about someone using their history in the armed forces as a justification that their views hold more weight than yours. If that's so, then it comes down to age and experience. They are attempting to show that they are more knowledgeable and experienced than you because they have been more places and done more things than you, or have done more important things. Your first premise is that someone who uses their experience as a justification does not mean they are right is partly invalid since their experience can sometimes have a bearing on the issue at hand. For instance, let's say there's a protest going on about people being able / not being able to wear masks in a protest. Their experience in the armed forces may allow them to see that someone wearing a mask causes panic and chaos and makes picking out valid targets difficult and resulting in more needless bloodshed when trying to stop one person from doing something bad since you can't recognize them. Like it or not, people in the armed forces are taught, trained and experience things that many civilians never will have to experience, making them sources of information. That means that in some cases they can legitimately use their status as veterans to justify their points of view. | cmv |
I instantly lose respect for people who use their military history to justify / prove their position on gay rights & other positions. CMV | What about when it is relevant, for instance women in the military? Would you consider it worth saying if, for instance, one said " I don't support women in this military role because experience X shows us that on average, women are better at job Y and not Z? " ( note : you don't have to agree with his statement. The point is he / she has more experience in the real world than you in this situation, and their military experience is relevant ) I think there are times where a persons real world experience is very much relevant to the argument. In the case of LGBT, you are correct. But when you say " other positions " I think there are plenty in which military experience is relevant. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.