summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I instantly lose respect for people who use their military history to justify / prove their position on gay rights & other positions. CMV | Isn't what you're really saying is you instantly lose respect for anyone who disagrees with you using " appeal from accomplishment "? Which is fine, in and of itself. Really, to truly be fair, you need to very consistent with this - anytime anyone | cmv |
I instantly lose respect for people who use their military history to justify / prove their position on gay rights & other positions. CMV | Is your point of contention their statement that they don't support LGBT rights or that they feel entitled at all? Because if it were the second - how would you feel if a veteran said " I didn't fight for the country so we could live in a police state "? Now the views they hold themselves might be distasteful - but that's another ball game. | cmv |
I instantly lose respect for people who use their military history to justify / prove their position on gay rights & other positions. CMV | Well it kinda matters though, which position is being spoken of. If it's something related to PTSD and they are using their military background to explain why PTSD should be recognized as a disability or what - not, it makes sense. But on the flip side, to support a bigoted stance like denying rights to certain groups of people. I agree mentioning your military background as part of your reasoning is absurd. ( PTSD was just a blatent obvious example to prove my point that it depends what the topic in question is ) | cmv |
I instantly lose respect for people who use their military history to justify / prove their position on gay rights & other positions. CMV | The only thing I can contribute is a different counter argument to the people you described. Instead of them simply being wrong for using their service as justification for their agenda they could be wrong on another level. Which is the fact there are others who also served their country who don't agree with them. So people like this need to understand not only that military service doesn't give them a larger legal influence, but also that they don't have the standing to represent the entire armed forces based off of their own opinions. | cmv |
I instantly lose respect for people who use their military history to justify / prove their position on gay rights & other positions. CMV | I am a veteran of both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can only say that I will talk about my military experiences to demonstrate my support of the lgbt community. I served with many brave folk who were gay and they were unfairly treated. My military experience directly contributed to how passionately I speak out in favor of the LGBT community. I didn't fight alongside brave gays and lesbians to come home and see them disrespected by bigots... | cmv |
I believe it is wrong to teach the Pledge of Allegiance in schools ( not for religious reasons ). CMV. | I sounds like you have serious problems with America. Just be aide you don't like the country doesn't mean other people can't. I am not saying that the country is the best right now. There are some serious issues that need to be corrected. The Pledge of Allegiance is what America should be, not what it is. It is a goal we are setting in the hearts and minds of each of our children. | cmv |
I believe it is wrong to teach the Pledge of Allegiance in schools ( not for religious reasons ). CMV. | The peculiar wording in the beginning of the pledge actually answers your questions about the end. The pledge affirms allegiance to what the flag stands for, not to the country which it flies over. In other words, you pledge allegiance to an undivided, holy, free, and fair country while recognizing that you don't live in one. It reminds me of Puddleglum's speech : | cmv |
I believe it is wrong to teach the Pledge of Allegiance in schools ( not for religious reasons ). CMV. | The pledge of allegiance is a pledge to the ideals of the country, not the government. That's why it's a pledge to the flag ( a symbol ) not to the entity itself or the president or the congress or any aspect of the government. Obviously, not every American has complete liberty and justice, but as a country we strive for an INDIVISIBLE REPUBLIC with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all citizens. Making children recite the pledge reinforces the founding principles of the nation in our citizens. What those principles mean will vary from individual citizen to individual citizen. We are not asking children or anybody else to blindly follow our government in a fascist - eque way. The under god thing is a totally separate issue, and was added to the pledge during the Cold War, I believe. | cmv |
It is highly immoral to have an abortion without doing extensive research on the subject. CMV | the biggest problem with you analogy is the idea that personhood is something you can do " research " about, something you can directly observe and " discover ". but that's been addressed. the second - biggest problem with your analogy is that it relies on juxtaposing the maybe - person with a building. the building definitely isn't a person and definitely has no rights. a pregnant woman isn't a building, definitely / is / a person and definitely has rights. your analogy relies on the relation between a construction manager and a building being like the relation between and woman and her uterus. her whole body, really. now, a woman isn't identical to her uterus, but neither is she an objective outside observer in perfect, emotionally neutral control of it. it's more like, there's a zombie apocalypse, you've just finished nailing down your door, you're in full control of the nails, you think you saw a silhouette outside. it's morally reckless not take the nails out and go see if it's a person. | cmv |
It is highly immoral to have an abortion without doing extensive research on the subject. CMV | So if the woman has considered the question, and believes both / either a ) it's not a person, and / or b ) that they have a right to control their body, is it moral? What kind of " research " would you require of them to allow that they would be acting morally? Both of those are pure opinions. No amount of research will tell you anything more about either one. All that additional research might be able to do is change your opinion, but there's no limit to how much research might be needed to do that, or any reason to expect that it would. This is very unlike the situation of demolishing an abandoned building that might have someone in it, because you're talking about a verifiable fact that can be answered with a reasonably amount of research. | cmv |
It is highly immoral to have an abortion without doing extensive research on the subject. CMV | There is an unspoken premise 3, which is : " Everyone in a position to decide to have an abortion understands and accepts that a fetus is a potential person. " What if someone simply has a strong intuition that a fetus is not a person, and therefore does not think this is an issue that really needs to be discussed? Especially for early pregnancy, this is not unreasonable - the intuition that a ball of cells is not a person is not unreasonable, whether or not you agree that it is a " person. " In that case, there is no reason for this person to seek out additional information, because this person believes they have all the relevant factors to make a decision. | cmv |
It is highly immoral to have an abortion without doing extensive research on the subject. CMV | I suppose this may not be easy to construe as challenging your view, but I do have some comments about your analogy. I understand the parallel you are trying to draw between an demolition and an abortion, but here's my question for you : do you honestly believe that anyone seeking an abortion does not understand the fundamental nature of the procedure - - that it is to remove a fetus from the body? What I mean is, the logic of your attempted analogous scenario makes sense, but I disagree that it serves as a meaningful comparison to the choice to have an abortion. I don't think any reasonable person could believe that virtually any women seek to have abortions without somehow being aware that the procedure will destroy the fetus ( the " person inside the building " from your scenario ). What level of " information " then does someone need to have attained the morally acceptable level of preparation to have an abortion? | cmv |
It is highly immoral to have an abortion without doing extensive research on the subject. CMV | You say " assume the fetus is not a person " but none of your analogies recognize that assumption. If you assume the fetus is not a person, why is an abortion morally reckless? You can't say'assume something'and then go on to pretend like you never said it. | cmv |
It is highly immoral to have an abortion without doing extensive research on the subject. CMV | The time spent studying the issue is time during which the fetus becomes closer to personhood. Sometimes there are benefits to making a quick decision. In an analogy : You're on an island. You know a crowd is going to begin crossing a bridge at some point between 1pm and 10pm. It's very important that they don't get across the bridge, as you don't have the food for them, but you don't want to blow them up while they're on the bridge. It's 1 : 10 now. Should you spend an hour or two investigating the location of the crowd? Or should you blow the bridge now when there's still only a negligible chance the crowd are on it? | cmv |
I believe source code of publicly distributed software should be regulated and that a mechanism to facilitate transfer of code into the public domain is necessary. CMV | Due to the way copyright works, your suggestion is kind of how the system already works. Yes, closed source programs are protected by copyright. To be sued for copyright, however, you have to show that they literally copied your source. If the source is not available, it probably wasn't copied ( unless it was stolen ). The functionality is not protected. Patents, however, do protect functionality. On the other hand, the details of the underlying invention must be made public to receive patent protection. | cmv |
I believe ownership of housing is a right there should be a limit to the amount of residential property one individual can own. CMV. | I think applying the limit to individuals rather than businesses kind of defeats the purpose. If someone's going to be buying up a bunch of residential properties, they'll incorporate first and make a business out of renting or selling off their purchases - and that's where you're going to see abusive practices preventing people from finding adequate and affordable housing. The other thing is that it couldn't be an absolute limit - you'd have to scale it to deal with the urban / rural divide and other factors affecting land price and demand. If your a farmer who owns a couple hundred acres out in the country, you can maybe keep your family above the poverty line ; if you own the same area of land in the middle of the city, well that's a very different story. | cmv |
I believe ownership of housing is a right there should be a limit to the amount of residential property one individual can own. CMV. | People who own multiple properties tend to rent them out, no? A lot of people who have a reasonable income but are unable to get financing to buy depend upon this market. It also doesn't make sense for people who intend to living in an area for only a couple of years to buy. If there is a limit on the number of properties an individual can own then it would vastly shrink the availability of rental homes for these groups forcing them into apartments or out of the area entirely. In my experience, I haven't seen landlords buying up large quantities of houses. The vast majority of single family homes that I've seen are owned by families. I'm not seeing this as an especially big part of economic inequality. I would be a lot more excited to see mutual funds offering investment vehicles the average person and the like. Higher returns and direct investment in the hands of poorer people would do a great deal more to leveling the field than apparently arbitrary limits on property ownership. | cmv |
I don't think transgenderism should exist in a post - sexist society - CMV. | Your explanation seems to assume that gender is purely a societal construct. Like, without sexism there would be no differences between either gender. That might be true. It's possible that gender roles are so deeply ingrained in out society that they are the only cause of gender differences. It's also possible that the biological makeup of each gender causes them to be inherently difference. Transgenderism is based on the biological aspect. In that, even if an FtM transgender person is treated exactly like a man, there would be a certain level of dysphoria in being biologically female. Transgenderism isn't based on the expectations and roles of genders, so much as what feels right. Being treated as the correct gender has helped transgender people to some degree, but physical dysphoria would continue to cause discomfort even in a perfectly equal world. | cmv |
I believe it isn't acceptable for animals to suffer so that we can eat meat. Not unless you have to eat meat to survive. CMV. | Would you be OK with eating meat if the animal were allowed to live its life and then when it got older it was slaughtered in a humane, as little as possible suffering way? If yes, what if a person organized this for a town so that he raised all these animals and provided meat in a more humane way. Is that still OK? If yes, what if that person became popular enough that he was able to hire people and create a business that fed meat to not just the small village but a county or even a state but still kept the meat production this way? | cmv |
I believe it isn't acceptable for animals to suffer so that we can eat meat. Not unless you have to eat meat to survive. CMV. | These animals are going to suffer whether you eat meat or not. I agree that factory farming is abhorrent and unnatural, but what kind of life would these animals have if they weren't on farms? Many of these animals were domesticated thousands of years ago, and if they were left in the wild without human protection they would be killed pretty quickly. I think it's good that you hunted your own food, that's very humane. Just think that an animal taking a bullet is a quicker, more painless death than being torn to shreds by a wild animal or being run over by a car, which is usually an inevitable part of an animal's life. The fact is, everyone and everything suffers at some point, and keeping animals on a humanely - run farm is the highest quality of life they will ever attain. | cmv |
I believe it isn't acceptable for animals to suffer so that we can eat meat. Not unless you have to eat meat to survive. CMV. | I see no reason why a threat to your survival should warrant actions that you find reprehensible. To your main point : A painless and unexpected death should concern no one. ( Bear in mind that a death that others mourn is not a painless death. ) If you can assure that the death will have these two features ( which may be quite difficult ), then it is acceptable. However, since meat eaters are at least partly responsible for the raising of an animal, it's important to assure that the animal lives a life worth living. I don't believe that this can be assured, so I don't see how it is morally permissible to eat meat. | cmv |
I believe it isn't acceptable for animals to suffer so that we can eat meat. Not unless you have to eat meat to survive. CMV. | Why did you eventually give up all meat even though you were an avid hunter? Did life get in the way of hunting? I live within the city limits with strict regulations on what animals I can have on my land. I can't, nor do I own the property, to raise cows, pigs, and chickens for my family to consume. We have a two career household, with children and activities to enrich their development, limiting the time we have to raise and attend to said animals, if I could have them. Likewise, I don't raise all the fruits and vegtables that we eat for lack of room and time. Butchers have existed for a long time because not everyone could afford the land to maintain the animals for consumption. I generally try to buy my beef and pork from local butchers for that very reason, but they are getting harder to find. So, I buy it from mass markets because it sustained the nutritional needs of my family. | cmv |
I believe it should be illegal to disqualify a job seeker based on a credit check considering the current economic climate. CMV. | My mother manages a fine jewelry counter. They do credit checks on their employees. There do it because there is a fear that someone in a lot of debt would take advantage of the access to the expensive items for sale and steal them. | cmv |
I believe it should be illegal to disqualify a job seeker based on a credit check considering the current economic climate. CMV. | Maybe not in all positions, but in jobs where information needs to be kept secret ( government jobs, research and development ), you really don't want to hire an individual who may be experiencing finical problems. The fear here for the employer is that this individual could be in a desperate enough state that they are willing to sell classified information / trade secrets to rival countries / companies. The theory being, if some one owes many different creditors they are more likely to risk jail / being fired, then someone who is up - to - date on their bills. | cmv |
I believe it should be illegal to disqualify a job seeker based on a credit check considering the current economic climate. CMV. | The classic argument against anything like this is " why should the government be telling me who I can and can't choose not to hire and what criteria I can and can't use? Got a problem with that? Go find another job where they don't do credit checks. " I think that's absurd however, and we can and should as a society take measures to prevent stupid things like this. | cmv |
I believe a license should be necessary to own a gun. CMV | Are you going to put an age limit on guns as well? 99 % of gun owners are responsible people who shoot for recreation. I am under 18 and have had many good experiences with my father and brothers shooting. we are all very safe wear hearing protection and are very careful about what is in front of us. needing to be of a certain age would eradicate all those experiences with my family and its simply not needed. You do need a license to have a concealed carry permit which i will have once i get older and live on my own. why? because im their in seconds ready to get rid of the issue. wether it be a sasquatch, bear ect. but put a license on guns and i would not have someone to teach me the right way to shot safely. which is just not cool man. | cmv |
I believe a license should be necessary to own a gun. CMV | Gun crime is the lowest it has been in more than half a century. It has been dropping every year for two decades. Is this really a problem? Moreover, background checks do much of what you're already talking about. People who have existing mental illness or a criminal record is already excluded. So, why do we need both? | cmv |
I believe a license should be necessary to own a gun. CMV | You don't need a license to own cars so why guns? Also, you don't need a license to drive on your own property, or others'with their permission. I could jump my monster truck through a flaming hoop in full view of the road, and not be in trouble. So why can't I shoot my gun on my property away from others'structures? What about fireworks? They are a lot like guns? Why should they be so easy to buy? And finally, cars kill more people each year than do guns, so licensing cars makes sense. | cmv |
I believe a license should be necessary to own a gun. CMV | to change your view, i will attempt to redefine your definition of a " Gun ". A gun is a specific tool designed for a specific purpose. It has been engineered from a mix of metal and plastic parts which can be recreated in any machine shop. should all Engineers then, be licensed gun owners? an intelligent engineer can obtain a diagram like this, and re - manufacture each piece and assemble the machine. this machine just so happens to be a " gun ". to reinforce my argument, a machine such as THIS is similarly considered a " gun " with similar engineering to the previous linked machine image, it just fires a different projectile and fires at a lower velocity. the general purpose of the machine is the same. Should licenses be required for this? | cmv |
I believe a license should be necessary to own a gun. CMV | Unlike cars, guns represent the power of the population as a final check against a rogue government. They are fundamental to the'right of revolution'in case of extreme emergency. A license requirement puts that relationship between people and their government, and flips it on its head. Now the government has not only a method of excluding anyone it wants from owning a gun ; but it has a handy list of every weapon and who owns them. Meanwhile, legally purchased guns represent a very very small percentage of firearm homicides. Trade freedom for an illusion of fractionally more security? No thanks. | cmv |
I believe a license should be necessary to own a gun. CMV | 1 ) Accidental gun deaths are fairly low compared to cars (. 1 % of total us deaths vs. 1. 8 % ). The problems with guns are intentional gun deaths, so licensing doesn't solve it. Furthermore, accidental gun shootings usually only harm the people participating in the dangerous activity such as the owner or his hunting partner. Unlike cars, where you are endangering people who didn't consent to the risk. 2 ) Psych tests are fairly expensive and represent a deeper intrusion than ordinary licensing requirements. Plus, we already require background checks to see if a person has been declared to have psychiatric problems. Furthermore, crazy people don't represent the majority of gun deaths. The majority of gun deaths are caused by psychologically sane people. | cmv |
I Think Social Programs like Welfare are detrimental to our society because they don't give people incentive to work harder. CMV | Then how do you feel about robots which remove the need to work at all? How about the idea that working a pointless job with no benefits to oneself or society is rewarded by a paycheck while more and more jobs are made redundant and meaningless? Working harder does not do anything for the individual or society unless the job is worth doing. Economic governance really does not work. | cmv |
I Think Social Programs like Welfare are detrimental to our society because they don't give people incentive to work harder. CMV | I don't see why anarcho - capitalist types don't just go for smaller units or groupings of governed people. Like canton or the amish as a self segregating group. If all groupings that aren't all groupings merged into each are discouraged then there will necessarily be welfare because that is the only thing that will stop segregationist groupings ( non individuals ) emerging. Cheap labor and military, welfare, and undifferentiated individuals are all that is going to emerge when cantonial groupings are discouraged. | cmv |
I Think Social Programs like Welfare are detrimental to our society because they don't give people incentive to work harder. CMV | Just wanted to comment to your point about people that abuse the welfare system, effectively leeching off of it with no intention of stopping. I don't have the data handy to back up my claim, but I would propose that those that take advantage like this are in the minority, and that the majority of recipients are genuinely receiving temporary assistance. Whether or not that is true, I would propose that you consider this from a cost / benefit perspective. If you agree that providing welfare to those that need it in an appropriate manner is worthwhile, the question then becomes : is it worth the cost of rewarding a few liars and cheats in order to provide aid and assistance to a part of the population that requires it? | cmv |
I Think Social Programs like Welfare are detrimental to our society because they don't give people incentive to work harder. CMV | People don't need to'work harder ', wealth needs to be distributed equitably. We have the technological ability to meet everyone's needs on the planet. What we lack is the political and moral will. | cmv |
I believe that the jury in the Zimmerman trial should rule for manslaughter as it will result in fewer riots. CMV. | I'm not familiar with what the burden of proof is for self defense in this trial. Zimmerman hasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was justified in using deadly force, but the state hasn't proved the contrary. I do think Zimmerman acted negligently that night, and his actions resulted in Trayvon Martin's death, so a manslaughter charge seems justifiable. However, why should juries make rulings on " The Greatest Good? " They aren't presented with riot forecasts and crime estimates given their ruling, they are presented with the facts of the case and testimony from witnesses and experts. How is a jury supposed to know this " Greatest Good " that you speak of? | cmv |
I believe that the jury in the Zimmerman trial should rule for manslaughter as it will result in fewer riots. CMV. | If you didn't do anything illegal and an angry mob demanded you be put in jail for life, what would you have your jury do? " Please jury, convict me wrongly so that people aren't offended. Inflict real and actual suffering upon me so that the people outraged by watching the biased media outlets can be outraged by something else. " | cmv |
I believe that the jury in the Zimmerman trial should rule for manslaughter as it will result in fewer riots. CMV. | Manslaughter is not a good compromise, there must be no compromises in our justice system. It does not matter if a small number of idiots react with violence - if they do they will face their own uncompromised trial and will / should be held accountable for their actions. I think the jury will give an uncompromised verdict and let the chips fall where they may. | cmv |
I believe that the jury in the Zimmerman trial should rule for manslaughter as it will result in fewer riots. CMV. | It doesn't matter what the people think, and it doesn't matter what they'll do. The jury should rule for manslaughter if and only if he is, beyond reasonable doubt, guilty of manslaughter. Our judicial system is not based on a concept of optimal utility. Consider : A poor man stole a loaf of bread from a rich man. Since he wanted it and needed it more, it was for the greater good. Thus, should he be proclaimed innocent? If he stole a bunch of bread from a fancy bakery and fed the homeless with it, should he be protected by the " greater good? " No, no he shouldn't. Our system is designed to punish the guilty, acquit the innocent, and do so in an impartial, considered way. It's not a avenue for placating social unrest ( that would be closer to a kangaroo court, which I doubt you'd advocate ). | cmv |
I believe that the jury in the Zimmerman trial should rule for manslaughter as it will result in fewer riots. CMV. | I know I'm about to get'murica but hear me out. Sending an innocent man to jail to placate the mob is not the America I want to live in. That is a scary, scary road that I don't want to see the end of. | cmv |
I believe that the jury in the Zimmerman trial should rule for manslaughter as it will result in fewer riots. CMV. | The law is a fortress on a hill that time cannot break nor floods wash away. If the jury believes that he acted in self defense and is innocent then he is innocent, no ifs ands or buts. It is not about populism or appeasing anyone. It was popular opinion that the brits responsible during the boston massacre should be drawn and quartered. Our country is better off for the legal process having won. What kind of precedent would be set if people saw that the law does not matter if a vocal minority want something else? | cmv |
I believe allowing unrelated topics to be part of the same bill is damaging to the legislative process. CMV | Time is a huge part. To individually vote on every single thing would take ridiculous amounts of time. Most of the time the money / resources aren't worth enough to force the government of the United States to stop and have all senators and representatives look at it. A bridge in New Hampshire isn't worth stopping the entire legislative branch. The problem is none of the additions are a problem by themselves, but the combination is. However, there isn't a feasible alternative at this time. | cmv |
Muslim Terrorists are Wholly Righteous, CMV | You have a fundamental misunderstanding of reality. The overwhelming majority of victims of Muslim terrorists ( I dislike this word, but I'll use it here ) are local people belonging to different religious sects. Is that righteous? | cmv |
Muslim Terrorists are Wholly Righteous, CMV | The struggle of Muslims for self - determination is righteous. However, the ends don't justify the means. Targeting innocent civilians for brutal violence is unjustified no matter what the cause that motivates it. Defending their beliefs and culture, sure. Terrorism, no. | cmv |
Muslim Terrorists are Wholly Righteous, CMV | While I agree with some of what you're saying, for example the west meddling in middle eastern affairs needs to stop etc. However I disagree with your argument that the terrorists are righteous. Perhaps you have been haphazard with your word choice, by the definition of righteous copied from google is : Adjective : 1. ( of a person or conduct ) Morally right or justifiable ; virtuous. 2. Perfectly wonderful ; fine and genuine. Saying that, by definition implies you believe acts of terrorism committed by muslims are morally justifiable. 9 / 11 in the US, 7 / 7 in the UK and similar acts over the world are deplorable acts of horrific violence where thousands of innocent people have lost their lives. I see no way these acts are " perfectly wonderful, fine and genuine ". Now you may counter this with " But the west have killed thousands of innocents too ". Yes, and this is in no way righteous either. | cmv |
I believe that police officers are not'civilians ', and this paradigm is the root of corruption and abuse of power. CMV | I'd argue that police, while obviously not civilians while on duty, are definitely civilians off duty. A cop can't legally carry a gun off - duty into Disneyland, for example, even though he's a cop - he's restricted by their rules against weapons. An off duty cop can spontaneously ENTER duty, though, at which point he stops being a civilian and becomes a cop. | cmv |
I believe that we pay politicians an absurdly small amount of money and by doing so it creates the very thing it intended to stop. CMV | This wouldn't work at all. First, they aren't going to spend their fortunes trying to keep their jobs. You can pay them as much as you want ; they're still going to solicit contributions from wherever they can. If I hire you at a salary of eleven million dollars per year and then tell you it's going to cost you ten and a half million dollars to keep it, what would you do? Accept the fact that you were going to have to do your job, then spend almost your entire salary for the privilege of doing your job? Or find someone willing to pay that ten and a half? Furthermore, you've ensured that none but the fabulously wealthy ( not even just the plain - old wealthy ) would be able to enter politics. In 90 % of cases, the candidate who spends the most wins. Even if you did manage to remove corporate interests and super PACS from the equation, there would be literally no way that a newcomer could compete. The incumbent would win every election, every time. | cmv |
I believe that we pay politicians an absurdly small amount of money and by doing so it creates the very thing it intended to stop. CMV | They're being paid $ 174, 000 per year according to Wikipedia. You mention that they aren't all filthy rich when they gain their position, but on such a salary it's not like they're starving. Their acceptance of bribes and the like is due to desire for more, not necessity, which makes me doubt that a greater salary would be able to satiate them. Additionally though, I feel that by giving them a raise now, we'd be sending the wrong message. They've been doing their job poorly, I don't mean just by not listening to their constituents and falling to lobbyists, but by things like skipping work days. I don't know of any punishment that's been levied on these senators, and I personally find it appalling that they've been able to get away with shirking the responsibility that came with the job. By raising their salary now we'd be implicitly saying that they've been doing good work. | cmv |
I believe that we pay politicians an absurdly small amount of money and by doing so it creates the very thing it intended to stop. CMV | Can you be more specific in terms of the scope? I just did some research on smaller state / county / city offices, and I am inclined to agree with you in most of those cases. But would you go so far as to include the higher profile positions like governors, house reps, senators, presidents, etc.? | cmv |
The Xbox One will revolutionize home security so much that the law and order crowd will throw open their doors to big brothers intelligence gathering. CMV | We already have an invention that can uniquely identify people. It can recognize sex, violence, and intruders too. It is called " human beings ". So I'm not sure why you think the fact that some future machine might be able to do this is particularly scary. If Microsoft for some reason wanted to get into the security business, they would sell this as an offline product, because people would want it that way. | cmv |
I believe that suicide should not be frowned over and friends and family accept it positively. CMV | Families and friend are very sad about the loss of their friend. She may not suffer anymore, But now she does not exist at all any chance of her recovering are lost. I never got why people called suicide " selfish " but what i think they mean is that they will miss them when they are gone. Suicide tells the victims family and friends that they mess up, and now they lost a dear friend | cmv |
I believe that suicide should not be frowned over and friends and family accept it positively. CMV | I have a friend who attempted suicide last year. At the last second, someone found out and he was restrained. A year later, he is very happy, stable, and he says that that would have been the worst decision ever. | cmv |
I believe that suicide should not be frowned over and friends and family accept it positively. CMV | Depression is a treatable disease. Saying we should allow depressed people to commit suicide is like saying we should allow people with other life - threatening but treatable illnesses to die. Ask someone who attempted suicide but has since undergone treatment if they wish they were dead. | cmv |
I believe that'it's illegal'isn't ( alone ) a good enough reason to avoid doing something. CMV! | I agree when you're talking about the so - called victimless crimes, but not if you are causing any sort of disadvantage to someone else. Take parking in the disabled bay, for instance. You are potentially depriving a disabled of the possibility to park there. And if by small - scale fraud, you include fraud that causes financial losses to a person or company, you are harming someone. Speeding is fine when there is no other traffic on an overseeable road, but if you're putting lives of other people at stake, it's a totally different game. | cmv |
I believe that'it's illegal'isn't ( alone ) a good enough reason to avoid doing something. CMV! | I will add and say that I believe laws should not mandate morality but reflect it. As societal morality progresses so to should laws. They should always play catch - up not guide. | cmv |
I believe that'it's illegal'isn't ( alone ) a good enough reason to avoid doing something. CMV! | Did you ever consider the argument that whoever wrote the law may have been more informed than you are? You might not know why an act should be prohibited, but that doesn't mean a reason does not exist. All it means is that you may be ignorant of that reason. | cmv |
I believe that'it's illegal'isn't ( alone ) a good enough reason to avoid doing something. CMV! | When you are making a moral argument then invoking the law is, by definition, an appeal to authority. Fallowing the law, however, can be a practical argument, if it is likely to affect you. I don't feel guilty for speeding or smoking weed. And I don't think I will get caught. And maybe I will but I feel invincible right now and that is good enough for me. | cmv |
I believe that'it's illegal'isn't ( alone ) a good enough reason to avoid doing something. CMV! | I agree with part of your view. I agree that the law doesn't require appealing to any prescriptive moral system in order to work and that it is not immoral to not follow the law. But I don't think this gives any'wiggle room'for sociopaths or that it shows that the law is inherently no valuable. The law exists in order to allow society to function in a particular manner. This is valuable because without it society would be chaotic. Law is a tool for ensuring that some descriptive morality can be enforced, but it does not entail from this that anyone who doesn't follow it is prescriptively immoral. It only follows that they are descriptively immoral and therefore are subject to punishment. Therefore you're not objectively bad for not following a law if you think you can get away with it. I agree with you for the most part, but it's just those two aspects of your view I disagree with. | cmv |
I believe that'it's illegal'isn't ( alone ) a good enough reason to avoid doing something. CMV! | I largely agree with you but there are some laws that I didn't see the wisdom in at first but now do. It's not so much that it's bad because it's illegal, it's more that things can be bad without you realizing it and it's illegal as a sort of guideline. It is especially apparent if one is a home or business owner and has a stake in their neighborhood. As an adult, I'm glad for noise ordinances, curfews for minors, certain parking laws, loitering limitations, skateboard bans,... It goes on and on. | cmv |
CMV : I believe toll roads are bad and just another tax for what our government should already be providing. | In theory, toll roads are kind of like privatizing the roads. Only the people who need them should be paying for them, and the profits should be going directly back into the road. In theory, toll roads are what a libertarian paradise would be like - those who don't use the roads will neither pay nor benefit from them. In practice, I suspect the funds get slushed around a little in one way or the other. Additionally, the roads chosen for tolls ( at least that I'm familiar with ) are typically the roads that carry one out of state. When an out - of - stater uses a state highway, they are essentially using it for free if there is no toll, because they never paid state taxes. Conversely, if someone from within the state is leaving, they are theoretically causing loss of tax revenues in other ways. So it is a way of mitigating the detrimental effects on the local economy by specifically taxing the cause. For example, every Illinois citizen who drives out of state to make cheaper purchases is causing the state to lose sales tax, and every Chicago - land employee who commutes from Wisconsin is causing the loss of property taxes, etc, by not living in Illinois. | cmv |
CMV : I believe toll roads are bad and just another tax for what our government should already be providing. | Hi there, Glad to see you made it over here, so I will post my original response : In some instances they're used to control traffic. Getting into Manhattan for instance, can cost $ 12 at rush hour. Getting into San Francisco over the Bay Bridge or Golden Gate costs $ 6 at peak hours. It's to keep traffic out of the city, especially when there are public transit alternatives. Most people will drive less and do more on a trip if they know they're going to pay $ 12 for a toll. Tolls are also used to keep up bridges, tunnels, and roads, and in most instances, there is always an alternative route without tolls, provided they may not be as convenient or fast. I - 90, which runs across NYS for instance is a toll road which is very well kept, and always plowed and salted immediately when snow hits. There are country roads you can take that actually run parallel to it, but they are not as well kept or convenient. | cmv |
CMV : I believe toll roads are bad and just another tax for what our government should already be providing. | If I pay more or accept a less nice place to live near my work and other needs, why should I have to pay the same as someone who lives in the suburbs and commutes? Besides fairness, making people who use the roads pay for them is good since it encourages driving less and living closer to where you need to be. Better for the environment, prevents areas suffering from " white flight " where the upper classes ditch the poor for the suburbs, keeps money out of the Saudi's hands, and just saves everyone's time. | cmv |
CMV : I believe toll roads are bad and just another tax for what our government should already be providing. | Government projects are essentially provided for the people, by the people. So where does the money have to come from? The people. If you want reliable roads in every last corner of the country, everyone will have to help pay for them. If it were a large, up - front tax, something like " pay us $ 1000 / year and you're allowed to use the roads ", then it would be unfair as you are describing. But a $ 5 toll isn't really unfair to anyone - after all, if you can afford a car, insurance and gas, you can pay an occasional few dollars for the road as well. Maybe it would be easier to just raise the income tax by 1 % and get rid of tolls altogether, but I don't really see much of a difference. Just about everyone pays a reasonably equal amount. It wouldn't be much more " upfront " either - if the government says, " you'll have to pay for this road with taxes, and maintain it with tolls ", then that seems straightforward to me. | cmv |
I believe that effective governance is impossible in a country as large as America, CMV | I think what you really mean to say is that consensus is impossible. That is in actually one of the foundations of democracy, in a way. Are you talking about some country in particular, as you seem to be suggesting that there is some large country that is ruled wholly out of the federal headquarters. America, as you mentioned, has some roles and responsibilities at the national level, some at the state level, some at the city level, and some even at the neighborhood level. I don't think I can change your view, because it is correct, though maybe you will recognize that presumably some of what you think should be happening, already is. | cmv |
I think I may be transphobic. Please CMV. | Imagine waking up one day and being the opposite sex / gender than you were the day before. If you're a man, imagine waking up with breasts, a vagina, no facial hair, no penis and a slender figure. If you're a woman, imagine waking up with a penis between your legs and a flat chest and facial hair growing. How would you really feel? My guess is that you would feel very uncomfortable. Now imagine that you had to be like that your entire life. Imagine that people thought you were mentally ill and should feel ashamed of these feelings. Imagine going through your entire life like that. Transsexual people are born feeling that way. Do you still think it's vain of them to want surgery so that they feel more comfortable? | cmv |
I think I may be transphobic. Please CMV. | So, I'll start with a fact you may or may not know. Physiologically, males and females have different brain structures, especially in the area of the brain's body map. There have only been limited studies done but evidence indicates that trans people have brain structures more closely resembling the gender they identify as. So trans men have more male brains than their genitalia at birth would indicate and trans women, more female. This can cause profound distress when your body does not possess the parts your brain is telling it it should. Also, from my experience, the hormones your body generates are also at odds and once that's corrected, there is great relief in even that. As far as being medically necessary, obviously that is debatable. Facial feminization surgery and genital surgery are arguably in the same class as reconstructive plastic surgery after major trauma. True, you can survive without either, but your life is needlessly more painful for doing so. My province covers genital surgery for trans women and the reasoning is that the cost to the health care system is not that significant and the value is huge. | cmv |
I believe human rights are a lie. CMV | Rights may not be things that inherently exist, but that doesn't mean they're meaningless. Imagine you live alone in the forest. If I come along, I could try to whack you over the head with my club and take your stuff, and if we were entirely creatures of instinct, that's probably what I'd do. But as humans, we're rational creatures, and we can recognize that we'll both be better off if we agree not to whack each other over the head or take each other's stuff. Now imagine that we've formed a small community, and everyone agrees not to whack each other over the head or try to take each other's stuff. If you want to live in this community, you must agree to this set of rules, and the community must enforce them on everyone or they become meaningless. You can now say that you have the right to not be whacked over the head or have your stuff stolen, and because everyone agrees with you, that right exists. If society doesn't agree with you, then you can say that right should exist, but you can't say your rights are being violated if someone whacks you over the head and takes your stuff, because rights only exist in the context of society. | cmv |
I believe human rights are a lie. CMV | Your title and your actual post are quite a distance apart. Rights are determined by the collective moral consensus of the people, yes. Why is that a lie, just because they cease to exist if the benefactor, society, ceases to exist? Is mathematics a lie because it ceases to exist without us? If you go absolutely to the stretch of that word neither rights nor mathematics exist per se, but they have practical implications. And saying that such things are " lies " is both incorrect and meaningless. Is love a lie? Joy? Laws? | cmv |
I believe human rights are a lie. CMV | Rights aren't something given to you by somebody else ( those are privileges ), nor are they inalienable ( if they were inalienable, nobody would have to fight for them. ) So while I agree that the common notion of rights are wishful thinking, rights do in fact exist : In order to have a right, you must assert it, and you must have the power to enforce it ( by yourself, with help from others, or by proxy ). That's it. There's no moral high ground to having rights, it's simply a question of will and power. | cmv |
I believe human rights are a lie. CMV | You are the benefactor of my human rights, and I am the beneficiary. I am the benefactor of your human rights, and you are the beneficiary. As long as at least two people exist, human rights exist. | cmv |
I think land ownership is preposterous. You didn't put the ground there, how can you own it? CMV | I agree that this would increase the distribution of wealth or at least make it easier for someone with less initial capital to make a living. However, the government only allowing leases on land does create a problem assuming that the transition to the proposed system is smooth. You get a lease on some land for X years and create a house or farm or infrastructure there. When it's time to renew your lease and the price increases to a price you can no longer afford or make a profit on, you take a massive hit economically because you have to remove all the infrastructure that isn't helpful to the new lessee. Even when the government proposed this plan and makes the leases incredibility long to avoid this or to ensure that the lease prices don't change in price too drastically, this could change when a new governing party is chosen at elections. This would deter a lot infrastructure heavy businesses to fail or be less effective. ( Economic instability ) | cmv |
I think land ownership is preposterous. You didn't put the ground there, how can you own it? CMV | People have to be able to own the land ( or lease it for extremely long periods ) in order for anyone to be willing to invest in it. Be it irrigation and farms, or a house, or a skyscraper. These improvements cost tremendous amounts of time and money, and will only be done if the'owner'can be assured of being able to use / keep the fruits of their investment. Property tax already functions as a long term'rent'that the government collects on property, such that someone can not simply hoard it all and sit on it. Unless you enjoy paying tax for no reason, no one will buy property and don'thing with it. | cmv |
I think land ownership is preposterous. You didn't put the ground there, how can you own it? CMV | Well, we don't want to lease the land to the highest bidder, because that would lead to serious instability. As long as you're using the land, you should be able to keep it ; someone else should only be able to take it if you're not doing anything with it. Except that is exactly our current system. If you don't use land you own for a long period of time, you can lose the rights to it. | cmv |
I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man / woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV | I would argue the opposite. As a transgender person, I don't want to have sex with someone who rejects the very core of my identity ( that I'm female ), who propagates a culture of hatred against me, who could possibly pose a serious threat to me if they found out about my medical history. Instead of forcing trans people to out themselves, revealing personal details about their medical history, exposing themselves to ridicule and shame and putting themselves at risk of violence, why not have people who don't want to have sex with transgender people say that upfront? In the latter case, the person doesn't face nearly as much social shame or as high a risk of violence. Seems like a good solution to me. If anyone doesn't like the idea of having to reveal details about themselves to their sexual partners every time, how do you think transgender people feel? | cmv |
I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man / woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV | How would I know that you're not okay with sleeping with a trans person unless you said so? If you asked me directly if I was trans and I said no, then I would be deceiving you. If you asked me if I was a woman and I said yes, that's not deception, especially when the government recognizes me as a woman. It's not rape by deception anymore than not tell him that I'm jewish and he happens to harbor anti - semitic feelings. I am not responsible for your insecurities. You are. If you don't want to sleep with a trans person, say so. | cmv |
I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man / woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV | If one night stands are your thing than anything less than superficial is unimportant. That's the contract, isn't that why it's called no - strings - attached sex? If you don't want to risk sleeping with someone you don't like as a human being, don't get into the one - night - stand lifestyle. Easy. There's no deception going on either, the promise is there's at least one hole for you to stick it in and that's what ya get. That she didn't tell you her social insurance number, the name of her pet cat or what type of car she drives is as inconsequential as her medical history. | cmv |
I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man / woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV | You are not obligated to disclose medical information to anyone unless there is the possibility of disease transmission. Being trans is not a disease, is not contagious and has absolutely no effect on your physical well - being, therefore there is no legal responsibility to disclose. Medical information is not public record, its a pretty fundamental privacy right. | cmv |
I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man / woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV | There is a difference between WON'T and DON'T. If someone asks the question specifically, and they lie, then that could arguably count as fraud ( I disagree, but it's definitely a grey area ). If someone never asks the question, then any blame would simply lie with them for not asking. | cmv |
I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man / woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV | So i can understand why some people would feel this way but the thing is that whilst they once were a man / woman, they are no longer. Aside from someone maybe thinking this is icky, it does no harm to them if they didn't realize pre or early into sexy times that they had switched teams. So my next example is Joe only sleeps with blondes. He's at the bar and meets a blonde who is smokin hot and they get a hotel room. The next morning he comments about her hair and she says she dyes it. Causes no physical harm to Joe. Is she guilty of rape by deception because she didn't disclose her natural hair color? | cmv |
I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man / woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV | I agree that it would be - smart - and polite to disclose that information in advance, but i disagree that it should be charged as rape. If the transgendered individual has went through transition and is no longer recognizable as their previous gender ( genitals and all ), than what difference does it really make? Example : If you sleep with somebody who was cured of an STI, why would they need to disclose that, legally? It won't affect you at all. Why should one person be charged for rape because of a part they - used - to have? What if it had been a tumor that had been removed? Or they had a nose job? Would you still feel the same? | cmv |
I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man / woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV | Do you have any cases where rape by deception was enacted ( it would help for establishing a common law precedent as I have no clue how severe the fraud has to be ). The only one I know of was in Israel and it was based on that the guy was actually Jewish ( so not sure if we want that law here ). As far as the case goes, the trans person didn't make any claims to have been a biological woman / man, and might not have even claimed to be a man or woman at all. I believe fraud primarily has to involve the person making some sort of fraudulent claim, whereas this case seems like the person didn't claim anything. If the guy had wanted to know then he should have asked. | cmv |
I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man / woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV | I feel like OP should explain what he means by " rape by deception. " In most jurisdictions in the United States, this isn't a thing. Where it is, it is very limited. | cmv |
I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man / woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV | So, basically, you're saying that your urge to have shallow, dehumanizing pick up sex with a complete stranger, really ought to be respected? Because your personality is more important than the other person's, due purely to numbers? And that a transgender man or woman should be forced to confess, even if their life is then in danger? | cmv |
I am a Black Man who Believes Conservatism is inherently Racist towards African Americans by philosophy CMV | Dont confuse correlation with causation. The number of hateful ignorant people may be higher among conservative groups, but it does not logically follow that its conservatism that is the cause. It is also true that a high number of hateful anti - black speech comes from white people... that doesnt mean that being white makes you inherently racist. To claim that conservatism is inherently racist I think the proof would have to be in some facet of the ideology, not just that its a common trait of hateful people. | cmv |
I am a Black Man who Believes Conservatism is inherently Racist towards African Americans by philosophy CMV | conservatism, esp neoconservatism ( most power in the US todayIMO ) is built around a set of separations. One of these seperations is black / white, but IMO this is becoming less and less important to their ideology. It's much more a separation between capital - generators ( aka capitalists / rich ) and capital - consumers ( labor / poor ). It's a position very much aimed at preserving power, but not exclusively for white people so much as for those who support an economically'functional'wealth divide and aggressive foreign policy. | cmv |
I am a Black Man who Believes Conservatism is inherently Racist towards African Americans by philosophy CMV | I'm reading what you wrote, and I'm not sure what it has to do with a conservative philosophy or ideology. There's something there when discussing the media. The immediate profiling of victims and suspects is a huge problem and needs addressing, especially in this case. This doesn't really strike me as something uniquely conservative. It could just be that I live in a rather conservative area and so I am exposed to a wider array of different kinds of conservatism, but I don't see that kind of blind ignorance all that often. But, there might be something to this. There have been some studies done that demonstrate that Conservatives don't value fairness as highly as liberals. That being said we aren't all that different. Race shouldn't a primary metric, but I wouldn't say that conservatives judge and persecute more than normal for human beings. | cmv |
I am a Black Man who Believes Conservatism is inherently Racist towards African Americans by philosophy CMV | Even if it's true that U. S. conservatives are more likely to be racist, that doesn't mean conservatism is inherently racist. Your post doesn't go into the substance of conservative philosophy at all, just into the perspective of individual conservatives. Western conservatism goes back to thinkers such as David Hume and Edmund Burke, and writings such as Burke's criticism of the French Revolution. At its core, it is about a particular attitude towards social institutions, not about race. | cmv |
I am a Black Man who Believes Conservatism is inherently Racist towards African Americans by philosophy CMV | The problem with this is that it all presumes conservatism is a single coherent ideology. It's not. It's a really vague umbrella term that covers a whole bunch of ideologies that are only vaguely related. The popular American type conservatism that you seem to be thinking of has remarkably little in common with what would pass for conservatism in European countries, or in most of the rest of the world. In fact there are some political analysts who argue that there isn't really any conservative movement in the U. S, that's how unrelated American conservatism is to what the rest of the world considers conservatism. So before you can say " conservatism is inherently racist " you really need to define what you mean by conservatism. | cmv |
I am a Black Man who Believes Conservatism is inherently Racist towards African Americans by philosophy CMV | As others mentioned, what you are talking about doesn't qualify the whole conservative philosophy being inherently racist. Second, most mainstream ( not all ) liberal philosophies are inherently racist, you couldn't possibly agree with them without believing some people should get special treatment because of their race. I don't know if it is still the case, but at one point affirmative action was specifically written into the official Democratic Platform | cmv |
I am a Black Man who Believes Conservatism is inherently Racist towards African Americans by philosophy CMV | I'm a conservative. Here's something I posted yesterday about the Martin / Zimmerman case. Most of the people I know in real life are conservative or libertarian. I haven't actually discussed Trayvon Martin very much with anyone IRL, but I'm confident most people I know would express sentiments similar to what I said in the link above. Your observations are surely true for some conservatives, but not all. In fact, you are making the same sweeping generalizations that you accuse conservatives of. | cmv |
I am a Black Man who Believes Conservatism is inherently Racist towards African Americans by philosophy CMV | THe vIewpointS Given by yoU for the purposes of Your Idea Seem CLEARLY To be Rushed withOut a Load of carefuL consIderatioN, Given the serious impliCations tHEse aCcusations maKe, your POntificationS should be ThougHt wIth more SoliciTude tO ensuRe You don't say anything you don't intend. two examples of this are " expensive child " and " lack of apathy. " I have absolutely no idea what you mean by expensive child, and the word you meant to use was empathy rather than apathy. | cmv |
I am a Black Man who Believes Conservatism is inherently Racist towards African Americans by philosophy CMV | You are mistaking conservatism and the republican party. Conservatism by definition is a suspicion of the new. No racist tendenncies, distrust or hatred of anybody. Just a philosophy of " lets look over this for a second before diving headlong in ". | cmv |
I am a Black Man who Believes Conservatism is inherently Racist towards African Americans by philosophy CMV | this came out very messy - you mentioned nothing about conservative ideology. since we're really talking about travon martin case.. in my opinion this case got trampled by all sides immediately and 80 % of the big claims are just reactionary. | cmv |
I believe that homosexuality is an abnormality. CMV | Firstly, you're assuming without justification that procreation is the only value. Sometimes there are conflicting, intervening, or superseding values that could be taken into account. Happiness, in this example. Secondly, your argument caves in on itself because you seek to define something as an " abnormality " when your evidence demonstrates that it is a substantial portion of many animal species, including humans. TL ; DR : Non - procreative = / = abnormal and minority = / = abnormal | cmv |
I believe that homosexuality is an abnormality. CMV | First of all, you said yourself homosexuality is found in animals. I believe over 400 different species of animal studied have all been recorded where homosexuality was found in them. If it's present in this many species, it's natural. Humans haven't'died off'and homosexuality has been recorded as far back as Ancient Egypt. Most people who are homosexual don't seek out out'conversion therapy'( which, is rarely successful and only instills a fear to be gay in humans ) unless they have been forced to by others because they cannot accept their homosexuality. Now onto to point 10. Rape = sexual acts which don't involve consent, with intention to harm to satisfy one's sexual cravings. Murder = taking someone's life from them in an act of selfishness or hatred. Homosexuality = the attraction to the same gender. These don't relate to homosexuality. | cmv |
I believe that homosexuality is an abnormality. CMV | I've heard that homosexuality is absolutely necessary, because it is a result if human sexual attraction. If people weren't sexually attracted to one another, we wouldn't exist, and homosexuality is just a variation of that. Sure it doesn't lead to direct procreation, but the trait of strong, sex specific sexual attraction is very important. Also, in psychology, an illness is just something that interferes with daily life. Homosexuality doesn't really do that, and the side effects of treating it are not good. It's like trying to treat left handedness by cutting off the left hand. More harm than good for something that doesn't even feel like a problem for a lot of people. | cmv |
I believe that homosexuality is an abnormality. CMV | Quick response to how " homosexuals don't propagate their genes " : Some Many LGBT people, especially those who are bisexuals ( also known as the " curious " ones ) do end up having kids with the opposite sex. There's also stuff like sperm donation that causes LGBT people who aren't sleeping with the opposite sex to pass on their genes to the next generation | cmv |
I believe that homosexuality is an abnormality. CMV | Think about your first point. If every homosexual animal didn't have children ( which is generally true ), then how on earth are so many animals, including humans, still giving birth to homosexual offspring? Clearly it goes even deeper than a trait, which would naturally pass from one generation to the other. If a trait inhibits it's possessor from passing on it's genes, then that trait will quickly disappear from the population. How is it that a trait like homosexuality, which by its very nature keeps itself from passing down the generations, is still so prevalent and widespread in animals? This tells me that it is directly linked with some fundamental aspect of almost all creatures on earth, and that is a very powerful trait indeed. A trait that transcends the bounds of almost every other property of living things on earth. | cmv |
I believe that homosexuality is an abnormality. CMV | You are correct in your assertion that homosexuality is abnormal - so is red hair, white skin, left handedness and being the recipient of a Nobel Prize or Olympic Gold Medal. However, you then suggest that this abnormality is a detriment to the species as a whole, as you believe that the only contribution an individual animal can make to its species is its genes. With some animals, this may be true but humans are abnormal. To illustrate my point, I would like to point out that Alan Turing was a homosexual that advanced mathematics and computing to such a degree that he is still taught to students today. In Alan, we see the contribution to society of a homosexual that was stymied by the discrimination against homosexuals propagated by views such as those you hold. What more he could have done for mankind, we will never know. Further, you assert that because of behaviours displayed by a subset of homosexuals ( aggressive'conversion'of heterosexuals, attempting to normalize homosexuality among heterosexuals ) that ALL homosexuals espouse these views and that they thus form a united political bloc, which is not the case. Finally, you make the assumption that homosexuality is a uniquely genetic condition, which is ludicrous. If homosexuality were uniquely genetic, homosexuals would be as rare as albinos. Rather, sexuality is somewhat like handedness, in which there is ( or may be ) a congenital predisposition, but societal norms and pressures can override these preferences in the most part. | cmv |
I think an employer should be allowed to discriminate and not hire someone based on their race, sex, or beliefs. CMV | This is how you get minorities subjugated to isolation and poverty, which continues the majority's low opinion of them as criminals and lazy folk, which continues the decision to not hire someone like that. And the circles repeats ad infinitum, and people who are born in the majority have to work less hard than people in the minority, and that is unfair. So if you love ghettos, gangs, and crime this is a great idea. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.