summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I think an employer should be allowed to discriminate and not hire someone based on their race, sex, or beliefs. CMV | The best argument I can see in favor anti - discrimination laws is an appeal to markets. Imagine the effects on the overall labor market if overt discrimination was allowed. Depending on who was discriminating against whom, it could be a major drag on the overall economy. Such labor discrimination might artificially create a labor shortage in area at the same time as creating a labor surplus in another. Another factor to consider is that one group might have a near - monopoly status in an area's economic activities. Without anti - discrimination laws, these people could use their monopoly powers to selectively distort the labor market in an area by making it all but impossible for non - members to get a job there. Just imagine if the only ISP in town refused to sell you Internet service, or the only apartment block in town refused to rent to you... | cmv |
I think an employer should be allowed to discriminate and not hire someone based on their race, sex, or beliefs. CMV | Do you agree that it would be a bad thing if every employer discriminated against black people and nobody got hired? What about if there were only enough non - discriminating employers offering enough potential jobs to just 50 % of qualified, competent black job seekers? Would that be ok? If we had wide - scale discrimination in the past, what makes you think we wouldn't have it again? I think that the employment pool is kind of like the commons, a common resource shaped and shared by everyone in society. Society as a whole ( including all of the people in it ) shapes the economy and business owners could not exist without the economic activity generated and shaped by society. In a way, even though nobody is holding your hand as a business owner, you really do owe your existence opportunity to the society in which you operate. In order to qualify for access to the job market, you have to be qualified for the jobs you're applying for. It makes sense to only hire qualified people. I don't think an employer has a right to restrict access to their jobs for any reasons other than someone being unqualified. | cmv |
I think an employer should be allowed to discriminate and not hire someone based on their race, sex, or beliefs. CMV | But this happens anyways, it's not like the government is going to force employers to hire someone they don't want to hire. The hiring process is a subjective process and no one will ever be able to chage that for now. So for example on the racial front where you can't hide your race in an interview it's easy for the employer to reject to just becasue of your race and make up some kind of nonsense reason. | cmv |
I think an employer should be allowed to discriminate and not hire someone based on their race, sex, or beliefs. CMV | To put it as simply as possible, one of the main roles of any government is to protect the people of the country over which it resides. In a country like the US, where equality is valued, therefore it becomes part of the governments role to attempt to address issues of unfairness and imbalance. The problem with allowing employers to discriminate is that we already have an imbalance. That is, most of the employers in the country, statistically speaking, are white males with a reasonable level of wealth behind them. If discrimination was not restrained at all then the societal imbalances would only get worse - minority societies would get poorer, progression in gender equality would stall, and not through any fault of the women, the elderly, or the people of other races. The wealth gap would probably increase and this would just be the tip of the iceberg. However badly you may think the government is going about promoting equality, it is very necessary for it to continue doing so for the benefit of the entire national economy. | cmv |
I think an employer should be allowed to discriminate and not hire someone based on their race, sex, or beliefs. CMV | It's not illegal to refuse to hire someone on the grounds that you will not get along with them personally. The whole point of protecting these people on these grounds is that there has been history of those classes being unfairly descriminated against, and none of the reasons someone may give for discrimination ( such as your own ) are tied directly to those classes. If those things truly are problems for your business, then you are free to act on those grounds. | cmv |
I think an employer should be allowed to discriminate and not hire someone based on their race, sex, or beliefs. CMV | Should the business owner who is a Calvinist be protected from discrimination when the Baptist electric company owner stops providing power to him? Does the business owner get to complain to the local government when the road near his business doesn't get repaired because he is white and the road worker foreman doesn't like white people? When the female banker stops giving him small business loans because he is a man is it ok? | cmv |
I think an employer should be allowed to discriminate and not hire someone based on their race, sex, or beliefs. CMV | The problem with views like this is that you're assuming that bigotry is only in the minority of employers. What if every employer just happened to hate a certain race?... then no one in that race could get a job and it wouldn't be their fault. People have the right not to have their intrinsic qualities turned into disadvantages. Indeed, " beliefs " might be slightly shakier ground... I could refuse to hire someone because they don't " believe " in a certain ethical principle that is important to my company... but then again, I'm not being arbitrary. I'm refusing to hire them because I feel someone else could do the job better. That should really be the only criteria. | cmv |
I believe the idea of undocumented immigrants being " illegal " is racist and using the term " illegal " is wrong. CMV | 1 ) illegal alien only refers to those immigrants who are her illegally. Legal hispanic immigrants are not referred to by that title. 2 ) They are by definition illegal aliens. 3 ) The current law ASFIK does not make any sort of racist discrimination for immigration. It's been a long time since the Chinese Exclusion act, let's live in the present. 4 ) Undocumented workers obfuscates the fact that they have broken the law. The fact of the matter is these people didn't just forget to find documentation and they weren't just ignorant of our statues. They made a conscious decision to break the law. For the record, I'm for immigration reform. | cmv |
I believe the idea of undocumented immigrants being " illegal " is racist and using the term " illegal " is wrong. CMV | It has nothing to do with race but is about country of origin. Therefore it is not racist. Additionally every nation has a right to determine who immigrates into their countries and those that don't comply with these laws are there illegally. The US is not the only country that does this. | cmv |
I believe the idea of undocumented immigrants being " illegal " is racist and using the term " illegal " is wrong. CMV | First off, Illegal is a shortening of illegal immigrant or illegal alien which is by definition what these people are. Second, you even state that waves of immigration are always meat with hostility, this has nothing to do with race just immigration status, it's xenophobic and nativist but not racist. The irish, italians, and other europeans have all been hated for massive migrations | cmv |
I don't think that the government should backstop or subsidize detached, single - unit housing. CMV. | I agree with you that ideally the government should be out of the housing market, but it is important to note that the government has distorted the economy in so many different directions that just cutting its support of single family housing will be in effect unjustly hampering. For example, there's a ton of renter's rights guaranteed by the government. That makes renting more attractive and buying a house to less attractive. If the government stops letting people write off mortgage interest, but still gives tax incentives for retirement accounts that makes one type of investment more attractive than the other. | cmv |
I don't think that the government should backstop or subsidize detached, single - unit housing. CMV. | It's easy to say this when you don't live in subsidized housing. I mean, yes, the stats may say that it's a bad idea, but you know what else is bad? Suddenly inflating the homeless population of the US is bad. Can you imagine the social and economic impacts of having such a quick influx in the homeless population of the US? | cmv |
I believe that taking photographs of strangers in a public place is not immoral. CMV | While under normal circumstances, taking pictures of strangers is just fine, people can make it creepy enough to be immoral, through say, repetition, or method ( example : women wear skirts. There are socially unacceptable angles to take pictures of a woman wearing a skirt ), or circumstance ( like one of those stores that instructs their people to follow around black people, but a photographer ). Such photos are a lot like simply looking at someone, in terms of politeness. You wouldn't look up a woman's skirt. You wouldn't follow around someone at a store creepily. You wouldn't stalk them. And you wouldn't stand over their shoulder in an airplane and go, " What'cha reading? " | cmv |
I believe that taking photographs of strangers in a public place is not immoral. CMV | Where do you draw the line between things like blackmail and libel and something like creepshots, especially considering how these things can follow a person around? There have been cases of people being fired over pictures on the Internet. If someone took a revealing picture of you, and it ended up getting linked to your name, that could happen. Maybe a bit off point, but its pretty common for women who post pictures like that of themselves to be called " attention ws ", but if a guy sends a similar picture of a stranger without permission, he's praised for the " great find ". Consider what that says about how people think of women who are out in public. | cmv |
Abortion : I don't believe you can harm someone by failing to cause them to exist CMV. | While I'd agree with most of what you're saying, I'd claim it doesn't matter at all. By saying that a woman can be forced to carry a baby to term, we're giving that entity ( doesn't matter what it is ) a right that we don't give to any other beings. If your born child, or an adult, tried to attach itself to your body we would say you have a right to defend yourself, unequivocally. It wouldn't matter whether that person needed your body to live or not. So even if a fetus is a full human being with full human rights, and a consciousness that extended out to adulthood, so what? We still wouldn't give it the right to do what a fetus does to a mother against her will. Now, voluntarily agreeing to host someone for a time is perfectly acceptable, and most people would even praise a person for doing this. But even if you did this, you still have the right to detach them if you change your mind. We might even look down on them morally if they did that, but we would all agree that they have the right. Any other stance goes completely against the notion that we have any rights of self - ownership or self - defense. | cmv |
Abortion : I don't believe you can harm someone by failing to cause them to exist CMV. | I think the problem is that as soon as you are conceived, you are alive. You are just a tiny, little, consciousless zygote, but you are also a human zygote. That is the beginning of your human life, so having an abortion would be tantamount to ending a human life. I believe that abortion should be legal, but I think that the argument that I just gave should not be taken lightly. I think that the lack of a stream of consciousness example you gave that argues that killing a fetus is not morally wrong could also be applied to a young enough child. While the events in my infancy have no doubt influenced who I am today, I don't believe that I am in any way the same person on a psychological level now as I was when I was younger than 3. I have grown into a completely new, if not somewhat similar, person since then, and my 2 year old self is now no more to me than my fetus self. This does not mean that it is ok to kill a 2 your old, though. | cmv |
Abortion : I don't believe you can harm someone by failing to cause them to exist CMV. | When you abort, you're killing something. You're not refusing to create life, you're not refusing to cause something to exist, you're killing life that already exists. Whether that living thing matters to you or you think it should matter, or you think you've harmed it or not by killing it is another thing. But trying to argue that the thing you're killing didn't exist yet is really disgusting to me, as it seems like one is doing an absurd amount of mental gymnastics to try to convince themselves that what they're doing or what they believe isn't wrong. That being attached to its mother's womb is alive and it does exist, regardless of whether you think that living thing matters or not. I would suggest finding some other argument to justify your belief that abortion is okay. | cmv |
Data privacy should be for everyone, not just privileged Internet users. CMV. | My interest in kitten gifs is not a crime. Raping or murdering someone is. We should know who the rapists and murderers are, we don't need information on kitten gifs. | cmv |
I believe the " two - party " system in America isn't working. CMV. | The United States has one of the longest existing, stable governments on Earth. In multi - party ( 2 + party ) democracy, one issue that arises is a higher likelihood of radicals being elected into power. A classic example is Hitler. In a two - party system Hiter's Nazis would have never gained the initial foothold that allowed them to eventually rule the country. This is because a radical party can simply gain a plurality in some heavily split districts. If they gain a few seats that may put them in a role of kingmaker. So then you're left with a part with, say, 10 % support deciding who the Prime Minister is. | cmv |
I believe the " two - party " system in America isn't working. CMV. | It's a feature, not a bug. The Framers of the U. S. government were reacting against the " tyrannical " nature of the British government, and so put lots of checks in place against the abuse of power. You know - - three branches of government, two houses of Congress, etc. Part of the problem is that the federal government has much more responsibility than the Framers envisioned, so its inability to run efficiently is creating problems. The other thing I'd like to point out is the distinction between party loyalty and political polarization. Party loyalty isn't necessarily any greater than at previous times in American history. But the polarization of the public ( combined with " safe " districts for each party where the only real contest is the primary ) means that Congress is more polarized on the issues than previously. But from the view of the Framers, if we can't broadly agree on it, it shouldn't be made law for the whole country. | cmv |
I believe the " two - party " system in America isn't working. CMV. | In Canada, we have multiple parties that participate in each election and it can be a negative and frustrating thing. There is one major conservative party and two similar liberal ones. In the last federal election, the two liberal parties split the vote resulting in the conservative party being elected even though the majority of the country didn't vote for them. | cmv |
I believe the " two - party " system in America isn't working. CMV. | The 2 party system has many flaws, which I expected to see listed in your post... but failure to move the country forward isnt really one of them. The major gridlock currently in government is only partially related to the 2 party system... its far more related to major divisions within the population. All of those senators and congressmen voting against whatever policy it is you would call'progress'where elected by citizens. They are serving the citizens of their district exactly like they were voted in to do. You could argue that a multi - party system would allow more shifting voting alliances and therefore more'progress'but it could just as easily allow movement in the opposite direction, depending entirely on how the population voted. It seems to me that your biggest problem isnt the 2 party system, its more with the population that vehemently opposes the policies you'd like to see enacted. | cmv |
I think there is a strong moral argument that it's OK to kill and eat animals, as long as you hunt them explicitly for eating / clothes / tools and the hunting is kept sustainable. CMV | I don't see why your moral code consists of simply being on the same page as the other party. Yeah, the hunt is mutually understood but that doesn't mean the hunted animal enjoys the hunt. Apartheid was mutually understood, but subjugated people weren't okay with it. As humans, we are able to weigh the gravity of life and death within our minds in a way no other animal can. Don't we have an obligation to the rest of animal life on Earth since we know this? | cmv |
I believe that ideas of beauty are holding people and society in general back, and that beauty should be valued as little as possible. CMV. | Beauty is a tool that dictated who is fit to be ones mate. For example we don't find fat people attractive because it strikes us as either a disorder, or the inability to take care of oneself. More so, somebody we deem unattractive is usually less fit, meaning they would not be as well as a mother or father for our offspring. | cmv |
I don't believe Obama should have been involved in the Trayvon Martin / Zimmerman case. CMV. | I really don't think the president was at all involved in the Zimmerman case. Not any more or else than you or I, anyway. He commented on the case, which is his right. He didn't turn it in to a discussion - he was asked a question by a reporter, and he answered it. | cmv |
I don't believe Obama should have been involved in the Trayvon Martin / Zimmerman case. CMV. | Justice for Trayvon? Hmmm... Seems to me that there was a trial already, and it wasn't Trayvon who was tried. It was Zimmerman, and he received a dose of Justice. Now all he needs to do is survive the racists who want to lynch him from the nearest tree. Isn't it wonderful how things have changed in the last 150 years? Once upon a time, a black person did something, and bunch of white rednecks went out and hung a few black people and burned some buildings. Now, a non - black person does something and a bunch of black rednecks go out and smash things and burn buildings and assault / kill non - black people. Now that's progress! Someone tell Obama to relax, it's alright. America has Changed. | cmv |
I don't believe Obama should have been involved in the Trayvon Martin / Zimmerman case. CMV. | For many accusations, especially sexual assault, there is a natural feeling that " if this is true, it would be horrible " That definitely applies to the initial narrative we were given for the Martin " murder ". For some limited people the feeling is simply " that is horrible ". Political forces encourage that later misunderstanding, and it is the origin of " the bigger the lie, the more easily it is believed " Obama's words were entirely consistent with the " if it is true " caveat. I don't think he is responsible for people who make politics out of the more limited mistaken interpretation ( polarized as execute or free Zimmerman ). Its fair that Zimmerman got a trial. His actions definitely deserved the scrutiny of a trial, even if he in fact is innocent. There are bankers that could use the same treatment over their actions in the last 5 - 6 years. | cmv |
I don't think the Trayvon Martin case was racist at all. CMV | The part that is in question is the " looked suspicious. " Did trayvon being black have anything to do with him " looking suspicious ". So my first question is do you think there is a sentiment in our culture that feels that black people look / are more suspicious? You can look at the driving while black phenomenon for more detail on this point. Also, You did not mention this but there is also issue of the actions of the police. Some argue that if Zimmerman was black and shot a white man, he would have been arrested. It is hard to get any traction with this argument because what can be made of a woulda, shoulda, coulda, point without an actual example. | cmv |
I assume that straight men are as acutely attracted to most women as I am, and that women are aware of this fact despite the fact that we try really hard to hide it. CMV | I have to disagree with you since you're implying that men don't do the same thing. I know what women want, how they want me to dress, how to do my hair, how my body should look... and how I should talk to get them into bed. They also try to hide it. It has very little to do with " media " and more to do with your brain. Care to explain what you really mean? your post is very confusing. | cmv |
I believe that the negative repercussions entailed by any organized religion outweigh anything one could possibly hope to gain from it. CMV | The suppression of free, unbridled secular thought is nonsense. What you mean is the suppression of the state and civic and corporate ( or Gentile ) utilizability. I think that what you are objecting to and threatened by is not'religion'but'organized '. If you object to'organized'religion then it is likely that you will object to anything that is not'organized'and handed down by the state. That would include race, religion and sexuality. | cmv |
I believe that the negative repercussions entailed by any organized religion outweigh anything one could possibly hope to gain from it. CMV | Isn't the " good " of many organized religions eternal peace and bliss in the afterlife? How could any " bad " outweigh that? I don't personally believe in an afterlife, but you said " ANYONE could hope to attain. " | cmv |
I'm a staunch pacifist. CMV | If a man has a bomb and is walking toward a crowd and you had an opportunity to kill him, what would you do? Killing him is 1 wrong. Allowing him to live and carry out his act is many more wrongs. The'net - kills'would be lower if he were killed. Non - interventionism is a suitable alternative. One where you don't use violence except in defense. Politically, you engage and trade with everyone, but form no entangling alliances, and you don't get involved in the affairs of other nations. | cmv |
I'm a staunch pacifist. CMV | So you wouldn't raise your hand to defend yourself? Futhermore you yourself benifit from violence, either by violence enacted by police to catch criminals, or ( for the sake of argument ) the military fighting to maintain the stability of the oil supply. So you have allready agreed that some level of violence is acceptable. The only way to be a complete pacifist is to leave society altogether. | cmv |
I'm a staunch pacifist. CMV | Only a higher being would be able to judge who should and should not be put to death in the same way only a higher being can know what we should or should not do in our day to day lives. But we still take actions and make decisions anyways. Sometimes they are bad decisions. Sometimes they are good. Most of the time we are actually unsure how good or bad they are and are unsure exactly what we could've done to create a better outcome, or even what constitutes as a better outcome. who judges what is better or worse? we can only make that decision for ourselves and killing or not killing fall into the same reasoning and also falls into the category of " actions we take because we think we should do so ". | cmv |
I'm a staunch pacifist. CMV | Ignoring the moral element, there is a certain practical element you can't ignore. Perhaps we should not have killed Hitler for moral reasons, but a Jew in 1945 who just saw his family sent to the gas chambers could likely give an excellent practical reason to kill off a few of the people who were about to finish the job. Which brings up a different point : It may be more moral to die than to kill, but is it more moral to allow others to be killed by the millions than to kill? It seems awfully self - centred to me to say " Millions of innocent people are being murdered over there, but since I'm not doing any killing, my morality is clean ". Beyond that, comes a combination of morality and practicality. If all moral people thought it better to die than to kill, then eventually only those who were immoral, and thus willing to kill would end up in power of the world. By dealing with absolutes, then, the world would end up in the hands of the unscrupulous, and eventually their immorality would encompass the world. By being unwilling to fight tyranny on its own terms, then, we would end up with a less moral world. The world is not one of black and white, but of many shades. The way evil will triumph is for good men to don'thing. | cmv |
I'm a staunch pacifist. CMV | The bomb scenario is well - known but here goes : A man is about to detonate a ( large bomb ) which you can be certain will end the lives of millions of people. Insert any city you might be predisposed to save. You can stop this detonation, but to do so you must kill the person who is about to set it off. Do you kill to save the lives of so many, or do you allow the detonation to occur? For the sake of argument you are absolutely certain of both outcomes depending on what you do or don't do. | cmv |
I'm a staunch pacifist. CMV | No one knows what happens after this life. It could be all that we have. Don't you have a responsibility to your creator ( or at least loved ones ) to make the most of your time. Suppose someone has made the decision to kill me, and the only way I can stop him would be to kill him. Don't I have a responsibility to those loved ones to preserve my life? | cmv |
I believe most charities are a waste of resources and the people who benefit from them are actually worse off. CMV | There is a decent percentage of people who use soup kitchens and food banks who do have jobs. There are people who are chronically underemployed. You can work a forty hour week and still not make a living wage. There's far more to the story than lazy homeless people. | cmv |
I believe most charities are a waste of resources and the people who benefit from them are actually worse off. CMV | OP, many people lack the fundamental opportunity to achieve what you can. Most jobs require an address on the application, and without one, you can't get a job. In addition, mental illness also runs rampant throughout the homeless community. I think about 1 / 3 of homeless people have schizophrenia. Without proper care ( which either comes from social services or charity ), many of these people couldn't perform a job even if they had the opportunity. Being homeless isn't exactly a comfortable or pleasant experience either. Homeless people are significantly more likely to be the victims of violent crimes such as assault ( 35x the rate of housed people in Toronto ) and sexual violence. Lets also keep in mind that a portion of the homeless community also involves families. Lets also keep in mind that the homeless are looked down upon in society. I don't know about you but I would consider those things pretty strong incentives to get out of the homeless lifestyle. | cmv |
I believe most charities are a waste of resources and the people who benefit from them are actually worse off. CMV | I was recently talking with my cousin, who has just returned from a two year position with the Peace Corps, where she was positioned in Africa. In talking about her job, she said that the goal was to eventually make herself redundant - she was aiding people now as a teacher and a general health educator, but was aiming to have this aid lead to eventual self sufficiency. I think that this can be made applicable to many types of charity work. Many people require aid due to shortcomings or failures in present institutions. Facilitating growth of individuals and communities through charitable work is one way to eventually enact positive social change. | cmv |
I feel that the " No True Scotsman " fallacy is over - accused and often not applicable to the situations in which people invoke it, and in is fact often used fallaciously itself. CMV | No true Scotsman is an unjustified ad - hoc revision of a claim to avoid having to reject the claim in light of counter - evidence. In the original example : the original claim was " no Scotsman would commit a horrible crime ", the counter - evidence was " the person who committed this horrible crime was a Scotsman ", and the unjustified ad - hoc revision to salvage the original claim was " no true Scotsman would commit a horrible crime ". Note that the evidence is not rejected ; the unjustified rejection of counter - evidence is special pleading not a no true Scotsman. What you're describing is not a fallacy ; it's a popular misunderstanding of the fallacy described above. | cmv |
I feel that the " No True Scotsman " fallacy is over - accused and often not applicable to the situations in which people invoke it, and in is fact often used fallaciously itself. CMV | The issue isn't in the NTS, it is in what people assume it means. Every argument should be able to hold up on its own, regardless of source or associatation. In your example those decrying the conserva - liberal party were committing a fallacy ( often many ). Just because a member of the conserva - liberal party might be a nazi doesn't mean it's common, approved of, or a requirement. | cmv |
I think proportional representation is inferior to single member districts. CMV | I will address your second point... party leaders selecting the members of a list is no more undemocratic than party leaders selecting a single member candidate. If you discount the possibility of primary or convention in selecting one, you have discounted it for both Speaking more generically, proportional representation allows for minority groups to gain a more accurate representation than single party member districts do. With single party member districts you get 1 person who represents some subset of the population, the remaining portion of the population has no representation at all. By getting rid of single member districts you get a legislative body that more accurately reflects the makeup of the overall population. Also, a 3rd possibility, proportional reprentation by region. Depending on how large the government you are talking about, you can combine the 2 concepts and have each region use a proportional vote for its portion of the body. | cmv |
I believe that a properly regulated market provides a superior benefit to society than a free unregulated market. CMV | In your description markets sound like a force separate from humans that need to be harnessed. But it is not true. Markets are you and me. More precisely, markets are you and me when we agree to an exchange, a whistle for a book. Regulation is when someone says this exchange is not allowed. Maybe this is necessary, but harnessing it like fire or a wild horse means one person harnessing another. Are you sure you are the one doing the harnessing and you are not the harnessed? | cmv |
I believe that a properly regulated market provides a superior benefit to society than a free unregulated market. CMV | You'd need an exact definition of " properly regulated " before anyone can reasonably disagree with you. The concepts of externalities, demerit goods, and public goods in economics makes it near - impossible to argue that any regulation is necessarily bad for society. Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians can all generally agree on a properly regulated market being an ideal market, but they have drastically different views on what exactly a properly regulated market is. This is what causes the most basic of economic arguments from all sides of the party. Democrats will largely argue that a properly regulated market should have more ( sometimes much more ) regulations than a Republican will argue for. Libertarians will largely argue for a " hands - off " approach to most markets. Finding out which method is most correct relies on weighing the costs and the benefits from each legislation. And this process is not easily made objective at all ; almost every source relevant to the legislation will offer a biased response, and generally has every reason to. Sorting through all this biased information is how issues like " lobbying " and " conflicts of interest " rear their ugly head. Deriving an impartial regulation from extremely partial information is, to say the least, difficult. | cmv |
I believe that a properly regulated market provides a superior benefit to society than a free unregulated market. CMV | So, I would not say that I love unregulated markets. However, if you believe what people like Hayek and Say say then the market will find a way to maximize itself. Regulation imposes costs that unbalance the market and make it so that the equilibrium cannot be reached. Only with truly free markets, in their mind, will you have the type of progress and technological advancement that is borne out of necessity and funded with assisting the customer by providing them with something they desire. This is all theoretical, however they really put a good case together for the existence of free markets. Give them a chance and read them : ) | cmv |
I believe that a properly regulated market provides a superior benefit to society than a free unregulated market. CMV | Let me know the day impartial government regulation becomes possible. The way it works in every actual government now existing is a hodgepodge of conflicting interests builds a largely nonsensical regulatory environment that costs gobs of money and is largely unhelpful to anyone. And to the extent it helps anyone, it is usually catastrophically cost - ineffective. | cmv |
I believe that a properly regulated market provides a superior benefit to society than a free unregulated market. CMV | The concept of a'managed'economy rests on a somewhat contradictory base. It posits that the entire market acting in their own interests will not produce the best results, because people make errors ( selecting the " wrong " outcome )... yet it proposes to put decision making power into a different ( and smaller ) set of people. Are these people made from finer stuff than the public at large? Less prone to mistakes? Instead of the people most involved in each decision ( the customer and seller ) making the final call, regulated economies interpose a 3rd party under the premise that this 3rd person can make a better decision than the people involved. | cmv |
CMV : I believe George Zimmerman would have been found guilty of 3rd degree murder had Trayvon been white. | I don't thing so, when it comes down to it it was Mr. Zimmermans word vs. Mr. Martian via piecing together his last moments. So you can see who has an advantage its the person who can change their story. So that being said I think he would get off a gian b / c he is the only one alive that was there. Sad but true. | cmv |
CMV : I believe George Zimmerman would have been found guilty of 3rd degree murder had Trayvon been white. | Have you seen the pictures of zimmerman after he shot trayvon? Looked like hell. Nothing was assumed, except by the prosecution in that they could get a conviction on an appeal to the heart. | cmv |
CMV : I believe George Zimmerman would have been found guilty of 3rd degree murder had Trayvon been white. | Assumptions don't get guilty verdicts. Juries are directed by judges that verdicts must be made based on facts, evidence, and what they regard as truthful testimonies. Source : I've been on jury duty. In this particular case, it boils down to reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was for sure the aggressor due to witnesses testifying that Martin was on top and essentially using the concrete as a weapon against the guy's head. Maybe Zimmerman actually was the aggressor, and maybe a lot of other things happened, but our judicial system doesn't issue guilty verdicts based on maybe's. | cmv |
CMV : I believe George Zimmerman would have been found guilty of 3rd degree murder had Trayvon been white. | No he would not have and here are the reasons why : 1. Location of the body Trevyon had been on the phone with his girlfriend all the way up until the time of the attack. Treyvon was intending to visit his mom's fiancee's house and according to his girlfriend, had reached his destination. The girlfriend then claims that here is where Zimmerman attacked while Zimmerman claims that Treyvon doubled back and went chasing after Zimmerman. Now, the body was found a good 100 ft or so away from Treyvon's mom's fiancee's house in the direction of Zimmerman's car. This means that if Treyvon had reached his mom's fiancee's house, he wouldve had to double back and chase after Zimmerman to instigate the fight at the location where the body was found. The location of the body is consistent with Zimmerman's story and is a very likely indicator that Treyvon started the attack. This fact alone can acquit Zimmerman by simply claiming self defense. | cmv |
I believe that black people have no right to protest the Travon Martin Verdict. CMV. | This is America and you have the right to be a hypocrite if it suits you. It would be very wrong, even unAmerican, to take away the right to protest like you suggest. Freedom of expression and all that. Being a hypocrite should not be restricted. | cmv |
I believe that black people have no right to protest the Travon Martin Verdict. CMV. | I understand what you are saying, but in instances of black - on - black crime, many things are the cause : drugs, gangs, poverty, etc. As with all people, not one of these issues is a united front that all black people agree on or consider themselves a member of. One things that unifies all of them is the color of their skin, and the ability to relate to racism. Since the Martin case was seen as racially motivated, you are going to see black people from all walks of life / lifestyles / gang afflictions agreeing and protesting against the common enemy of racism. | cmv |
I believe that black people have no right to protest the Travon Martin Verdict. CMV. | You're assuming they're protesting the death of a black person. If they were, you have raised an excellent question. But I don't think anyone thinks they're protesting the death of a black person. They're protesting an injustice. A perversion of the law. It's a different animal. | cmv |
I believe that in discussions about feminism there are times when a males opinion can be just as valid as a females. CMV. | OP can you link the argument? It's hard to have a discussion about a person's position in an argument without actually seeing it. She may have overreacted, but I can't rule out bias without seeing it. Everyone is always entitled to their opinion on a given subject. That doesn't mean that other people have to agree with it. In this circumstance you seem to be saying that your opinion is more valid than this woman's, rather than having the same validity, which was your initial statement. | cmv |
I believe that in discussions about feminism there are times when a males opinion can be just as valid as a females. CMV. | Well, from the other side of the fence : I'd call myself an egalitarian, but I overall consider feminism in first world countries to be harmful. Based on this, I'd just say they're both being sexist. Two women said it is a valid viewpoint to say they feel threatened by all men, aka all men are a potential threat. Put this in a different phrasing - What if they said they feel threatened by all black people? What if they said they felt threatened by all immigrants? We wouldn't hesitate to call them racist or xenophobic, so why should we hesitate to call them sexist? Generally speaking, society is far more comfortable with sexism against men ( an example, the movie Horrible Bosses shows a man being sexually harassed, raped, and sexually blackmailed for laughs ) to the point that suggesting someone is being sexist against men simply seems silly to most people. | cmv |
I believe that in discussions about feminism there are times when a males opinion can be just as valid as a females. CMV. | If feminism is about equality, then an opinion should be valid regardless of gender. Opinions should be disregarded because of their content, not because of who's putting it forth. " No uterus, no opinion " is sexist, and should be the opposite of the feminism movement. | cmv |
I believe that in discussions about feminism there are times when a males opinion can be just as valid as a females. CMV. | if a man cannot deal with the fact that his opinion matters less when it comes to issues regarding women's bodies, he is not a feminist. So yes, your friend and the woman you had the argument with are correct. Feminism isnt about everything being 100 % equal. Sometimes one gender takes preference because it concerns specific issues regarding that gender. So the women's opinion matters more when it comes to reproductive rights, birth control pills, access to abortion and such. The male's opinion matters more when its about issues like male circumcision or prostate cancer. And like Amarkov said, it seems you disagreed with her because her opinion made you feel uncomfortable ('she is alienating me by not making it about the opinion of men') and thus it was a wrong opinion of her to have. Also, you blamed her for generalizing men, but you did the same by saying she is alienating other men. | cmv |
I think some people deserve to die CMV | P1 : The value of human life is proportional to the moral character of the person whose life it is. P2 : Killing a bad person is therefore less - bad than killing a good person. C : Therefore, a person convicted of murder should be able to bargain down their sentence by listing all the bad things the victim ever did. | cmv |
I think some people deserve to die CMV | I agree with you ideologically. But practically, due to our imperfect justice system, it is much harder to say this person 100 % did this. Technology has overturn previous cases. I assume technology 20 years later to overturn cases today. As for known international mass murders, yes. But who has the right to execute them? UN? The politics behind it will make it impossible. | cmv |
I think some people deserve to die CMV | i don't see death as something that is deserved or not. the process that results in whether death is deserved seems so fraught with emotion and folly, that death just doesn't seem very instructive or useful. a more useful concept of induced death is if it's a means to end further and greater human costs. | cmv |
I believe that commenting on a post or thread should be an automatic up - vote CMV. | It rewards comments that don't contribute and causes a general decline in quality. It's now better to give a specific comment more up - votes just by making comments that don't add anything. As in, In order to increase the visibility of an opinion I like, it's better to reply " I TOTALLY AGREE! " and " THIS IS SO RIGHT!!! " than to just not clog up the comments with irrelevant and circle jerking. | cmv |
I believe that commenting on a post or thread should be an automatic up - vote CMV. | Also, surely a highly discussed post is ALREADY very visible? You don't need the system to tell you " this post generated a lot of discussion! " When I can see that myself. Here's what would solve your problem, in the little ticker that says " arrange posts by top / best / contraversial " add an option that says " arrange by most highly commented ". Then the user can chose for themselves. Personally I wouldn't ever use it unless I was specifically looking for arguments. | cmv |
I believe that commenting on a post or thread should be an automatic up - vote CMV. | I feel like that would encourage trolling, since now the goal ( assuming you want visibility ) is to get as many people to disagree with you as possible. If I wanted to rise to the top, the best thing to do in that system would be to make my first post something as blunt and incendiary as possible. Then when people start calling me out for it, I say " well actually you're misconstruing my argument, what I mean is : " Lots of discussion, but only because I'm being obtuse and difficult. Whereas if a post was just a slam dunk that was so awesome and well reason it was difficult to argue against, people don't reply so much. It prioritizes controversy over content. | cmv |
I think political correctness is a bad thing. CMV | Europeans say it hurts social harmony. Would you harp on negative incidents between you and your wife? It wouldn't make for a good relationship. I'm not saying I agree with that, just, no - one else has pointed this reason out. | cmv |
I think political correctness is a bad thing. CMV | Political correctness -'language, ideas, or policies which address discrimination against or alienation of politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups.'Political correctness is in my view a net positive because words have power. Words influence attitudes, and attitudes influence laws ; if you are part of a minority and a certain element of society wishes to incite or exacerbate prejudice against you, this can have a direct impact against your quality of life. For example in America there are very few restrictions on speech, and as such certain groups are able to publicly disseminate information that gay people are, amongst other things, equal to pedophiles. 40 % of homeless youth in America are LGBT ( despite only being 2 - 6 % of the general population ) and one of the reasons that parents throw their gay children out of home is because they think that they will sexually molest their younger siblings. It's a balancing act, you have to consider what is more important to protect ; the rights of a minority not to be slandered to the point that it actually negatively impacts their quality of life, or the right of a person to incite hatred. | cmv |
I think political correctness is a bad thing. CMV | It started ( and still helps today ) with accuracy. While being " politically correct " in order to not hurt someone's feelings can often be stupid and inaccurate today, that is not how it started. It is supposed to be more accurate than slurs. Also, it helps in debates more than it hurts. Limiting the language in a debate keeps debaters from getting upset and misrepresenting their views because of their emotion. People frequently say things they don't mean because they are emotional. In debate, we want to keep that to a minimum and political correctness allows you to express your views without offending / upsetting your opponent, causing them to say things that they don't mean, which can include things that will upset you. Two calm people debating will be able to represent themselves and their views more accurately and concisely than two emotional people. I agree that it doesn't belong in art, but it does in debate. It is much better for the debaters as well as any audience. | cmv |
I believe the U. S. federal minimum wage should be set at $ 50 per hour. CMV. | You have no clue how money works if you think $ 50 is reasonable. Saying $ 16 is considered extreme. $ 50 an hour is a six figure salary. There are not enough resources for everyone to live a six figure life. | cmv |
I believe the U. S. federal minimum wage should be set at $ 50 per hour. CMV. | This may very well be the worst idea ever and you should feel bad. Do you have no clue who inflation works? Fifty will become the new 10 and everyone else will be brought into poverty. | cmv |
I believe the U. S. federal minimum wage should be set at $ 50 per hour. CMV. | You are confusing " money " and " wealth ". Raising minimum wage increases money without increasing wealth. Stores will raise prices to match, and the end result is that $ 100k only buys what $ 20k used to. In other words, the minimum wage employees don't get any richer ; they can only afford the same old things. Meanwhile, everyone else ( including the min. wage earners when they find a better job ) has gotten poorer, because their wages stay the same while prices go up. | cmv |
I believe that those arguing against national income disparity without supporting international redistribution are somewhat hypocritical. CMV. | It's a bad idea to direct too much of our tax revenue to places where we cannot control how it's spent. It's a hard enough task to redistribute wealth to people who need it domestically, where we can make laws to control how it's distributed and we have control over the law enforcement and courts. When we give money to other countries ( even with strings attached ), most of it ends up benefiting the rulers, military, and business elites - - so our efforts to help the poor are wasted. | cmv |
I believe that those arguing against national income disparity without supporting international redistribution are somewhat hypocritical. CMV. | Yes we should help our poor and yes we should help the poor of foreign nations. It's just harder to redistribute wealth globally. If there are people that think it is a moral responsibility to help the poor of their own country but not a moral responsibility to help the poor of another country, they are hypocrites, but I really don't think there are people like that. It almost sounds like you are assuming that most people who want wealth redistribution in the US don't want global wealth redistribution, and using that assumption as a justification for rejecting wealth redistribution in general. | cmv |
I believe that those arguing against national income disparity without supporting international redistribution are somewhat hypocritical. CMV. | It is not our responsibility to even assist other governments economies. That is the responsibility of each other government to take care of their own. We are responsible for correcting injustices within our own borders. | cmv |
I believe that those arguing against national income disparity without supporting international redistribution are somewhat hypocritical. CMV. | I agree that when arguing for income distribution, it's equality for everyone, not just people in a specific location. However, I am guessing that income distribution on an international level is far more complex due to conflicting goals of each government. With that said, income distribution on a nation level is also difficult but it seem more manageable with less conflicting goals. Therefore it would be logical for some people to support finding a solution to a problem that difficult ( national ) but not a problem that seems impossible ( international ). Another point is that when distributing money on a national level, the people contributing the money have some sort of trust for the governing body that preforms the redistribution. This is probably not that case when distributing on an international level because most people have little knowledge of how other country's governments operate. Even if they did, once the money is in another country, there is nothing the person can do to influence how the money is used. Therefore it's feasible for some people to support national income distribution based on trust and not support it on an international level due to a lack of trust. In conclusion, I don't think people are morally against international distribution but for national distribution, it's that they cannot support something that seems impossible to them or cannot trust. Just a side note, all of my statements are based on assumptions and my little knowledge of econ so feel free to shoot me down with facts. | cmv |
I believe that those arguing against national income disparity without supporting international redistribution are somewhat hypocritical. CMV. | Look, very simply, I agree. But as someone who lives in the USA, I have a much better grasp on income disparity, its causes, and the consequences of national wealth redistribution than a do on the same concepts in an international sense. It's perfectly reasonable to encourage wealth redistribution in your own country which is a relatively simple case, while temporarily withholding support for international income redistribution, which is much, much, much more complicated for an uncountable number of reasons. That's all. Let's take care of it first here, then think about international politics. That's the way most people who encourage income redistribution feel about the issue, even though they're not explicit about it. | cmv |
I think trickle - down economics could never work - CMV | You have fallen into a trap set by those against tax reduction that makes it a class thing. Politicians like Reagan and economists like Laffer that strongly believe ( d ) in tax cuts believed in tax cuts for ALL economic groups. Trickle down was a sound bite taken out of context and run with by the media to make it seem like it was a theory specifically for the wealthy and to perpetuate an " us vs. them " attitude. | cmv |
I think trickle - down economics could never work - CMV | Also consider that those who claimed their policies were " trickle - down economics " didn't actually do what they claimed they were doing. Reagan may have lowered some income taxes, but through some accounting tricks ( for example, he didn't directly raise tax rates, but he eliminated a lot of deductions, resulting in most people still paying more despite the lower rate ) this didn't lower the overall tax burden at all. By the end of Reagan's presidency, the average American was paying more ( inflation - adjusted ) in taxes than they were at the beginning. Any evidence - based view you may have of trickle - down economics'failure is likely a view of the failure of a system that was merely labeled trickle - down. | cmv |
I think trickle - down economics could never work - CMV | It a theory on tax shield. by lowering taxes on investments ( i. e. capital gains taxes ) it provides incentive to invest in the private sector. if the tax rates are to high the investor invests in tax exempt projects instead. It is all about the rate of return for investors. taxes affect the rate of return. less money in the private sector means less business and causes less tax revenue. Marginal Propensisty to save is higher in wealthier individuals and often means increased investments through bonds, stocks, and loans. Wealthy people don't sit on their money or invest in low interest accounts, they usually have active investments. | cmv |
I think trickle - down economics could never work - CMV | There are a few unusual situations where trickle down would work. If there was huge demand for products, but not enough products were being produced because businesses just didn't have the capital to build more factories and stuff, giving more money to businesses would actually create more jobs. As far as I know, this situation has never existed in the United States because businesses have always had access to fairly low interest loans. But when you say it could never work, you are wrong. But yes it is unlikely that we will ever be in a situation where it would be beneficial, and it would almost always be better to fix the situation by just reducing interest rates on loans. | cmv |
I think Trayvon Martin's death was racially motivated CMV | I know it's difficult given that the faces of Zimmerman and Martin have been imprinted in everyone's minds, but try to imagine that Zimmerman was black. Could you find a way to believe that there would be any reason for him to be suspicious of Trayvon Martin, all other things being the same? Could you believe a black person could be suspicious of Martin for other reasons than being black? | cmv |
I think Trayvon Martin's death was racially motivated CMV | Zimmerman is half Hispanic, and looks it. He did a tremendous amount of charity work involving black people. He had a lot of black friends. It seems really unlikely that his decision was racially motivated. Remember - Martin was tallish ( 5'11 " ) and wearing a hoodie walking in a neighborhood that had just had several unsolved burglaries. There are too many factors other than race to point a finger at it, and considering the factors about Zimmerman I listed at the top it seems really unlikely that he considered race at all. | cmv |
I think Trayvon Martin's death was racially motivated CMV | You're entitled to your opinion, but I believe Zimmerman was suspicious based on his perception of Martin's activities. Don't intend to get into an argument about whether Zimmerman pre - planned his 911 call and lied, but if we believe the transcript it sounds like he was suspicious of Martin because in Zimmerman's view Martin was walking around in the rain aimlessly, looking at houses, possibly on drugs. This keeping in mind the number of burglaries that had taken place in the community. | cmv |
I think Trayvon Martin's death was racially motivated CMV | " He and a black friend opened up an insurance office in a Florida... " " He'd engaged in notably un - racist behaviour such as taking a black girl to his high - school prom... " " Not only does he have black relatives, he has reportedly donated his time to tutor black children. " " He launched a campaign to help a homeless black man who was beaten up by a white kid. " source His great grandfather was also black | cmv |
I think Trayvon Martin's death was racially motivated CMV | Zimmerman wasn't even sure Marin was black initially. In the 911 call around : 30 the dispatcher asks him the race of the person, he hesitates and says " He looks black. " At about 1 : 00 he says Martin is coming towards him and is finally able to give a definitive answer to the operator, " And he's a black male. " He couldn't have gone after him for being black when he didn't even know he was black before calling 911. Dark, raining, hoodie on, easy not to notice race. | cmv |
I think Trayvon Martin's death was racially motivated CMV | It wasn't racially motivated as many people said simply because this guy had black friends, did black charities, his neighborhood had many blacks etc. BUT even if it was a racial stereotyping that led him to deem tray suspicious it was not the stereotyping that led to tray being dead. Tray was killed because he was on top of this guy pounding him on the pavement with his fists ground - and - pound style which, especially on concrete, can DEFINITELY be lethal or at the least cause brain damage. I don't care what anyone said you don't do this to a person and NOT expect to get shot in return. You are literally attempting to kill someone when you do a ground and pound, and Zimmerman's face and the back of his head as well as several eye witnesses prove this indeed happened, so of course he got shot. Its clear self defense plain and simple. | cmv |
I think Trayvon Martin's death was racially motivated CMV | Every damn movie, TV show, and news report tells us that a black guy at night in a hoodie is up to no good. That's pretty deeply ingrained in our culture. I don't think Zimmerman has any dislike for black people, but I wouldn't be surprised if he had a subconscious bias based on stereotypes from our culture. I think it's unfair to say this was a " racially motivated " crime - - a hate crime - - unless Zimmerman actually has a hatred of blacks, and I don't think that's the case. | cmv |
In relation to gun control, I believe since American has no realistic chance to get rid of all guns, the only way to increase public safety is to increase the amount of guns. CMV | And how exactly does increasing the number of guns improve public safety? You never really explained that. I don't own a gun. I don't want to waste money buying ammunition and the firearm itself. I don't want to waste time training to get a gun. ( I assume you aren't going to let untrained people or those with certain criminal records or mental health problems get weapons. ) I don't want to waste time maintaining a gun. I don't want to carry a weapon on my body at all times. Under your proposal, would I be forced to actually do these things that I don't want to do? | cmv |
CMV : Why isn't Wonder Woman sexist? | This is a huge storyline thread, and the answer depends on who's writing her. keep in mind that she's based off the Amazonian myth / tradition. she comes from a small paradise thats girls only, and ventures out to a more corrupt patriarchy. From her perspective, it'd be hard not to be sexist. But over the years she's battled quite a few renegade amazons who wanted to kill all men. | cmv |
CMV : Why isn't Wonder Woman sexist? | The DC nu52 iteration of Wonder Woman ( current continuity ) is sexist. Just read this review of issue # 7. Overall, this swing of the pendulum is not a bad thing. The comics industry consistently has problems with unintended sexism ( just google nu52 Starfire or Catwoman ). The current Wonder Woman turns that dynamic on its head. It hasn't become a self - parady ; it is a refreshing break from the norms. On a different sexism note, if any character should be written / drawn by female talent ; it would be Diana. | cmv |
I believe American society is wrong to think that people are ruining their image by drinking and partying. CMV | When you are hiring someone you are making a huge risk and investment in someone. You want to make the best and least risky choice you can. While plenty of people who drink and party are good and responsible people if you were to separate people into two groups, those who party and those who don't, you would find that more of the latter group are good workers. It's all about the odds. When hiring someone you take the people who have the best odds of being a good worker and those happen to be people who don't party. Or at least don't party so much that they have no problem with drunk photos of them on Facebook. | cmv |
I believe it is disgusting that courtroom proceedings can be televised CMV | You have to look at the alternative. What if it were illegal for media to be present in a courtroom? All kinds of shady things can happen. In fact, secret trials are one of the signs of a very unhealthy government. As unfortunate as it is when a trial gets blown up crazily like the Zimmerman one does, the alternative is much much worse in terms of potential rights violations. | cmv |
I believe it is disgusting that courtroom proceedings can be televised CMV | What are you willing to give up for transparency? Often the argument about releasing the information of an arrested party before conviction is the subject of discussions like this. There is outcry that you are basically having your reputation damaged by a simple element of the news being reported, because an arrest can operate like you might be guilty. I think having someone's life on television because they're in court is one of the elements of transparency we need, and I wish it extended to always on cameras for law enforcement and even always on cameras for any public official operating in a political or administration role. | cmv |
I believe it is disgusting that courtroom proceedings can be televised CMV | There's a saying ; " sunlight is the best disinfectant ". There is a reason we have a transparent judicial system. The prosecutors and judges are acting as representatives of the people, so of course the people should have the right to monitor their conduct. Rights of the accused could so easily be completely eroded or disregarded entirely if the process was secret. Governments keeping secrets, especially where prisoners are concerned is always a bad thing. Guantanamo, secret prisons abroad, torture, assassination... Keeping the proceedings public and open to scrutiny is in everyone's best interests, including the accused. Usually jurors in high profile cases are sequestered to limit their exposure to media, which I think is a reasonable precaution. I also find it sickening the way media sensationalizes stories but unfortunately the alternative is much worse. | cmv |
CMV : I don't believe anarchism is an option. This is my political compass. | I feel like this is a fairly inaccurate diagram, especially with you lumping together corporate and government power into one being. Would you mind defining hierarchy, equality, autocracy, and democracy as you have applied them here? I feel like your definitions might differ radically from what others might say ( for example, the average person would not describe libertarians as more autocratic than fascists, nor would they describe monarchists as being more egalitarian than conservatives ). | cmv |
CMV : I don't believe anarchism is an option. This is my political compass. | I'm a bit confused by what you're asking : do you think that libertarianism and anarchism are the same thing? Do you want us to judge your graph? Do you want us to consider what " many people " care about? The best way to understand why people believe anarchism works is to first understand how people view human nature. Anarchists are, in most cases, more idealistic socialists : whereas socialists believe that people are fundamentally community - minded and work better as a group, anarchists ( NOT anarcho - capitalists ) view humans as wholly cooperative beings whose nature is corrupted by the apparatus of the state. It doesn't matter to them what form that state takes, just that there is a state. Whereas libertarianism advocates a minimal state which then allows for individuals to compete, anarchism removes the state and allows for the entirety of humanity to cooperate. Thus I'd say that true anarchy, i. e. there being no state of any kind, is not a temporary state between modes of human organisation, it is the direct antithesis to human organisation. And, because no one is willing to risk creating a stateless country, anarchism is still very much an option, just an impractical one at present. It is an idealistic ideology, not a pragmatic one, but you cannot prove the inherent nature of humanity so it's still a valid option. | cmv |
CMV : I don't believe anarchism is an option. This is my political compass. | Your chart does not make a great deal of sense. Libertarians ( American libertarians, presumably ) are where Republicans should be, " Rothbardians " ( who nobody has ever heard of ) are where Fascists should be, and Fascists are where Libertarians should be, just as one problem. Second, there is little if any serious political difference between a monarchist ( in a country without a preexisting monarchy ) and a fascist. They're distinguished basically by whether they want the head of state to carry the title of " King " or not. | cmv |
CMV : I don't believe anarchism is an option. This is my political compass. | My objection is going to seem very stupid : Where do you put the anarchists on your compass? On the traditional one - axis US political compass you can assign people to the left, right, or anywhere in between. The major failing with the traditional compass is that it doesn't accurately allow many people's political opinions to be plotted anywhere on the graph - A libertarian isn't entirely " left " or " right ", for example. The same problem is inherent with your compass - You have no place to put the anarchists. It doesn't matter if you think their ideas are tenable or not. ( I happen to agree with you, though I'd love to be wrong. ) What matters is how accurately you can plot the political ideals of people on your graph. TL ; DR : The usefullness of a political compass is based on plotting people's beliefs on your graph, and by design you can't plot a major subdivision of belief on your graph. Cheers, - Dirk | cmv |
I believe White People are stepping out of their line, CMV | Your post is just as, if not more racist than the way you make all white people out to be. Just because there are some racist white people, and in the past white countries did most of the exploring / colonizing doesn't mean that white people think that africans are apes, or that they are offended by the presence of another race. I think if anyone is going to have a chance at convincing you, we will need to know why you think that white people think this way? What did you experience that makes you think all white people are like this? | cmv |
I believe White People are stepping out of their line, CMV | Some white people may believe these. Likewise, you're right in the sense that such mindset is a product of being the privileged majority in the groups. But are white people the only ones with such stereotype and condescension? I strongly disagree that only white people have a problem with race. As someone from an Asian country that's racially homogenous, its treatment of minorities and other Asian countries can be just as bad as racism found in Western countries and unsurprisingly due its conservative history. At the same time, white people in many of those countries are some of the progressive in the world who don't think that way at all. At least you will find white friends on / r / shitredditsays... Also for the sake of your sanity, get off / r / worldnews or any other defaults that are full of racism. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.