summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe pluralism should not be imposed on others. CMV | Your argument works if the pluralism at its heart is the idea that we shouldn't impose views on others. However, if pluralism is instead the view that we should guarantee maximum freedom of views for all, then sometimes you have to make rules limiting freedom to maximize freedom. Like your right to freedom ends at when it infringes the freedom of somebody else. | cmv |
I believe pluralism should not be imposed on others. CMV | In a significantly mixed and / or tolerant culture, pluralism actually one of the few things you benefit from forcing on people. The only tenet of enforcing pluralism on people is that you specifically prevent them from cutting other people out of the picture. As an example : You don't need to prevent Muslims from praying five times a day, you just need to prevent them from killing gays. It's not about their Muslim - ness, it's about the people they'd be willing to disenfranchise. It only becomes an issue when killing gays is defined as an integral part of that Muslim - ness, and other problems are bound to arise when your cultural tenets dictate forcing costs onto other people. | cmv |
I believe pluralism should not be imposed on others. CMV | ... and in a non - pluralistic society, anyone with differing points of view ( such as the earth revolves around the sun, sickness is caused by microscopic organisms called germs and not evil spirits, etc. ) is marginalized and ignored. Pluralism is a good thing so long as we preserve the ability to reject different perspectives on their merits and not merely because they aren't our own. This kind of thinking that pluralism is so self - defeating that it becomes useless is just facile sophistry. | cmv |
I believe pluralism should not be imposed on others. CMV | You are right, to a degree. In the case of the Taliban, their believe is physically causing harm to their own people. Don't you have a moral right to interfere then? Its like you have no rights to tell someone how to raise their kids, but if they are physically harming them, than you have the moral obligation to interfere? | cmv |
I believe that force is a better method than negotiation when countries have disputes. CMV | Negotiation is superior to force because of the long - term effects. Using force to handle a troublesome country may provide a'quick - fix'to the problem, but will most likely only fire up the government and people of the invaded country, making the problem worse over time. One example of this can be seen in the relations between the US / South - Korea and North Korea. I wasn't able to dig up the article, but apparently the US and NK has had several negotiations in the past 10 - 15 years where NK has offered to end its nuclear program. But several times the US has ended the negotiations and instead imposed sanctions on NK, resulting in NK resuming their development of nuclear weapon systems. When a country - or even an individual - feels oppressed, it may often react with a radicalization of its actions. Through negotiation this may be avoided, as both countries may end up agreeing on terms that benefits both of them. Then again, sometimes negotiation isn't an option. But using ( excessive ) force is never a solution, it's just a way to temporarily subdue a country. | cmv |
I believe that force is a better method than negotiation when countries have disputes. CMV | Do you want to go apply that force? The thing is conflict tends to arise only because the wealthy want something. I'd rather they argue in a magnificently catered boardroom then put a gun to my head and make it my problem that they want resources to profit from over yonder. | cmv |
I believe that force is a better method than negotiation when countries have disputes. CMV | To make an analogy, imagine you have an infected wound on your leg. You have the choice of treating it with antibiotics or having it amputated. Treating it with antibiotics will take longer, and it might not work. Amputation, on the other hand, will definitely stop the infection, and will be quicker. Which would you choose? | cmv |
I believe that force is a better method than negotiation when countries have disputes. CMV | Negotiation and your definition of force ( sanctions, etc ) are not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, few would argue that negotiation and negotiation alone is the way to go. Sometimes, actions that could be considered forceful are carried out to induce ripeness for a negotiation. They can help the parties realize that continued fighting would not be the most effective thing to do. Additionally, building off of a previous response, the importance of negotiation ( and mediation ) rests within its sustainability. A forceful end to a conflict will likely bring what is known as a " negative peace " which is simply the absence of violence. Negotiations and mediation together can foster a " positive peace " which is accompanied by a transformative mindset that allows the parties to have a deeper understanding of the other and legitimately not want to fight anymore. | cmv |
Working for the Public Sector is MUCH better than the Private Sector CMV | I work for the government and I work my ass off. Low pay / high stress. I don't know what deal you have. I could work less and let people dictate a terrible future and have low stress but that's not my work ethic. | cmv |
Working for the Public Sector is MUCH better than the Private Sector CMV | I just retired last year after 36 years of government service. The most important thing to know is that, as an employer, the government is a dinosaur. It's big and brawny with tiny arms and bad eyesight. But it is oh so strong and powerful. Never fight the dinosaur or it will crush you. If you want it to advance, you have to stay ahead of it and make it chase you to move forward. | cmv |
Working for the Public Sector is MUCH better than the Private Sector CMV | County Government contractor in the DC Metro Region ( Public Safety / Homeland Security ) Been on the job for about 6 months and it sickens me to see management screw off and pass the work load to the employee. We get no direction other than " here's a project, do it in X weeks / months ". That's it. No support, no help just a " do your work and leave me alone attitude ". I hate my life... what's worse is I make $ 39, 000 NET while my boss makes $ 110k NET. Then I get to hear from my father - in - law how I should take such pride in my work and just put a smile on and kiss ass... screw him. Okay time for a beer and bed. Thanks for letting me dump. | cmv |
Working for the Public Sector is MUCH better than the Private Sector CMV | I've worked for state government about 16 years. I think you might have the wrong idea about the advantages of public service. All these things are available at the right private sector job. The big pluses of public employment is the chance to serve your community for the greater good, not just for profit. The result is that public employees work under high standards of integrity because they are under constant public scrutiny. That may sound great, but there are some problems that come along with it. Office politics can be brutal since power rather than cash is the coin of the realm. Advancement depends on academic degrees or a more powerful mentor. Good managers tend to be there by accident, not by design ; in some particularly dysfunctional departments they are actively sought out and fired. | cmv |
Working for the Public Sector is MUCH better than the Private Sector CMV | Wow do you have it backwards! The private sector is much more rewarding in terms of pay and benefits nowadays ( not to mention respect ). The only reason to work in the public sector is if the job you like doesn't exist in the private sector. As others have said, there are good jobs and bad jobs both public and private, so if you really like this place you are interning for, go for that job. Just don't be misled by some rosy picture about how good public workers have it in general. The pay is crap, the benefits are constantly under attack, and you get no respect because people see you as another government leech who doesn't do " real " work. | cmv |
I believe that Occupy Wall Street was incredibly stupid, poorly organized, and a massive waste of time for all those involved. CMV | To make it really simple, it brought mild attention to the issue of corporate lobbying and special interest groups. Regardless of whether or not they were looking for change, they got the word out that this country is spiraling. The problem I found with my local Occupy was that no one wanted to listen to others ideas and basically told me that I sucked. I think the stigma people had was that it was a bunch of hippies, which quite honestly it was. I gave ideas of forming a collective but all anyone wanted to talk about was how that took away from our " individuality. " This in the end destroyed the movement as no one wants to listen to 10 thousands voices at once. But in the end it really did send some sort of message, especially when things got violent at times. | cmv |
I believe that Occupy Wall Street was incredibly stupid, poorly organized, and a massive waste of time for all those involved. CMV | Is Time Square mostly tourists? I was watching BNN, and they mentioned waking past the park in the way to the market, although the protesters were mostly asleep when the traders head to work. Occupy wasn't against banks existing or making money. They were against the lobbying power the banks and corporations have that allows them to effectively rule a democracy as only 1 %. What confuses people about the movement is that is was always supposed to be fragmented and temporary. They wanted to get people talking about what was wrong with the system and to get people to see that as a separate issue from party politics, which was something the Tea Party failed at. In that respect, Occupy was fairly successful. | cmv |
I believe that Occupy Wall Street was incredibly stupid, poorly organized, and a massive waste of time for all those involved. CMV | For me, it brought me into the loop with regard to local politics. It put me in touch with people from every activist sector in my city, from Food not Bombs to environmentalists to DREAMers to what have you. This was invaluable to me. | cmv |
I believe that Occupy Wall Street was incredibly stupid, poorly organized, and a massive waste of time for all those involved. CMV | I might be late to the party, but as someone who was involved in Occupy when it was around but who had already been involved in social justice type stuff before, Occupy was great for the connections that were formed. It is something you don't hear a lot about but a good number of people I know that are involved in organizing got involved because of Occupy. It drew in people that would have not normally gotten involved and some of them have stayed involved afterwards. In this, if nothing else, it was useful. | cmv |
I believe that Occupy Wall Street was incredibly stupid, poorly organized, and a massive waste of time for all those involved. CMV | You have a quote from Peter Schiff discussing the 1 % vs 99 % dichotomy and that entire narrative is a creation of the occupy movement. To then argue that they had no impact on changing the national discourse on wealth disparity is ridiculous. The occupy movement got people to focus their attention specifically on the ways in which the interests of the extremely wealthy diverged from the interests of everyone else, and the fact that even those who oppose them are now forced to use their framework shows how successful they were. | cmv |
I believe that Occupy Wall Street was incredibly stupid, poorly organized, and a massive waste of time for all those involved. CMV | The main piece of discourse brought about by the Occupy Movement - the 99 and 1 percent rhetoric - is now used to describe the differentiation between rich and poor. I'd say in America's very complicated memetic climate that implanting such a fundamental idea into public discourse is quite an achievement. People are a bit more aware of class differentiations being the cause of antagonism in society : it's no longer seen as a secret cabal of racist white guys keeping the minorities down, but rather a secret cabal of rich guys keeping the poor people down. Neither of those scenarios describe what is actually going on, but that change in consciousness is significant. The enmity between the police and the protestors could actually be seen to illustrate just how close the police are to the banks. When people came out in opposition to banks in such a way as they did at the Occupy Protests, the level of police coordination we saw was immense in putting the movement down, from the Department of Homeland Security to the FBI to military intelligence. Occupiers were labeled by these authorities as terrorists just for opposing financial capital. The goals of those who started the Occupy Movement were certainly not achieved - the ideological fractiousness of the people actually present at the protests, along with the lumpen elements who used the occupations as a street camp precluded a platform being formed or taken seriously by legislators. However, the speed and coordination with which it was put down by the media and police and the new ideas it brought into the public consciousness prove that it was more influential than one might think at first glance. | cmv |
I believe that Occupy Wall Street was incredibly stupid, poorly organized, and a massive waste of time for all those involved. CMV | It was never meant as an organized ideal, to many conflicting groups and opinions for it to matter. I think it was part frustration and part outlet and a large part genuine protest. It was to show normal citizens can actually care about politics, outside of general lobbying. In the end it was mostly symbolic, but it was always meant as that. | cmv |
I think the abortion debate focuses too much on women's rights, and not enough on fetal rights CMV | Well, it's in the later term that a fetus becomes conscious. It can feel pain, think thoughts, and cry in the womb. I personally believe that a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy until the fetus can survive on it's own outside the womb ( with medical help ), and that is around 24 weeks. But just in case it is before that, I would have some moral problems with a woman aborting any later than 20 or 22 weeks. | cmv |
I think the abortion debate focuses too much on women's rights, and not enough on fetal rights CMV | I think the argument must be about womens rights, but specifically about womens right to bodily autonomy. When you get a drivers license, you have to agree to be an organ donor for us to take your kidney when you die. For that matter, a serial killer on death row has to voluntarily become an organ donor for us to take his kidney, even if it were to save a no el prize winner who's a month away from curing cancer. That is how untouchably valuable we consider our right to bodily autonomy - at no point during your life or after your death can we violate your right to bodily autonomy. Now, its very simple - women have the same right to bodily autonomy. Considering pregnancy to be a form of life support, we can not legally violate the womans bodily autonomy and use her body against her will to save someone elses life, even if she is the reason they need saving. I see no difference between forcing a woman to carry a child she wants to abort and forcing a woman to donate a kidney to someone she hit with her car, and I would argue that legally there is no difference between the two. | cmv |
I think the abortion debate focuses too much on women's rights, and not enough on fetal rights CMV | There's no point to giving fetuses rights like developed people, children are only aware themselves roughly at the age of 5. Very young children are much more similar to other animals than we typically like to accept. I agree that life that begins at conception, but the important part is that personhood begins well after a child leaves the womb. Just because something is human doesn't make it a human being. | cmv |
I think the abortion debate focuses too much on women's rights, and not enough on fetal rights CMV | I'm actually more antiabortion than I am proabortion on this particular matter as I view it as, it is no longer just the woman's body, but the body of the child / fetus that is developing as well. In cases of pregnancy that was forced on the person, the matter becomes much more difficult as then the woman had absolutely no control over the situation, so it is not really fair to hold her accountable. But in cases where the pregnancy could have and should have been avoided, then I see it as the responsibility of the parties involved. Contraceptives should be freely or at the very least easily available in this case and should be used regularly for those who don't want or cannot afford a pregnancy. I realize this is an unpopular opinion, but since you were more or less inbetween on the issue, I wanted to give this view as well. | cmv |
I think that if studies show that 50 % or more of violent offenders reoffend, then all offender should be imprisoned for life. CMV. | If i flipped a coin on deciding whether you would spend the rest of your life in a 6x12 cell or as a free person, would you agree to that? Crime is most often committed by the poor. Why not provide an after school tutoring program for teens who may become poor? Or a lunch program for the malnourished so they dont have to steal? It would only cost 3 billion a year to feed every child, the cost of the american penal system is 74 billion dollars. Why not feed the hungry with said money, instead of throwing it away into prisons that dont work? A vaccine is much better than a cure. | cmv |
I think that if studies show that 50 % or more of violent offenders reoffend, then all offender should be imprisoned for life. CMV. | Suppose you were going through a bad phase in your life and committed a violent crime. Before you were caught and convicted, you had already realized the error in your ways and turned your life around. But during the sentencing, none of this is taken into account. Instead, you are imprisoned for life, because the majority of those who committed the same crime have reoffended. This is not so much because of what you have done : you have already tried to turn yourself around, but because of what others have done. So you are effectively being punished for the crimes others have committed. If you were in this situation, would you consider it fair? | cmv |
I think that if studies show that 50 % or more of violent offenders reoffend, then all offender should be imprisoned for life. CMV. | Your idea would work if punishment was a good deterrent for crime. Norway for example has the lowest re - offending rate in all of Europe because they focus more on rehabilitation then punishment. Here is a link showing a Norwegian prision | cmv |
I am firm believer of'an eye for an eye'in most walks of life. CMV | Eye for an eye doesn't work because it creates a spiral of hurt and resentment which means the aggression never ends. Your example demonstrates this. You can call some of the acts rational some irrational it doesn't change the fact that people will keep retaliating to infinity. Before the modern justice system clans / tribes would sometimes strike deals. For example if you kill my son you owe me so and so much money and 3 horses. The purpose of this kind of deal was to prevent that circle of retaliation which ends in everyone being killed. | cmv |
I am firm believer of'an eye for an eye'in most walks of life. CMV | Eye for an eye invariably begs the question of how to punish certain crimes / offenses. Do you rape rapists? If yes, who metes out this punishment? How can you be sure it is punishment ( people possibly deriving pleasure from such a situation )? If not, what is your system of determining what should be eye for eye and what should not be? | cmv |
I am firm believer of'an eye for an eye'in most walks of life. CMV | I don't believe it is correct to wish harm on anyone else, no matter the case. The point of punishment is twofold : one is to remove dangerous people from society, the other is to prevent crime in the first place. Assume for a moment, that we could guarantee that a murderer would never murder again and from now on would be a perfectly moral citizen. If we could make such a guarantee, I don't believe any punishment should befall him for the murder. Why should he be punished? to satisfy the family of the person who was murdered? they should grieve, but if they wish harm on someone who won't do anything bad going forward, I don't agree with their views. | cmv |
I am firm believer of'an eye for an eye'in most walks of life. CMV | But what purpose does this serve? You say that you're balancing some cosmic scales, but other than some arbitrary " balancing " that has no real benefit, what purpose does this serve? There are 3 main purposes for punishment in a legal system, in my mind. 1. Deterrent - deterring criminals from doing a crime because they know what the punishment will be. 2. Rehabilitation - having experienced the punishment, the person regrets, or at least does not plan to commit, the crime again. 3. Removing the offender from society - Simply preventing the person from being able to commit such a crime again. Now, on this scale, unless you can think of another non arbitrary purpose, why is your system inherently better? Honestly, I'd find it shocking if the ideal deterrent was exactly the same level of suffering, and same with rehabilitation. Shouldn't the legal system, rather than arbitrarily deciding on an eye for an eye without knowing its benefit or its use, simply find what works, find what has the best clear and tangible benefit, and use that instead? | cmv |
I think that fiscal conservatism and libertarianism are morally unjustifiable. CMV. | I think the logic is that trusting people to be self - sufficient encourages hard work, prudence and frugality while discouraging laziness and parasitism. To those who come into bad times despite being highly virtuous, there are private charities ( which people choose to donate to instead of being forced to via taxation ) I'm not saying I fully agree with this but it's not a completely unreasonable or uncompassionate way of seeing the world. | cmv |
I think that fiscal conservatism and libertarianism are morally unjustifiable. CMV. | Fiscal conservatism is just being responsible with the state's finances. I'm a strong fiscal conservative, and I see it as completely moral, in fact, the only moral stance. When I personally spend more than I make, then I have to pay it back. When the state spends more than it makes, it takes out loans, that usually aren't going to get paid back in my lifetime. Thus, if we're not careful with our finances, we're literally stealing money from kids whose parents haven't even been born yet. They never did anything deserve that. If we want to spend so much money, then maybe we should be raising taxes to absurd levels to pay for it ourselves? Of course we don't want to pay for it ourselves, so the only thing we can do is cut spending to get it in line with our revenues. It doesn't mean that we never spend money on anything ( fiscal conservatives in business make investments all the times ), it just means we're responsible and careful about it. | cmv |
I think that fiscal conservatism and libertarianism are morally unjustifiable. CMV. | Read John Rawls : A Theory of Justice. He makes a great point for liberalism and why progressive taxes and social security are compatible with the idea of liberalism. So nothing of this " We could save you from illness and starving but we don't because of FREEDOM " bullshit. But that will not help you to understand fiscal conservatism. | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | I believe the crux of the argument is the difference between " the person did not know what ever were doing was wrong " and " the person was unable to understand that what he was doing was wrong. One of those suggest that were able to understand but chose not to or didnt get informed for whatever reason. In the other you had no options. | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | I see the difference not as an ability to understand or not the law but to understand ones actions. It's the difference between not knowing I couldn't park my car where I did and, after that was revealed to me, not recognizing what I did was illegal. If, after I'm aware of the law, I can not understand whether what I did was right or not, I am insane and can be treated as such. | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | " Ignorance ", by definition, means a lack of knowledge, information, or education. The assumption being that an ignorant individual would be able to understand, know, and be educated on the subject were it brought to his / her attention in a manner that he / she can understand. " Insanity ", by definition, is such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction. Essentially, " insane " people don't have the capacity to understand, there is no way to explain the consequences of their actions in a manner in which they can rationalize and comprehend. Essentially, the person who is insane does not know, or possibly does not care to know, the consequences of their actions. To commit these people to prison risks both their life and the lives of the rest of the inmates. | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | Ignorance of the law is different from ignorance of your actions. Also, the insanity defense is very seldom used in instances where the " ignorance of the law " thing applies. This is more for when you jaywalk because you didn't know it was illegal in this town, or turn right on red in a city where they don't allow that. People don't tend to plead insanity for those things. | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | The logic behind " ignorance of the law is no excuse " is that the state assumes laws are morally common sense and so anyone breaking the law knew that they were doing something wrong. This doesn't always hold, but it explains why the insanity defense is compatible with it ( and also why the insanity defense is phrased the way it is ). If laws are morally common sense, it's no excuse to say you were ignorant of the laws against murder or stealing ( let's ignore the laws against smoking pot here for the sake of example ). You still know you shouldn't have done those things. But if you don't know you shouldn't have done those things, you don't realize those things were wrong in the first place, then you really CAN'T be expected to realize you shouldn't do those things. | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | a ) insanity defense is used very rarely and is successful even less b ) the main idea of ignorance is that you could have known the law, it was freely published and available, for example if you had a property conflict with your neighbor you could look up the law. A person judged insane is deemed unable to have known the law. c ) it's a legal compromise. the prosecution would have a hell of time disproving a claim that a person simply didn't know, except for the most obvious laws. by contrast, pleading insanity requires quite a rigorous examination. | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | In a criminal case you generally have to show that a person intended to take the criminal action that they took. Ignorance of law is not taken into account. Consider the following two cases : Imagine it's a crime to a kill a certain endangered bird, and you are completely unaware of this. If you knowingly kill the bird, you have still commited crime because you intended to kill bird. There's no need to show your knowledge of the law nor your intent to violate the law. Now let's pretend you're an insane bird watcher. You're fully aware of the law that makes killing this bird illegal. But, in your delusion, you thought one of these birds was Satan come to take your soul, and you shot it dead. The insanity defence could work here because you had no intent to commit kill the bird, you were trying to kill Satan. | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | I'll change your mind. Prison is rehabilitation and punishment. A mentally insane person who doesnt even know what he did was wrong, and is incapable of understanding should not be punished. Its cruel. He would however be sent to an asylum where he would br treated, and kept out of society. | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | It has actually already been made very difficult to use the " not guilty due to insanity " tactic since the mid - 80's here in the US. That being said, the short explanation is that insanity typically implies that one is not sound of mind, and thus not in control and made no valid choice to remain that way. Circumstances, not will, shaped the outcome. Ignorance, on the other hand, is a choice ( willful ), arguably drifting between a conscious and unconscious one. It is assumed to be your responsibility as a citizen of sound mind to examine the legality of your activities, and a make a choice. As we move forward in an age where information is typically easily obtainable, the defense of ignorance has less and less ground to stand on due to various fallacies it can lead to ( doesn't always happen ). | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | You're in luck then. In the U. S., insanity almost literally never is a successful defense. It is so hard to argue given the restrictions almost all states put on it after the Mark David Chapman case in the'80s that it would only theoretically work in a case where the defendant was so nuts that he's ignorant of his own existence, let alone the law. Most of those cases never even go to trial, since the defendant is unable to assist in his own defense. Seriously though, punishment has no meaning if the person being punished doesn't have the capacity to comprehend that he's being punished. If we had a criminal justice system based on prevention and harm mitigation rather than one that is just an outlet for punitive rage, maybe I would see it differently. | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | One of the main reasons for the rule ( ignorance of the law is no excuse ) is to get rid of the perverse incentive that would arise if there was no rule ( being willfully ignorant of laws ). But people that are adjudged to be insane by definition don't have the choice to be ignorant, so there's no incentive problem. That's the difference. | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | It's not so much " I'm insane and didn't know any better " as " I'm insane and couldn't know any better ". When people plead insanity, I think the idea is that they would not benefit from regular punishment because they are actually incapable of coming out of that punishment " knowing " why they did something wrong. They need to be kept in a mental institution if we want to have any hope of punishing / rebuilding them. But if a person is sane and just doesn't know that something is illegal, he can learn with a straightforward punishment. | cmv |
I believe if " ignorance of the law is no excuse, " then the insanity defense does not hold water and should be disallowed. CMV | The insanity defense is rarely used and when it is, it rarely works. In the cases where it is an acceptable defense which is allowed, the defendant isn't let of the hook They may spend the rest of their lives in a mental health facility, or they may be ordered to stand trial for their crimes when they are competent. It's really really complicated, more than just a plea. And there are even different insanity pleas. It's not based on ignorance of the law but a persons incapacitation in certain situations to control themselves. | cmv |
I believe the social contract is a system of slavery. CMV | Slaves can't abandon their servitude ; that's why they are slaves and not merely employees. You may leave this country at any time. To call the social contract " slavery " is hyperbole. | cmv |
I believe the social contract is a system of slavery. CMV | While you may have specific problems with the social contract, it is not slavery. While there is some debate about what exactly slavery is - - it's a slippery notion across all of human history - - it is typically defined by a bundle of related properties : 1. Slaves lack kinship ties outside of master - slave or slave - slave relationships. Slaves are typically not allowed to form networks with free people who are not their master. 2. Slaves don't have self - determination. A slave usually cannot decide what they're going to do on a day - to - day basis. 3. A slave have few inherent rights or worth. Most slaves have fewer rights and may be injured or killed - - or put in positions where they will be injured or killed - - without consequence. 4. Slaves have a position outside the established social pecking order. You might say that the social contract is exploitative or unfree, but it isn't slavery. | cmv |
I believe the social contract is a system of slavery. CMV | If you are standing on a street corner, you are already using taxpayer assets. By your own standards, that is theft. You have already stolen the fruit of the labor of the sidewalk construction company. How do you propose getting together with the workers without walking on the sidewalk. Must a person, on their 18th birthday, stand at the property line of their parents house waiting for the owner of the sidewalk to happen by so a contract can be signed? Using taxpayer assets is not theft, and since we all use them, we all must pay our fair share. Too many people wish others to pay for assets they use without paying, so the use of legal force to collect payment is required. | cmv |
I think we are much too accepting of women hitting men. CMV | I can't hit anything smaller, male or female, than myself because of my size. I don't want to accidentally kill someone. It'd be nice if people wouldn't try in the first place, as in college and high school it led to a lot of fights. | cmv |
I think we are much too accepting of women hitting men. CMV | I'm going to play the devil's advocate here, using the sort of logic I've seen from folks who aren't as egalitarian as they'd like to believe. The thing you need to understand is that women really are inferior to men. They're not as capable in general, so we need to protect them from the generally superior man. When a man hits a woman, it hurts that woman, because of her inferior feminine physique. However, when a woman hits a man, because she is so weak and powerless, it does not hurt the man, and even with a weapon, she is so incapable of achieving anything worthwhile without men helping out that the man is in no danger of being harmed. Given this huge difference in ability, we must protect women from the competent and powerful and smart men, but it goes without saying that the incompetent, weak, and stupid women shouldn't be held to the same standard. Ugh. I feel dirty now. Playing the devil ain't easy. | cmv |
I think we are much too accepting of women hitting men. CMV | I understand your perspective. I agree hitting is wrong, irrespective of gender. Did such episodes coincide with factors like PMS for example? Were they more frequent and / or more intense at some times more than they were at others? I don't mean to imply that her behaviour was excusable even if it was brought on by PMS or whatever else ; I'm just trying to understand if they changed depending on any specific factors. How would you stop a person who grew in an abusive household from repeating similar behaviour? How would you help them believe that they are capable of being part of, and creating, a better environment, and you are willing to help them in doing that? | cmv |
I believe that District Attorneys should not be allowed to prosecute in cases involving against police or anyone affiliated with police. CMV | Attorneys are bound by ethical rules and obligations above and beyond any loyalty to their employer or friends. Yes police and prosecutors work closely and yes conflicts arise. If there exists a conflict that severely interferes with a particular case, the judge has the power to select a special prosecutor to handle the case. That can be sometime from another jurisdiction or a retired attorney or judge. I feel like you're concerned with a problem that doesn't really exist. | cmv |
I believe that District Attorneys should not be allowed to prosecute in cases involving against police or anyone affiliated with police. CMV | Where are you going to find independent prosecutors who are also knowledgeable of area laws? Who will they be accountable to? Who will pay them? Who will pick the prosecutor for each case? | cmv |
People with strong political convictions who engage in discussions on the internet are actively looking for a fight. These people shouldn't be taken seriously and it's better to lack strong ideological convictions. CMV. | I don't personally enjoy talking to people who don't have a philosophical basis for their viewpoints. If someone has an opinion on a certain issue and another on a different issue and they can't successfully explain themselves in a way that would be morally consistent, I think they're deluding themselves. Say what you will about ideologues, but they are generally much better at being consistent than the average joe. I'm pretty ideological when it comes to personal liberty. That doesn't mean that I can't respect a communist. If they're wrong, they're wrong, but at least they're wrong consistently. | cmv |
People with strong political convictions who engage in discussions on the internet are actively looking for a fight. These people shouldn't be taken seriously and it's better to lack strong ideological convictions. CMV. | Those with strong political convictions can help to challenge the views that we hold. Perhaps they are not as open to change as you are, but why are their views any less worth hearing because they are passionate or unwilling to change? Do they need to be open to changing their opinion for you to learn something from them? If anything, you should listen to these people. They have a perspective on their issue that you likely lack, and perspective is always helpful for developing a mature opinion, whatever the issue. Not to mention, just because someone argues passionately does not mean that they are close minded. I usually try to argue passionately no matter my conviction on the subject as it produces more interesting debate. | cmv |
People with strong political convictions who engage in discussions on the internet are actively looking for a fight. These people shouldn't be taken seriously and it's better to lack strong ideological convictions. CMV. | Anyone who engages in discussion on the internet are actively looking for a fight. No one who tries to intellectually discuss a problem over the internet should be taken seriously. For more years than I care to admit I floated around various philosophical / religious / political discussion forums with people who were serious about discussion and spent time really proving their point. I used to spend hours looking for sources and supporting information to prove a point and even then, even after all that effort half the time we would still reach an impasse. Even with a small population of people who were dedicated to remaining civil and responded individually without flooding a discussion with a lot of pointless bullshit it was still impossible to come to terms in some discussions. Debate only works when two people set the rules and definitions beforehand and that can be as much of a debate as the actual debate. Even then, it's usually the audience that is swayed not the participants because once you work that hard at coming up with justification for something it is difficult to get rid of it. | cmv |
I believe Nuclear Weapons make for a safer world. CMV. | Nukes are like holding a gun up to someone. If they dont want to follow your wishes there is nothing they can do but die. Nukes also kill everybody near it, Not just the targeted goverment | cmv |
I believe Nuclear Weapons make for a safer world. CMV. | There is not a scenario in which humans are'safer'for the invention of a new and more effective type of weapon. The best that you can say is that we are less likely to engage in total war... but any total war that is engaged will be far more deadly. Nuclear weapons trade frequency of war for destructiveness. You can hope that the frequency is so low that we outgrow war before it happens... but should anything begin a nuclear war, no one will be safe. | cmv |
I believe Nuclear Weapons make for a safer world. CMV. | Black Adder said it best. Humanity isn't having it's first go at the'mutually assured destruction'concept. In the past it hasn't worked all that well ; at best it's a delaying tactic. Alfred Nobel once said that he thought dynamite would end war, as its destructive powers would make war too terrible to fight. I'm sure if we look we can find someone that claimed the advancement of artillery - something that allowed you to lob explosives kilometers away from you - was a sure reason to think the Great War wouldn't break out. I think you're falling into the trap of believing that human beings are rational actors. We're not. | cmv |
The Holocaust was terrible, but it does not deserve the emphasis and attention it gets compared to other genocides and tragedies CMV | The holocaust was a special case because Germany for some reason got their act together and were openly about calling out their parents actions ; so the compete truth of the matter was talked about openly while the victims were alive. It has nothing to do with the jews wealth ; china has more pulling power because it out numbers them ; same with India ; hell even japan a few decades ago was looking to one of the most wealthy nation. The difference is the average American doesn't know about the opium wars ; and defends to the horror we did to japan ; and Britain hasn't really been sorry about its empire days. So the rest of the world repetes our story to avoid conflict. | cmv |
The Holocaust was terrible, but it does not deserve the emphasis and attention it gets compared to other genocides and tragedies CMV | If you look at it, the holocaust has all the elements to make it a big deal. It's timely - - unlike slavery or the genocide of the natives ( it admittedly becomes less timely as time goes on ), so you can't say " It happened so long ago, we can't say it has anything to do with today ". It's local - - Unlike the armenian genocide, or african genocides or even the genocides under Stalin, this happened among the great powers of Europe - - not some backwater you can ignore. It's visual - - The perpetrators of the genocide and the victims both look like us. It's connected to us - - Around the world, our ( grandfathers now ) were personally affected by World War II, and personally fought with the germans or their allies. It all adds up to something horrible that we can't rationalize away, we can't compartmentalize, we can't distance ourselves from, we can't pretend doesn't apply to us. | cmv |
The Holocaust was terrible, but it does not deserve the emphasis and attention it gets compared to other genocides and tragedies CMV | How many photos, videos, and recorded statements exist detailing the native american genocide? How about the Armenian genocide? There are three main reasons the holocaust gets more attention 1 ) it was covered with great detail by both the germans and the allies. Video evidence, reports, statements, photographs etc. 2 ) it took place in europe and we are eurocentric right or wrong 3 ) political, we are dealing with politics today that have to do with the genocide that occurred in WW2, we don't have to deal ( at least, not the west ) with Nanking. Does it deserve the attention? It does if you're european because it directly effects you. I'm sure China doesn't focus on it as much. | cmv |
The Holocaust was terrible, but it does not deserve the emphasis and attention it gets compared to other genocides and tragedies CMV | There have been plenty of genocides throughout history and certainly larger genocides in terms of pure numbers. Stalin killed far more of his own people in political purges than Hitler killed Jews and minorities. The difference is that the Holocaust was the first industrial genocide. The Soviets just shot their political dissenters, dumped them in a ditch, and moved on. The Nazi Germans kept extensive records of who they killed, what they salvaged from their victims and the expected cost of the cleanup. It was done using rooms that were designed to gas, incinerate, and dispose of hundreds of people at a time. The fact is there were literally factories designed for the sole purpose of ending human lives in the most cost efficient and low labor methods. No nation before nor since has gone about systematically destroying a group of people in that manner. | cmv |
The Holocaust was terrible, but it does not deserve the emphasis and attention it gets compared to other genocides and tragedies CMV | What I see as the most vile thing about the Holocaust is the way they did it. The Nazis didn't just line the Jews up against a wall and shoot them. No, they started a genocide on an industrial level. Using what basically made the west as big as it was, they committed a horrendous crime. This is especially tough for the Germans today, as the way in which the Shoa was committed, reminds them of their beloved German virtues. | cmv |
The Holocaust was terrible, but it does not deserve the emphasis and attention it gets compared to other genocides and tragedies CMV | It is because Holocaust was performed by Nazis in almost the whole Europe. And because Jews are very influential. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Holodomor had amount of victims that was comparable with the same of Holocaust, and if you count not only 1932 - 1933, but also 1920 - 1921 and 1946 - 1947, the amount of victims is even bigger. But nobody really cares outside of Ukraine ( you didn't even mention it, so I guess many redditors never even heard about it ). Only because it is only Ukrainian and not worldwide tragedy. PS. Ironically Nazi Germany was one of the first countries that raised awareness about Holodomor ( for the sake of anti - Soviet propaganda ). | cmv |
The Holocaust was terrible, but it does not deserve the emphasis and attention it gets compared to other genocides and tragedies CMV | Even if the numbers don't measure up ( and they are pretty high ), the intent behind it should be what really appalls us. The holocaust involves the most distilled, pure hate of a people humanity has ever experienced. There was very little in the way of economics to the Holocaust - true, Germans stole from the Jewish victims and used them for slave labor, but that was secondary. If they wanted the benefits of a slave system, starving and murdering their human capital was a strange way to do it ( contrast the US slave system, where killing slaves was technically illegal ). In other cases we see some reason tied to greed ( US slavery, killing native americans ) or apathy towards a conquered population and soldiers raping and looting ( Japanese attacks on China, Genghis Kahn, Sudan, etc. ) The Holocaust was truly different - it wasn't about greed or apathy, or even brutal soldiers. It was a top - down policy based on pure hatred and embraced to at least some extent by an educated German people. So why is hate worse than greed and apathy? Because " I want what I want and I don't care how you feel " is actually better than " I care how you feel in that I want you to suffer. " The former we expect from animals, the latter from only the most depraved serial killers. To seek out suffering in others for suffering's sake is basically the worst thing you can do as a human being, and the Holocaust is by far the most " successful " example that in history. | cmv |
The Holocaust was terrible, but it does not deserve the emphasis and attention it gets compared to other genocides and tragedies CMV | I think the holocaust and WWII are unique because they involved pretty much the entire western world. It's a part of American history, Canadian history, British history, German and Austrian history, Polish history, Russian history etc. etc. Every school in all of those countries teach about the holocaust because WWII and the holocaust had a massive impact on the western world. Nobody is saying the holocaust was objectively worse than anything Stalin or Pol Pot did, or what the Turks did to the Armenians, but those genocides were unique to particular places. Just like Armenians probably don't learn Canadian or American history in school, we don't learn about the Armenian genocide because it's not a part of our history. Everybody in the western world learns about Hitler and WWII because it's a part of all of those countries'histories. We have to pick and choose what we teach in school because we just don't have time to teach all world history, so most countries focus on the history of that country. IMHO that is probably why most people think of the holocaust first when the word genocide comes up, because that's what they learned about in school. | cmv |
The Holocaust was terrible, but it does not deserve the emphasis and attention it gets compared to other genocides and tragedies CMV | The holocaust was farm from just about the Jews as much as the Jewish community would like it to be. Countless Poles, Gypsies, handicaps, homosexuals and most of all Soviet POW's died in those camps. WW2 is of especial note because it was one of the largest cases of democide in the world and nearly everyone on Earth suffered. | cmv |
I don't think the Rolling Stone cover showing the Boston Bomber is offensive. CMV | From my comment on an identical thread : Nobody would be complaining if Time was putting this photo on their cover. But Rolling Stone is different than any other American magazine, and the content of the article isn't really relevant. Although Rolling Stone has better journalism than most " news " magazines, its better known as a cultural touchstone and its cover has a symbolic meaning : the cover of Rolling Stone, almost without exception1, is reserved for trendsetters and glamorous figures. If you're on the cover of Rolling Stone, you're not just current - - you're hip. You're a celebrity, and in a good way. The media has a bat habit of lionizing these killers a bit more than they should and this might be the most drastic example yet. I'm not personally offended, and I wouldn't boycott the magazine, but I understand why people are upset. | cmv |
I just learned of the US Pirate Party, and I think it's great. CMV | And I believe Steam and all of Valve's business policies, as well as cheaper access to quality music through Pandora or even iTunes has inundated the debate and is a greater deterrent of piracy ( and thus makes piracy a non issue ). If piracy is not going to be an issue going forward ( as it likely wont be for aforementioned reasons ) then a single issue party would need to expand its platform dramatically. Whilst they are working on that now, they don't have the grassroots funding or large organizational talents needed to run an election. These are things they should have developed first. | cmv |
I just learned of the US Pirate Party, and I think it's great. CMV | This is a political party that is entirely centered around one issue : intellectual property and piracy. Without even delving into the moral and economic issues with piracy, don't you think a political party needs to have a broader set of values? They've listed a few token opinions on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control, but beyond that I don't really see a platform on which they're running. | cmv |
I just learned of the US Pirate Party, and I think it's great. CMV | The Pirate Party is fantastic! They have all the right ideas. The only issue is that they are focused too much on a very narrow spectrum of politics, but that can be changed Maybe you can start that change? | cmv |
I think it is morally reprehensible to bring a handicapped or physically / mentally deformed child into the world. CMV | One the surface it seems reasonable to keep genetic problems from being passed on, theory of evolution and all that. Here is my issue though. Even people with disabilities can bring something to society. A child with a bad leg can still become a great engineer. A mentally challenged child might still be an impressive athlete - think Forrest Gump and his running. If you decide to simply remove someone with a disability, then you take a chance that you are also removing the world of a great person. | cmv |
I think it is morally reprehensible to bring a handicapped or physically / mentally deformed child into the world. CMV | I agree that having a handicapped child can ruin a career - but to some people, life is more than just a career / money. A life is a life no matter whose it is and to decide whether to keep a baby on whether it is'malformed'or not is discrimination against disabled people. Furthermore, what do you classify as handicapped enough to abort? There are disabilities that are less severe than say, Downs Syndrome. If you knew your child was going to be dyslexic? Have a finger missing? Imagine you having a child with a finger missing ( that you decided to keep ) and he or she finding out that if they were, in fact, missing a hand, you would have aborted them. | cmv |
I think straight people don't belong in gay bars. CMV | You don't respond to discrimination against one group by discriminating against another. Gay bars create a place where gay people can be at home and where homophobes are unwelcome. However, an exclusively gay bar is just as wrong as an exclusively straight bar. It is pretty stupid for straight people to be insecure or insulted when hit on by a gay person at a bar. However, this is not a problem to be fixed by policy, but by more open communication. | cmv |
I think straight people don't belong in gay bars. CMV | Okay, lets summarize the behavior you described : Immature dumbfucks. I'm straight. I go to my local gay bar because my GF is more comfortable there, and because they have really good music. Why should immature dumbfucks ruin that for us? | cmv |
I think straight people don't belong in gay bars. CMV | A lot of my friends are gay. Many nights out they want to go to one of the local gay bars. Am I supposed to ditch my friends and make new ones just because of they sexuality? I would rather go to a " straight " pub, but as everyone drinks more and more in a night they want to make a venue change and I go with the majority vote. Then I go make even more friends leading to even more nights out at the gay bar ( haha ). I would never be creeped out by a guy hitting on me, although sometimes you have to deal with the real creeps that don't get the message even when explicitly told. Those guys normally get kicked out really quick by the owner. The owner wants everyone to feel welcome and even if I was gay would kick those creeps out because their level of harassment is too much for anyone. | cmv |
I think straight people don't belong in gay bars. CMV | Think about the money. In my experience like half the people in gay bars are straight. If that stopped, nearly half the gay bars would go out of business. Plus its just valuable to see other ways of life, I thought gay bars were gonna be like the ones in Cruising until I saw it myself. | cmv |
I think straight people don't belong in gay bars. CMV | Honestly, I've never seen straight men / women get insulted or insecure when they've been hit on someone gay. When you go to a gay bar, you know that will happen. I'm sure straight men are insecure when some random gay guy grinds up against them only because us straight guys never have to deal with that ( compared to women ). I don't think gay men even care about this issue, unless they bring homophobia. Also, gay women and men have friends that aren't gay. Why wouldn't they bring them to a venue they frequent? | cmv |
I believe that the " Cops are Pigs " and " F * CK the Police " movements are simply gross examples of white privilege. CMV | Well... You are largely ignoring the fact that these movements were not born in white communities. That pretty much invalidates the whole premise here... You are saying that you don't like white half - ass anarchists... no one does. | cmv |
Higher education now ironically counterproductive for society CMV | " higher education substantially reduces the total fertility rates of its students " For women, the term fertility rate is related to women. Higher education could cause a eugenic effect if far fewer women attended since more educated men could support bigger families. ( of course this is dependant on other contingencies like social welfare as well ) | cmv |
Higher education now ironically counterproductive for society CMV | Intelligence is based on a variety of factors, many of them a cultural rather than genetic in nature. Given that highly educated individuals tend to be educators, they transmit that culture anyways. Besides, it is higher economic status that correlates with lower fertility rates. Education is one of those things that contributes to higher economic status. | cmv |
Higher education now ironically counterproductive for society CMV | Relevant XKCD Success in education has many contributing factors, and I'm not convinced that genetics is a particularly relevant factor. Generally speaking, income plays a very big role as well as the education level of the parents. Income is important because it opens up a lot of activities and opportunities that poor children don't don't have access to. You might be able to make a case that we have too many people going to college, but that has more to do with the job markets and such, not with genetics. | cmv |
I believe the NSA will blackmail enough politicians to get the Patriot Act renewed in 2015. Somebody please CMV. | The NSA is not the main driver of Patriot Act policies. If anything, their actions are simply enabled and encouraged by its continuing renewal. I don't know what feedback you get personally, but up until this recent kerfuffle, a strong majority supported the U. S. government's efforts to prevent terrorism, saying they didn't go far enough!. That may have changed, but some responses to other questions muddy the waters on whether Americans think all the liberties sacrificed in the last 12 years need to be restored, or whether they're just mad about PRISM and PRISM alone. I don't think representatives or senators have any sort of mandate to repeal the Patriot Act, thus I don't think it necessitates an agency's dirty tricks to preserve the status quo. | cmv |
I believe the NSA will blackmail enough politicians to get the Patriot Act renewed in 2015. Somebody please CMV. | I hope I'll be proven wrong, but, due to the general apathy of the public, The Patriot Act will be renewed. It's just what happens in America. That being said, I simply don't see anyway they will think it would be beneficial or even possible to attempt to use unlawful tactics. Politicians will bang their fists and assure us that intrusions on privacy could not and will not happen, the debate will be bigger than the Zimmerman story, and their might be changes made,'to move us in the right direction.'That being said, I think NSA officials know they are being watched, and quite frankly, they are not Big Brother. They never will be Big Brother, even if we want to paint this story black and white, good and evil. It's probably not even in their power to use unlawful tactics, unless the President directly ordered it. They might dramatize the story, call their opposition naïve, and they will make a huge deal about it. But, they will not use many, if any unlawful tactics to renew The Patriot Act. | cmv |
I think that if firemen die putting out a fire started by an arsonist, their deaths should be viewed as manslaughter and not murder. CMV. | The man who sets the fire intentionally knows people will arrive to put it out. He knows he is purposely putting people in harm's way. It's the equivalent of setting a trap for someone. It is murder. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | First of all, the main reason that they are in the same alphabet soup is because they're part of the community. LGBTIQetc isn't really a philosophical movement, it's a loosely - defined group, and trans people are in that group. It's a place they found acceptance, and they started influencing the community while also being influenced by the rest of the community. That's all that matters, really. They are also subject to a lot of the same criticisms, have a lot of the same opponents, have a lot of the same problems. They often live essentially the same lives as people in the gay community, excluding the gay sex part. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | From a slightly different perspective : The LGBTQ community was created in part by homophobes. The community is a sort of reactionary safe space and place to escape. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people are largely held as interchangeable by homophobes due their challenging of norms by virtue of their existence. Just because you, as a gay man, are aware of how different your individual issues are, it doesn't speak to societal perception. Given that : there really is no reason to make transsexuals create their own movement given their extreme minority status. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | The movement isn't necessarily for your specific flavor of alternative lifestyle but rather is a broad umbrella encompassing several commonly discriminated against sexual variations. So while the experiences of these people are much different from your own the basis of the discrimination against them is not all that different. It is my understanding that the similarities involved in their treatment also fostered a certain sense of cohesion when the movement was initially gaining momentum, but I may be wrong there. It could also be argued that although there are large differences in expression all groups under the LGBT aegis are discriminated against due to a sexuality they did not choose and should not be prevented from actualizing. This might be similar to there forming an anti - racism movement forming between Hispanics and Black people. Obviously their day to day and culture are very different, but the overall themes are shared. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | I want to mention that if you like men or women and are trans you are largely seen as gay by either yourself or the greater community. If a person is FtM and likes women, much of the time their family and the people who know they are trans but don't fully respect their gender identity see them as gay. If they are FtM but like men, they see themselves as gay, and would be part of this community because of that. ( much of the time these people aren't fully welcome into the LGBT community because they'aren't truly gay '. Hell separate from that, people usually experience similar or even the exact same situations when'coming out of the gay or trans closet '. Half the time trans people come out it is to misunderstanding parents. " Oh, my son is gay because he likes to wear women's clothes. " Rather than my child is trans. Trans youths get pushed out of their homes because of the exact same reasons as gay ones. Understanding that much of the situations of being gay and being trans are similar goes to show how they should be included under the same umbrella. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | Someone's born a Man or Woman, but deep inside they know they're a Woman or Man. If they're attracted to Men they're a gay / bi Male, Straight / Bi Female. If they're attracted to Women they're a Straight / Bi Male, Lesbian / Bi Female. Regardless, they ARE part of the LGB aspects, however they have their own issues which sets them apart from the first 3 groups. They also face the same opposition as LGB people, actually generally more so than original gender LGB folks. Same with Transvestites. This is the reason for the T. Because they are / were all queer at some point and could use the support of a community. Hope that clarifies things. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | The LGBT ( Q ) community is, in my opinion, about standing up for the rights of those who are of a sexual minority. That is to say those who are not cisgendered and heterosexual which modern western society calls " the norm " and the discrimination experienced by these groups all stems from the same branch of ignorance and all has the same cure : Education. Helping the general population understand that gender and sexuality are not binaries solves a tremendous number of issues regarding bigotry, discrimination, and hate. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | I haven't seen this reason put forward yet : A transsexual person will either be attracted to someone of the same sex before transitioning or afterwards. So at the very least, transsexual people should be included in the LGBT movement. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | Ultimately, the LGBT initialism has extended beyond just addressing homosexuality, and gone beyond that, which is why most people stick with LGBTQ ( Adding Queer / Questioning ), LGBTQ + ( To add all minorities related to sex / sexuality ) or GSM ( Gender + Sexual Minorities, as a more all - encompassing term ). You are allowed to choose what you want from the initialism, but for a lot of people, this movement is about acceptance of all sexualities and sexual orientations, not just sexual orientation based on the same sex. The argument goes that the movement is meant to be liberation beyond all sexual pretenses, meaning you don't need to care about who anyone loves or what anyone identifies as. If you don't want to associate with the trans movement, then ultimately you are only trying to fix your own problem, even though, by extension, the movement can help so many other people. Your mistake is believeing the movement is solely about having a preference to the same sex / gender, when it's really about acceptance of all gender identities, sexual orientations, and sexes. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | Homophobes will target and hate trans people from the same place they hate gay and lesbian people, because to most homophobes, there's no difference. Do you think a vigilant homophobe would respect a trans woman's identity and consider her a straight woman? No way. To many people, trans women are still gay men. Perception of the gay community is so delusional that it's not uncommon for homophobes to group all gay men into " men that want to be women ". To them, trans women are just really extremely gay men. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | Not my personal view but one many people will have : A gay man who plays the more feminine role in the relationship is the same as a MtF transsexual, just a slightly less extreme version. Now like I said, I don't believe that, but people do and it is for that reason that the community needs to incorporate both and keep a distinction between them as they are fighting to change the minds of the same group of people. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | Because a lot of the issues intersect and it's better for us to lobby as one group instead of many. Some consider it a fight for the rights of " Gender and Sexual minorities " which encapsulates all sexualities, all biological sexes and all genders that aren't in - line with the main. It makes the argument for civil rights that much more powerful because we fight together. It's also that many people who are transgender are also homosexual or bisexual. So, for instance, a transgender woman might like women and so when they were male they would be considered " straight " and when they were female they would be considered " gay " | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | The movement is a way to lump alternative sexual identities together and say they're normal. It doesn't matter if its attraction. The very nature of someone changing their sex and still being straight with a new sex IS an alternate sexuality. So it's absolutely relevant. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.