summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | The short answer is that they are discriminated against in nearly the same way for the same reasons by the same people, probably to an even greater extent than the rest of the community. This is honestly why I like when I see S added to it. LGBTSA. It's not about who or what you are, its about changing the situation for the better for everyone involved. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | Both are very closely tied to gender norms. That's also why they're allied with ( mainstream ) feminism. Both also tend to have similar opposition, the religious right. So, common problems and common solutions would be what I think ties them together. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | The LGBT community isn't meant to have something to do with sexual orientation, but rather whether or not people are discriminated against because of their sexuality. You can look at it this way : The traditional'Bible - friendly'equation for a relationship is a man + a woman. You, on the other hand, have changed this equation to fit your sexual orientation : a man + a man. Transgenders have also changed this traditional relationship equation to fit their sexual wants, except they have changed both their side equation and their partners : making'a man + a woman'into'a woman + a man.'So really, transgenders are a part of LGBT community because they are discriminated against because of their wanting or being in an unorthodox relationship, just like a homosexual or a bisexual would be. | cmv |
I cannot see any reason for the " T " in the LGBT movement. CMV | Well basically it has a lot to do with challenging gender roles. It goes against people's perception of gender that I dress like a woman ( and will soon be getting surgical adjustments ) and am pansexual. I could go with feminists, but a subset of them wants to exterminate trans folk, so I keep arms length. The lgbtq community is really the only one that seems like it could help. I wonder how long it will be before / u / Jess | cmv |
I believe the Supreme Court Justices decide cases based on how they feel then use the Constitution to justify it, versus trying to determine what the Constitution says about an issue. CMV | The constitution is amazingly vague. How do you apply a standard like " unreasonable search " to a specific encounter between a police officer and a citizen without leaving yourself open to the charge you level? I think most or all justices are engaging in a good faith attempt to interpret the words of the constitution, but in some instances they have divergent views on what that means. Also, how do you explain the fact that a large percentage of SCOTUS decisions are 9 - 0 or 8 - 1? It is commonly accepted that there are significant ideological differences among the justices, yet they agree much more often than they disagree. Here are statistics of the 2012 term, for example. Every justice was in the majority at least 78 % of the time. Justices agree on cases much more often than they disagree, but the media reports almost exclusively on close cases, so most people have a very skewed perception of the court. | cmv |
I believe the Supreme Court Justices decide cases based on how they feel then use the Constitution to justify it, versus trying to determine what the Constitution says about an issue. CMV | Your title seems to be inconsistent with your post. Oliver Wendell Holmes preached judicial restraint not because of anything the Constitution says, but because he believed that was the pragmatic approach. Holmes would never be considered an originalist or textualist ( also, nobody is a Constitutional textualist, just so you're aware ). Frankly, I have a hard time understanding what you're trying to argue. Constitutional textualism ( or are you advocating originalism? ) does not require judicial restraint, at least vis a vis Congress. In fact, given that the Constitution explicitly says the federal government is one of limited powers, it would seem to require the opposite. | cmv |
I believe the Supreme Court Justices decide cases based on how they feel then use the Constitution to justify it, versus trying to determine what the Constitution says about an issue. CMV | " It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choice. " That's true. It is the supreme court's job, however, to protect the rights of people who don't have a political choice - the minority. If you look at the flag burning cases, Texas v. Johnson for example, you'll notice that many of the justices deplored what the petitioner did. But, they ruled against the statutes prohibiting flag burning, and reaffirmed that the 1st amendment can only be abridged in several narrow cases and frameworks. If you could cite some specific cases you have a problem with, then maybe we can discuss how the justice's opinions affected their judgment ( and whether constitutional justifications were only post - hoc rationalizations. ) | cmv |
I believe the Supreme Court Justices decide cases based on how they feel then use the Constitution to justify it, versus trying to determine what the Constitution says about an issue. CMV | The fact of the matter is that the Constitution alone isn't enough to rule on anything. They Supreme Court HAS to look at other things, such as what kind of precedent it sets, how previous cases have been decided, and how it interacts with laws. Moreover they bring moral and ethical systems with them when they join the court, and these are carefully vetted before they join the court. In short, of course they aren't just using the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that they are doing whatever it is that they feel like. More accurately they are applying a complex system of ethics, laws, and expected reactions to come out with an effective ruling. While things often look inconsistent from a my perspective, much of that is because I don't know the laws and expected reactions to rulings. If I knew what they knew then it would likely see the patterns much more clearly. | cmv |
The clearly inefficient Federal government processes must be that way for a reason CMV | Can you state your opinion clearly? Any large organization has a lot of bloat and a lot of mistakes. The government just happens to be very big and it's a company everyone recognizes. But if you look at the inner workings of any large company, there's a ton of waste and a lot of bad decisions. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | The second hand smoke that comes from cigarettes is harmful to the public, obesity is not. Thats why we live in the country we do. Is to be free. The life choices of others are none of anyones business. What they eat or how they go about feeding their children is none of the publics business. Granted, people need to educate themselves on the matter. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | I have struggled with my weight for years. When I was a child, I was tortured, brainwashed, and molested from age 3 - 17. Obviously one of my coping mechanisms was and is food. My point is that I don't go around telling everyone what happened and I shouldn't have to justify why I have a problem. You never know what someone has dealt with or is dealing with. It would be pure cruelty for someone to tell me I am not trying or just lazy. I survived and I am probably stronger emotionally than most thin people who have complete control of their eating habits. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | Assuming that your goal is for a generally healthier population, are you sure shame / stigma is the most effective attitude for our society to take in order to achieve this goal? Analogously, should we re - introduce the dunce cap? When a student can't do as many pull - ups as his peers, should he be mocked by his gym teacher? I think ( hope! ) there are more effective techniques than stigmatizing. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | Obese people are considered beautiful in some countries. I don't believe you happen to be from one of those places. The ability to store calories you don't immediately use is a biological adaptation to survive when food is relatively scarce. Some people are better at storing fat than others. We all do it, or we'd be dead. Now according to your view it means you must seriously get off on those starving kids in Africa ( so skinny ). I say let people make their own choices and stop judging them. Conversely, if you mess with me while I'm having a cigarette I'm putting it out on your forehead ( which would also happen if you tried to call me fat ). If anything you should try to be sensitive and encourage them to lose weight. If anything you would just foster the negative body image that forced them to over - eat in the first place. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | One of the biggest differences I see is that obesity, and the causes that underlie, it typically come from adolescence or even earlier. This not only makes those behaviors far more ingrained, but your metabolism actually changes. Also, changing eating / exercise habits often requires far more psychological and physical effort than quitting smoking does, and for most people requires additional money and time. If you are not also willing to provide support to people you feel should lose weight, stigmatization is just cruelty. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | It's really not socially acceptable to harass anyone. It's not your business to pass judgement on other people's lifestyle choices. Some people drink too much, smoke too much, eat too much etc. None of us are perfect. You don't know the reason why someone is fat, maybe they eat as a way of coping with other things. Besides, do you really think by telling them that it's bad for them that they will change their lives? | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | In my experience obese people are teased and stigmatized for more than smokers. SmokING is stigmatized as much as poor eating and laziness, but you can rarely tell a smoker is such unless he just had a cigarette and you can smell it. You can always tell an obese person is obese, even when they are in the process of " quitting " being obese. I was made fun of for being overweight in school. I knew really popular kids who smoked openly. The other difference is that smoking directly harms others in the vicinity, and to a non smoker cigarette smoke can be unbearable. It can potentially kill other people. An obese person having a second helping isn't really hurting anyone else directly. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | I think you might be interested in what a very obese man has to say about this very topic. Check out this five minute video. I don't agree with everything in that video, but I think it's very relevant. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | Smoking is an action but obesity is a condition. In most cases it is the result of other actions. I see no problem stigmatizing actions like smoking, unhealthy eating, and the decision not to exercise that can lead to obesity. However assuming all overweight people's condition is a result of actions or conscious choices isn't fair. Basically it's OK to stigmatize things that can lead to obesity because like smoking they're unhealthy but mocking someone's condition without the facts is wrong. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | My only issue with that - I'm not sure there is any solid ( aka not bogus ) scientific evidence that second hand smoke causes harm. Although exposing your kids to your smoking may make them more likely to smoke, I'm pretty sure there is evidence to support that. About obesity : my dad's friend has a strategy to ensure he stays at a healthy weight, although it is extreme and pretty crazy : He usually weighs around 165 and when he hits 169 he stops eating. Until he is back at 165. Nuts right? But hey it beats steadily gaining weight and encountering all the problems that go along with it. It's not exactly something you could recommend to someone that's already obese, or any person fearful of putting on weight ; almost no one possesses that kind of self control. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | You believe that it's okay to harass smokers ( let's assume it is, though I don't believe it is ) and that it's not okay to harass the obese. To equalize this, why ever it would be important to do that, you would prefer that instead of people stop harassing smokers that they start harassing the obese. You're hoping for more harassment in the world instead of less. I'm curious how this would be preferable. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | In many places around the world obesity is already stigmatised. Obese people live in shame and are called horrible names. I don't know about the USA, but I would have thought it's the same. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | If you look at adoption studies which can sort by genetics ( biological parents ) and environment ( adoptive parents ) you will find that the weight of a person's biological parents affects their weight later in life much more than their adoptive parents. Here's a study that looked at over 3000 adoptees. That study even goes so far as to conclude " there was no relationship between the adoptee's weight class and the BMI of their adoptive parents. " The scientific evidence heavily points toward weight being greatly influenced by genetics, which is not a choice. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | Is there any evidence that the effects of negative stigma are helpful or could change the issue at hand? For all we know this kind of stigma could lead to adverse effects or make the issue worse. If you can give me peer reviewed evidence suggesting that stigmatizing the obese could lead to a decline in overeating and unhealthy lifestyles then I'll consider this a valid point, but until then it just seems cruel and ineffectual. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | The only issue this that smoking is 100 % a choice, ( in the beginning anyways ) Some people are overweight for legitimate health reasons. My friend was born diabetic and he is overweight, not because he over eats, but because he has to eat a lot of sugar in order to stay sane and as a result, he is overweight. Not much he can do about it either. | cmv |
I believe obesity ( as a result of overeating and lack of exercise ) should be stigmatized in the same way smoking is. CMV | Smoking was stigmatized over the years as the tobacco industry became more accountable for how they advertise and when laws were passed regarding second hand smoke in public. Smoking can be discreet, life - long, short - term or anything in between. Public smoking is harmful to others health which is in my opinion, mostly why it carries the stigma. Obesity is a result of long - term variables that are personal and have no direct impact on the health of others. Apples and oranges, IMHO. Our society is good at letting things go as " personal choice " until it crosses some imaginary line, then the vultures come in to feast in judgement, which seems to be what this post is about. | cmv |
I Believe The System Of Lawyers In Courts As It Exists Should Be Replaced By Arbiters, CMV | You would essentially give the arbiter the ability to singlehandedly decide trials. Take a case in which, under an adversarial system, two differing theories of what occurred would be offered by the prosecution and the defense. For the sake of argument, say that neither of these theories is immediately easily falsifiable. In a normal court case, prosecutor and defender would attempt to provide evidence for each of their theories through questioning witnesses, calling in experts, presenting exhibits, etc. How would this work with an arbiter? Would they be required to invent separate theories, one that favored the defense and the other the prosecution? What if only one theory was good? What if the arbiter thought that only one theory was good? | cmv |
I Believe The System Of Lawyers In Courts As It Exists Should Be Replaced By Arbiters, CMV | Arbiters would never provide balanced representation, they would present the case that they want to present. How would that go for people that aren't particularly likable? The current system takes one person and tells them to find the guy guilty and take another and tells them to find the guy innocent. Then the hearings and trial are about who wins. An arbiter doing both would decide which evidence is seen, what theories as to what actually happened would be heard. Instead of one side hiring a better lawyer you open the possibility of corruption where the arbiter's friends and families get benefits independent from any specific case in exchange for simply not trying as hard. If anything this would likely save the wealthy money rather than being more fair. | cmv |
I Believe The System Of Lawyers In Courts As It Exists Should Be Replaced By Arbiters, CMV | I think this system would actually exacerbate the problem you are trying to solve. Right now, the situation is a wealthy person hires a'good'lawyer and goes up against a poor person who has a'bad'lawyer. In your system, a wealthy person would go up against the poor person directly, except that he has his'private lawyer'draw up his litigation documents and educate him on the law and effective legal techniques. Meanwhile the poor person takes a bus from his crummy job to the courtroom and does not really know how to research the law regarding his case and effectively advocate for himself. I think the difference in skill and effectiveness between a'good'lawyer and a'bad'lawyer is smaller than the difference between the prepared / educated party and the poor party would be in your world. Or just imagine how it would be if a poor person found himself with a claim against a rich lawyer! Also, how would your system apply to non - human entities such as corporations? They are quite often the ones with teams of lawyers in our current system. Would you require them to only hire non - lawyers to represent them in court? What about someone who went to law school but has not been admitted to the bar? | cmv |
CMV Women should be able to breastfeed in public without fear of judgement or being kicked out of public locations. | Well, restaurants are not public places, they can kick people out for any or no reason, unless the law specifically says otherwise. On public property, the reverse is true. You can't kick anyone out unless the law specifically says otherwise. That said, I have no problem with breastfeeding, and don't really think nudity in general should be socially unacceptable. | cmv |
I support a cure for homosexuality. CMV. | Do you not think it is hypocritical to propose " preventing or curing " homosexuality while at the same time claiming that you don't advocate mistreating them? The underlying message is that something is inherently wrong with them and they need to be " fixed. " I think that is in - and - of - itself mistreatment, although I'm almost sure you'd disagree. There are so many good things scientists and doctors are working on to help ensure infants are born healthy and I think they should continue to focus on those diseases rather than spend time and resources trying to " cure " something that needs no cure. You don't have to like homosexuality, hell you don't even have to " agree " it, but I do think you need to practice tolerance. Tolerance is important. | cmv |
I support a cure for homosexuality. CMV. | Let's say hypothetically that in the process of discovering how to do this, scientists also discovered how to convert a straight fetus into a gay one. Should parents be allowed to do that as well? If not, why? | cmv |
I believe that punishment should be based on the action taken alone, and the consequences should have absolutely no bearing on it. CMV. | This idea gets a little bit messy in practice, because luck and circumstances play a role in virtually all actions. In your drunk driving example, how would you punish someone who intends to drive drunk but passes out before they start the car? Or what about someone who intends to drive drunk, but then is offered a ride by a good samaritan? Are they as bad as the person who managed to drive drunk? If not, it seems like you are giving them the benefit of the doubt due to consequences outside of their control, which goes against your guiding principle. If we knew with certainty that they were going to drive drunk before they got lucky, should we still punish them? We generally stick to consequences rather than intent and potential consequences because there's such a massive disparity in action and consequences based on events outside of our control. | cmv |
I believe that punishment should be based on the action taken alone, and the consequences should have absolutely no bearing on it. CMV. | The problem with your example is that you're lumping everything together as one act ; it's not. Drunk Person A : Has a BAC of. 16 ( twice the legal limit ), gets into a wreck on the way home and kills a child. Drunk Person B : Has a BAC of. 16 and makes it home okay. In both cases, the punishment for the drunk driving would be the same, however, Person A also committed additional crimes. It's the same as if a person robbed a bank and ended up killing a bank teller. Would you only punish them for the robbery and not the murder that occurred because of it? | cmv |
I believe that punishment should be based on the action taken alone, and the consequences should have absolutely no bearing on it. CMV. | You're saying the punishments for drunk driving and for accidentally killing someone while drunk driving. Are you saying that the punishment for drunk driving should be as severe as the punishment for killing someone while drunk driving? Or are you saying that the punishment for killing someone while drinking driving should be as lenient as for just drunk driving? | cmv |
I don't think that people who view child porn are responsible for the harm caused by the sexual abuse of the children in the images. CMV | But if nobody watched it, nobody would produce it. And it seems you know it. There are three types of free content in the Internet : 1. You pay by just visiting a site ( usually different kinds of ads, sometimes more sophisticated ways ). 2. Authors are amateurs and seek for attention instead of money. 3. Authors get money from some other source, but it is important to give something for free to get these money. All three ways are easily prevented by just not consuming this content. PS. A long time ago I read in wikipedia that some pedophiles can switch from actual child porn to lolicon. I don't know if it is true. | cmv |
I don't think that people who view child porn are responsible for the harm caused by the sexual abuse of the children in the images. CMV | Hi First I would like to point out that child porn is made mainly by amateur which they share across in public / private forum. This is then index and save by syndicates which perpetuate the film. The nature of it being amateur means the perpetrator is mainly part of the family. Sharing the product in forums mainly as a way to garner fame have the unfortunate effect of others trying to mimic them to get said fame / recognition. Worst, in private forums, access to such materials require one to produce such material themselves as a mean of screening. This encourages those who are on the fence to become perpetrator themselves. Sharing the materials also leads other trying to one - up the original leading to more abuse for the child. For instance, indecent pictures would lead to lewd acts forced upon the child. Hope that would convince you. | cmv |
I don't think that people who view child porn are responsible for the harm caused by the sexual abuse of the children in the images. CMV | The police telling them what happened is absolutely not the cause of the pain. That is absurd. It's not just heartless but deluded. It's a consent issue. They can't consent to be in or distribute those images. | cmv |
Support of government is the support of violence. CMV | I'm going to change tack and I'd like to ask a couple questions to get a better understanding of your beliefs. 1 ) Do you think that an area without laws would result in fewer instances of violence? Fewer murders, rapes, muggings, burglaries, etc. Specifically instances where either someone is harmed or there's the threat of harm. 2 ) What's your goal for trying to avoid violence? For example, I can understand a religious reason, and to that end support of governance is, ultimately, a support of violence. 3 ) What's more important to you : Not supporting preventative violence, i. e. people who commit murders and likely to commit future murders not being incarcerated, or supporting the idea that self - defense is the ONLY acceptable form of violence? That is, you can only defend yourself from a person when they're actively trying to murder or otherwise harm you. | cmv |
Support of government is the support of violence. CMV | You realize you only get to say this because your government is currently protecting you from bandits, thieves, murders, terrorists, foreign armies who might want to kill all of your families and enslave you to do their work. The original existence of societies was for people to form together and defend themselves from external threats. Overtime societal rules begin to form to allow people to co - exist peacefully within the society. Today's government is a complicated version of this simple society. But it still functions the same way. Except a whole lot less violent than it used to be. A government has no use unless it has the force to protect it's existence, which is both protecting itself from foreign threats as well as enforcing the laws that it's citizen has submitted themselves to. | cmv |
Support of government is the support of violence. CMV | Sure, but having this group of people with the ( m | r ) ight to tax me means that, all else being equal, it's in their interest to prevent other people attempting to stake a similar claim. Maybe a given government means less violence overall ( although I can't say this for mine ). Maybe " No government " doesn't last. | cmv |
Support of government is the support of violence. CMV | You forgot the role of money in the elections. So, the pols work for them that bought them. And then there is the role of secrecy, so that we don't / can't know what they are doing. Even the info in the public domain is so complex and couched in legalese that the average man cannot understand it. You need the money to hire a lawyer to survive. | cmv |
Support of government is the support of violence. CMV | I believe your criticism would only genuinely hold water if the government of the land you live in does something to prevent you from leaving because you dislike its nature. You might dispute the government's legitimacy on some fundamental ideological grounds, but so long as they don't endeavor to do so in some way, they can't keep you there. You're always free to leave. Democratic governments operate on the basis of the consent of the governed. People entrust the state with the monopoly on force because they feel their lives are better in that scenario than if force is wielded on a " might makes right " basis. However, nothing stops you from leaving a country whose government you have ideological differences with. And really, isn't that the fairest choice in the end? You'd want to demolish a government that enjoys the assent of millions or even hundreds of millions of its people just to address your personal grievances, when you personally could just as easily leave to address those concerns without challenging the preferences of those hundreds of millions? | cmv |
Support of government is the support of violence. CMV | This really depends on what you mean by " support of violence. " Does protecting people from violent crime by being violent towards criminals count as the " support of violence? " If that's the case, I don't see why you'd single government out. It's hard to do anything in this world, with or without governments, that doesn't incur some violence as a consequence. If you mean that supporting government creates violence where none or less would otherwise exist that's at best half true : governments often create violence and conflict. This isn't an intrinsic property of government, however. The rule of law is not propaganda ( though there is much propaganda about it ), it exists to provide a less biased way than the whims of rulers to resolve preexisting common human conflicts. The purpose of government is to reduce violence by leveraging the power of a state monopoly on lethal force against non - state sources of violence : the purpose of state violence is to provide the ultimate deterrent against private violence. Functionally, states do many other things that contribute to violence but these are not definitional consequences of the fact that they are democratic governments with laws and law enforcement officers. A minarchist government is still a government, for instance. | cmv |
Support of government is the support of violence. CMV | Your view is accurate. However, society is inherently voilent in this way. Any alternative to government would involve more violence. It would allow particular individuals born into wealth to be immune to and ignorant of this voilence, but those born without would inescapably experience exponentially more of this violence. And of course an alternative involving no society at all would involve actual active and constant physical violence on top of the violence you describe above. In conclusion, if one uses such a liberal definition of'violence'then there is no human society devoid of it ; and in fact a government by the people for the people with taxes and laws is the path of least violence. | cmv |
I think the pro - choice argument that women have the right to their own body is fallicious CMV. | Even if you decide that the fetus is a separate body with a separate " personhood " and rights I don't see how this would effect someone's right to remove it from their body. The goal isn't to kill a fetus. The goal is to get it out, which people are well within their " rights " to do. It just so happens that it will die when that happens. | cmv |
I think the pro - choice argument that women have the right to their own body is fallicious CMV. | Fair enough, let's assume life begins at conception. I'll even concede that the developing embryo is a separate person entitled consideration with all the rights of the rest of us. Does that include the right to dwell within the body of a second regardless of that person's opinion on the matter? I don't think that I have that right, why should I then think that a foetus has it? As a society we do indeed impose limitations upon the use of your own body, but for the most part these exist to prevent you from harming yourself or others. They don't enslave you to a third party for 9 months of your life to protect that third party's life. If we agree that a foetus has a right to life as the rest of us do, that does not extend to giving them rights over another person's body and life. Pro - life debaters tend to skip over this last step of reasoning, and merely assume it. | cmv |
I think the pro - choice argument that women have the right to their own body is fallicious CMV. | Look at it this way : If an adult human being is touching, using, and leeching off your body in a way you don't consent to, you have the right to make them stop at any point in time in self defense, even if you initially consented to it. As per normal self defense laws, you'd only be able to use as much force as necessary. If the minimum force necessary to make that person stop using your body was lethal, you would be within your rights. In the case of a fetus, the ONLY way to make it stop using your body is lethal. However, even if it's deserving of full rights, you still have the right to eject it from your body and force it to stop using it. | cmv |
I think the pro - choice argument that women have the right to their own body is fallicious CMV. | The view seems to be to be that where life begins is a tricky moral issue, with no absolute answer. It is the right of the people involved to make such moral choice. It is not the right of the government. | cmv |
I believe that the actions of Palestinian terrorists are essential to the peace process. Please CMV | The problem is that Palestinian terrorism has been slowly disappearing for the last decade, and it hasn't moved Israel any closer to the negotiating table. Many right wing Israelis argue that the Wall and other draconian measures are the only thing to thank for a decrease in terrorist activities, ignoring the cooperation of PA security forces with the Israeli government to combat terror. So no matter what happens, they will manage to fit it into their hawkish narrative of paranoia and hatred. More terrorism simply means, " See, we can't trust them. " Less terrorism means, " See, our methods of combating terror are working. " In the second case, however, hardcore Likudniks and other right wingers have a harder time making a case when their is a lack of violence. Think about it. If the Palestinians stated a widespread peaceful resistance movement, what could Israeli hawks do? How could they deal with it? They know how to deal with violence ( more violence ), but a large peaceful protest movement would pose a huge challenge to their ideology. | cmv |
I believe that the actions of Palestinian terrorists are essential to the peace process. Please CMV | If Israel's favorable position is secured by its relationships to western powers, the Palestinian's goal should be to undermine that relationship. Terrorism is a decidedly bad method of gaining western favor. Considering that Israel is generally drifting towards radicalism ( with large portions already fundamentally opposed to a two state solution ), it would seem that those tactics aren't having the effect you suggest. | cmv |
I believe that the actions of Palestinian terrorists are essential to the peace process. Please CMV | Is it working? No? Then how can you call it " necessary "? ( If your answer to this is " Without these acts of terrorism, Israel would have already done X ", then you'll have to be able to back that up with some evidence, showing that it is precisely these acts of terrorism that has prevented Israel from doing X. ) | cmv |
I believe that the actions of Palestinian terrorists are essential to the peace process. Please CMV | This brings to mind the one - liner " If the Palestinians lay down their guns there would be no war ; if the Israelis lay down their guns there would be no Israel. " If the Palestinians stop blowing up innocent people ( and using children as human shields, propagating every negative stereotype towards their religion, dragging their people and culture back to medieval times, etc. ) the Israelis would happily come to the negotiating table. The Israelis would gain nothing but international opprobrium if they oppress a peaceful population. | cmv |
I believe that the actions of Palestinian terrorists are essential to the peace process. Please CMV | Throughout the 20th and into the 21st century, non - violent resistance has a much greater success rate than violence. It is exceedingly difficult to get people on your side when your primary tool is violence, particularly violence against civilians. From a tactical standpoint, a two state solution is more likely if there is less terrorism than if there is more. Violence radicalises and it makes sympathy harder. Since being a new nation requires international recognition, it matters what the world thinks of you. Do you think Nelson Mandela would be viewed nearly the same way if he had led an armed insurrection? Why do you think things are different in Israel / Palestine today than they were in Apartheid South Africa? | cmv |
I don't think voter apathy is wrong at all CMV | Let's say I've got a piece of trash. I could throw it on the side of the road, or I could hold onto it until I can throw it away properly. It's just a single, small piece of trash. It's not going to really matter to anyone, ever, if I throw it on the side of the road. My single decision about this single piece of trash will never have any important impact, probably. Ok, it may only take me a minute to deal with my trash while your vote may take you a couple hours. But I actually think the time spent is pretty equivalent, because you only have opportunities to vote once or twice a year, but you deal with trash every day. Both arguments rely on the same perception of the system : because most / enough people behave the correct way, my own individual decision doesn't really matter. | cmv |
I don't think voter apathy is wrong at all CMV | In the 2012 election 38 million voted for Romney and 41 million for Obama but 90 million people who could have voted didn't. The problem here is that people who don't think that voting matters don't have any representation. If you all organized you could really use your dominance to really teach those who do believe in voting a lesson. An American version of the UK's Monster Raving Loony Party. | cmv |
I don't think voter apathy is wrong at all CMV | Your argument of " 1 vote doesn't matter " would be valid if you knew the exact results before you voted. This is assuming the 999, 999 / 1, 000, 000 chance that the election will be decided by more than one vote - if your state ends up with a 500, 000 - 500, 000 result, yours could have been the one that flipped the election to the other candidate. Sure, you may only have a 1 in a million chance of that happening, but that chance will make a million people do what you want for a few years. | cmv |
I don't think voter apathy is wrong at all CMV | Don´t vote if you don´t want to. You are only one person, but if everybody starts thinking that way, you won´t be alone for long. I assume you see the problematic in that. There are people who don´t vote, because they don´t like any partie. You just don´t vote because you are lazy. Imagine everybody would do that, or even 25 % would just not go voting because they´re lazy. The outcome wouldn´t be representative. In my opinion you can stay at home if you want to, but it is important that your friend has his opinion, to stop everyone from following in your track. If everybody having your opinion would decide to go vote, the outcome would absolutely change. So the quest isn´t to convice you, it is to convince every not - voter. | cmv |
I believe mainstream media should not defend political government parties but instead, it should defend the people. CMV | I disagree. I like that certain networks are aligned or opposed to certain political parties. You can get insider quotes from Republicans on Fox News ( as they are friendly with people of the same politics ) and you can get reports on the bad doings of Democrats. With almost every other news network you can get insider quotes from Democrats and reports on the bad doings of Republicans. If I want news for the people I can just use online news sources. But there are clear advantages to having politically biased news agencies. | cmv |
I believe racial profiling works. CMV | It doesn't. They have done empirical studies looking at this and it is results in resources being used in the wrong places. Bottom line there are better ways to go about tackling problems. Source : I'm a criminology major with an emphasis on race and drugs and their relation to crime. | cmv |
I believe racial profiling works. CMV | You might consider the Israeli example. They are under a much more persistent and realistic security threat than any western country and they don't profile by race ( though racial distinctions are pronounced enough that they could ). Instead, they profile everybody based on demeanor and deviation from the norm. In other words, if someone looks shifty, uncomfortable and out of place, they probably are. This generally leads them to disregard granny in the wheelchair, but nobody else who might be a threat. One of the reasons they do this instead of profiling all Arabs is that they realized that increased scrutiny on a specific demographic only increases the likelihood that you will catch someone in that demographic. At the same time, you make yourself vulnerable to anyone not in that demographic. You really just make it less likely that you'll find the smart ones. | cmv |
I believe racial profiling works. CMV | [ – ] EvilNalu8 Black people are much more likely to be investigated or targeted by police. When arrested and tried, because of systematic biases in the criminal justice system, they are more likely to be convicted and more likely to receive longer sentences than white people who commit similar crimes. This leads to a high incarceration rate that does not necessarily indicate a similarly high rate of criminal activity. What you are doing then is using the effects of this systematic bias to justify more bias - creating a vicious circle. | cmv |
I believe racial profiling works. CMV | Sure it works, in the short term. The only problem is that it alienates and vilifies a huge part of the population. This in turn creates a self fulfilling prophecy that is hard to break out of. A short while ago there was a debate in this sub about prejudice against Gypsies. I don't see how this is any different. It's a short sighted solution with devastating long term effects. Furthermore, I suspect it's often used as a convenient excuse for outright racists to treat their " inferiors " with contempt. | cmv |
I believe racial profiling works. CMV | Ok, so you are actually begging the question here in that : you're presupposing that race green commits more crime this leads you to think racial profiling has utility you assume you will then catch more criminals ( as they are mostly green ) | cmv |
I believe racial profiling works. CMV | A couple of points : 1. You are going to find crime where you look, but not where you don't look. That doesn't mean crime isn't occurring where you are not looking, just that you won't see it. 2. In American law, we are guaranteed both equal protection and a presumption of innocence. Racial profiling is the opposite of those things. A black man is treated differently ( i. e. more likely to be harassed by police ) because of his race, which violates equal protection. It also creates a situation where black men are presumed to be less innocent than white men. You are searching someone because of a presumption of guilt, not a presumption of innocence. If point two - - the foundation of our rule of law - - means anything, then it doesn't matter whether racial profiling works. It is as illegal as anything you would catch. | cmv |
I believe racial profiling works. CMV | I have yet to see any empirical evidence that racial profiling works in law enforcement. Furthermore, reports are emerging that in the case of the stop & frisk rules of NYC, they are an epic failure, in terms of effectiveness. Also.. racial profiling does contribute a certain breakdown in social cohesion.. which, just cant be good for law & order. | cmv |
I believe racial profiling works. CMV | Coincidentally, I just read this debate between Sam Harris and Bruce Schneier, about whether or not profiling works. Neither point is view is perfect, but the debate gives some great insight into both perspectives. Definitely recommended for people on either side of the issue. | cmv |
I believe racial profiling works. CMV | I'm not here to change your view, but rather to give another real life example of how this does work for law enforcement. In a fairly wealthy neighborhood near where I live, the residents have a habit of calling the police when they see a Black man walking through the neighborhood ( So, obviously I agree with OP that profiling isn't necessarily moral because that's a pretty racist thing to do ). HOWEVER, the police do respond to these calls in this neighborhood, and 9 times out of 10, they end up catching a criminal as a direct result of the resident's profiling them as a criminal strictly because of the color of their skin. It may make you sick to think about, but it clearly works for these people. | cmv |
I believe racial profiling works. CMV | Racial profiling is only as effective as races are congruent in terms of behavior. Why should we assume ( as you do ) that profiling based on race is the most efficacious way to categorize people? Perhaps other factors are better predictors of criminal behavior ; maybe people who wear Oakland Raiders jerseys commit crimes at a higher rate than those wearing San Francisco 49ers jerseys ( which I suspect to be true ). Should we scrutinize the Raiders fans more because of this statistic? My only point here is that we shouldn't automatically assume that race is the best predictor of criminal propensity. | cmv |
I believe that short of genocide, there is no solution to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, CMV. | Leaving aside the larger national problems, what is wrong with the current compromise on the Temple Mount / Al Aqsa Mosque / Western Wall? The current status quo is that the Palestinian Waqf has full control over the Temple Mount, including the Al - Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, and Israel currently permits it to ban non - Muslims from entering that area. Meanwhile, Israel controls the Western Wall. Why is that not a good compromise? Sure, there are minor issues such as the Waqf destroying some archaeologically significant parts of the buried Temple... but archaeologists wouldn't really ever be allowed to dig up there anyway. Or such as Jews not being permitted to visit the Temple Mount... but Orthodox Rabbis had cautioned against going up there even when it was permitted, for fear of accidentally walking on the Holy of Holies. So what's the problem with the status quo there? | cmv |
I believe that short of genocide, there is no solution to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, CMV. | I always thought that the reason the west is strong because they have no qualms with doing business with former symbolic enemies ( e. g. British and French, Germany and the rest of the West, America and the U. K., The U. S. and former Confederacy, etc. ). The major reason that there is no peace in the middle east is because people have qualms for the sake of having qualms. Well the current status quo in the P - I conflict is Israel waiting out the problem because they have the means to do it. The reason they're waiting out the problem is because they're scared for their national security, which is easy to see as the ruling party in Gaza, Hamas, is pretty extremist by western standards. They very, very clearly run on a platform of unadulterated hate, no Jewish state would ever trust a group whose central tenants are literally anti - Semitic. I always thought that if the Palestinians elect a group not motivated by hate for the sake of hate, then things could slowly but surely improve. Unfortunately a disillusioned post - colonial culture often suffers from tunnel vision, and many Arabs can't help but turn towards cliche conspiratorial rhetoric. Israel has no incentive to budge from the status quo, they need to be given a reason. Palestinians are the ones who want to change things. It's on the Palestinians to gain a collective self - awarness. | cmv |
I believe that short of genocide, there is no solution to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, CMV. | Israel could grant full citizenship to Palestinian nationals, and allow them state representation in Israel, allowing them to live as minority group legally ans socially equal to Israelis. While this wouldn't make all the problems go away overnight ( after all we still have race issues in the US, ) it would fix most problems. Or you know, Rock, Paper, Scissors for it. Best out of three. | cmv |
I believe that short of genocide, there is no solution to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, CMV. | When people stop understanding themselves as " Isreali " and " Palestinian ", then the conflict will be well and truly buried. Nation - states are the root cause of the problem here. Also - - those are 4 premises. | cmv |
I believe that short of genocide, there is no solution to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, CMV. | Above all, the secular majority of Israelis would like to live in a secure, democratic state. What a coincidence : so would the Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian Authority is essentially impotent. The solution is the best sort of compromise : one which all parties find tolerable but not perfect. The Israeli's can sacrifice the Jewishness of their state for security and democracy, and the Palestinians can sacrifice their dreams of nationalism for security and democracy. The only lasting solution is a one - state solution. | cmv |
I believe that short of genocide, there is no solution to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, CMV. | Easy. The right of return is more of a symbolic issue than anything else. Given the establishment of a Palestinian state, there would be a full right of return to that state for Palestinian refugees. However Israel would allow some limited number of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel and gain citizenship, and would also economically compensate others. Previous negotiations have come to this point, and so most people agree that fulfillment of the right of return will look like what I just said. | cmv |
I believe that people who travel to war - torn and oppressed areas have no right to act surprised when bad things happen to them - CMV | What is the " right to act surprised? " Where does this right arise from? Is it a natural right that all humans hold? It's certainly not a legal right. How does one exercise this right? It doesn't seem to be a right with very much value if it is merely the " right " to express or experience the emotion of surprise. Why do you care if somebody else experiences a certain emotion when a particular negative event happens to them? What is it to you if a person is surprised when they experience an event that they didn't expect to happen? | cmv |
I believe that people who travel to war - torn and oppressed areas have no right to act surprised when bad things happen to them - CMV | You're wrong because you think the exception is the norm and then judge people for that. When you follow the news you might think that Egypt is completely protesting and rioting, Dubai is completely unsafe for women, and the same goes for a country like India ( I'm assuming you think the same thing when you hear about women getting raped in India ). But you're ignoring the fact that the protests in Egypt were very localized to certain areas, the majority of women who travel to Dubai are not sexually assaulted, and that large areas of India are in fact safe to be. Your largest mistake is that you let the news ( which is biased towards sensationalism ) completely determine your view of certain areas and then judge people for the bad things that happen to them. Would you accept that if people did that to the US? Almost every day we hear about people getting shot in drug raids by the police, people getting shot by gangs, and people having gun accidents. If a tourist from Switzerland travelled to the US and ended up getting shot ( by whom doesn't even matter ) would you say the same thing? That they shouldn't be shocked to be shot when they travel to the US because they travelled to a country with vastly different cultural beliefs and you shouldn't be surprised when you get treated according to those beliefs. When you response to that is that the US is a large country and that you can travel through it without getting shot then you should realize that the same thing goes for Egypt, Dubai, and India. If you only let the news determine your view of a country you will have a very distorted view. | cmv |
I believe that people who travel to war - torn and oppressed areas have no right to act surprised when bad things happen to them - CMV | By this metric, why would anyone anywhere ever have the right to act surprised if something bad happens to them? I guess I can't be surprised if I get mugged in New York... " Bad things " are pretty rare most places. They're pretty much always a surprise. If they weren't, people aren't stupid, they really wouldn't go there. There isn't that much tourism to Somalia these days... | cmv |
I believe that people who travel to war - torn and oppressed areas have no right to act surprised when bad things happen to them - CMV | From your question I assume that you live in the US. This is the country with the highest gun violence rate in the Western world. Does it follow that if you fall victim to gun violence, you " don't get to act shocked about it "? I believe that it would still be reasonable for you to be shocked. How is that different from the travel examples you supply? | cmv |
I believe that Affirmative Action should only be implemented for one generation for each family. CMV | Why apply it to only minority families if you're going to split it along economic lines? Why not make affirmative action equally applicable to all members of a certain socioeconomic group? Also, why the generations thing? Going to university doesn't guarantee becoming rich or middle - class, just look at the current unemployment for new grads. And becoming wealthier and staying that way are two very different things. | cmv |
I believe that a woman who has gone through an abortion ( s ) cannot justifiably be anti - choice. CMV! | While you're correct that if someone performs an act that they themselves oppose, they are being a hypocrite, being a hypocrite does not mean that someone is wrong or that their stance is less valid ( it's also tu quoque to make that argument ). For example, someone can make a completely sound and reasoned argument as to why smoking is bad, but be a smoker themself. It doesn't make their argument wrong or weaker... it just means they aren't strong enough to follow it. Similarly, you could talk to a murderer in prison, and he can validly tell you that he thinks murder is bad, even though he committed it. It could even be argued that the fact that he committed it strengthens his claim about how bad it is, because he is someone with firsthand experience, unlike most people who condemn it. | cmv |
I believe that a woman who has gone through an abortion ( s ) cannot justifiably be anti - choice. CMV! | You see them as inconsistent in one way but they are consistent in another way : it's their choice to no longer support abortion. Perhaps it is that it is a choice is what makes it ethical. They are choosing that belief ( that abortion is murder ) even though their history ( and possible punishment one day ) means that they don't have to and will not gain pleasure from what they now see themselves as and might not benefit from being in the future. As far as they are concerned they are confessing to being a'murderer of a child '. I don't know why that might not be their right. | cmv |
I believe that a woman who has gone through an abortion ( s ) cannot justifiably be anti - choice. CMV! | Well, it depends. A lot of people don't fall into the extremes of " abortion is murder, life begins at conception " or " Women have the right to elective abortions up through birth ". Surveys indicate that most people fall somewhere between, viability ( commonly 24 weeks ) or pain response ( commonly 20 weeks ) for example. The person may have gotten an abortion before the time when they feel is morally wrong to do so, and oppose abortions after that time period. Furthermore, a lot of people do things when they're younger that they regret once their moral compass change. For example, you can't say someone can not be justifiably against drunk driving when they drove after having a few beers as a teenager, or someone can't be justifiably against heroin if they took it when they were young. | cmv |
I believe that a woman who has gone through an abortion ( s ) cannot justifiably be anti - choice. CMV! | What if she felt traumatized by her abortion, and she regretted it deeply. Could she then be anti - choice out of not wanting others to go through the same thing? Not saying she would be correct in her reasoning. I'm just saying a scenario like that wouldn't necessarily make her a hypocrite | cmv |
I believe that a woman who has gone through an abortion ( s ) cannot justifiably be anti - choice. CMV! | If you were to accept the baseline idea that abortion is equivalent to murder ( which I don't, but some anti - abortion advocates do ), then you would basically be saying a murderer should not be allowed to oppose murder. As long as you take responsibility within your own rules by admitting your abortion was wrong, your position is morally consistent. So if these women have come to a point where they believe their previous choice was morally wrong, they would be correct in opposing it. | cmv |
I believe that the Gay and Bi movements contradict Transexuality and other Gender / Sex movements. CMV | LGB and T are properly called " gender and sexual minorities ". They are grouped together not because they are the same, but rather because they are mistreated in similar ways. There is a larger term QuILTBAG ( QUeer, Internsex, Lesbain, Bisexual, Asexual, Transgender ) that better spreads out the minorities, but it does not have much traction. That being said, gender has nothing, 0 %, to do with orientation. Trans - women are women. If they like other women then they are lesbians. if someone is in the middle, we call them gender queer, or just'queer '. There is also the term'pansexual'to refer to someone who is attracted to multiple genders. | cmv |
I believe that the Gay and Bi movements contradict Transexuality and other Gender / Sex movements. CMV | You're right that sexual orientation and gender identity are two different things, but they don't contradict another. All transgenders are asking is to let them identify themselves of the gender of their choosing. A gay man is exercising his right of identifying himself as male just as a transgendered man. A transgendered man can identify himself as gay as well. There's no contradiction or discrimination here. LGBT or LGBTQ are supposed to be inclusive groups that fight for similar goals of equal rights, that share similar history of homophobia / transphobiaa from the usual suspects. | cmv |
The Israel / Palestine conflict is no different from any other, and it sucks for the Palestinians but they lost. CMV | you are correct that the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is very similar to past conquests. However, the culture within which the conquest occured has changed dramatically from pre - ww1 times to now. Since the end of world war 1, Western people have rejected the idea that conquering land is legitimate. ( Governments still do it from time to time, but they need to hide behind moral grounds, as in Iraq and Afghanistan for example ). Citizens of those countries, who are not involved in strategic decision making on the subject, see the conflict from a humanitarian perspective and therefore see the conquest of Palestinian territory as illegitimate and an affront to human rights. This affront to human rights is the main thrust of the anti - Israel movement. Interestingly, many of the same movement that are against Israeli aggression now, were against Palestinian aggression in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. | cmv |
The Israel / Palestine conflict is no different from any other, and it sucks for the Palestinians but they lost. CMV | So let me see if I understand you. If I, an individual, complain about what Israel is doing and I say that it is wrong, that makes me a hypocrite? I don't quite understand this, because surely you cannot hold me accountable for what past or even current governments have done, especially when I had no say in the matter. I didn't support the United States when it mass slaughtered Native Americans hundreds of years ago. I wasn't even alive when it happened, so how can I be assigned blame for it? Either what Israel is doing is morally wrong or it isn't. If it is morally wrong, there is nothing hypocritical about me pointing it out unless I've personally engaged in or supported the same behavior. You seem to be operating under the idea that countries are entities and that when an individual from a country speaks, they carry the responsibility of the actions of that country and it's governments, which is quite frankly absurd. | cmv |
The Israel / Palestine conflict is no different from any other, and it sucks for the Palestinians but they lost. CMV | Just because it happened before, doesn't mean it should be accepted. You are basically arguing that if a country invades another country and'wins'the armed conflict, they are the rightful owners to the conquered land, thus making war acceptable. Would you accept Canada starting a war and taking over Washington and California? Also, the history of one's country is not relevant to their beliefs. I did not have anything to do with any form of conquering whatsoever, so why would it matter that my country was formed by certain armed conflicts and that I am opposed to another contemporary conflict? | cmv |
The Israel / Palestine conflict is no different from any other, and it sucks for the Palestinians but they lost. CMV | We have also used chemical / nuclear weapons in the past to fight and win wars, but since then have banned their use despite the benefits we have reaped from their use. This can similarly be viewed as hypocritical I suppose, but I don't see it that way. Humanity learns, we didn't have a strong global community back when America was being colonized, and racism was more culturally accepted. If we were to find a planet with sentient alien life, or perhaps some long lost island of indigenous people today and take the same approach as the colonists today, there would be serious outcry from the global community. The Israeli / Palestine conflict began around the time globalization began and as such is subject to the scrutiny of a more mature international community. | cmv |
I believe that a mandatory minimum wage hurts workers, helps employers, and is a major cause of wage stagnation of unskilled labor in the United States. CMV | In the US at least ( probably in Europe as well ), the market is glutted with workers. In every theory of economics this drives wages down because when worker A offers to work for X, worker B will chime in that he's willing to work for X - $ 1. The more workers competing for that job, the lower the wage will be. At present, there is very little ( if any ) competition for unskilled labor as there are more workers than jobs. Removing the minimum wage would allow employers to employ more workers, but at a lower than minimum wage. If the economy improved markedly over time those wages might go up, but there's a weak incentive to do that with unskilled labor. | cmv |
I believe that a mandatory minimum wage hurts workers, helps employers, and is a major cause of wage stagnation of unskilled labor in the United States. CMV | I agree that there will be a " upward pressure " on wages until both parties are satisfied. However, that pressure will set the wage to be less then the minimum we currently have because the supply for unskilled labor is greater then the demand for unskilled labor with a minimum wage. This means that without minimum wage, employers can set wages lower then the minimum until they have just enough people willing to work for them. | cmv |
I believe that a mandatory minimum wage hurts workers, helps employers, and is a major cause of wage stagnation of unskilled labor in the United States. CMV | Assuming the value of labour is greater than the minimum wage, they'll have to compete regardless. The only case where the minimum wage would matter is where the value of labour is less than the current minimum. One example of a place where unskilled labour is a tight market is Alberta, Canada. Thanks to the oil boom there, there are a good many unskilled jobs that pay good money. Because of this, other employers need to compete, so the minimum wage is irrelevant. It seems paradoxical to claim that the reason people don't make more money is that they can't negotiate for less. Value floors don't tend to cause lower prices. One excellent example : over 100 years the US dollar had a value floor of one 35th of an ounce of gold, values fluctuated but maintained. Since that floor was removed, it has lost 98 % of its value. | cmv |
I believe that a mandatory minimum wage hurts workers, helps employers, and is a major cause of wage stagnation of unskilled labor in the United States. CMV | Think of it like this : without a minimum wage, you would still have one - - it would just be zero, or however close to zero you can get on an hourly / daily / weekly / monthly basis. The current minimum wage is pretty damn unlivable ( a full time employee will make $ 15, 000 annually ) so it might as well be zero, for the sake of argument. If businesses and workers were at all inclined to put upwards pressure on the wages, why wouldn't be doing it right now? | cmv |
I believe that a mandatory minimum wage hurts workers, helps employers, and is a major cause of wage stagnation of unskilled labor in the United States. CMV | You assume that the employee and employer are on equal ground when it comes to evaluating what that work is worth. Employees are awful at figuring out what they are worth in the market and will undercut themselves out of desperation. There have been few times in our history when there has been a shortage of unskilled labor. The shortage of labor usually comes at the higher skill and education levels, people who know what they are worth in the market. | cmv |
I believe that a mandatory minimum wage hurts workers, helps employers, and is a major cause of wage stagnation of unskilled labor in the United States. CMV | Sorry if this was addressed in another reply, but I believe you're forgetting one of the most important things. The transaction is not merely between employer and employee, because when poverty starts to set in, the government gets involved. If a worker knows the government will support him only if he has a job and attempts to work, then his demand for salary from the employer is effectively zero. Their needs will be met by food stamps, WIC, and other welfare programs. Their healthcare will be provided by the emergency room. In the end, they may have a total personal value close to what they would in a minimum wage economy, but the employer would have no incentive to pat them more. | cmv |
I believe that a mandatory minimum wage hurts workers, helps employers, and is a major cause of wage stagnation of unskilled labor in the United States. CMV | The thing about minimum wage is it is supposed to be there to guarantee a set amount of money that business owners have to prepare to pay their employees if they want a certain amount of employees. But if the minimum wage is livable, it removes the incentive for the minimum wage workers to move up the ladder that is created by capitalism. I live in Washington, and the minimum wage is just over 9 dollars, and I think it is too much because it allows people to actually sustain their livestyles on it, when it should be low enough to encourage them to work harder than " minimum " to survive. | cmv |
I believe that a mandatory minimum wage hurts workers, helps employers, and is a major cause of wage stagnation of unskilled labor in the United States. CMV | You might not want to work for 5 bucks an hour, but there are millions of immigrants who have no problem working for low wages. 5 bucks an hour is not enough to live on right? 650 bucks a month after taxes? But would you live in a one bedroom apartment with 10 other people? I would not either. But immigrants will. Now that 650 bucks a month is 6500 a month and they can pool their resources for rent and utilities. | cmv |
I believe voting should be obligated. CMV | What about the idea that groups of people may vote for the candidate who promises to give them more stuff? If you receive aid from the govt, whats to stop candidates from promising more aid to get votes? On a different post, someone commented that if a person receives aid from the government, that person shouldn't be able to vote. The motivation behind this view was to stop candidates from buying votes by promising more aid. | cmv |
I believe voting should be obligated. CMV | The main problem I have with this is that the decision not to vote is as much of a decision as voting is. If I hate all the candidates running in an election, should I be obligated to vote for one of them? I would say no, and that furthermore, the voter apathy in a given country would provide a good metric for the failure of a country's politicians to adequately engage a significant number of its citizens. If this means minority factions gain a greater representation in a representative body, so be it. If things get bad enough, more people will vote in the next election, and if not, then the minority getting into power wasn't really that bad in the first place. Additionally, if the government forces me to exercise a " right ", then it isn't a right at all, rather it is an obligation. To me the freedom to choose whether or not you are going to vote is a right as fundamental as voting itself, a choice that I like to call " voting with your ass ". | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.