summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I think the discrepancies between races are not caused by social bias, but the races themselves. Please CMV. | People should keep in mind these race differences apply to populations in a general sense ( averages ), not to individuals on a case - by - case basis. There are plenty of geniuses and unintelligent people of all races. Having said that, this is an interesting read : Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic - A 60 - page review of the scientific evidence I know I'm supposed to change your mind, but I thought these points were relevant to the discussion. I hope other can address the individual points. | cmv |
I think the discrepancies between races are not caused by social bias, but the races themselves. Please CMV. | You're talking like race and culture are interchangeable, and I don't think they are - - e. g. you can have descendants of Irish folks in the USA who have a very different culture than the folks in Ireland. So... if you're talking about it being a cultural problem I agree. Well, more specifically I think it's a sub - culture problem. The over - arching culture of the USA is reasonably conducive to producing productive individuals, otherwise we probably wouldn't be doing as well as we are. However, there are certainly some sub - cultures that could use more scrutiny than others, and to be perfectly honest, they aren't all minority sub - cultures. This should be pretty telling that it's not specifically related to race in the sense of people being more predisposed to it on race alone. | cmv |
I believe using an individual's race to determine anything about them is not only immoral, but is not beneficial in any way. CMV. | There are times when someone's race is very relevant and ignoring it is negligent ; in medicine it matters. Certain racial groups are more prone to certain conditions. If you have someone come into hospital and they're presenting symptoms X, Y, and Z that suggest a few possbile diseases but may be sickle cell anemia and the patient is from an African gene pool you're best off getting that confirmed or denied immediately. If the patient were instead of a gene pool with no meaningful predisposition to sickle cell anemia you would could be better off investigating other avenues first. | cmv |
I believe using an individual's race to determine anything about them is not only immoral, but is not beneficial in any way. CMV. | But there are significant differences between races. Obviously physically there's different bone structure and skin tone, facial differences, etc. There's also however difference in brain size on average. Of course there's all the social differences too. Some races are very significantly more likely to cause crime. It's not my place to explain the reasons for that, I don't know. I agree that races should be treated equally, but I don't agree to delude myself that they're the same. | cmv |
CMV : There is nothing wrong with the collection of information by the government. | The issue isn't just " they might use it improperly ", it's also a matter of privacy. There are reasons for wanting general privacy outside of hiding illicit acts. The argument " people who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear " is often tossed around by supporters of surveillance. However, lots of people don't like the idea of government reading or knowing about their embarrassing personal life. What if the government, for whatever reason, decided that lots of crime happened in bathrooms, and to combat it it would install cameras in every bathroom. Obviously, most people would be uncomfortable with this. Even if it resulted in less crime, the overall impact it has on peoples'comfort and feelings of privacy would be extremely negative. | cmv |
CMV : There is nothing wrong with the collection of information by the government. | Even if we assume that they will act fully within the law, I'd prefer my information wasn't collected. What if the government decided that some sexuality should be punished? What if they decided to imprison everyone who had engaged in piracy? What if they decided that porn was morally offensive and decided to fine everyone who watched it? My dislike of data collection isn't just because of a fear of being imprisoned for some current crime, it's because I don't trust that some moral crusader won't decide that some aspect of my behavior deserves the heavy hand of the law. I'm not that fond of them using it to mass imprison people who use drugs either, which they could easily do in the future. | cmv |
My opinion is that my country ( Norway ) shouldn't join the EU, and that a membership would only make things worse for us. CMV | You don't have to give up your own currency if you don't want to. Great Britain didn't. In point of fact, I think Norway is in a much stronger position to negotiate membership terms than an Eastern European country like Bulgaria would be. You're in one of the most financially stable, politically progressive and socially equal countries on the face of the planet. People would take whatever your government said with some weight. | cmv |
My opinion is that my country ( Norway ) shouldn't join the EU, and that a membership would only make things worse for us. CMV | Even the " poorer " countries are abundant with resources. Todays economy doesn't reflect the wealth of the land. Norway imports a lot of things.. the economy is becoming global.. Like it or not | cmv |
My opinion is that my country ( Norway ) shouldn't join the EU, and that a membership would only make things worse for us. CMV | Norway is a member of the EU in all but name, it just has no representation in it. Being a small population isn't necessarily the worst thing. Take Ireland for example, it has been extremely influencial in EU policy making despite being < 1 % of the population. It has also benefited from membership of the EU in terms of being a reciever of bailout funds. But I think the primary thing to consider here is that Norway is pretty much already part of the EU but with no elected members. Joining would give you the added benefit of electing MEPs and voting on EU issues. While you do pay taxes to the EU, many of the smaller population countries also recieve grants from the EU which outweigh that. | cmv |
I think the EU subsidizing agriculture is against public good and having less of the land exploited by agriculture would be better. CMV. | While I agree with many of your points, the main problem with ending first - world farming subsidies is environmental. If farming were no longer subsidized, it would move very quickly to poorer and less developed countries, most especially those with the most lax environmental regulations. Pesticide usage would skyrocket, the devastation of the forest, especially in South America, would increase to a terribly fast pace. While it would be an economic boon to both first - world and developing countries, the long - term effects on the health of the planet would be quite dire, as the short - term effects of pesticide usage and deforestation led to accelerated global warming. In short, while it kind of sucks, for the time being it makes a lot of sense to keep agricultural production in first - world countries. Like you said, agricultural production is not good for the planet, and locating it outside of those countries, as would inevitably occur, would make the damage to the planet even worse. | cmv |
I believe that HOAs ( Homeowners'Associations ) decrease property values by scaring away potential home buyers. CMV | HOAs ( of some kind ) are probably necessary if there are any significant pieces of shared property or shared expenses. Examples : building infrastructure in condos, security guards for walled neighborhoods, neighborhood swimming pools / parks, shared private roads, etc., etc. In order to have such things ( generally referred to as public goods ), there needs to be an enforceable mechanism to get everyone to share in the costs of supporting them. Are they good? Are the bad? That depends a lot. But I agree that a lot of HOAs go way too far, and the fact that they are elected brings to them much the same evils that government has. When you live with an HOA, you can't really say that you really " own " your property any more, as you don't have the exclusive right to control and dispose of it. As such, I would never buy a home subject to one, but I can see situations where they could improve property values significantly, just at a cost I'm not willing to bear. | cmv |
I believe that HOAs ( Homeowners'Associations ) decrease property values by scaring away potential home buyers. CMV | I pay $ 145 / quarter in HOA dues. For that our neigborhood has a private, shared swimming pool and enforced standards for the quality of the fronts of houses and gardens. The cleanliness of the neigborhood and how well kept it is ( plus the pool for my son ) is a major reason we bought in this neighborhood. ie, the HOA specifically increased my own demand for a property here. Increased demand causes rises in prices. Ergo sum, HOAs can be beneficial to house prices. | cmv |
I believe that HOAs ( Homeowners'Associations ) decrease property values by scaring away potential home buyers. CMV | Personal experience. When I was a kid my family wanted to move, but it took amost a full year to sell the house because our neighbor at the time had turned his yard into a junk yard for old, broken down cars. Nobody wanted to buy the house and live next to this guy. It wasn't illegal, so there was nothing we could do about it. When we did finally move, we made sure to move somewhere with an HOA. Now, I agree that they sometimes go way overboard in their control, and their fees can be ridiculous. But they do help maintain your property value. | cmv |
I think all congress members should have term limits. CMV! | We have term limits here in Michigan, and take a look at where it's gotten us. We're plagued by a perpetually freshman legislature that has little knowledge or interest in the way our government operates. And why should they care? It's just a stepping stone to something else, not a career they might get to settle into if they prove competent at the job. By the time their terms are up, they're just getting seasoned and learning the ins and outs of the job, just in time to leave and go get a job lobbying the newbies in the Legislature. | cmv |
I think all congress members should have term limits. CMV! | You mention term limits, then you immediately move on to things that don't necessarily have any relationship to term limits. Dysfunctional government is not a function of term limits. It could be argued that term limits promote dysfunctional government... people that are new have to learn how to operate it, while the more experienced people already know. Lobbyists are at least as effective at controlling new people as they are old people. The government becoming stagnant is a possibility, but honestly that is at least as easily corrected by new people as it is by the arbitrary usage of term limits. The problem you see with the support and finances from outside influences sounds much more like a problem with the setup of our political parties. Similarly, your problem with misinformed members of the public. If there is a continuous stream of new people all the time, they're even less likely to know anything about the person and more likely just to vote based on the R and the D. Also, the funding will simply move with the party instead of with that particular person. Many states have moved to systems with strict term limits. It hasn't helped their legislatures. | cmv |
I think all congress members should have term limits. CMV! | If a really good politician comes along and clearly has the support of his constituents, and he / she wants to keep serving his / her constituents. Why should he not be allowed. Not allowing it would discourage people from even running for congress because they know it'd just be a temporary job, so everything they do in congress would go towards improving his own cv for private employment rather than acting in the interest of the public. | cmv |
I think all congress members should have term limits. CMV! | First, Term limits are just as likely to remove someone competent as they are to remove someone incompetent ( honest as corrupt, etc ). Second, Parliamentary bodies like congress have enormously complex procedural structures that lawmakers have to navigate to accomplish anything that want to accomplish. Its inefficient, but it's the nature of the beast. By term limiting out long time legislators you remove the people who maintain the body's institutional memory. Which is to say that you get rid of the people who know how to do stuff. New legislators will need to know how to do stuff so they will turn to those people outside the institutional body who are not term limited who know how the body works. So you are actually conferring more power to Lobbyists and special interest groups over the legislative process. Last, by creating a set amount of time that someone can serve you remove the incentive for lawmakers to develop long term relationships and further polarize the body, making it more combative and generally less likely for that body achieve a compromise. The goal has to be getting better legislators. Term limits just get us different legislators. | cmv |
I think all congress members should have term limits. CMV! | Why do you or actually whoever votes to create these term limits decide who I can vote for? If we are a representative democracy, how come I by law can not vote for a person I want to represent me. Just because enough people voted for them already in the past a couple times. That's the main problem I have with any term limits. Why should anyone besides me get to limit who I want to vote for? If I want to " hire " my local friendly congressman again for a fourth time. Is it really your concern? That seems to be a me problem mostly. | cmv |
I think all congress members should have term limits. CMV! | With term limits you are forcing people to become much more dependent on lobbyists ( lobbyists gain power because politicians need to win elections and you just made it that much harder to win elections ) and party loyalties as well as making much more contested partisan elections. This would ultimately leave us more polarized than before and with less work going on because every congressman has to run a tough campaign for reelection. With term limits you loose the opportunity to have the great statesmen like Ted Kennedy who have the luxury of being more independently minded because they know that their re - election is virtually a lock. | cmv |
I think all congress members should have term limits. CMV! | I don't believe that it would be the solution. As many already stated, it would make it more likely that representative pave the path while in congress for a lucrative job. On top of that you would end up with only lobbyists having knowledge of the issues and becoming even more involved in the process. I believe that the problem is the power of money in the electoral process, where it takes $ millions just o be a representative. There are ways to make the money less influential, such as having campaigns last weeks instead of months. Laws could also be passed to curtail the amount of money spent. Another option I like is to pick representatives at random from the jury pools. Another point not related. I have noticed that some OPs in this sub don't bother to participate in the discussions of their own posts. It is pretty hard to change someone's mind who is not participating. | cmv |
I think all congress members should have term limits. CMV! | California has term limits on its state representatives and most have regarded it as a disaster. There seems to be a popular opinion that new legislators are more honest and more competent than experienced legislators but in reality they are no better and are very often ineffective. Just look at all the brand new Tea Party Republicans who took a lot of seats in the house. In order to prove to themselves as hardcore republicans they held our debt hostage and caused the US to lose its AAA credit rating. Being a representative is a difficult job that takes years to be good at. | cmv |
I think all congress members should have term limits. CMV! | If term limits are effective at preventing corruption, why aren't they used anywhere else? ( Ok, there are other places they are used, but in general term limits outside of government politics are rare. ) In addition, once the term is up, that person can then go into private industry will all their contacts and knowledge from politics. Personally knowing other congress members seems like an incredible advantage in the private sector that can be used without the normal " oversight " ( ok so with the percentage of people who vote this doesn't really count ) of voting. | cmv |
I think all congress members should have term limits. CMV! | To me, the biggest problem here is that Congress does a heck of a lot more than it once did. If they just came together to vote on appropriations, I would totally agree with you. But think about the foreign relations committee and many more like it, where it takes 2 - 3 terms just to build the relationships to be slightly useful. You want someone in there who knows where the bodies are buried, who has history with people around the world, and can tell when they're being buffaloed. Now, the obvious argument is, why is Congress doing so much governing, but that's another story. | cmv |
I believe the solution to solving our " economic crisis " is simply to tax the wealthy much more than we do now, CMV. | Here is what I consider the most contentious claim. " I understand that both, the taxes shouldn't go THAT high, and also they caused minor, extra dip into a recession in doing so, but the end result was the same : we got out of the depression. " Why should we think it was precisely the marginal tax on the highest weath bracket that provided a boost to the economy? Why not one of the many other contemporaneous developments around that time? ( e. g. WWII, technological development, simple passage of time correcting distortions in the labor market. ) Just because two things happened at the same time does not mean that one caused the other. Another point is that the effective tax rate for the wealthy at that time was much lower than 94 %. Just as today there were loopholes and ways for the wealthy to avoid paying the sticker rates. | cmv |
I believe the solution to solving our " economic crisis " is simply to tax the wealthy much more than we do now, CMV. | You mean get out of an economic slump with higher tax rates on the wealthy? As a general principle I support higher taxes on the wealthy, but there's plenty of evidence and economic theory to indicate raising taxes on anyone in current conditions will prolong the slump. We can improve our infrastructure and fund federal jobs on borrowed money. Funding these things with tax money defeats the purpose ; you're essentially taking money from one part of the economy and diverting it somewhere else. | cmv |
I believe the solution to solving our " economic crisis " is simply to tax the wealthy much more than we do now, CMV. | I hope you understand that the whole " Great Depression " was not ended through the effort of one country. A popular resolution agreed upon by many historians to the Depression was when many governments began injecting into money - generating solutions such as farm subsidies and creating jobs. I think you might be confusing net worth and the amount of spending money a company actually has. For example, Apple has a net worth of $ 600 something billion dollars, but its only the combined value of all of Apple's assets. Though the revenue generated by the assets can be taxed, the assets themselves can't be taxed. With the small amount of capital that the companies can actually spend, they are technically putting it back into the economy through expanding their company so they can provide more, which in the end stimulates the economy because of more economic transactions. Shuhei Yoshida of Sony or Oprah don't actually have a vault full of money that they're hording and not spending. | cmv |
I believe the solution to solving our " economic crisis " is simply to tax the wealthy much more than we do now, CMV. | I agree with you that taxes on the wealthy need to be increased at some point, but increasing them now would actually hurt the recovery. Right now we have a lack of demand, and, while taking money from rich people reduces their purchasing power by less than taking money from poor people, it still reduces demand. The solution to the recession is massive deficit spending. The government needs to borrow money now ( with the current super low interest rates ) and spend it on infrastructure, education, research, and really anything. It doesn't matter how they use the money as long as it gets into the hands of people who will spend it. It is more valuable to the economy to get the money into the hands of poor people because they spend a higher portion of it but even money into the hands of the rich helps increase demand. TL ; DR The solution is massive deficit spending, not increased taxes on the rich. | cmv |
The empowerment of women is the most essential step in alleviating poverty in the developing world. CMV. | I would say it all hinges on where in the developing world we're referring to. Generally you're right, though I'm sure there are some cases where different measures would have a more profound economic effect. I don't think you can look at poverty that holistically. | cmv |
The empowerment of women is the most essential step in alleviating poverty in the developing world. CMV. | You want a lower population growth rate? Make people wealthier. You want women treated better? Make people wealthier. You want the environment treated better? Make people wealthier. You want less wars and conflict? Make people wealthier. These things happen after people start earning enough to not worry about dying day to day. Not before. | cmv |
I believe that the NSA does more harm for America than good. CMV | How do we know they've only caught a handful, they could be preventing things all the time. I don't do anything they would be remotely interested in so I could care less whether or not they hear my calls. I doubt most drug deal calls are even reported to be dealt with, not a big enough threat. I like to think of the NSA as the group in the Bourne movies where words like " tread stone or black briar " make the detection go off because its something the general public wouldn't use. | cmv |
I believe that the NSA does more harm for America than good. CMV | Here's a question : do you have a top secret security clearance? Are you intimately aware of the threats facing our country? The NSA keeps us safe from threats that you and I have the luxury of not knowing exist. What makes you qualified to make national security decisions that affect the safety of other people? I don't believe that every dollar the NSA spends is necessarily justified, but I also believe that neither you or I have a right to sit behind a computer screen without any knowledge of classified intelligence and criticize the people that keep us safe. And " spying " on us is a negligible fraction of what the NSA does. They have a vital role in the intelligence community that involves analyzing intelligence from foreign sources and protecting our communications and infrastructure from cyberterrorism and foreign hackers. | cmv |
I don't think the Hindenburg Disaster was that bad because it was a Nazi airship. CMV. | For one thing, the disaster happened in 1937, four full years before the US gave up neutrality with Pearl Harbor and joined the Allies and two full years before the outbreak of the war in Europe. The US had full diplomatic relations with Germany at the time and people traveled back and forth between the countries regularly. Secondly, I don't really follow your logic that because we dislike a government we should be callous to the suffering of its citizens. The blimp was not full of ardent SS officers, it was just full of normal passengers traveling between countries and crew doing their jobs. Simply being German = / = Nazi. Should we be indifferent to the innocent dead of Iran Air 655 just because we hate the Iranian government? I for one don't think so. | cmv |
I don't think the Hindenburg Disaster was that bad because it was a Nazi airship. CMV. | Not every single German was a Nazi, including most of the passengers on the Hindenburg. When they say " the Hindenburg was a Nazi airship " they mean it was a German airship from the time period that the Nazis controlled Germany, not that everyone on the ship was personally a Nazi. ( Also, the reason it was allowed to dock in the US is because the Hindenburg disaster was years before the US officially joined the war. ) | cmv |
I don't believe marijuana should be legalized because I am fearful of the alternatives for adolescents CMV | There's still going to be a black market for weed. If weed is legal and sold to 18 year olds and up, it'll be a lot easier to get. Kids still won't be able to buy it, but that's not going to stop an 18 year old from selling weed to kids. Dealers are still going to have business. | cmv |
I don't believe marijuana should be legalized because I am fearful of the alternatives for adolescents CMV | If your concern is teens NOT being able to access marijuana, and instead turning to MDMA or meth, legalizing it would simply mean that if you were the right age or met specific criteria, you would legally be able to purchase and posses it. The teenagers would still be able to find weed where they can find it now. The market would still be there, since there would still be a customer - base in'need'of it. It would still be illegal, since they wouldn't be buying it from the WCBO, but that doesn't seem to be your concern. Just because it becomes legal doesn't mean the black market is going to disappear. | cmv |
I don't believe marijuana should be legalized because I am fearful of the alternatives for adolescents CMV | I'd argue that Marijuana couldn't become more difficult to get ( due to it's being marketed commercially ) with legalization. Further, the " private marketing " that exists now ( knowing a dealer ) is the means by which other drugs are circulated. By legalizing, we decrease the chances any given individual will keep contact with drug dealers ( why bother? I can go to the liquor store for pot, no need to pretend I like talking to Larry ) and therefore we weaken distribution lines for all illegal drugs. Marijuana is the drug that creates networks for te distribution of other drugs because of it's immense popularity. | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | A little late here, but the reason for the difference is quite simple. Insurance rates are determined on the basis of predicting how much each individual is likely to cost them. As such they don't have the luxury of judging each person on an individual basis until that driver has a history of behavior to reference, in which case their rates are adjusted accordingly. Until then, the best they have to go off of for predicting cost is statistical data based on all sorts of clssses. Don't forget, your choice in car also affects your rates as well. Meanwhile, the police are not predicting anything when they pull someone over, they are reacting to a perceived breach of the law. In this case, statistical information has no bearing on their actions because the driver needs to have committed a primary offense before the cop is allowed to pull them over. | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | The big difference between the two scenarios is that insurance companies secure risk, not accidents. They pay out for accidents, but you pay premium on the basis of risk. The police, on the other hand, doesn't deal with risk, they deal with crime that has already been committed. For cops to start pulling over, detaining or arresting based on risk, lies far outside the scope of their function. The police are supposed to enforce the law. Law does not deal in risk, it deals with individuals who have committed a crime and are being apprehended afterwards. For enforcers of the law to start basing their policies on risk ( and a risk which is shown to rely at least in part on human prejudice ), is to abandon the very law they should enforce. Hence, insurance companies get to do certain amounts of profiling, yet cops don't. | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | As far as racial profiling goes, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey proves the criminality of blacks. There's nothing wrong with acting on the best data available to catch criminals. Note that the NCVS is not susceptible to bias or racism. The statistics are merely facts. | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | You're missing a piece of the puzzle. Charging higher insurance premiums for those demographics most represented in car crashes has a statistical basis, and insurance and car crashes are discreet elements. Pulling over black drivers BECAUSE black drivers always get pulled over is a self fulfilling prophecy. Law enforcement is not discreet from itself. It's impossible to know whether there is a statistical basis because the numbers are gathered by law enforcement and thereby reported to law enforcement. It's a closed cycle. There is no way to verify anything that's going on. It's confirmation bias. " That black person must be a criminal because we turned all the other black people we pulled over into criminals. " It doesn't add up. | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | If you continually racially profile blacks, then without a doubt the black prison population will always be statistically higher than that of any other race regardless of which race commits the most crime. With driving though, the insurance companies know how many wrecks there are from each sex and can set varying rates over time that reflect the actual risk. So the problem with sampling doesn't exist with insurance. | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | Basically people put different rules on government discrimination vs private discrimination - and usually think it's not a huge deal if private company discriminates, because you're not forced to use them, and you can always find another company that doesn't. In most markets that's reasonable. But yes, EU thinks the same way you do, they banned gender - based insurance premium discrimination recently. | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | It seems to me completely indisputable that charging women more for insurance is profiling—it's treating an individual differently based on a group that she is part of—but I don't think this is the issue at hand. The real question is, " Is it acceptable to profile women for health insurance? " And I certainly don't see why not. Insurance companies want to have net earnings, and the way they do this is by charging individuals differently depending on the expected amount of money that the insurance company will have to pay them. If you are a woman, and women tend to cost more money for health insurance companies, there's nothing wrong with an insurance company raising your premiums simply because you're a woman. A big difference here is that your first example addresses governmental policy, while your second addresses the policy of a private company. ( Some argue that ) the government has an obligation to be fair ; a private company does not have the same obligations. | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | Because an individual in a uniform doesn't interview you before deciding what your insurance level is. Insurance is all based on stats therefore there is less room for prejudice. Also : jail. | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | The only reason why women pay more is because having a baby is friggin expensive. Holy damn, check a medical bill sometime. Seeing as biological males cannot make carry babies themselves, they don't have to pay for baby bills. | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | Even if the facts are actually correct, the position of allowing racial profiling for pulling someone over is quite flawed. An insurance company is looking for a statically generated rate : it's out of control of both the person who is paying the insurance and the person charging for the insurance. A clerk can't increase my rate by 20 $ for having a Mohawk. However, if I'm being pulled over by a cop then I am at his mercy. He can charge me the maximum fine or let me off with a warning. Because the cop is making a subjective decision very quickly, his profiling thought process will be mostly based off the current situation and preconceptions like racism! If the cops of the high way decide to profile with race then the interstate can be a very scary and costly place for minorities. The main difference is that the insurance company is impersonal, whereas being pulled over by a cop is much more personal. | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | The reason for the inconsistency is simple to me. Women and men are different in mind and body. People of different races are not ( in any substantial way ). That makes it more reasonable to profile based on gender than race. The more differences groups have, the more reasonable it is to profile based on those groups. When you're looking for a date, how many of you give tigers an equal chance? | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | The difference is who's doing the profiling. One is the government, the other is a private corporation. We are required to engage with our government by law, we are not required to buy products from a specific commercial enterprise. The nature of insurance also requires such rates to reflect reality. Were the predictions untrue it would cost the company dearly. | cmv |
I believe that, if pulling over vehicles based on the race of the driver is profiling, so is charging more for insurance based on gender. CMV | Charging more for insurance based on gender is illegal in some places. A quick google search turned up Hawaii and Europe, but I think there are at least a couple other US states that don't allow different prices based on gender. When you are talking about racial profiling for driving, what do you mean? Is this unrelated to their driving? Do you mean pull over a black driver because they are more likely to have drugs or a stolen car? | cmv |
I feel like there's no point to voting in America for a'popular vote'since the only vote that seems to count is the electoral college. CMV. | The fact that you are a woman doesn't matter ; your vote counts just as much as anyone else's. While the President is elected by the Electoral College ( and in some cases the Senate ), the members of the Electoral College are voted on by the people. The vast majority of the time, the representatives in the Electoral College vote how they are elected to ( and, to date, no election has been changed ( as in, one candidate would have won but the other did ) by members of the Electoral College voting against the popular vote ). So the only thing that the Electoral College for us is slow down the process and introduce the error that put Hayes ( 1876 ), Harrison ( 1888 ), and Bush ( 2000 ) in office. | cmv |
I feel like there's no point to voting in America for a'popular vote'since the only vote that seems to count is the electoral college. CMV. | Most states require their electors to vote with the candidate who one their state or the party which they represent requires their electors to vote for their guy. Over 99 % of electors votes have essentially been what the people would have voted for anyway. Only a handful of electors have voted otherwise and only in cases of protest votes where their vote didn't influence the election. | cmv |
I feel like there's no point to voting in America for a'popular vote'since the only vote that seems to count is the electoral college. CMV. | The Electoral College is mandated by the Constitution, and provides that the popular vote in each state gives the Presidential candidate all - or none - of the electoral votes for that state. The electors then vote for the President and Vice President. There were several logistical reasons to implement this system in the US when the country was founded, but recently several constitutional ammendments have been proposed to do away with the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote. However, it is difficult to ammend the Constitution. | cmv |
I believe the punishment and social stigma attached to rape is disproportionate to the actual harm it causes. CMV | Would you rather take a beating from some homeless guy ( just to give a random visual ) or be anally penetrated by the same man? You will survive both. You won't have permanent physical damage from either. | cmv |
I think that many charities are wasteful, counter - productive, and a way for corporations to get out of paying tax while improving their image, while the population is tricked into believing that all is well. CMV. | Charities doen't always exist just for this country though, and it shoudn't necessarily be the government's job to take care of us every step of the way. However, if you're angry about the salaries and such of charitable organizations, I suggest you watch this TED talk. Basically, it argues that the higher - ups deserve the large salaries. If they can get a better job offer elsewhere, well, they won't stick around. That's why there's such high turnover at charities. Until charities start paying competitive salaries, they'll be less effective. | cmv |
I think that many charities are wasteful, counter - productive, and a way for corporations to get out of paying tax while improving their image, while the population is tricked into believing that all is well. CMV. | Its actually extremely efficient for a private corporation, like charities, to organize certain things like homeless shelters, etc., because they don't have to go through the red tape and inefficiencies like governments do. Also, charities can shuffle money around much more efficiently than government organizations, and are able to react in a much more expedient manner because they are smaller and tend to attract talent ( read : people ) that truly believe in what they're working towards, as opposed to government systems. Should governments have an obligation to pick up the slack? Yes, but at the same time, while they cannot afford to, charities can certainly pick up the slack. Case in point : the USA refugee system is mostly run through churches now, because refugees aren't a population with voting rights and are quite likely to get less funding for resources, but are certainly a group with significant need. Why fight for resources for them, which is a costly political battle, when you have large organizations like the Roman Catholic Church who have been and continue to pick up the government's slack? | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | The answer to whether you're moving up or down in standard of living relates almost entirely to facts not mentioned. Your race Your income Your job Even something like " access to guns "... how is that an indicator of " lower standard of living "? If you were one who loved to carry guns, you'd be pretty happy. Or if you were one who placed the right to self defense above all others, you'd be pretty happy too. | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | Having spent a great deal of time in both, I assure you that you needn't worry. The two countries seem remarkably similar, but there are small differences that show themselves every now and then, always in favor of the US when it comes to your " freedom ". Unless you're a student, you'll likely end up paying LESS in the US for health insurance, for example, because we don't pay for the NHS here, so none of that comes out of your paycheck. Just little things like TV licenses, defamation laws, ingredients in certain foods. Some people prefer to give up a little " freedom " for a little security, some are the other way around. We tend to err on the side of letting you make your own decisions. We've got a long way to go, but I think you'll find yourself more " free " in the US. You even cite the fact that we are much more free to own guns if we choose to. Also we have free refills at pretty much any restaurant on non - alcoholic things. It's practically in the Constitution. | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | Both the UK and USA are part of the so - called'five eyes '. You can bet anything that plenty of the NSA snooping is sent along to the UK government, and similarly that the UK government gives a good amount of what it has on its own to the USA. ( Canada, Australia and New Zealand are also in on this. Not a conspiracy either, it's a matter of public record. ) | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | You're making the standard mistake that most Europeans - - and even Americans - - make when they think of the United States : they underestimate her scale. The United States is a gargantuan country. The UK would only be a state here, and it wouldn't even be the biggest. With that in mind, your standard of living will be heavily influenced by where in the U. S. you'll be moving to. Americans speak ( ruffly ) the same language, we use the same money, and we have the same federal government, but that is where the similarities end. Therefore, you can expect a tremendous degree of variance between the states. I don't know where you're moving to, so an in depth analysis is impossible. Having lived across the United States AND London, I can honestly say my standard of living did not drop when moving between the two countries if you live in major metropolitan areas. They average out fine. I did, however, prefer American rural areas to the rural parts of England. | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | You should not confuse public services with freedom. Public healthcare ( which I wish we had in the US ) is a public service, not a freedom. The United States of America is a big, big place. Police in a smaller, less urban town like Woodruff, WI are not likely to be as aggressive as the police in Bakersfield, CA who have, on occasion, come near to demonstrating marshal law. I can't and won't argue with the class inequality or the spying on citizens. I don't agree with what the government is doing, and if there were something I could do more to stop it, I would. | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | Freedoms : most cameras here are either traffic or privately owned. Standard of living : we have this awesome thing that gods where your rain clouds normall are : we call it " the sun. " Fear not, foreigner, with a liberal application of sunblock lotion you will be immune from its effects. | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | Mass spying : We are way behind you on that. You even have cameras everywhere run by the government, recording your every move in public. Guns : that is a freedom you gained. You can even defend yourself against a robber and not go to jail for it as many Brits have. And here you have more freedom of speech. You also have better protections against libel suits meant to shut you up for complaining about corporations ( think McLibel ). | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | Having access to guns is an increase in standard of living and freedom, not the other way around. Law enforcement mostly only aggressive in cities. Most of the economic effect you see allow for the low cost of living, which allows for a high standard of living. Your money will go a long way here. | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | Your banks are privatized by the exact same companies as ours. Your police and laws are actually more restrictive than ours. Economic inequality is just as bad in the UK, but you have less than half our population. Public healthcare in the UK is dismal, from personal experience. Mass spying is currently happening in your country as well. Taxes are unfair by nature. You probably pay more than we do. Basically, you are in the exact same boat as us, bloke. | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | To challenge one aspect of your view ; you say that you want freedom but you don't want people to have access to guns? You can't have both. By regulating guns, the government is taking away some freedom. Also, you want freedom but you also want free healthcare? That means you are ok with being forced to pay for other people's healthcare. I'm not saying America is perfect when it comes to freedom or gun regulation or healthcare, but it is contradictory to want freedom only where it suits you. | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | If you really want to kill somebody, and can't get ahold of a gun, you'll just grab a knife instead. Personally, I'd rather be shot at than stabbed. And if either is happening, you had plenty of warning that you were in the wrong neighborhood. | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | Most of the things you list aren't about freedom as your title suggests. Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want so long as you don't violate the rights of others. The US, for all it's flaws, is plainly a free - er nation than the UK. | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | You're coming from a country with a camera on every street corner, why are you so worried about US surveillance? You come from a country where the taxpayers pay for the royal residences, so why are you worried about US government spending? You come from a country where it's known in pop culture that dental care is bad, why are you worried about our health care system? You come from a country where you're still fighting terrorists / individuals in Ireland, so why are you worried about too many guns here? Every country has it's benefits and it's detriments. You cannot look at the big picture by focusing in solely on small aspects. | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | The way I see it is that the UK has equal opportunity with their healthcare and government programs. But in the US we have what we call " freedom ". This does not mean equal by any means. It means that we can climb easier to the top, but by pushing others down on the way up. | cmv |
I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV! | If you simply don't like the US, that's fine and say so. But how exactly does having MORE access to guns = LESS freedom. That's nonsense. In Britain you LACK many firearms freedoms that DO EXIST in the United States. Now, if you don't like that, that's fine. But your whole, " less freedom " thing is a little ridiculous. | cmv |
I don't believe that the porn ban in the UK is a bad thing. CMV. | - It won't work. At all. - It will fund the development of hard - and software to inspect, analyze and manipulate internet traffic on a massive scale. - It opens the door towards more national laws restricting and influencing the internet. Internet commerce can't grow if every service has to worry about all kinds of specific laws in every country. This is already a huge problem. Finally, from a technical standpoint, filtering at the end user is really the obvious solution and the only thing that could possibly work ( ie, implement it as an option in the user's modem, or as software to run on the user's pc ). This makes the motivations for the entire project extremely suspect. I haven't gone into any technical details, but if you are interested please ask. I wanted to keep this brief and to the point for now. | cmv |
I don't believe that the porn ban in the UK is a bad thing. CMV. | By latest reports, the leaving - home age is fast becoming 30 +. I feel bad for all the 18 + year old guys living with their parents, for whom this is totally a ban on online porn. I don't think many will be asking mum and dad if they can turn the porn back on. The fundamental idea here seems to be " porn is bad ", and I just don't concede that. I love porn, it's great. I'm not supporting anyone who attacks it. | cmv |
I don't believe that the porn ban in the UK is a bad thing. CMV. | The point of the internet, in fact its virtue is its unfiltered nature. It is an embodiment of free speech, nobody can shut you up, though if you go too far you might have to face consequences. This has nothing to do with porn, that's just the common excuse. If this had anything to do with porn then Cameron would walk around saying " Listen, if you as a parent can't be buggered to make a single phone call to your isp to enable filtering, you should never have had kids in the first place because you're a horrible parent. " This is about putting the filtering infrastructure in place. I would bet $ 500 that if this bill passes within 2 years copyrighted movies would be added to the ban, and a year after that " extremist views " which would start with stuff involving Islam, but would move on to pro - Republican literature, possibly Scottish independence, just generally things that are convenient. This is simply not a power any government can ever be trusted with, imagine if Bush spent 2005 pulling all images of Abu Ghraib off the internet like China does with anything regarding Tibet or Falun Gong. Honestly if we are such pathetic people that we need to censor the internet because we can't parent at all, then I suppose we deserve what we get. | cmv |
I don't believe that the porn ban in the UK is a bad thing. CMV. | Freedoms that you have to ask permission for are not freedoms. An opt out filter ( which already exists in many forms ) doesnt put government between people and the internet in any way. Why stomp on freedom to save parents 1 phone call. | cmv |
I don't believe that the porn ban in the UK is a bad thing. CMV. | The problem with the porn ban comes down to what the government will determine the definition of what exactly porn is and when you have an internet filter for these things, there will be huge bugs in the system. It comes down to this, where's the government going to find the line between porn and an artist who uses nude models? What about comedic pictures or " r " rated movie trailers that happen to show nude body parts, will those be banned as well? It's an incredibly slippery slope. | cmv |
I don't believe that the porn ban in the UK is a bad thing. CMV. | The problem isn't that the porn filter exists. I mean, I don't think the government should mandate the existence of ISP - level porn filters, but I don't have a huge issue with the idea. The problem is that you have to opt out of it. If you want to look at pornography, you will need to call up your network provider and tell them that you intend to look at pornography, and that's just not okay. If some people want restrictions on what content their Internet connection will carry, they should have to go opt in to the program. | cmv |
I believe that pronouncing judgment on the NSA and PRISM is misguided. CMV | Wait, so your argument is that we shouldn't judge NSA because we don't know what the program is actually about? Well that's exactly the main problem I have with it. The secrecy fits poorly with modern criteria of an open government. That's the exact part I judge it for. We hear these arguments over why the program is kept secret, but these arguments seem hollow with nothing to back them up. Besides, there's something wrong with a program that invades the citizens'and other countries'privacy and then claiming that the same should not be done for itself. And we do know about the program. We can maybe not judge the things we don't know, but we sure can judge the things we know. | cmv |
I have a feeling that any Palestinian state that comes into existence will be a total craphole and still be agitating to conquer Israel. CMV | Armed Palestinian splinter groups will exist for the foreseeable future, no matter what peace deal gets made. But they will be the minority. If the Palestinian leadership ( s ) gets behind a peace deal that achieves most of the big demands ( some sort of Jerusalem arrangement, no settlements, token right of return ), I think most Palestinians would accept it. There will be Palestinians who don't and they might even have the sympathy of large parts of the Palestinian population. The majority of the population would be concerned with more pragmatic goals like work and family then they would with conquering Israel ( something that militarily, is not even remotely possible ). | cmv |
I have a feeling that any Palestinian state that comes into existence will be a total craphole and still be agitating to conquer Israel. CMV | Well, then a better question would be whose fault is it that Hesbollah is seen as a humanitarian organization in the Palestine, and who conducts bi - quarterly bombings. See, Nazism did not just pop up in Germany, and Communism did not metastasize in Russia. They had specific causes, respectively, it was the weakened national pride / economy post WW1 and the German release of Lenin. So when we look back and wonder why are Palestenians so willing to overlook the wrongdoing of radicals ( like Syrian rebels are now with AlQaeda in their land ), we should look at the causes. So yeah, the current, bombed - down conquered and occupied Palestine is guaranteed to elect radical leadership. Why? | cmv |
I have a feeling that any Palestinian state that comes into existence will be a total craphole and still be agitating to conquer Israel. CMV | To be fair, it's completely understandable that an imperfect regime arose in Palestine. Given the circumstances, you can't really expect anything else. If their circumstances improved I see no reason why they wouldn't be like any other country in the region. Western meddling in the region has created reactionary, violent, xenophobic, and intolerant leadership. As far as the war with Israel. Palestine would never, ever have the resources to do anything significant to Israel. The idea of Palestine conquering Israel is absurd. What is a threat to Israel is the extremists bred by their environment using guerilla / terror tactics in the only feasible way to resist that they can. And if Palestine were a legitimate and recognized state, they would have the motivation and obligation to curb these extreme elements. As long as they are an occupied, political'victim ', they're going to keep promulgating hate and their resistance will continue to be a non - lethal but dangerous threat to Israel. | cmv |
I have a feeling that any Palestinian state that comes into existence will be a total craphole and still be agitating to conquer Israel. CMV | I think it's an unfair assumption that the current source of Palestinian leaders will always be the source of Palestinian leaders. Right now, the only respected and prestigious Palestinians are those who make war on Israel. But why does that have to always be the case? Perhaps next year we will have a great Palestinian soccer player or pastry chef or neurosurgeon who brings pride and respect to Palestinians in a peaceful way. If we have a few such people, they can be leaders of a peaceful Palestinian movement that does not need to be at odds with Israel. | cmv |
My fiance is Canadian, but I am American. I believe that we will be happier moving to the US because of lower taxes, significantly cheaper cost of living, and having more freedoms and rights. CMV! | I think for your life decision, what the whole country's status on something is doesn't really matter so much as what your individual situation will be. It sounds like the meat of your decision is how much money you have at the end of the day. So I'd calculate your income and expenses based on where you would live and what jobs you would hold. If you're going to have more money in your pocket in Canada, does it really bother you that you'd be paying taxes for free healthcare? | cmv |
My fiance is Canadian, but I am American. I believe that we will be happier moving to the US because of lower taxes, significantly cheaper cost of living, and having more freedoms and rights. CMV! | In a freedom and rights sense, I think Canada and America are one in the same. According to the UN HDI, Canada and USA are both rated " very high " on the Human Development Index ( HDI ). Granted, USA is 3rd while Canada is 11th, but there are 186 countries on the list. I agree with you on cost of living and taxes, but freedoms and rights you're comparing green apples to red apples. | cmv |
My fiance is Canadian, but I am American. I believe that we will be happier moving to the US because of lower taxes, significantly cheaper cost of living, and having more freedoms and rights. CMV! | I would also like to point out if you're worried about money have you thought about the banks in Canada vs the banks in the USA? Within Canada the credit union and banks have to follow the Bank Act to protect your money and other business. It is pretty safe. I heard many bad thing in the states regarding to the Bank of America doing shady foreclosure. | cmv |
My fiance is Canadian, but I am American. I believe that we will be happier moving to the US because of lower taxes, significantly cheaper cost of living, and having more freedoms and rights. CMV! | I'm Canadian, and I've traveled extensively in both Canada and the US. I've spent time in every Canadian province, every region within the US, and I've visited more states than not. Here's my take. If you have money, and taxes are your primary concern, stay in the US. Things are very good for the wealthy in the US. If you're just starting out and plan on having a family, you'd be absurdly foolish - especially in such an uncertain economy - not to take advantage of the opportunity of living in Canada, a country that provides a rock solid social safety net. You don't want to find yourself being poor in the US.. especially with a family. Also, you are grossly misinformed regarding the differences in the two countries on the topics of both tax rates and personal liberties. You should do some more research in these departments. | cmv |
My fiance is Canadian, but I am American. I believe that we will be happier moving to the US because of lower taxes, significantly cheaper cost of living, and having more freedoms and rights. CMV! | If you plan on having children I think one of the kindest long term things you could give your child is a Canadian passport and access to free healthcare, lower tuition rates, better public schooling and right now a more steady economy. As a woman you could not get me to go through pregnancy and labour in the states when there is the option of the whole process being covered by healthcare. Worst case scenario, do you have any idea how expensive a NICU is? or twins? although if you're rich, you're probably correct, the states will give you more freedom and rights | cmv |
My fiance is Canadian, but I am American. I believe that we will be happier moving to the US because of lower taxes, significantly cheaper cost of living, and having more freedoms and rights. CMV! | I think that there is a good chance it could be better in the United States but that it should be completely to do with work / specific places you want to work for rather than any of the arguments you mentioned above. Sure taxes are higher in Canada but have fun paying for college tuition for your kid if you are in the united states. Cost of living varies much more on city than country ( try living in Manhattan or San Francisco ) Health care cost is less in Canada than in the United states ( the average increase on tax due to it is less than how much is getting off your paycheck in the USA ). That being said those should not be your main factors in deciding where to live. If you want technology jobs there's a much bigger tech scene in the Bay area or NYC ( or even Austin TX ) than in Toronto or Vancouver. The issues like healthcare and other things are minuscule unless you are in poverty or are unemployed. | cmv |
I think the United States needs a bigger federal government. CMV | It would be a much better idea to get rid of the idea of districts, so that you can vote for a candidate that reflects your own views, rather than the views of whatever party has a majority where you happen to live. Say you have 1000 seats in this representative body. each citizen can vote for up to 10 candidates, and doesn't have to be in the district of the candidate they vote for. This means it does not matter where you're from, your vote will count just as much as anyone else's. | cmv |
i thick Machiavelli had it right and that the best form of government is a confederation of democratic cities. CMV. | I would not advocate city - states due to the points already addressed. But I do think a pyramid representation scheme makes sense. Every thousand people, rural or urban, elect a representitive. Every thousand of those elects a senator. Then senators elect a president. Each level needs to include a lot of representitives to make it hard to just offer deals to individuals to get elected. More of an attempt to tweak your view. | cmv |
I think Walmart is really bad for the United States as a whole. CMV. | Walmart saves families around them lots of money on an annual basis. They bandied about a claim of $ 2, 500 a year, though that's probably overkill - " after wage depression, the net increase in purchasing power averages only $ 1, 122 annually " - which happens even for people who don't shop at Walmart, since stores around them need to cut prices as well. Source To be specific against your points, I'd say one of the major tenants of American culture is capitalism - and Walmart is an incredible example of capitalism in action. And guess what - the local retailers were almost certainly importing the same Chinese - made goods and paying people similarly low wages. Is Walmart perfect? Far from it. But the way to fix it is to force change upon it, not eliminate it. | cmv |
I think Walmart is really bad for the United States as a whole. CMV. | People in your town are now paying less for their groceries and consumer goods. Hiring is based on supply and demand, if Walmart doesn't offer market - rate pay, then won't have any employees. No unionization? Well in the US, the large majority of workers are not unionized. What about Chinese goods? Well, they're cheaper and almost just as reliable as goods from other countries. The argument against Walmart from an economic point of view is weak. From a social justice perspective, your argument might be stronger. | cmv |
I believe Americans who claim they don't vote due to the low probability of their vote being the deciding vote are irrational and selfish. CMV. | I did not vote in the most recent election, and it was partially because I didn't think that my vote mattered. The reason that I believed my vote would not matter is because I believed that I was choosing between Candidate A who I thought would do a terrible job and Candidate B who I thought would do a terrible job. Regardless of who won the election, I was not confident in the direction that they would take the country. Even if I had the opportunity to cast the deciding vote, I would not want to because I felt that neither of the 2 main candidates deserved my endorsement. | cmv |
I believe Americans who claim they don't vote due to the low probability of their vote being the deciding vote are irrational and selfish. CMV. | I don't think it's that they don't think it'll make a difference in most cases. I think Dennis Reynolds said it best on voting. " Who am I supposed to vote for? Am I supposed to vote for the democrat who is going to blast me in the ass or the republican who is blasting my ass? " Personally that's why I don't vote. I think whoever gets elected is out to do the same greedy things as the other guy, he just says lies that appeal to one group while running. | cmv |
I believe Americans who claim they don't vote due to the low probability of their vote being the deciding vote are irrational and selfish. CMV. | In regard to presidential elections, you're more likely to die on the way to the polling station than to have your vote sway the result. Many find the idea repulsive, that you must decide who it is who will tell you what to do. For someone with this view, participating in this process is a special kind of torture. | cmv |
I believe Americans who claim they don't vote due to the low probability of their vote being the deciding vote are irrational and selfish. CMV. | I've never voted because I have never felt confidently informed about politics. But lately in the UK the rise of the cost of living is becoming a bit of a strangle since income isn't rising. This has only concerned me recently, that I felt that recently the UK taxes everything they can so it undermines productivity and work incentive. I know this is a biased by my current financial standing, if money was no object then it wouldn't concern me. Politicians should give the common man breathing space to just be, money aside. So I want the Liberal Democrats out. | cmv |
I believe Americans who claim they don't vote due to the low probability of their vote being the deciding vote are irrational and selfish. CMV. | There is an argument in parts of America that " your vote doesn't matter ". Due ( at least in part ) to the way things are set up with the electoral college, it really doesn't much matter if I vote for a blue candidate in a red state, or vice versa. I live in South Dakota and a Democratic Presidential candidate hasn't won here since 1964. George McGovern, a South Dakota native ran for President and lost South Dakota. I believe the odds were 98 % in favor of Mitt Romney winning my home state. So, that's one potential reason people feel their votes don't matter, not saying it's right. Just that it's a reason. | cmv |
I believe Americans who claim they don't vote due to the low probability of their vote being the deciding vote are irrational and selfish. CMV. | I'm going to assume that you're talking about the presidential elections. Consider that many people don't vote because they understand political science. Oklahoma liberals might as well stay home on voting day because in no way will their minuscule amount of votes matter in an election based on " first past the post voting ". As long as we do have first past the post voting, the minority of voters will continue to be disenfranchised and in turn will be less motivated to throw their rain drop into the lake. | cmv |
I believe Americans who claim they don't vote due to the low probability of their vote being the deciding vote are irrational and selfish. CMV. | What about the people who live in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska? They are so far off to the west, that their polls close at 1 AM EST. Every news station has already announced the winner of the election before their polls close. | cmv |
I believe Americans who claim they don't vote due to the low probability of their vote being the deciding vote are irrational and selfish. CMV. | Think about how much time and effort it takes to educate yourself on all the candidates and their politics, and to learn about the potential effects of the policies they propose. That's hours of watching debates, reading news articles and studies, etc. all so you can go cast a vote that probably won't have any effect on what policies you actually get. To expect everyone to invest so much time and energy into that is ridiculous in my opinion. So hopefully you can see how someone would feel that voting is a waste of time. To me it is much more rational to spend that time directly improving yours or other people's lives. Now, some people like to learn about politics and so they feel that voting is not a waste of time, and that's cool for them. But for everone else, I don't think it's selfish of them to not want to vote, especially since you wouldn't want many of them deciding politicians anyways. | cmv |
I believe Americans who claim they don't vote due to the low probability of their vote being the deciding vote are irrational and selfish. CMV. | It's not irrational : I know that it only takes 1, 000 randomly chosen people to accurately determine who will win a popular vote. Since we have an electoral college, we could do that in each state. As it stands we sample far more than is necessary. It's not that selfish : My time is worth more to me, my community, and my country if I'm working. Especially given my former point. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.