summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
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. | All the examples you have mentioned have a fundamental distinction with the issue that you are talking about. In all these cases the tiny actors are being a part of a whole which has a decent chance of ending up on the winning side ( 50 % or more ) The issue of voting for a candidate sure to lose is more like rooting for an underdog team. Because you truly believe in their capabilities. And you know it deep down that one day a significant portion of other people will see that too. But until then this team is going to lose many times. | 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 live in a state that has voted the same way since 1988. They have voted almost always democrat and since our vote isn't popular, but by the electoral college, all the votes went democrat. I know it's a large margin and I don't need to vote because it's pretty much secure. If preliminary polls were to predict the opposing candidate of my choice, I would probably vote. As of now, I don't live in a swing state and my vote isn't changing anything. | cmv |
I believe that effective gun control may be possible, but that we're going about it the wrong way. Please CMV | I don't necessarily disagree with you, in that I do believe that greater focus on stemming the amount of illegal firearms is an important and necessary issue to be solved. However, gun - violence, crimes, and control is an incredibly multifaceted problem that will never be solved by singling out one specific issue. Saying, for instance, that we ought to limit the conversion rate from legal to illegal does not imply that other gun - control laws shouldn't be part of some comprehensive reform as well. ( As an example, legally limiting clip sizes for handguns isn't negated by a law which prevents guns from becoming illegal ). | cmv |
I've been raised to believe Republicans care more for money than social progress, and more for their own welfare than that of the world. CMV | If republicans were only for money, they wouldn't even have social views. Some of their social views may be wrong, but others can easily be said to be right, or at the very least they have a reason for thinking so ; it's not just an illusion to somehow get money. As far as time goes, the concept of gay marriage is actually a rather new one in terms of being taken seriously. As recently as twenty years ago even liberals were not that big on doing it anytime soon. So the fact that that is the one thing people use to indicate that they must not care about people is a bit overreaching. If that issue did not exist, the stigma that republicans are making problems for no reason just because they can would not really either. Since most other thigns, right or wrong that they do are viewed through the lens that that alone is what makes them indefensible, so therefore everything else they do by extension also is. | cmv |
I've been raised to believe Republicans care more for money than social progress, and more for their own welfare than that of the world. CMV | I'm liberal, but do you seriously care more about " the world " than your own welfare? Do you donate huge portions of your salary to world charities? I vote liberal across the board but if I'm being honest I care more about the NFL than how people are doing in Bangladesh. I don't think that's solely a Republican trait. | cmv |
I don't think the NSA spying on us is such a big deal. CMV | Imagine that an FBI agent came to your door and interviewed you about all the people you called in the past month. The agent asks who you called, where they were, were you were at the time, how long you spoke... and maybe, if he feels like it, what you talked about. This agent then goes on and asks all the people you called. This agent can build a network of all the people you know and all the people they know - or, at least, who they call. Every month, you get visits from these inspectors. They aren't looking for anything in particular, just something, anything, suspicious. And they talk to | cmv |
I don't think the NSA spying on us is such a big deal. CMV | In my opinion the biggest problem is that Congress authorized the NSA to get judicial permission to spy on foreigners they had reasonable suspicion were involved in terrorism, for a limited amount of time. The NSA ignored those legal restrictions and recorded everything on everyone and justified it by saying they wouldn't really look most of it so it is okay. Many people here are saying what the NSA did was unconstitutional, but because all of this was secret, nobody was able to challenge the NSA interpretation in court. The end result is that this is a serious breach of our structure of government, in which the executive branch is asserting power that the legislative branch didn't intend to give them. The people have no chance for remediation in the legislative or judicial branches because most legislators don't know about this and the judiciary can't overturn a law unless someone challenges it - - which nobody can legally do, since it is all secret. Some people, believe the NSA should have this power, but if that is the case, the legislature should pass laws clearly granting them this power, and the public should be able to ask the courts to rule that the law violates the constitution. | cmv |
I don't think the NSA spying on us is such a big deal. CMV | Police have had, since the 1970s, legal authority to a phone company's records in the event of an investigation. This doesn't seem so different, does it? Except that police powers are reserved for States. Giving police power to the Federal Government is an extraordinary step away from our original Federalist system. Why not, now, a national firefighting service? Why have city or State governments altogether? It is a very slippery slope. | cmv |
I believe the electoral college is an outdated practice CMV | Keep in mind, these issues have very little effect on our government as a whole. On the other hand, the cost of fixing these issues is huge. The precedent of a government being able to fundamentally and radically change how elections are held is much more deadly than these issues. | cmv |
My views on Health Care - CMV | I think one of the biggest problems is that there isn't a real cause and effect in many diseases. What do you do about someone who is not overweight and had a heart attack? Go through old photos and see if they were previously overweight? What if they are a'skinny fat '? Where they don't gain weight but they are unhealthy? What do you consider fat? BMI is not an adequate method of measurement. As with most things, it isn't nearly as black and white as people wish it was. | cmv |
My views on Health Care - CMV | A system should not be judged by it's method and " fairness " but by it's fitness to achieve a goal. You catch more people with honey than flies. It would degrade the doctor - patient relationship if your doctor is expected to judge you and potentially ruin your financial future. The downside of living unhealthy is already there : you'll lead a miserable life and die sooner. Subsidized health club memberships, subsidized sports clubs etc on the other hand can be awesome fun and generally a good thing not just for the individuals health, but also for the expenses of the insurance. And then there would be free mental health / therapy, which would likely help with 90 % of the afflictions you mentioned. | cmv |
My views on Health Care - CMV | But now you're setting up Death Panels! Seriously, though, this sounds well and good, but then someone is going to have to come up with the rules and standards, and then someone is going to have to act as the bureaucracy in this situation, etc. We could go further. What if you have a genetic predisposition to cancer? Should we not bother, because you're bound to get it anyway? Should we tax those in more dangerous professions because they are more likely to draw from the system? Do we get a number of " points " to exchange for free health care before we're exhausted and then have to pony up? Perhaps a Canadian or Brit can chime in, but I think they already do some heavy prioritization in countries practicing socialist medicine. | cmv |
My views on Health Care - CMV | I feel like this sort of policy would encourage patients to lie to their doctors about their medical history and living habits. That would also greatly decrease a doctor's ability to actually help a patient, which would result in higher medical costs ( as it will take the doctor longer to determine the problem, and potentially have the patient try several different treatments because they lied about their symptoms ). Not to mention that a doctor isn't going to ( shouldn't, I'd say ) pause before treating someone on the brink of death to see if they've been in here before and if they should just let them die because they didn't fix themseves after their first OD. I think that's a really, really bad plan of action for doctor's to take. Seconds can be valuable, and I'd rather them not waste minutes having to compare names to a national database. Also, I would be worried that the cost of seminars and educations would exceed the current cost of just unilaterally helping everyone. | cmv |
Feminism does not exist. CMV | You are nitpicking examples of extreme cases of feminism without looking at the large picture. Most feminists just want women to have the same rights and advantages as men. You can look at the definition and etymology all you want, but the concept is simple : women that want equal rights. As with any view there are extremists, but they don't represent the common view held by most feminists. | cmv |
Feminism does not exist. CMV | Your use of linguistics to say there is no feminism doesn't make sense. There is no singular person that feminism rallies around. Feminism is the idea that women not be discriminated against because of their sex / gender. Feminists are people who believe this. Discrimination occurs in a plethora of different ways. Therefore the measures to counter such discrimination are equally diverse. In the same way that Christians can be pro choice or pro life, feminists can have different opinions on wars, lifestyle, politics etc. That's kind of the point, all women are different. I don't know why you expect feminism to have a proscribed set of values. It isn't a religion or political ideology that was invented by a particular person. | cmv |
Electing a third party candidate for President would be a waste because of their outsider status and they would be roadblocked and unable to accomplish any goals. CMV | What you're forgetting is that the presidential election is somewhat representative of the voting populace's preference for president ( I say somewhat because the electoral college can and has screwed the pooch on that one ). If a third party president were elected, then candidates for state and congressional races from the third party the president comes from would have added support as well. If the congressmen and congresswomen would like to keep their seats and not lose tow third party contender come their next election, they would have to shift towards the president's views on certain issues. You have to remember that something as massive as a third party president being elected would have serious consequences for our legislators. If they don't get the hint, they'll lose their jobs. If the whole country could unite under a third party, why would their districts not do the same? | cmv |
Electing a third party candidate for President would be a waste because of their outsider status and they would be roadblocked and unable to accomplish any goals. CMV | I think that this is a fundamental misunderstand of the job of President. The President isn't supposed to deal with legislation at all, with the sole exceptions of the vetoes and enforcing them. The President has jobs listed in the Constitution, proposing legislation isn't among them. Judging any president on their abilities to do Congress'job is barking up the wrong tree. We need to judge the president on how well they command the military, how well the enforcement and regulatory bodies function, whether or not they use the veto and enforcement powers judiciously, and things along those lines. A third party would never get its legislation passed by just having elected a president, because that's not the way that the system is intended to function. | cmv |
Electing a third party candidate for President would be a waste because of their outsider status and they would be roadblocked and unable to accomplish any goals. CMV | I think your premise is weak on a number of fronts - firstly, you're looking at things in the short term. Sure, the first couple of years or even the first presidency might be full of roadblocking, what happens after that? While it seems to me at least that the Republicans have received relatively little grief for their obstructionist approach to Obama's presidency, I think a complete political roadblock from both parties might result in significant public pressure to cooperate and might precipitate a movement away from the main parties. The fact is, even if it was just achieved once, the political playing field would be different. Second, no electable candidate has ever fallen outside the range of political positions covered by the Democratic and Republican parties. To win the presidency, the candidate's goals would most likely have to be in line with the political nation as a whole. I think it unlikely that the democrats would pass up a chance to pass a policy they liked simply because it was a non - democrat putting it through, and the same for the republicans. A third party president would be unlikely to be setting out to do things vastly different to what Congress already does or they probably would be unable to get elected in the first place. | cmv |
Electing a third party candidate for President would be a waste because of their outsider status and they would be roadblocked and unable to accomplish any goals. CMV | Everything is speculation here, but I would see one of two things happening.. Right now several members of congress will always vote for or against presidential goals based on which party the president is a member of vs their own. A third party president might open up discourse to go past party identification, and free congress to vote differently. At worst, congress and the media would go out of their way to label this hypothetical President's goals as liberal or conservative, and congress would still be tied to vote for or against that label. Even with that, I feel that it is better than lockstep with party. A true independent might be able to lose the labels altogether, but I haven't seen any candidates that would qualify as such ( Nader a clear liberal, Perot a clear conservative etc.. ), and I feel after a while we'd have labels forced down our throats anyway. Therefore I see either outcome as being positive compared to the current set up as far as productivity relative to a President's agenda is concerned. | cmv |
The current world state is hopeless enough to make me go to therapy. CMV | Well if you try to take on the entire world then I can understand your anxiety. Maybe cut a few of these anxieties out of your life until you don't need therapy anymore. Sounds like Gay Rights is your cup of tea. Maybe just focus on that and stop worrying about the injustices of the financial institution, class warfare and pharmaceutical drugs. All of those issues are enough to consume an entire lifetime by themselves. It would be pretty much impossible for anyone to take on all of those issues by themselves. You can't change the world by yourself, but you can change a little thing. Find people ( from all ages and backgrounds ) that you respect. Then trust them enough to do their part. Let the good people do their thing and focus on a smaller problem. | cmv |
The current world state is hopeless enough to make me go to therapy. CMV | As an environmentalist and all around bleeding heart, needless to say, I have these moments all the time. What I find helpful is to focus on one or two issues that are most important to me ( in my case it's environmental issues and women's rights ) and unplug from news sources bombarding me with the others for awhile. Then, since even those two issues are full of enough bad news to drown in, I focus on things small enough that I personally can make a real difference. On the environmental side, for example, one of my hobbies is prairie restoration. Thanks to this passion, I can create gardens that not only look beautiful, but also provide food, water, and shelter for wildlife, sequester carbon, filter and purify stormwater runoff, and improve soil. As a writer, I can also write about my hobby and share it with fellow gardeners, hopefully inspiring them to plant more native plants and spread the benefits further. And so forth. Getting out and working on a concrete and realistically doable project of this sort does wonders for improving my mood and giving me hope for the future. | cmv |
The current world state is hopeless enough to make me go to therapy. CMV | The current state of our world is better than ever. From ancient times up to the last 50 years, humans have been slowly progressing towards a better and better life. Advances in medicine and technology have allowed us to increase the life span of humans, reduce poverty and improve the lifes of milions of people. You say you're gay. Would you not agree that the attitude of many nations towards homosexuality has improved over the last few decades? There are still plenty of problems in the world, but in general humanity is in better shape than it has ever been. As we get closer and closer to complete globalization, many of issues you point out will be either partially solved or completely abolished. Even with all of the problems the world is facing today, humanity is still prospering and developing better than ever. | cmv |
The House is voting to de - fund PPACA / ObamaCare for the 40th time. I think this is a waste of time. CMV. | I think that as we get closer to January 1st, and people become more informed about the changes, views may change enough so that it might be repealed. I think this is unlikely, but that doesn't mean it's an utter waste of time to keep voting on it. I'm also a broker and am very familiar with the upcoming changes. What I'm seeing as of now is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty about the changes, even among brokers. | cmv |
The House is voting to de - fund PPACA / ObamaCare for the 40th time. I think this is a waste of time. CMV. | The partisanship and discord in our government is so severe there is almost nothing that could pass the house that would also pass the Senate. Anything that MIGHT pass both houses would be either A ) totally meaningless or B ) so loaded with pork and special spending that as a country we're way better off without it. Voting to defund Obamacare might be a waste of time... but nearly anything that has a chance of passing the house is a waste of time. The Senate wont approve anything the House kicks out, and vice versa. Its worth mocking, but its not blocking anything important that could actually pass. | cmv |
I believe that it would be a great idea to require at least one medic per team on every police force, CMV | A basic level EMT can't really do a whole lot for anyone other than drive them to a hospital. If you want actual medical training, you need paramedics, which is a much longer investment in time and training. Source : EMT - Basic | cmv |
I believe that it would be a great idea to require at least one medic per team on every police force, CMV | Can you imagine the cost of every city police, state police, sheriff, constable, and highway patrolman being trained to a significant degree in various medical practices and procedures? Just like a 2 hour course for each would be extremely expensive when all added up, but still not be very helpful, it takes months to be much more versed at first aid than " apply pressure to gunshot " or give cpr. I know a couple EMT's who've taken years of courses and training and they still aren't anywhere near as knowledgeable as nurses or doctors, so you want to spend all that money to turn policemen into less qualified emergence responsers? I mean in an ideal world sure your idea is great, but in a recession with trillions of dollars in debt taking all that time and money to make cops be inferior medics just isn't worth it. tl ; dr $ $ $ | cmv |
Ethical vegetarians are hypocrites if they still consume dairy / eggs / non - meat animal products. CMV | I live on a small farm. We have our own chickens, my grandfather has a few dairy cows, and my aunt and cousins have goats. They're all treated very well - - the cows and goats have a huge pasture to graze, and the chickens roam wherever they please and lay eggs in the coop. Sometimes, when we have too many eggs, we give some to people around the neighborhood, including our vegetarian neighbor. She also uses soap made from the goat milk, and has eaten a few dishes made with butter and milk from the cows. Would you consider her a hypocrite, given that all of our animals live happy, healthy, relatively free lives? | cmv |
Ethical vegetarians are hypocrites if they still consume dairy / eggs / non - meat animal products. CMV | If chickens are given an open space they will all group together in a small part of it for preference and pleasure ( just like people ). That, of course, doesn't mean that they should be factory farmed in just the same way that we shouldn't. But it's OK to eat eggs ( the most'meal in itself'edible thing there is ) as most of them are just like turds. They are not going to become chicks. Ever. No matter how much care the hen or you gives to them. I mean they plop them out every day! Lots of time a day maybe. Not eating eggs is like saying jerking off is evil on account of the going to die anyway semen. | cmv |
Ethical vegetarians are hypocrites if they still consume dairy / eggs / non - meat animal products. CMV | Generally agreed : It's unethically unjustifiable unless achieving a healthy diet is extremely difficult otherwise. Similarly, I believe eating meat is ethical is you need to do so for health ( e. g. reliance on hunting for protein ). I'm not in this category ( I'd fall into the hypocritical / incomplete vegetarian category, as my view is suffering based ) but I know some people who are. if they didn't eat eggs and dairy they would not be healthy people, they just don't have access. | cmv |
Ethical vegetarians are hypocrites if they still consume dairy / eggs / non - meat animal products. CMV | Completely abandoning milk and eggs because some are produced unethically is like abandoning sex because sometimes people rape. There are many free range farms in the US which offer ethical milk and dairy products. Before you argue that free range farms are often expensive or impractical for the average vegetarian, keep in mind that in India, the vast majority of milk and leather is obtained from free range cows, and from cows which die of natural causes. Since 70 % of the world's vegetarian population lives in India, it is relatively easy for most vegetarians in the world to get access to ethically produced animal products. Even if your arguments are valid, saying that all vegetarians are hypocrites, ( including the 300 - 400 million lacto - vegetarians living in India, ) is way too broad a statement. A more accurate one would be to say that vegetarians who knowingly and willfully consume dairy, eggs, and non - meat animal products from sources which cause animal suffering are hypocrites. This statement is significantly more narrow than the one you used earlier. In short, there are so many vegetarians who find ethical ways to consume milk / dairy that it is silly to discount them as hypocrites. | cmv |
In principle, I am not against the death penalty. CMV. | Whenever I ask people why they are for the death penalty I usually get some sort of response that revolves around revenge ( usually an eye for an eye ). This is not why we have a legal system. We have a legal system to stop crimes from happening, not to get back at all the people who do these crimes. Next point I'd like to make is do you trust the legal system to be 100 % right? I'm going to go ahead and guess no. If you don't believe they can be 100 % correct all of the time then you must admit that in theory an innocent man could be put to death. It's much easier to release an innocent man from prison than it is to raise them from the dead. Lastly, from a philosophical stance, I believe that killing anyone without an immediate threat of someone elses safety is wrong. | cmv |
In principle, I am not against the death penalty. CMV. | Having death as a form of justice perpetuates the idea that killing is justifiable under certain circumstances. This promotes a society where people will turn to murder as a solution to their anger, and encourages warfare. If we don't universally treat human life as precious, even human beings we find absolutely abhorrent, we are more likely to descend the slippery slope to other inhumane acts. A society which does not kill under any circumstances is a peaceful one. | cmv |
In principle, I am not against the death penalty. CMV. | You should elaborate on why you would want to kill someone for some serious crime, or for any other reason for that matter. It seems like by default you're suggesting that it's a punishment which is actually'two wrongs make a right'scenario. All I can say to change your mind is that two wrongs don't make a right. ( The idea that two wrongs make a right is a social strategy that has evolved because it has been useful for individuals to prevent themselves from being taken advantage of. ) | cmv |
In principle, I am not against the death penalty. CMV. | Why is it wrong for ANYONE to kill people? Same reason. The state doesn't get a free pass on murder just because it's the state. Even though the state does get a monopoly on force, it doesn't suddenly become exempt from ordinary morality ; it still has to morally justify that force. | cmv |
In principle, I am not against the death penalty. CMV. | Well my biggest problem with the death penalty is that our legal system has flaws, so we're certain to execute some innocent people. That, in itself, is reason enough ( in my eyes ) to abolish it. Since you've addressed that this is insufficient reason to convince you, I'll take a different tack. We generally consider purposefully killing a human being to be wrong, we call it murder and punish the killer. We think it's wrong and punish the killer without regard to the prior bad acts committed by the person killed. Why should we consider the purposeful killing of a person to be acceptable simply because it's carried out by the government? | cmv |
I believe all drugs should be legalized. - CMV | There are some drugs should be illegal. Like meth and heroin can be extremely addictive and damaging physically, socially and financially. But most drugs should be legal or at least drastically reduce the penalty for taking drugs. I mean getting 10 years in jail for having ecstasy is absurd. I like the idea of having more information on drugs. In schools we are just told drugs are bad and people who take them are bad. Now with Cameron trying to filter drugs from the internet ( with porn and violence and suicide etc ) there will be less information available, which would make things more dangerous if people don't know what there letting themselves in for. Better or realistic information on drugs so we can make our own minds up. But don't make them completely legal because people might assume they are completly safe. | cmv |
I believe all drugs should be legalized. - CMV | I doubt you've had a friend or someone close to you addicted to heroin or meth. I thought like you until I did. Wait till it happens and see if life changes your view. | cmv |
I believe all drugs should be legalized. - CMV | I am a strong proponent of the government not being able to control what we do with our own private selves, but there are issues that would make this a very dangerous thing. Aside from the addictions on the rise and resulting increase in crimes of desperation ( that is, if people who don't use based on legality now would pick up those stronger drugs ), the biggest issue I see is that overdose becomes a very easy method of murder. It's already used somewhat commonly to fake suicides and such. Allowing drug usage to be that out in the open makes it that much easier for people to get their hands on the drugs. This probably isn't the strongest argument since most people wouldn't have any reason to go about murdering people, but in the hands of power hungry factions like cartels ( who have just lost a HUGE part of their income ), the methods may become a real danger. | cmv |
I believe all drugs should be legalized. - CMV | Some drugs are extremely addictive and cause the addict to lose the ability of being a productive member of the society ( think heroin or meth ). Are you prepared to pay higher taxes in order to provide for all the newly addicted people who are unable to work or take care of themselves because of their addiction? Are you prepared for hospitals to have to invest a lot more money into caring for drug addicts and therefore taking money away from treating other patients? Are you prepared to take responsibility for all the families devastated by addiction because the drug was easily available to their parent, husband, child ( it is illegal to sell alcohol to children that's why teens never drink, right? )? Personally there is no way I'd want to be the gal who made it all happen. | cmv |
I believe all drugs should be legalized. - CMV | One problem with drug use that I don't see you address is that of crimes that are a result of drug use. Depending on the substance and their level of addiction, drug users can steal in order to pay for their drugs ( regardless of who they are buying them from ) or they can become violent. I am all for the decriminalization of drugs, but to legalize them is a different story. For the government to actively participate in this is the same as condoning it. If you condone the drug use knowing that it often leads to these other things ( theft, violence ) then you are also giving the appearance of condoning those things as well. I realize this is not a perfect example as it is legal to drink alcohol, but not legal to drive drunk, but it is still something to consider. | cmv |
I believe all drugs should be legalized. - CMV | Well I see a few problems right off the bat. First, there's the problem of overdose that hasn't been addressed. A related issued is that those people who overdose or experience other health problems related to their use of drugs will become burdensome on the health care system ( even those with health insurance will be subsidized by other insureds who choose not to use drugs. ) Maybe my most important objection would be the lives that may be ruined by drug use that wouldn't have been had the drugs stayed illegal. You can be certain that there would be some of those. | cmv |
I believe all drugs should be legalized. - CMV | I can agree on everything besides legalizing drugs like heroin, crack and all this stuff. Eventually, these users becomes everybody's problem. It's not even about legalization, it's about people's lives. I support marijuana and LSD legalization tho. Not only because I use it, but because its even less dangerous than alcohol, so wtf? | cmv |
I believe all drugs should be legalized. - CMV | I see problems with " legalization " and controlled distribution ; because it leaves the opportunity for cartels etc to continue what they're doing. Those who could not get it legally, would continue to turn to illegal alternatives. What needs to happen is repeal of the laws making drugs illegal. This leaves them open to be created in the same safe environments that would be ideal ; while not giving the government ( who has perpetuated drug problems for decades thus far ; showing they don't have an interest in the public's best interests ) exclusivity. One might argue repeal isn't a good idea ; on the grounds that it opens possibilities for unsafe production environments, as well as potential for minors to be administered dangerous drugs. These arguments are worth consideration ; but don't speak to repeal's inability to succeed. What we need in societies around the world, are laws that reflect common sense. And the problem with drugs getting in the hands of minors, or being produced in unsafe ways is a problem of education. TL ; DR - What we need more than legalization and governed distribution ; is education and repeal. | cmv |
I believe all drugs should be legalized. - CMV | I agree with you OP. This is anecdotal but has to do with minors and legalization. Growing up, it was infinitely easier to get marijuana ( and other drugs if you so desired ) than it was to get alcohol. Alcohol required finding someone years older than us and was willing to risk the legal ramifications to help us by going to the liquor store and buying us what we wanted. There's no one in a back alley selling 40's to kids / teens. If drugs are the highest quality, cheapest price, regulated, and safely in a store ; kids are going to have a much harder time getting a hold of it. | cmv |
I believe all drugs should be legalized. - CMV | Don't tell people what to put in their bodies, I agree with that. The flaw with this in modern society is government. They like illegal drug trade because it allows for the massive taxes in this country to fund the " War On Drugs ". If we take taxes out of the equation this is bulletproof. | cmv |
I believe that regardless of outcome, the Zimmerman case is irrelevant to American politics. CMV. | If " there are other things we should be worrying about " was a viable excuse, we could never adequately address anything because there will always be other things to worry about. Humans love narratives. The Zimmerman case is a comprehensive narrative that people can better wrap their head around than numbers and statistics. It serves as a representation of the larger issues associated with it ( murders, gun control, racial biases in the justice system ). The notoriety of this case can be ( and is being ) used as a vehicle of awareness to these issues for the masses. | cmv |
I believe that regardless of outcome, the Zimmerman case is irrelevant to American politics. CMV. | I don't think this specific case is important, it's just become a rallying point for issues that people do care about. The case asks questions about racial profiling, for instance. Would Zimmerman have followed him if Martin was white? Would the police have ignored the case for so long if Martin was white? Would the media have spent so much time trying to paint the victim as a'thug'based on spurious evidence if Martin were white? These are important questions that a lot of people in America care and are effected by. Gun ownership, stand your ground laws, racial profiling - this case brought a lot of discussion about issues that genuinely are important. They don't necessarily care about the specific case but do care about the issues that this case brings up. | cmv |
I believe that regardless of outcome, the Zimmerman case is irrelevant to American politics. CMV. | The Zimmerman case has brought attention to the " Stand Your Ground " law of Florida, where " It allows people to meet " force with force " if they believe they or someone else is in danger of being seriously harmed by an assailant. " This is important because even though it lowered crime. Justifiable - homicide cases actually rised. It's important to American politics because it IS affecting Florida to in a negative light. Many people are trying to repeal this law in response to the case. Others are threatening boycott. it brought light into this issue, where the same " Stand Your Grounds " law had not turn out so favorably like others. Sorry for being so link heavy... PS : The Crime Rates in America taken from wikipedia which hacked it from Bureau of Justice Statistics. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | Good luck living in NYC with that little. To modify your view, I'd definitely say you should at least mention " in lower cost of living areas " because in expensive areas, $ 15 / hour is still beyond miserable. Also : This isn't the 80's or 90's anymore. I realize how that might sound. All I am really saying is you need to remember to appreciate and factor in just how much time has actually passed. To many of us it feels like yesterday. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | I don't know if this counts as a direct challenge, but I would argue that what anyone " deserves " is purely subjective. You deserve exactly what you're paid, no matter what job you're in, because that's what someone is willing to pay you. What your job is " worth " is defined by " what will someone give you for doing it? " All minimum wage laws do is upset that definition by placing arbitrary floors on it. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | Either McDonalds pays them enought to live on, or the Government pays the difference in entitlements. I assume you think these jobs should exist, and if they exist someone needs to do them, and if someone does them they need to be able to live on their wages. So while these services are in demand, someone will be paying these people a living wage, its just whether their employer ( or I suppose customers ) do or John Q taxpayer. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | Quite honestly, I think that workers should be paid not only based on what education they have recieved, but on the value of their work to their employers, the involved difficulty of the job, and cost of living in the area. Now, if you take a company such as McDonalds, which provides, as I've heard, 20 % of the preprepared food in the world, their entire market worth is dependant on their fast - food workers. They service end of the McDonalds corporation does nothing but support their extremely top - heavy system of management. I'm not saying i at all agree with how their corporate structure works ( or the decisions they make ) but McDonald's employees should be paid more than $ 10 an hour because they are so integral to the corporation. You also have to take into consideration that a lot of these jobs keep you on your feet for 8 to 12 hours a day, in constant contact with hot oil, grills, and the shittiest customers on the planet. On that basis alone I'd say that fast food workers deserve to be paid more than 10 dollars an hour. Also, in the end, 10 dollars an hour at a full time job might be enough to support one person in 75 % of the country, but more and more employees of Fast Food are suppourting more than one family member. This isn't a question of economics, now, its a question of basic decency. If corporate has the overhead, they should make their workplace better for employees. That involves raising the wage. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | My first thought here is that you have an interesting take on the value of a human life. I note that you say that fast food workers not risking their lives on a daily basis is why they don't deserve a $ 15 an hour wage versus a $ 10 wage. So, are you saying that uneducated people's lives are worth little that risking their lives on a regular basis is only worth $ 5 an hour? I'm not trying to chew you out, but you check your premises. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | Underpaid or not, the are not obligated to work there. If they don't like the wage they are free to leave. Somebody else will come to work on their place for the same salary. Sure, if there weren't any candidates they'd improve the salary, but since there is more demand than supply owners can lower the salary as much as they want. Salary is too low for you? Not my problem. Next! | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | Wages are always set at market value. Artificially keeping wages high or low could severely impact the market at large negatively ( much more than most people expect ). Whether they " deserve " to be paid that much is irrelevant. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | Some people don't have the skills or the physical or mental ability to hold well - paying jobs in which their work generates enough value for them to bargain for a living wage. What do we as a society do with these people? Do we let them starve in the streets like dogs? No. We have to take care of them, whether they deserve it or not, lest we becomes monsters ourselves. How do we take care of them? ONE way is to require a minimum wage of employers who wish to use these people for their labor. ( ANOTHER way is to implement a system of guaranteed income so that no one suffers the fear of starvation. ) | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | The problem isn't just fast food workers, it's the way the economy has been set up to run since the 70s. Between 1948 to 1968 the minimum wage was linked to overall economic productivity. If this had continued the minimum wage would be $ 15 today for everyone. Now of course the extra productivity isn't spread evenly, fast food joints probably don't make up much of that extra productivity but that money is still being made in the economy, it's just concentrated into fewer companies. However, if the minimum wage was $ 15 then people at the bottom would have more money to spend, thus McDonald's could charge say $ 2. 99 for a burger instead of 99¢ and so be able to pay their workers $ 15, perhaps even making more money themselves than before. By having such a low minimum wage companies that provide cheap services to less well - off people have to charge barley enough to make a profit because that's all less well - off people can afford to pay right now. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | This is a fairly new philosophy. It used to be that someone with no high school education could work at a factory and support a small family modestly. This includes a stay at home spouse! If you graduated high school you could get a somewhat more lucrative job, or if you graduated college or beyond you'd basically be guaranteed to be well off. Every job deserves at least a living wage because workers are giving the greater part of their life to work them. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | My grandfather stopped going to school in 3rd grade. He worked in a shipyard his whole life. Hard, back breaking labor. When he died he had over 100k in the bank. Given, it is mostly from living very modestly, and alone, for a great number of years. I realize this isn't the same as fast food but I believe that people with no education, or means for an education, should be able to support their families. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | Minimum wage isn't a livable wage right now, and it's difficult to get a non - minimum wage job without a college degree. Minimum wage used to be higher ( considering inflation ) and college used to cost a fraction of a fraction of what it does today. Hell, my dad made significantly more working for a factory in high school ( adjusted for inflation ) than he does today with a masters degree. Since most places only provide benefits for full time jobs, and because they don't have to provide benefits for part time jobs they don't hire people full time anymore, $ 15 is sort of the minimum to live on decently. That's only $ 30k a year. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | In a market economy, what people " deserve " to be paid doesn't come into it. You could also argue that McDonald's CEO doesn't deserve to be paid however millions of dollars he makes, or that McDonald's shareholders aren't really doing anything to earn their share of the profits. Those people just happen to have way more power because of how our system is set up. What strikes and collective action do is give workers more power than they would have on their own, thereby allowing them to demand a larger slice of the pie. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | When you have a group of people who make less than a living wage working a full - time job, they're forced to do things like default on medical bills, go to work sick, drive without insurance, and a whole slew of things that are harmful to society and everyone in it. The government is then forced to step in and supplement that group, which costs everyone else money. When you look at fast food in particular, you see that the franchises and brands are very lucrative, and that these workers actually generate a living wage's worth of revenue several times over. They have earned a living wage, but interested parties have invested billions over the last 30 years convincing the world they're lucky to be working at all, and whatever hardships they face are the result of their own incompetence / not working hard enough. If you have ever read Animal Farm, Orwell illustrates how a gradual erosion of rights and expectations can occur right before our eyes, and quality of life can be decimated over a long period of time by selfish entities. There are two types of people - those who believe we're all in this together, and those who believe its them against the world. The more citizens gravitate to the second type, the more we're divided up into chunks ; low - wage workers, public sector workers, unionized workers, etc. Divide and Conquer as they say. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | I think the pay plus benefits afforded the average US worker is often not reflective of the value it returns the company. The kind of wage disparity between the top and bottom is significantly lop sided. It appears your point is demonstrative of a construct in which the pay a worker recieves is scalable to what they offer to society. Try to think of fast food wages more in terms of the significant profits earned by these huge companies first and then think about what others make relative to the work they do. Basically, I think most workers are underpaid and given poor benefits. Perhaps it isnt that fast food workers should not be paid $ 15 an hour, but that much of the lower and middle class should all be paid more or at least be paid such that they arent poor or struggling to make ends meet. At least from my perspective, I believe that if you work hard in this country you should not be poor. Basic idea in a country thay can easily afford it. | cmv |
I don't think fast food workers deserve to be making $ 15 / hour - CMV | $ 15 an hour means burger prices increase 30 - 40 %. That leaves the prices similar to more quality fast casual restaurants and still much cheaper to produce your own. This means a very drastic decrease in business for fast food which means many stores close, hours are cut, people are fired so a few people may be earning more but overall many more people will go from minimum wage to nothing when they lose their jobs. | cmv |
I believe US patriotism is cringe worthy and US citizens should get over themselves. CMV | I do know what OP is referring to, but i'd like to point out a different level of patriotism. While I was living in Japan, I didn't see the flag - waving and braging about how awesome Japan is, but there was definitely a strong " belief " ( not sure what word is appropriate ) that Japanese are separate and special compared to the rest of the world. They believed that everything in Japan is correct and the way it should be, and everybody else in the world has it wrong. I even met people who believed that Japanese people had different blood and digestive system to foreigners. | cmv |
I believe US patriotism is cringe worthy and US citizens should get over themselves. CMV | In the late 19th century, this country told my great - grandfather that no feudal holdover stood in his way, only an ocean of distance and a river of sweat. Forty years later, it told my dirt - poor sharecropper's son of a grandfather that his success was limited only by his ambition. Eighty years later, here I am. When I drive by those flags you cringe at, I'm reminded every day of the land that made me, the system our forefathers put in to guarantee that everybody ( eventually ) could make it, and that no one could take it away from them. It wasn't perfect, and it isn't now ; hell, it was founded on the idea that it couldn't be. But through all its ups and downs, that promise hasn't diminished. It's more true now than it ever has been. I'm a caretaker of that legacy now. I'm proud to be one - 350 - millionth of that, and if that doesn't sound exceptional to you, maybe you should take more pride in your country instead of asking that I have less. TL ; DR Sorry I'm not sorry. | cmv |
I believe US patriotism is cringe worthy and US citizens should get over themselves. CMV | Yeah, as many people have said, Americans love their country but hate their government. We are patriotic for our culture and our people. But ask any American what they think of the government and no matter what political view they hold they will likely be disgusted with it. We celebrate the 4th of July but not a single person is doing it in honor of the government. | cmv |
I believe US patriotism is cringe worthy and US citizens should get over themselves. CMV | I realize this borders on ad - hominem, but I have to ask, do you travel much? I've traveled quite a bit ( primarily in Europe ) and America is hands down one of the most self critical countries I've encountered when viewed from a holistic perspective. Obviously there are pockets of ultra - nationalists, but the US is far more introspective and less nationalistic than people think. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has ever traveled both Europe ( except probably the Nordic countries ) and the US came to any conclusion other than that the US is a very tolerant, and surprisingly humble country given its position in the world. Anyways, that's all qualitative, fuzzy, and doesn't prove anything. I'm actually a political scientist that specializes in nationalism, so if I get the time in the next few days and you aren't already burned out on the subject I'll post a more academic response. In the mean time, there are some very good responses here so enjoy the debate, as it is one of the most important of our time! | cmv |
I don't believe anyone is born gay. CMV. | Questionnaires and census collection methods are hardly going to be accurate tools for determining homosexuality stats. Do you think a Nigerian is going to openly discuss their homosexual tendencies? There is increasingly more evidence that there is an epigenetic basis for homosexuality. You can do that research yourself with a simple google search, and hardly deserves mention in a CMV. If there's no'biological'basis for homosexuality, then straight people can't really exist, either - apparently we're just unimaginative or prudish. | cmv |
I don't believe anyone is born gay. CMV. | To challenge your view, I ask this : You claim it is a " psychological condition. " Very well. If the person was not born with this psychological condition, how do you propose this condition came to be then? I am open to the idea that sexuality can possibly be a psychological condition that one is born with. I don't understand why you seem to believe it's an either - or type of thing. Can't it be both? | cmv |
I don't believe anyone is born gay. CMV. | Born gay doesn't mean genetic. That's the part you need to change. Born gay means that sexuality is pre - determined and not a matter of choice. You're arguing against a straw man, that not a lot of real people actually believe. | cmv |
I don't believe anyone is born gay. CMV. | Studies such as this one point to genetic / " prenatal mechanisms " influencing sexual orientation. A quick summary of the article is that the chance of a male being gay increases significantly with each biological older brother. Here is some more information on the phenomenon. | cmv |
I don't believe anyone is born gay. CMV. | OP, it seems like you're coming at this from the standpoint of'everyone is born straight and then can become homosexual or bisexual by external influences ', but that makes an inherent assumption. Have you considered that perhaps some people are born straight, some gay, some bi, and THEN can accept, deny, or bury that natural orientation because of external factors ( like the social acceptance point you bring up ). It seems like in this scenario the disparities across societies are still accounted for, it's simply more complicated that your stated view. | cmv |
I believe Obamacare is a bridge to socialized medicine. CMV | The intent of Obamacare is to ensure that everyone in the United States has access to healthcare at a reasonable cost. It does this in the way that causes the fewest possible changes : modifying the health insurance system so that everyone can reasonably afford to get health insurance. Now, it's possible that you're right. It's possible that these reforms will make health insurance completely unprofitable to offer, and that the government will have to step in and provide single - payer healthcare. But that wouldn't mean that single - payer was the intent. It would just mean that the original intent failed ; that is, it would mean that private health insurance can't provide healthcare at a reasonable cost to everyone. | cmv |
I don't believe there is any way to justify calls to pardon Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, CMV | The argument is that it is a similar circumstance as Nuremberg principle. That hen a government's actions are so heinous, it is the responsibility of ever moral citizen to break the law. Also, the purpose of a pardon is primarily meant to show mercy or excuse actions that were committed in circumstances not recognized by law. There are countless examples of pardons here the person clearly broke the law so why should we exclude this. | cmv |
I believe that we should start implementing knowledge of organized crime and the atrocities they commit into drug education programs. CMV | So, responsibly - sourced crystal meth would be okay? Make sure all your cocaine be fair - trade? Don't shoot up until you know who profits from the tar heroin? I hate to make your point seem ridiculous, because I actually think you are partly correct, and it might help some. | cmv |
I believe that we should start implementing knowledge of organized crime and the atrocities they commit into drug education programs. CMV | How many kids / teenagers / adults do you know who, upon learning about the cruelty in the meat and dairy industries, decide to go vegan? Some, sure, but it's certainly a minority. It's just not really a winning argument most of the time, because people are really good at ignoring cruelty inflicted on others as long as it gets them what they want. Anyway it can't be that bad if everybody's doing it, right? Plus, drug dealers can just counter it with " No worries man, all my products are 100 % cruelty free " - - and kids will have an incentive to believe it. On the other hand, if it suddenly became the case that there was a 30 % chance you'd get mad cow disease every time you ate meat, pretty much everyone would stop really quickly. | cmv |
I believe that we should start implementing knowledge of organized crime and the atrocities they commit into drug education programs. CMV | You've always got to at least relate it back to how it affects the person you're trying to convince. That said, I've convinced a couple of people to stop doing coke by showing them what it takes to manufacture it. Meth is relatively innocuous compared to that, since it takes very little processing, can be produced efficiently on a small scale, and doesn't need to be imported. | cmv |
I believe that we should start implementing knowledge of organized crime and the atrocities they commit into drug education programs. CMV | I'm curious - - why not talk about the problem of clandestine marijuana grows? There's plenty of violence and environmental degradation associated with those. But to your main point, I think you are correct that it is an important reason to not support the illegal drug trade, and it might convince a few youth not to support the drug culture. However, as a main point, it cannot replace young people's more immediate concern - - fitting in and finding a role in society. An emphasis on the unsavory provenance of drugs is just too removed and abstract to work on most youth. A better way would be to point out the futility of using pharmacological means to relieve stress, win friends, and influence people. | cmv |
I believe that we should start implementing knowledge of organized crime and the atrocities they commit into drug education programs. CMV | I don't think this will work at all. Anybody with half a brain knows that the drug trade creates a ton of violence worldwide and supports cartels as well as terrorist organizations. Furthermore, the people who are effected by this violence directly, those in the inner cities, have the highest rates of drug use, so even when it is put to them directly, they don't care. If you wanted to stop the violence, you would legalize drugs, instead of just trying another tactic to get people to stop using them, which unfortunately hasn't worked and won't work. | cmv |
I believe that we should start implementing knowledge of organized crime and the atrocities they commit into drug education programs. CMV | First you have to take a look at where these drugs you mention are most popular. Those are regions where crime and poverty have already destroyed the early lives of these children. I don't think a program is going to help that. Many of them might join gangs as it is. It just won't work. | cmv |
I believe that laziness is the cause of high unemployment rates. CMV | I don't think you quite understand how capitalism works, it basically necessitates that a % of the work - pool will be unemployed. This is true even in highly efficient economic models. ( i. e. rational subjects ). Given this, calling the unemployed categorically lazy is like calling those at the bottom of a grading curve categorically stupid. It is an empty statement because someone has to be at the bottom, and if you want to call those people stupid the concept loses its meaning. | cmv |
I believe that laziness is the cause of high unemployment rates. CMV | So did people becoming somehow significantly lazier a few years ago? It didn't have anything to do with the economic crash? I don't really see a laziness trend in the data. It seems more to me to be primarily just effected by the economic circumstances in the country. | cmv |
I believe that laziness is the cause of high unemployment rates. CMV | Unemployment actually has a lot to do with the growth rates and technological advances of society. People looking for better quality jobs, people leaving fields no longer relevant, people founding new fields, upgrading, not working according to their skill level, all of these contribute to unemployment and show why a little ( around 6 % ) unemployment is good. The USSR mightve had 0 % unemployment, but they also had zero ability to innovate, adapt, or expand. The fact that young people are consistently leaving their h Jobs of whats better and what they like more tells me our society will continue to be healthy, not that they are lazy. | cmv |
I don't understand what the big fuss about the NSA is all about, why do people care if the government looks at their stuff? CMV | It's a problem because of the apathy of people. I don't know who said it, but this quote describes the dilemma pretty good : " When they came to take the communists, it didn't concern me. I didn't like them anyway. When they came to take the jews, I did nothing, because I am not a jew. When they took the gays and the gypsies, I did nothing because I had nothing to do with these people. When they came to take me, there was nobody left who could have done something. " | cmv |
I don't understand what the big fuss about the NSA is all about, why do people care if the government looks at their stuff? CMV | In theory, there would be no problem with honest, trustworthy, and professional people looking at your information for possible terrorist activity. However, in the real world, the government employs some flawed individuals with biases, passions, agendas, weaknesses. This has been proven to be true time and time again. The potential for abuse by government personnel for malevolent reasons is way greater than the protection that it offers IMO. | cmv |
I don't understand what the big fuss about the NSA is all about, why do people care if the government looks at their stuff? CMV | Remember that among us who are having our data collected are ALL future potential politicians. It would be nothing for a agent of this apparatus to subtly suggest to a potential political candidate that they'd probably rather not run for office lest this particularly embarrassing bit of information be released to the public. The intelligence agencies suddenly have veto power over any and all politicians they dislike, or power over them once they're in office. Letting the intelligence / security complex of this country collect the private communications and thoughts of all Americans is nothing short of handing them the keys to the castle. | cmv |
I don't understand what the big fuss about the NSA is all about, why do people care if the government looks at their stuff? CMV | You have to realize that people are worrying about " the potential " of this. While there is no proof of any abuse, people make a big fuss because of all the imaginary scenario where " something could go wrong. " You can't argue with people's imagination. | cmv |
I believe that basic cheap internet should be free to everyone in the world capable of accessing it, and every effort should be put towards making it accessable to everyone. - CMV | Access to the internet, even crappy access, requires a certain amount of money in system maintenance, cable maintenance, administration, customer service, and the cost of paying the employees who do all of that. While the telecom companies are certainly charging their customers much more than it costs to do that, the costs per customer are not a small number. In 2011, the number of Americans without Health Insurance had only just dropped to 15. 7 %. This number has decreased since the health care bill forced health insurance companies to make insurance more available, and in this year alone, health insurance costs are projected to have risen 6. 3 % to account for the increased costs of providing healthcare. While internet access isn't something as drastically important as health insurance, the Huffington Post sets the number of american households without internet at 20 %. Ignoring the costs of providing computers to those households that are now going to innately now have access to internet, the cost of providing free internet to that 20 % is going to cause the rates for internet access, especially broadband access, to skyrocket. | cmv |
I believe that basic cheap internet should be free to everyone in the world capable of accessing it, and every effort should be put towards making it accessable to everyone. - CMV | You only have a right to life, liberty, and your property. Nothing more. That being said, let's examine the economic implications of your argument. 1 ) Who pays for this service? You mention third world nations in your argument, who is going to pay for them? Their governments certainly won't and why should the Canadian government pay for internet access for someone in Africa? If you want to start a charity where you connect people in rural areas to the internet via mobile phones or turbo sticks or whatever that's fine because individuals are donating to your organization voluntarily. 2 ) Priorities We have more pressing priorities than connecting people to the web. Food, clothing, shelter, democracy etc. | cmv |
I believe that basic cheap internet should be free to everyone in the world capable of accessing it, and every effort should be put towards making it accessable to everyone. - CMV | I also think it should be a basic human right to have food and healthcare and freedom of religion. And I also believe that every pre - adolescent girl has a right to own a pony. So what though? I probably can't make it happen. If I were to try though, I think I'd start on getting young girls ponies, because the percentage of girls who don't own a pony is much higher than the percentage of people who don't have food. That's the thing about saying something is a " human right ". There are lots of things that are really nice for people to have, but when you decide to classify them as " rights ", you're effectively saying that they're just as important as, eg, the right not to be a slave. And I don't think internet access falls into that category. | cmv |
I believe that the minimum wage, and other government safety nets, should remain in tact and in some cases increased. CMV | This is just me trying to start a discussion, but here goes. Too high of a minimum wage results in a disincentive to hire more workers. Suddenly, it does not matter how small your job is or how bad you are at it ; No matter the circumstance, every job is worth at least $ 15 / hour. Thus, people who may have been worth keeping around at $ 7. 25 / hour simply won't be worth the extra money. Businesses will have to make cuts to maintain a profit, and the last thing we need at this point is more job loss. | cmv |
I believe that the minimum wage, and other government safety nets, should remain in tact and in some cases increased. CMV | I disagree about minimum wage. There is a much better way to increase the purchasing power of the less privileged, while simultaneously removing the pressures on businesses caused by minimum wage laws. It's called Basic Income. Basically, everyone is given a minimum livable wage from the government, with no conditions. Once everyone is already receiving a basic income, there is no need for minimum wage. People can take jobs with much lower income than current minimum wage without struggling with poverty, and businesses can hire more workers for cheaper. This means that they can reduce their prices, which further increases purchasing power for everyone, further boosting the economy. There have been pilot studies, such as in Namibia and India, which showed that with these systems in place, it greatly benefited the entire communities, pulling people out of poverty and allowing them to increase education and significantly decrease crime and malnutrition. | cmv |
I believe that the minimum wage, and other government safety nets, should remain in tact and in some cases increased. CMV | This two videos 1 and 2 address the subject of minimum wage and get to the conclusion that, despite beeing a law with good intentions, it creates the opposite effect it intends. A minimum wage 1 ) benefits some workers at the expense of the poorest and least productive. 2 ) Can result in the exclusion of certain groups ( ethnic, gender etc. ) from the labor force. ( i ` m not an expert but i would say this is why unemployment is so high among youths in europe and african - americans in america ) Also for those who want to read more about the subject i suggest the chapter 18 of this book and this wikipedia page sorry for the english | cmv |
I believe that the minimum wage, and other government safety nets, should remain in tact and in some cases increased. CMV | Why not weaken the minimum wage while expanding the social safety net ( i. e., direct government assistance )? It achieves the same effect without reducing business'incentives to hire workers. And the government can raise the revenue in a way that minimizes external costs or even has positive benefits ( tobacco / alcohol tax, carbon tax, etc. ) | cmv |
I believe that the minimum wage, and other government safety nets, should remain in tact and in some cases increased. CMV | Ask yourself this question regarding the minimum wage. If the capitalist system is so destructive to the wages of labor that it inevitably creates a race to the bottom, why are 97 % of all workers in the United States being paid an hourly rate above the Federal Minimum Wage? Are 97 % of businesses failing to maximize profits? Are 97 % of business owners just generous souls? If government controls are so necessary, why are we not all working at minimum wage? If you answer the question honestly, you'll see that Marx was completely wrong. We don't require government intervention to stop a race to the bottom, because there is no race to the bottom with wages. There is an ever changing market of prices based on labor's utility, supply, and demand... exactly like every other good. You can argue for interference in this market, but just like every other form of market interference you will create unintended consequences. Depending on the intervention you will either create a shortage or surplus... and usually with a healthy dose of perverse incentives ( better to buy a dishwashing machine than to hire a dishwashing person if the rate is too high ). | cmv |
Protests in the modern day are a waste of time and does not lead to better change. CMV | Others have already pointed out several " modern day " protests that have caused significant change, but there's another aspect that you have to consider to this. Aside from protests that turn into revolutions to overthrow existing governments ( ex. Arab Spring ), it is nearly impossible to measure the immediate impact that a protest has. What result did the Vietnam War protests have? What about the Civil Rights Movement? Can you attribute those results to the protests instead of other factors? You could take this further and say that protests aren't the means to an end. They are just an indicator of overall public sentiment. People marching in the streets don't bring about change ; overall public opinion does. So in this sense, protests don't always work, but when they do, they are effective ways of expressing public sentiments. | cmv |
Protests in the modern day are a waste of time and does not lead to better change. CMV | I believe that protests are ineffective, but for a different reason : less of a unified goal. In Vietnam, protests had a unified purpose, to end the Vietnam War. However, many protests today have no stated purpose. There have been calls for protests against the NSA, but there has been no stated end goal. Are we seeking to abolish the NSA? Or to keep it intact, but end its wiretapping? I think that, if there was a decisive end goal, protests may be more effective, but " Something something something protest the NSA " would never work. | cmv |
Protests in the modern day are a waste of time and does not lead to better change. CMV | A couple years back, the government decided to revoke elderly people's medical cards, which they needed more than anyone else. They decided to cut their benefits to save money. Anyway, this woman and her daughter, the woman wheelchair bound, camped outside the office in a tent among hundreds of other elderly people and friends or children. The people in charge couldn't get rid of them, and they saw the amount of people against their decision, they granted the elderly back their medical cards. Here's but 1 example I can give you. | cmv |
Protests in the modern day are a waste of time and does not lead to better change. CMV | The Tea Party, starting in 2009 has greatly impacted the Republican Party, causing it to turn more conservative. Just take a look at the number of protests in 2009 and 2010. They had a substantial effect on the 2010 debt ceiling crisis, and have directly contributed to the Republican party's focus on cutting spending. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.