summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
Protests in the modern day are a waste of time and does not lead to better change. CMV | Protests don't change things overnight. The Civil Rights Movement you mentioned took years of bloodshed and tremendous dedication and perseverance on the part of every protester involved. It took a group of people who had been disenfranchised for generations and centuries to ignore the fact that it might take a little elbow grease to change a long standing social tradition of racism. Protests only work if everyone is fully committed to the cause, which is why many protests ( speaking for america most ) don't work because the general population hasn't suffered enough yet to truly want change to occur. Most problems in America are merely inconveniences to the general population. | cmv |
I'm pro - choice, but I think 20 weeks is not an unreasonable limit on abortions. CMV. | Why not give her more time? What are you worried about? : Suffering?, the loss of potential life? The loss of actual life? How much it resembles of a human visually? In my view far there is far more suffering prevented by extending that window of consideration, thus preventing unwanted children, than there is by protecting extremely simple organisms ( comparable to the mammals most of us consume daily ). | cmv |
I'm pro - choice, but I think 20 weeks is not an unreasonable limit on abortions. CMV. | The current limit is set at 24 weeks. After 24 weeks the fetus is viable outside the womb although it is unlikely to develop without being handicapped. Why exactly does this limit need to be shortened in favor of a limit at 20 weeks? In a more practical sense, the same legislaters who are trying to set the 20 week limit are also trying ( and succeeding ) to limit the number of abortion providers, and setting waiting periods for abortions. That means that women might have to travel hundreds of miles to get to an abortion provider, have a consultation, and then have an abortion after a waiting period of 1 - 2 days. That means they have to take a several day trip to get the abortion. They have to find out they are pregnant, decide what to do, get the money for the trip and procedure, ( possibly ) take time off work to travel, and finally have the actual abortion. Why would you needlessly shorten the time they have to do this? | cmv |
I think the man's opinion should be important before a woman can have an abortion. - CMV | The woman bears all the medical expenses and risks of the pregnancy ; whether she chooses to accept those costs and risks should be her decision. I don't like it either, because, as you put it, the man is responsible after birth but somehow has no say as to whether that birth occurs? It's just that the need for individual bodily integrity ( e. g. that of the woman ) outweighs the interest of pure equality in this situation. | cmv |
I think the man's opinion should be important before a woman can have an abortion. - CMV | I agree with you in the sense that the current situation is not fair, but I believe your solution is unfair. Bodily autonomy is huge, and forcing the woman to carry the baby for 9 months is immoral, since giving birth has proven health implications. I think it would be better for the father to be able to forfeit parental rights as well as child support obligations within a set period of time after he is informed of the pregnancy. This would be giving freedom to the father instead of taking away even more freedom from the mother. | cmv |
I think the man's opinion should be important before a woman can have an abortion. - CMV | Giving the father a say is not different than giving the government a say. It's her body, and when it is a two way vote but his opinion " has to count ", then its not really a vote. It is men having control over women's bodies. | cmv |
I think the man's opinion should be important before a woman can have an abortion. - CMV | What rationale would there be for giving the father say over abortion? Pragmatically, more restrictions on abortion means more unsafe and unregulated abortions with health consequences for the mother. In terms of fairness, there's no reason the father should be in control of the mother's bodily autonomy. Child support isn't punitive ; it doesn't exist to punish fathers for their reckless behavior, it's for the welfare of the child. If the state had a stronger safety net and gave more support to parents, it might not even be necessary, but as it is, it's the only way to avoid unnecessary hardship for kids growing up in single - parent households. And there are general collective interests in ensuring that children grow up healthy and productive - - it's good for society, not just the child. So, it may seem like these policies contradict ( man has no say over abortion and no say over child support ), but there are solid pragmatic reasons for both to exist. And if you're looking in terms of fairness, child support might be questionable, but there is still no reason whatsoever for the father to have a say over abortion. | cmv |
I think the man's opinion should be important before a woman can have an abortion. - CMV | Abortion is only allowable at all because it is considered a loophole that at a certain stage some people can get one due to it otherwise being a burden enforced on them. If someone else had the right to be involved in the process, it would open up the can of worms that maybe the first person doesn't have this absolute right in general. It would be a hard point to argue the legitimacy of without coming off as extremely hypocritical. | cmv |
I think the man's opinion should be important before a woman can have an abortion. - CMV | How do you respond to the massive asymmetry with regards to physical investment in the child? Even if the woman wants nothing to do with it, but the man wants to raise the child, the woman is the one who must endure 9 months of physical disruption ( weight / hormones ), then potentially more time for recovery / breastfeeding. Women get the entire say because they're entirely responsible for physically supporting the baby, it's just a fact of human biology. If said women does not want to go through that sacrifice, they shouldn't have to ( even if a man she previously had sex with wants her to sacrifice ). Don't get me wrong, I think there should always be discussions, but in the end it ought to be the woman's call. If babies were incubated in plastic bubbles - which would mean a symmetrical investment - then most everyone would agree with you. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | There was a radiolab about this and one of the guys they talked to said he was opposed to any sort of gifted education. That's because he's a firm believer in nurture over nature. He said that there could be two children but one of them is a bit older or lives in a better house or for whatever reason tests slightly better than another kid and is then placed in gifted classes when ( s ) he is very little. Well now the lucky kid is getting a better education than the unlucky kid, so ( s ) he's going to to better on standardized tests and all that and keep getting labelled as gifted and receiving benefits while the other kid does not. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | While I agree with you, I think the implementation should be divided by classes. Say, if you excel at maths, you get to go to the " harder maths " classes, but your other classes would remain " normal ". This would make so that people would get the sense that some people are better in some things, and other people are better in other things. This would help to eliminate, or at least minimize the elitist feeling that a lot of people get when they are regarded as " special " or " gifted " in any way. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | I agree with you on principle, the issue exists in creating an effective system of determining how well a student learns. Intelligence levels ( which are notoriously difficult to quantify anyway ) are only a partial component in determining how well a student learns. Work ethic and work environment are also key. Grades are also irrelevant as a person may be brilliant but a poor student. Teachers vary in quality and for one teacher placing a student in an honors class, the student might actually belong in a lower level. Mobility between levels should be encouraged if a student does not belong there. FYI : Most US schools have different class levels especially in the higher grades. There were 6 levels of Math in my senior year in high school with only 360 kids per grade. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | Consider for a second, not the ideological roadblocks that prevent all public schools from offering every student a tailored education, but the physical barriers. A tiered school system implies a massive, federal overhaul of the education system. I would expect teacher's unions to be against this idea for the simple fact that the it would require teachers to do more work. Unless teachers ( in the US at least ) start earning significantly more money nationally, you can bet those entrenched unions won't do any bargaining. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | Public education should be about breaking down divergences in class trajectories, not entrenching them. Imagine a cycle wherein impoverished, working class individuals have children who share that culture, attend poorly funded schools with less engaged teachers, and are cycled into working class education tiers, and so on. Social mobility is a net good for society, and our education system should reflect that. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | Germany used a tier system for a long time but is slowly drifting away from it. Because the lowest tier will always have the worst reputation and therefor people will try to avoid to get into this tier also employers would prefer people from a middle to top tier over someone with the same grades but from the lowest tier. People from the top an middle tier have no struggle at all but those who happened to be placed into the lowest tier have to struggle a lot ( maybe even for their whole life ). Many potentional might be wasted because someone who is able to be successful in life might was lazy in elementary school as a child because children have other interests. If your career path is decided in 4th grade then chances are that such a system is not optimal. However if you get into the lower tier you are still able to get a graduation of a higher tier although it isn't as easy if you have to adapt later on. I started in one of these lower tier schools due to several issues at home however I managed to get to a grammar school in which I obtained a high tier graduation. So it's not impossible, but the often unjustified bad reputation can make it tough. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | " Intelligence " isn't as simple as a statistic. Even an IQ is the average of a multitude of scores in separate areas. If we separated students, even generally, into each of these groups per subject, we would be lucky to get more than 3 students per class. More importantly than the material is the method it is taught. I can't speak for the majority of schools, but in my experience, the remedial classes specialize in teaching in a way the student can understand. They are small classes because it is only for students that truly need it. While it may be harder for some, the majority of students will reach an acceptable level in their studies through the currently in place methods. TL ; DR : everyone is different. If we split students up by " intelligence " we would either end up with the classes we have now, or one on one teaching for everyone and we don't have the staff for that. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | And how do you test intelligence? There's no test that is 100 % accurate. Even if you measured brain mass, you still wouldn't get totally accurate intelligence, because intelligence is subjective. And how do you measure how " good " a student is doing? Grades? Because grades are also subjective. It's a good premise, but it can't work because there's no objective way to sort students like that. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | in the Netherlands, kids are sent to different schools based on academic merit after elementary school ( note, elementary school ends after 8th grade, although these students are the same age as 6th graders in the US ). these schools differ in what is taught and how in depth the teaching is. at the higher levels it is much like taking AP classes in the US. At the lower levels it is essentially vocational school. I think this is great for making highly intelligent / skilled people but might cause social stratification since students are only allowed to be around people very similar to them. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | There are some movements to break kids out by ability, but it really happens anyways in high school. I've taught AP for the last 6 yrs. I teach at a middle class school. My scores at 25 % above the nat avg. At 30 kids a class I've had 5 or 6 that have really done impressive work. As a matter of fact we are not offering my class this year due to enrollment, kids have opted out. The issue isn't IQ. It's hard work and maturity. One of the drawbacks of breaking kids out by ability is it really calls for individuated learning. This gets expensive. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | There is a tier system. If you're doing well in school you have higher level courses ( and better teachers ) available to you and if you're an idiot you get stuck in shop class. I went to high school in Ottawa. All the lazy and batshit crazy teachers taught bird courses for pre - dropouts. The good teachers taught the high - level courses that required a high average / attendance to sign up for. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | Strange, I'm Canadian and we've had this for a long time now in New Brunswick for grades 11 and 12 ( and 10 when I attended ). Level 1 - Advanced Level 2 - Regular Level 3 - Lower ( for those struggling and / or not intending to go to college ) | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | The problem is that intelligence isn't really a concrete thing, we are really, really bad at judging an approximation of it without an extensive ( and expensive ) IQ test, intelligence is just one small element of capability, and capabilities vary across different tasks. What you propose would create self - fulfilling prophecies, in which children who are lazy under - achieves, have difficult home lives, or are otherwise identified as less capable than they are, are branded as such, and are never really given a chance to test themselves against the early higher achieves and develop. The single best way of determining what a group of children's strengths and weaknesses are is to give them the same opportunities, support them as they develop, and see who sinks and who swims in what subjects. It's not perfect, but at least it doesn't rely on shoddy guesses at " intelligence " that drastically shape the child's future. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | I'm not sure what the public school system in America is like, but as a student in the private school system there is a multi - tiered system. If you do well in a certain subject, let's say History, then you take the Honors course next year. Then the next year take the AP class or the IB program if you do well enough. That way those who work hard and end up getting good grades take more advanced classes, but at the same time only have to take the advanced courses for the subjects they excel in. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | Here's another way to look at it : I went to a so - called " gifted " school and I loved it. I know I would have been bored to tears if I went to a regular public school. Can anyone honestly tell me I should have been forced to go to public school? Why shouldn't I be able choose what makes me the happiest? | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | The problem is that you risk creating a self - fulfilling prophecy which has been frequently observed in tiered systems. A child gets put in a low set at a young age for what ever reason and never manage to leave that set, possible because they're in a class of 30 and get very little attention. They grow up believing that this means that they are bad at whatever the subject maybe and low - and - behold, they turn out bad at it. Not because they actually are, but because they have been conditioned to believe it. That's not to mention that introducing a system that is, in the truest possible sense of the word, fascist, to children is probably a poor idea. That is to say that it creates a very real social hierarchy which can be associated with far more developmental problems. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | If you start literally separating people based off intelligence, it would lead to a huge rift in our society. That would only work if you separated people by different altitudes. Ranking intelligence would cause too much superiority and inferiority conflicts. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | Splitting children up early produces bad outcomes. Back in the 1960s, Rosenthal and Jacobson randomly labeled a subset of first - and second - grade children as gifted ( informing the teachers, but not the students ), and their test scores increased more than the other students. The experiment didn't show the same effect for older children, but it's not beyond the reach of imagination to believe that similar effects are at work for older children. ( The original paper is here. ) Apart from that, the notion that school grades separate children reliably according to any notion of permanent or innate ability is surprisingly shaky. If you compare classroom instruction to one - on - one tutoring, you can move average kids to the top two percent. The notion that you can select out the high performers does not necessarily have any basis in fact. This is true whether you want to use the word'intelligence'or not. | cmv |
I believe high schools should use a multi - tier system to stream teenagers into appropriate programs based on intelligence, regardless of the stigma this may cause. CMV | My school does in fact separate its classes using a test that seems remarkably similar to an iq test. The result is that those who received low scores only get worse, and those who were better off had a better environment. The teachers often liked our sections better even though they had no reason to, and less was always expected of the other classes. It all sort of led into a self fulfilling prophecy and I get depressed when I think about it too long. To be honest though, I think the " smart " classes were only so because that is what was expected, and because we were a little older when we took the test in sixth grade. It really isn't fair, and that is my opinion of the whole thing. | cmv |
I believe that the " free rider problem " posed by organized labor is simply a cost of doing business, and not a legitimate reason for legislative interaction on their behalf. CMV. | There are two problems here. You don't understand the free - rider problem. It's true that there might be some people who honestly don't want union protections, but that's not the issue. Even if I do want union protections, the economically rational thing for me to do is to not join the union. If the company is large enough, their power will not be significantly lessened because I'm not a member. So if I'm acting purely in my self - interest, I will never join a union, even if I strongly desire union protections. You also don't understand the nature of the solutions to this problem. Nobody is arguing that the government should step in and legally require people to join a union. They are simply arguing that " you must join this union " should be a legally enforceable portion of an employment contract. If you don't want to join a union, you can simply find a company with no such provision in its contract ; nobody's saying you shouldn't be allowed to do this. | cmv |
I'm anti - abortion because I can't draw the line between goo and person. CMV | The problem here - I feel is that you expect hard answers to all questions pertaining to morality. This is simply not possible. Most moral choices are a spectrum. As with any action - we must accept that there is a cost associated with the action. Some decisions cannot be avoided just because we could be wrong. Similarly in the case of abortion you might feel comfortable aborting at a certain intelligence level ( say ), but less and less comfortable with the action as it approaches the time when such intelligence manifests itself. But don't neglect the case that you might be wrong on the other side and you are, in fact causing someone demonstrably a person certain pain while weighing your decision on someone ostensibly a person. Not allowing an abortion still has its costs. Also souls are a religious concept. I'm not sure what feedback you want on that. | cmv |
I'm anti - abortion because I can't draw the line between goo and person. CMV | Realistically, it almost certainly is a person long before an abortion is gong to occur at least enough that the morality of death applies. Only an appeal to postmodernism really changes this. Laws about abortion are not based on any abstract notion of when they're not one, they're based on viability. Ultimately, spending any amount of time talking to anyone pro abortion, you realize that their arguments in favor of it are not based on some concept that they only approve of it because they think there is leniency here. It's an argument based on the consequences, and their desire for their to be a loophole region of time when you can get rid of them for the sake of freedom. | cmv |
I'm anti - abortion because I can't draw the line between goo and person. CMV | Messing with what is inside another persons body is abuse. You cant force your morals on other people. If you try to you are guilty of abuse. Small kids and fetuses are totally dependant on their mother. This is true and always was true. Dont let you misguided cheap ass moral thoughts run against natures laws. You loose anyway, but you may do a lot of damage to other people on the way. Mind your own business. | cmv |
I'm anti - abortion because I can't draw the line between goo and person. CMV | Up until the point the fetus is able to survive outside of the mother's body, even if it requires medical technology, abortion should be legal. The only possible way for the fetus to survive is by using the mother's body. Sure, a newborn needs someone to take care of it, but it can rely on anyone to take care of it. You can't force a mother to take care of a newborn so why should you force a mother to take care of a fetus? | cmv |
I hate Libertarianism CMV | Many people today recognize that our government today is bought and paid for by special interests. There are all sorts of laws and regulations that benefit the corporate campaign sponsors. The affordable care act was a gift to the insurance companies disguised as healthcare reform. The stimulus package was a gift to banks and big corporations disguised as an effort to get people back to work. Government isn't looking out for the people, it's looking out for campaign contributors. The libertarian solution to this is to give politicians less to sell to campaign contributors. I believe people would be better off looking out for their own interests than dealing with a government that looks out for special interests at the expense of the people. I believe that people, as part of their nature, will do what they can to help themselves and those close to them. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people who have substantial power bestowed upon them to behave any differently, which means powerful politicians will use their power to help people close to them ( often at the expense of the people that the powers were meant to help ). Setting up a government that requires politicians to act contrary to their nature is doomed from the start. | cmv |
I hate Libertarianism CMV | Watch Milton Friedman's Free To Choose for a good introduction to the benefits of economic liberty and a less involved government. I linked to the first episode, later ones are on the right of that page. The 1980 series is way better than the 1990 refresh. Even though it is old, nearly all of the theory is still relevant. Keep in mind while watching that it is a program for laypeople, so there will be some over generalizations. | cmv |
I hate Libertarianism CMV | I would say that the idea that there should be no government whatsoever is more anarchist than strictly libertarian. I consider myself a more moderate libertarian. I believe that in general, the government doesn't do a great job at trying to help people, and that it tends to do more harm than good. So in general, when the government wants to raise taxes, inflate the currency, or borrow money to pay for doing something, I think its a bad idea until they can prove otherwise. I don't believe that there's absolutely no place for government. The government can do a good job at remedying externalities and infrastructure, and that there are things worth paying for : national defense ( though we should try to mind our business more ), a justice system, and some public goods. But I believe our system doesn't lend itself to carrying out tasks efficiently, so we should avoid doing so a lot more than we do now | cmv |
I believe that socially anxious people should not be forced to overcome their issues. CMV | Social anxiety itself isn't a bad ( or even rare ) thing, but being unable to deal with social anxiety is. Assuming someone desires to become a functioning, productive member of society, he will need to be able to communicate effectively. Take for example, work. In virtually any job requiring a college degree, you need to be able to effectively communicate problems, progress, and everything in between to colleagues and managers. Someone that cannot manage social anxiety often is unable to let coworkers know the things that they need to know for the company to function smoothly. If socially anxious people don't learn how to manage their anxiety so that it does not severely interfere with their communicative ability, then they will be extremely limited in what they can contribute to society and ultimately hurt themselves. | cmv |
I believe that socially anxious people should not be forced to overcome their issues. CMV | On the other hand, if they have someone willing to encourage them, it means that person is sensing their discomfort and trying to make things better for them. That alone should help the anxious person relax and realize their situation is more " safe " than they perceived it. Also, they should realize looking so uncomfortable is a causing the people with them an added anxiety when they are clearly intent on enjoying themselves. You have some obligation to put on your game face and give it the old college try for their benefit. Otherwise, you appear to be the one who needs special attention, inadvertantly drawing more attention to yourselves. | cmv |
I believe that socially anxious people should not be forced to overcome their issues. CMV | Socially anxious people do need to overcome their issues though. Seeing a friend or acquaintance suffer from that is ( I imagine ) a lot like seeing them self destruct via, say, depression. Or a gambling addiction. Or alcoholism. Of course one wants to step in and try to help somehow. It's not surprising that outsiders'attempts to be helpful don't really work. It's also not surprising that they just make the anxious person more anxious. But sometimes it's nice to know that somebody cared enough to try - - and this is particularly true for the people who are so crippled by their social anxiety that they don't really have friends. | cmv |
I believe that socially anxious people should not be forced to overcome their issues. CMV | Self confidence is dominated by a positive feedback loop. If you're on the negative side of it, things will only get worse, Whereas if you're on the positive side, things get better and better. The only way to get over the hump is to override your end of the loop. throw away information coming to you from other people about your well being ( or lack thereof ) and substitute your own. You have to communicate that you are finally alright to people around you, and they will feed it back to you. Keep at it constantly untill it no longer feels like you're faking it. It worked for me. Just try it. If you continue to believe you can't, you're just making the problem worse by convincing everyone else. | cmv |
I don't understand why Americans hate publicly funded healthcare, CMV. | Yes, Americans really - truly don't support this, for the most part. See, the US has a strong libertarian tradition, in which nobody ever " has to " support anyone else financially in anything. The idea is that the government, and therefore taxes, will be kept as small as possible, and only the most essential services will be paid for with tax dollars. They justify this with a two - pronged approach : It's everyone's responsibility to take care of themselves, and irresponsible people have only themselves to blame for not getting health insurance. However, sometimes people who " aren't a complete drain on the system " may legitimately need help. There are charities for this that they would totally donate money to, and they would do it because they want to help people, and not because it's their responsibility. | cmv |
I don't understand why Americans hate publicly funded healthcare, CMV. | Well, I feel the reason most of us don't want publicly funded healthcare is because our government isn't very good at doing " things " like that. Our federal government governs 50 states, several of them geographically larger than Britain, and most much more demographically diverse. Between some of the states are large ideological, demographic, and wealth gaps. Each of these states hold a decent amount of power, and the funds for a program like the one in Britain all go through each state, and each state has different ways of implementing the program. I believe welfare and social security run this way. In my view, this causes waste, red tape, and fraud. Not to mention our federal government has a long history ( IMO ) of trying to get more control over the states / citizens. American citizens don't normally like this overreach, and you could argue the Revolutionary War and Civil War were partly caused by overly powerful governments. I feel like I'm missing something, but it is late. | cmv |
I don't understand why Americans hate publicly funded healthcare, CMV. | For the top 5 %, private healthcare can work better for them. They don't see the insurance premiums since these are paid by employer. They have a much stronger political voice, and the public can be easily manipulated into fearing change. Doctors, Hospitals, Insurers also benefit significantly. For the most part, the public would benefit greatly from single payer healthcare. Even if taxes are about the same as insurance premiums, there is incredible value in having the safety net of still having coverage if you lose your job, and the hospital bill actually being paid, and not risking the insurance provider dropping you or claiming a procedure is not covered. | cmv |
I don't understand why Americans hate publicly funded healthcare, CMV. | The opinions on the net are not a representative sample. Men are overrepresented ( generally richer and have more to lose from progressive taxation ), young people are overrepresented ( they're healthier, and probably have never been personally faced with a hospital bill before ). About half of Americans support public health care, and it's been that way for about 50 years. So there's nothing new about the majority, just a different set of people voicing their opinions. I understand the virtues of taking care of my fellow citizens, but you know what's stronger? my gut reaction when I see a sickly overweight person on a hospital bed with a bad hand of heritable diseases and a history of smoking, being kept alive by a process that's costing somebody about a $ 1000 per hour. I can't help but think the world would be better if that were not happening. | cmv |
I don't understand why Americans hate publicly funded healthcare, CMV. | A lot of institutional Cold War era propaganda still exists within the American psyche today. If you were to conduct a survey, you would find many average US citizens would disagree with the idea of socialism, but couldn't explain why, or even what socialism is. They just now it is bad. It is the same in many countries. The people living there adopt a certain national political identity because it is the norm. You also have to remember that the US is generally more socially individualistic than European nations. It is the principle the nation was built on, a very DIY attitude. However, it implies that you are somehow limited in your ability to succeed if you don't live in a similarly individual society, which is plain wrong. | cmv |
I don't understand why Americans hate publicly funded healthcare, CMV. | Since you already have it, you've written off the opportunity costs associated with your cut of the NHS bill. However, since Americans must consider the possibility of going that direction, we are intimately aware of the opportunity costs. Furthermore, America's cultural identity is fragmented, and the idea of an unworthy 200st soda - drinker unnecessarily using up all the funding for liposuction just offends our sensibilities. Hell, if I had to foot the bill for my mom's medical bills, first thing I'd do is demand that she eat as many greens per day as I do! But alas, I can't do that if there's single - payer healthcare. I might very well be paying thousands for someone who eats worse than I do, exercises less than I do... and is essentially wasting my / our / America's money. Brain cancer treatment for a child? I'm okay with that. I love kids, think cancer is terrible, and I hope this money goes towards research for a permanent solution. But another adult is held to different standards. | cmv |
I don't understand why Americans hate publicly funded healthcare, CMV. | Yes, as shalevbd said, Obamacare is not publicly funded health care, public health insurance, single - payer health care, or any sort of national health insurance program. Instead, it increases coverage a bit for Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low income people that already exists, provides certain private health insurance subsidies for those with low incomes that don't qualify for Medicaid, and requires that all other people buy health insurance. In exchange, the health insurance companies are no longer allowed to deny anyone health insurance or charge different rates based on preexisting conditions ( cancer patients would otherwise be denied, for example ), and they can't spend less than 70 % of the money they get from customers on health care. Therefore, it is universal healthcare, not publicly funded healthcare. ( Well, it would be universal healthcare, if it didn't leave 30 million uninsured. ) | cmv |
I don't understand why Americans hate publicly funded healthcare, CMV. | Just to give you a brief summary, Europe has lower Doctor salaries, significantly longer wait times, and short doctor - patient time ( and again ) on average ( especially in the UK ). Further, Europe does it with far more doctors per capita in most cases than in the US. Even the few socialized systems which work well cannot be scaled up to the American population. Another interesting, little - known fact is that the American health care system is responsible for 78 percent of all biomedical research. Pharmaceutical and prosthetic companies are heavily incentivized by our policies, which benefit medicine all over the world. America has the best, fastest collection of hospital care in the world - - and it works perfectly for 85 % of the people ( and manageably for 10 % more ). Yes, we need to improve conditions for the remainder - - but we can find a way to do it without ruining the system for everyone else. | cmv |
I don't understand why Americans hate publicly funded healthcare, CMV. | Ignorance is bewildering. I think it boils down to greed. But really, it isn't your neighbor's responsibility ( in the average American mind ) to cover your healthcare. It's yours. That said ; both our countries got a lot of problems that arise from this selfish paradigm. If you're interested in something you can share to people that promotes a better alternative ; I've posted a concise philosophy for life titled " 3 Bullet Philosophy " that can be found using the search bar. I can help with any questions. | cmv |
I don't understand why Americans hate publicly funded healthcare, CMV. | Seems to be a mix of people having a gut feeling that they are going to get screwed, being angry that people that they perceive as lazy getting a free ride, and good old fashioned partisan drama. I'm an American and all about it for the record. I own a business and employ many people and still can't afford any sort of decent coverage. | cmv |
I don't understand why Americans hate publicly funded healthcare, CMV. | i think most of the important points of why a person might be against universal healthcare have been covered. one thing that's missing here is that a lot of americans actively don't like government, and find it to be incompetent. i've found that in europe you're likely to find someone who thinks of the members of their government as " working for the people " and of their job as " leading ". americans are way more cynical about government, on average. there are parts of america where you won't find anyone who thinks the legislative or executive branch of government are supposed to make laws for the people. on the flip side, even in places where a majority of people think government is there to help, you're likely to always find someone who thinks government is manned by idiots, exclusively. | cmv |
Ignoring the UN Human Right Charta is abomination. CMV | The UN human rights charter is nothing more than a reflection of the personal morals present in the people who wrote it. As for basing your convictions on 1984 : There are plenty of books advocating that a surveilance state is a good thing. The only reason you haven't heard of them is that 1984, by pure chance, was written by a person who is an exceptional writer. If orwell had a different opinion on privacy, your opinion would be different. | cmv |
Ignoring the UN Human Right Charta is abomination. CMV | Your language is fine. The problem is nobody knows if it is going to rain. A weatherman can tell you that it probably isnt going to rain on the gay marriage slippery slope to sodomy, and many ( including myself ) believe that this is not a slippery slope. But a german in 1932 could tell you nationalism and industrialization probably wont rain into a holocaust, but they didnt know. If it does rain and this slope is slippery, 1984 is a foreseeable future. If it doesnt rain and the NSA continues not caring about what youre actually doing and simply probes for likely terrorists as they always do, then the world will be a slightly safer place with no harm done. | cmv |
I think that campaigning for social change is inherently un - democratic. CMV | How is campaigning for social change different from telling someone what you think is right on a social issue, aside from it being on a larger scale? No one is forcing someone to think in some way. Just because some people are campaigning for equality for homosexuals, how is that forcing you to accept it? If your ideas can't stand up to any sort of challenge, do you really hold those ideas in the first place? We don't live in a vacuum. People are always going to be surrounded by ideas they don't agree with. Campaigning for social change is really just a bunch of people who think the same way telling the would what they think. Trying to limit their freedom to express their views peacefully is inherently un - democratic. | cmv |
I believe the US is ( or is becoming ) a corporatocracy. CMV | I don't think youre entirely wrong but i'm going to challenge your last point I think America turning into a Corporatocracy is not the direct problem its the byproduct of the larger problem that is the reduced political efficacy of the U. S. Population. Theoretically if senators pass a law we don't like we should be able to vote them out of office but the general U. S. population is so unaware of these issues and such that the same people just keep on getting re - elected and basically have free reign. So we need to fix our political efficacy in order to fix the " corporatocracy " | cmv |
I believe that the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision was the right one. CMV. | The issue in Citizens United was not whether the government could prohibit you, a natural person, from buying political ads. It was, very loosely, whether the government could restrict corporations and other artificial entities from buying political ads. Do you think corporations need the same free speech rights as natural persons? | cmv |
I believe that the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision was the right one. CMV. | Let me ask you this, does the company that is purchasing the airtime have to be proven to be American? Or can anyone / any company purchase airtime to influence politics? What about a Russian company? | cmv |
I believe that the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision was the right one. CMV. | I wanted to post my simplistic thought on this but didnt see a good comment chain for it... I am pro gay marriage. But I also really like chickfila's food. Why does my sandwhich have to be a political statement? Why cant my money stop at the company who sold me what I want? I am for net neutrality and patent reform, but my telecom choices and software preferences and needs are in direct contradiction with those views. Talking about corporate rights is interesting and all, but at the end of the day id rather my political donations be limited to the contributions I send in to a candidate I like. And not every candidate that my service providers like. | cmv |
I believe that the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision was the right one. CMV. | Think of money not as free speech, but as how you're dividing up limited media resources between candidates. Do we want the candidate with more money to automatically dominate the conversation by getting more airtime and more billboards? Free speech is a right everyone should enjoy equally, so competing voices have a shot at a fair debate, rather than letting people tip the scales by just vastly outspending their competition. Since everyone has the same right to free speech, we should all be limited to a maximum campaign contribution most people can afford, so a millionaire or billionaire's free speech isn't valued way more highly than the average person. Even so speech will be distorted in favor of the rich, since a millionaire doesn't think about giving $ 2, 500 to a campaign while that's a serious sacrifice for someone making $ 30, 000 a year or less. But it's less a distortion than letting one person give millions or tens of millions of dollars. And corporations shouldn't be allowed to contribute since their owners and employees can already contribute. If every person is abiding by a maximum campaign contribution limit, it doesn't make sense to allow people to make artificial constructs that allow them to give a second time. | cmv |
I believe that the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision was the right one. CMV. | It's interesting to note that the CU decision has already had negative repercussions for the groups that most thought to benefit most from it. The large influx of money from certain groups caused severe distortion in the messages presented to the public. It effectively pushed out moderate conservatives in favor of very far right ones. It probably even cost Romney the election, and allowed the Democrats to pick up a lot of seats in congress. Weather or not it is right or wrong, the change in money brought a change in power that has very real and very negative effects on elections. Personally, I think regulation of election spending is important. Doing otherwise is to ignore the age - old lesson of " Conflict of Interest ". Plain old basic corruption. Ignore it and it will bite you every time. | cmv |
CMV about UAVs, aka Drones, on the battlefield. | I guess to bring in another argument about drones is the possibility of the enemy gaining control of the drones and using it against the owners. It sounds kind of childish in thinking, but it's legitimate. I don't know the security protocols of such drones, but they are remotely controlled. I believe any computer system can be hacked. There are many points along the way where the system can be compromised, like the satellite that relays controls to and from the operator, the operator himself, or reverse engineering the communication protocol from captured drones and sending spoofed controls. You really can't do that with fighter planes as they have a pilot on scene controlling it. | cmv |
CMV about UAVs, aka Drones, on the battlefield. | Playing devil's advocate hear, I think some people feel that there is " just war " or morally acceptable war that follows rules established by the international community ( e. g. no torture, chemical weapons, cluster bombs, etc ) and has sufficient cause to justify the killings. The efficacy of these accords, however, ultimately lies with the morality of the soldiers. The My Lai massacre and Abu Grahib torture are examples of unjust actions perpetrated by individuals in otherwise " just " wars. Drones remove the soldiers from the battlefield, distancing their actions from the consequences of those actions. This could lead to increased dehumanization of the enemy, increasing the risk of atrocities like My Lai. If drone pilots see people as dots on a screen, they may be more inclined to kill indiscriminately. Thus, someone who approves of the current social security policies of the US might support the bombing of targets in Yemen by manned aircraft but not drones. One flaw with this argument is that fighter pilots are only slightly more connected to their actions as drone pilots, as both only see the consequences on a screen. | cmv |
I don't believe that white males are the most favored demographic in the USA, CMV. | Reading through the posts here, OP, the common thread in your story is the phrase " My experience " Personal experience is inherently biased and you need to understand that information gleaned that way is lensed through your previous experience. It's important to understand that there are other ways to learn things. When people talk about white males being a favored demographic, they'll usually site large population statistical information. It isn't difficult to prove bias that way, but it's very impersonal and detached. It's very difficult for some people to acknowledge this sort of information. | cmv |
I don't believe that white males are the most favored demographic in the USA, CMV. | Sure, in some fields it is harder to be male. I don't think anyone denies that. But in general it's much easier to be a white male than a woman or a minority. Your experience is based on one career field. I think that is more important than you experiencing it in many geographic areas. I'm in astronomy ( one of the worst STEM fields for women, 10 % female at the higher levels ) so I could easily make the opposite generalized based just on my experience ( in many US institutions, 3 different countries, and 1 conference and I'm still an undergrad ). And I don't think I would be any more right than you if I'm only using my experience as a justification. | cmv |
I don't believe that white males are the most favored demographic in the USA, CMV. | I think what is causing your disconnect is that just because you are a white man doesn't necessitate becoming a " highly privileged " member of society ( such as a CEO or president ). Just the same as living in a low income area doesn't necessarily mean you're low income ; that's just where you come from. Beyond that, as a straight white male you are already given the " privileges " of being able to marry your partner of choice and not have gender based pay discrimination or unwarranted police harassment. No, you may not necessarily have instantly become a success in life, but you are in the group of the most privileged demographic, as you haven't had any rights taken away. | cmv |
I don't think that just because an individual is wealthy that they should pay large sums for child support. CMV | Whereas something like a fine costs a set nonpercent amount of money purely as punishment, child support is not a punishment to the parent, but a means of keeping their financial support for the sake of the child's well - being. A middle - class person, raising their child ( no child support involved here ) may spend $ 10, 000 on them per year. And so if they become separated from the kid, they've go to pay the same amount they would have had they been with them. A wealthier person may spend $ 50, 000 on their kid per year. Is this more than what is necessary for a child's food and healthcare? Yes. But this is their kid, who they as a wealthy person would be spending $ 50, 000 dollars per year on. It is unfair to the child that because the parent is not physically there with them, they're going to get less financial support from them. | cmv |
I don't think that just because an individual is wealthy that they should pay large sums for child support. CMV | Regardless of how much money you lavish upon them, children in single parent homes tend to have worse outcomes than children raised in stable homes. Therefore, it is in the best interest of society to discourage people ( particularly fathers ) from having children and then leaving the picture. Child support is supposed to hurt : it's supposed to make the father want to think twice about leaving. If we made Val Kilmer the pay the same amount we make Average Joe pay, Kilmer wouldn't even notice, and he would have no reason not to just pay off his baby mama and never look back. Is it unfair? Probably. But so is growing up without a dad. The high cost of child support might just be enough to make the father stay, and then everyone can be happier. | cmv |
I don't think that just because an individual is wealthy that they should pay large sums for child support. CMV | In addition to what the others have said : the sum is to insure that the children can lead the same or close to the same quality of life with the caretaker as they could before the divorce. The same size house, schooling, food, travel, gifts, etc. Since their houses are multimillion dollar homes, school tuition is often 20k + annually with other expenses, the amount seems to make a bit more sense. Side note, for interest : In Canada they do have a law stating that if the parent owing the child support money makes more than 500, 000 that the percentage that the other parent can receive is capped. | cmv |
I don't think that just because an individual is wealthy that they should pay large sums for child support. CMV | The poverty threshold is a horrific threshold to use. No one can live decently at it. Why should poor people be penalised more than rich people for having a divorce especially since they're worse off both before and after the divorce? | cmv |
I don't believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV. | I agree. We can argue this quite easily versus homosexuality as well. Homosexuality is a victimless orientation. So those who say homosexuals are wrong are not considering the fact that it is a totally victimless and consensual. There is nothing wrong with acting on homosexual desires just like there is nothing wrong with acting on heterosexual desires ; assuming both parties are consenting adults. Pedophiles who don't act on their urges are not wrong or bad people. But when they do act, it is wrong because there is a victim. Someone in that equation has no choice to be a part of it and thus it is wrong and punishable. | cmv |
I don't believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV. | I don't find anything wrong with pedophiles. I base my facts that we're all just animals of nature. Animals forced into civilization, and that we don't all think the same. I don't find it as a disorder, and I certainly don't believe that they should be treated any differently. I mean, if they had assaulted a child into sex, then I'd agree to the fact that they'd be punished for a while. Either way, those are my thoughts. | cmv |
I don't believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV. | I agree we shouldnt hate people with these disorders, not inherently at least. The problem is that people like this are sorta like bombs ( as are most others with certain desires, but these people moreso i believe ) : light their fuse, who knows what could happen. Everyone has a vice, but some vices arent meant to exist within society | cmv |
I don't believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV. | I don't think there's a logical argument to say that a paedophile who manages to completely control their actions is wrong. None at all. But I think there's a strong argument to suggest being a paedophile presents a danger. It is natural for people to follow their urges, and common for people to give into them despite their best intentions. Look at people who try and fail to diet, exercise, gamble, etc... Some people succeed at resisting their urges, but some people also fail. Paedophilia presents an additional temptation for those affected by it to engage in extremely harmful behaviour. Some people succeed at resisting these temptations, but some fail. Each temptation isn't of itself wrong, but each presents an increased risk of harmful behaviour. | cmv |
I don't believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV. | it's hard to argue against this since a pedophile is not the same thing as a convicted sex offender. Pedophilia is just like any other mental disorder that causes a person to produce unwanted thoughts or impulses. Having sexual attractions towards pre - pubescents is not inherently wrong, but the actions that are fueled by it are. Though if you believe that a pedophile shouldn't undergo some kind of rehabilitation, then i say you are wrong. | cmv |
I don't believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV. | They can think all the thoughts they please and have all the desires their body throws upon them. I have no problem with that from a moral or legal standpoint. However if they act on them, they will be engaging a minor in sex, something that, as a minor with an adult, they are not able to give consent for. That is wrong. | cmv |
I don't believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV. | The only thing I wish to argue is pedophilia being considered a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about gender, so you can be a gay pedophile or a straight pedophile. Pedophilia is a fetish, a sort of sexual preference. | cmv |
I don't believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV. | I think that regardless of their actions ( or inaction ), someone's identity as a pedophile basically marks them as dangerous to society. People are afraid of pedophiles because they're just like you and me, and if not for certain social constructions, they'd act on their sexual urges the same as anyone else would. Basically, I don't think a lot of parents would want their neighborhood pedophile thinking it's okay to be the neighborhood pedophile. But I would agree it's something out of the person's control and not wrong in and of itself. | cmv |
I don't believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV. | I think that the human brain is far more complex than we are giving it credit in this particular situation. Your vast experiences and your environment are what shapes your personality, as well as certain genetic traits you inherit. A pedophile may think that their psych is set in the way they view children, that it is just who they are. I find this upsetting just in the simple fact that people are starting to define themselves by their sexual orientation. We are not made up of merely hormones. But in the same way as people have " tendencies " to be alcoholics, couldn't it be said that certain people could be inheriting hormones that make them have pedophilic " tendencies "? Thoughts shape our world, even if we don't act out on them | cmv |
I don't believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV. | Perhaps an analogy can be drawn to something that has another horrible consequence, sociopathic tendencies. If someone wants to kill someone else due to their internal neurology, that is wrong because there is an innate desire to inflict massive harm without reason ( self defense or the like ). Pedophilia harms children. Homosexuality and heterosexuality don't inherently. Perhaps though this all depends on a different view point you may hold, the idea of what is free will? What are we necessarily accountable for? Under the law we are clearly only accountable for our actions. Is anything we think about in our minds " moral " or " immoral ", or do actions make them such? | cmv |
I don't believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV. | People feel disgust for convicted paedophiles because they have sexually assaulted a human. Especially so because that human is incapable of consenting. Thinking bad things and recognising they aren't appropriate to act upon is a basic cognitive function of an adult. | cmv |
I don't believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV. | I think its questionable whether its possible to not act upon one's urges. For example, straight men can act upon their urges even without having sex by masturbating to pornographic material or flirting with women. In the case of pedophiles, these acts are both morally wrong and harmful to children. I think its a little bit naive to think that pedophiles will refrain completely from acting upon these " urges " and never look at child pornography or approach a child that they are sexually attracted to. And to the people who say that they can fulfill these urges by looking at anime / cartoon porn, I could ask the same question : Can your sexual desires be fulfilled by anime / cartoon porn? Could you honestly say that you can suppress your sexual desires for your entire life? | cmv |
I don't understand how Republicans and conservatives can actually be serious about their policies. CMV. | | I have always been a liberal ( libertarian to be exact ) | These are polar opposites on the political spectrum. Liberals advocate increased taxes to increase the size of the government because they believe the government can be used for good, and that funding it is the best way to move the nation forward. Libertarians believe the extreme opposite, minimal government, no taxes and that the nation moves forward through localized politics. You can't be a liberal and be a libertarian. The two political philosophies completely contradict each other on most issues. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | From what I gather, your problem with drug use is that it funds organized crime. This is a fairly reasonable view. The problem is, in many things ethics has to take a backseat to pragmatism. The gasoline in your car funds oppressive regimes, corporate corruption, and environmental destruction. The tantalum in your phone pays for weapons to sustain a raging conflict in the Congo. Your Nike sneakers are made in Southeast Asian sweatshops. Unless you're prepared to boycott most modern technology, your standards are going to have be lowered somewhat. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | I believe you are missing the more fundamental point : that illegal drugs fund those cartels. Those cartels simply could not exist if a sane drug policy was adopted, and drugs were legalized and regulated like alcohol. It worked to end the organized crime of the Prohibition era, it will work again. There's nothing wrong with smoking weed. The worst part is where it comes from. So let's change the laws, and stop getting it from the cartels. Lets let Americans grow a high - demand cash crop for other Americans. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | Are you trying to say that buying these drugs from Mexico is causing them to be brutally violent? Is buying cocaine provoking a Mexican drug lord to murder an innocent person? No, it's not. Sure, it may fund a bad person, but it is their own decision to kill someone. My point being, why should we shun someone for purchasing a product from a bad person? Purchasing that product isn't making the cartels kill people. They are evil men in a bad place that will do evil things regardless of our funding. They just happen to offer a product everyone likes. And your mention of severely addictive and dangerous drugs is invalid. I could have a prescription for OxyContin faster than I can buy heroin and it's just as bad. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | With drugs like cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine, I would agree with you. You are directly funding the current state of terror that South America is going through. With Marijuana, though I think you miss the mark. I sold weed for a long time, and I would go to California, purchase from local growers, and re - distribute it. Most people don't want Mexican cartel product, it's utter garbage, I've sold weed to hundreds & hundreds of people, and I can think of 5 right now who would actually purchase or use Mexican. I personally laugh and disagree with anyone who believes numbers produced from law enforcement agencies, they only see a small fraction of what is actually going on. Also your title is stupid, the " or any other illegal drug " couldn't be more wrong. Most ecstasy is produced either in renegade local labs or from Europe. Bath salts ( Or research chemicals ) that have been outlawed are produced in China & Thailand mainly. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | So, directly, the US Government supports these unspeakable acts of violence by declaring a market need to be illegal which requires only the most clandestine to supply that need. Market needs don't go away. Government can't regulate away desire. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | I think you're looking at this backwards. People used drugs long before we prohibited them and started the war on drugs. This attempt to stifle the liberty of Americans predictably backfired and drove all the money and power into the hands of those willing and able to fulfill the demand without regard to the law. Some guy smoking a joint isn't empowering the Zetas. The US government does that by sending SWAT teams after harmless hippies in California. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | Drug markets are static - they will exist regardless of any restrictions or disincentives that are put in place. This fact can't be denied, especially in the case of addictive drugs like methamphetamine. Once someone is hooked they have a biological imperative to seek the drug that overrides any moral or ethical reasons not to. Addiction is a medical issue, not a moral one. The fact that violent cartels have come to be top dogs in the drug market is not the fault of the consumers, it's the fault of the restrictions themselves. Non - criminal enterprises are barred from engaging in the drug trade, meaning that criminal organizations are the only ones who are able to take advantage of the market. Additionally, people are solely responsible for their own actions. If a ruthless murderer decides to make money off of drugs, that doesn't mean it's his customer's fault he is a murderer. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | legalization is really the way to go as far as defunding cartels and other illegal organizations. Over here in WA we have legalized MJ and the stuff I buy is all grown here in state. I refuse to buy any mexican weed because of the fact that I would feel like I am funding them. It is only going to get better from that standpoint here because come end of the year local shops will be able to sell it to anyone who is over 21 which would encourage local growers and the like. Making WA essentially a dead zone for the cartels | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | It is possible, depending on your location, to purchase illegally grown local cannabis, or illegally distributed medical. If not for ethical reasons, then for quality. Also, keep in mind that you would need to apply the same thought process to e. g., Coka - Cola Co., which engages in many of the same practices as drug cartels. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | Illegal drug users and distributers ( yes even weed ) are socially ostracized. As long as there is a market for illegal drugs and people addicted it doesn't matter who, which county, or organization you ostracize the drugs will always make it to the users. Instead of ostracizing people we need to attack addiction through education programs and more effective treatment programs. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | Blood diamonds are legal and arguably cause more civil strife in Africa than drugs do to Mexico. I'm just wondering where you draw the line. Bear in mind, diamonds are definitely not necessary to your life like petroleum, so do you think there's any defense to keeping drugs illegal and allowing blood diamonds to be traded freely, despite all the lives they ruin overseas? | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | Quite simply : With weed in many areas it isn't grown by narco - terrorists in Mexico and it wouldn't be problem if it was legal, anyhow. In Canada and the Northern United states the majority of pot is grown locally. Having known people who ran grow - ops to pay for things like their moms mortgage and never hurt a living soul I don't see how you can equate the act directly with terrorism. If we expect people not to buy child - labour rugs, don't buy pot originating from Mexico. Its not hard to find local grown weed in the southern U. S ( looking at california, texas... ) and most common weed in the north is locally grown. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | Most high quality marijuana bought and sold in the United States is produced in the US or Canada. Mexico has nothing to do with it. And the steps between grower and final consumer tend to be rather small, and very little violence is involved in the trade. I'm not trying to speak to the other drugs here, just high quality marijuana. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | People are going to buy drugs regardless of where they come from. It is impractical to expect any kind of boycott to be effective and diminish drug use which bankrolls the cartels. So ask the question, why is it that buying drugs puts money into the hands of the cartel? It's because drugs are illegal. If you really were committed to ending drug violence in Mexico and S. America, you'd be campaigning for drug legalization, which would rob the cartels of the vast majority of their revenues. Instead, you're harping on some holier than thou nonsense, which will never accomplish anything. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | You are actually right in saying that the people that buy these drugs are funding Mexican drug cartels, but you shouldn't blame the people buying the drugs for that. The Mexican drug cartels ( and all other illegal drug related associations for that matter ) can only exist and thrive because drugs are illegal in the US ( and other countries ). That's where their entire business stems from. Instead, if drugs were available in a controlled and clean manner and came from a government sponsored source, these cartels could never exist. I am not saying that I think all drugs should be freely available to anyone, but the way a controlled distribution could look like is a different discussion. Either way, you shouldn't blame the individual who wants to smoke a joint every now and then for indirectly supporting Mexican drug cartels, but the fact that drugs are illegal. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | Laws lead to black markets and organized crime. Free markets lead to greater availability of goods, job creation, and, in the long term, shared prosperity. In other words, it's not the buyer's fault for simply wanting a product because the desire and the purchase of a product don't inherently cause organized crime. There must be some restriction to the free market for this to happen. Honest question : If alcohol were illegal, would you still buy it? | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | Ok we can agree with you, but can we also do this to anybody who buys from Nike? Anyone who has bought food from McDonalds? Can we do this with anyone who has paid taxes to the US Government? What about anyone who owns an Xbox 360? People who buy drugs will buy drugs from whoever is supplying, if that turns out to be drug cartels because the Government has banned it then thats just the way it is. | cmv |
I believe people who buy marijuana, cocaine, or any other illegal drug, are directly funding narco - terrorism in Mexico and should be socially ostracized. CMV. | The weed I buy is all grown in - state or in Canada ( BC ). Plus it's legal here now to own and smoke medically and for recreation. Of course that's not federal law so it's still technically illegal so the question stands. Were you speaking too broadly or do you believe even someone like me should be ostracized as well? Just curious, I don't mean to sound like a pouncing kitten ready to strike. I type bad. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.