summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe there is nothing wrong with killing a person if no one knows they exist and they are killed instantly and painlessly with no awareness of their impending death. CMV | Are you content with the proposition that if I were to hypothetically kill you instantly without your knowledge that is ok? Only if that maximises your own happiness, that you are ok for anyone to randomly and instantly cause you to cease to exist at any moment in your life. If that's not morally wrong, then maximising the happiness of everybody that exists, has to happen along with the knowledge that you can be randomly killed. Human Biology would have a certain level of anxiety be created naturally if there is cause to suspect imminent demise, therefore everybody that exists would be more anxious, less happy. | cmv |
I believe there is nothing wrong with killing a person if no one knows they exist and they are killed instantly and painlessly with no awareness of their impending death. CMV | No matter whether he'd suffer or not, Erwin is a human. He's conscious, he's aware, he's a living, breathing human. I'm sure he'd prefer to be alive ( you said he was happy ). Even if Erwin wanted you to kill him, that wouldn't make it right. Human life is something sacred, so to think you're doing no wrong by killing him is inherently wrong, UNLESS you view human life as something to be thrown away. | cmv |
I believe there is nothing wrong with killing a person if no one knows they exist and they are killed instantly and painlessly with no awareness of their impending death. CMV | It helps me to think with some unit of measurement for happiness and suffering. So, lets say that at birth people are at 0 and suffering causes this number to go down while happiness causes it to go up. A generally happy person like you described would have a positive number that would be trending upwards. By killing that person you have removed their number as they can no longer be happy or experience suffering but you have deprived them of potential future happiness. My main point is that potential happiness while maybe not as valuable as guaranteed happiness is not worthless and therefore it would be immoral to take it from somebody. | cmv |
I believe there is nothing wrong with killing a person if no one knows they exist and they are killed instantly and painlessly with no awareness of their impending death. CMV | Existence is completely relative and subjective. It's a paradox, for you, if you only believe existence to be measured as a reflection of others around you, which i would argue is the worst way to view existance. The human race is what I am. How I behave is demonstrative of what I believe or want the human race to be. At the same time that we are all separate and alone we are all one through everyone's own individual actions. As a race we are a huge ocean and every drop or splash or wave has an effect. You can't kill a person without their existence mattering because now their existence has also effected you, the one who has killed him. Your action of killing him negates the original thought that no one knew him... I see many different flaws with your way of thinking. You lack some specific understanding but I don't know if I explained it, or can explain it, well enough. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. | Not quite a direct response to your statements but something that should be considered when thinking of such things is that, despite the modern world's dogmatic following of current science, people tend to turn a blind eye to the physiological differences that might give credence to these historical roles. Men are regarded as more powerful because they generally are, physically, just as women are generally more nurturing, as they physically nurture a child during a nine month pregnancy. If you can't face and accept the physiological differences between the sexes when discussing the roles of the sexes in society, then you are not ready to have a view, let alone change one. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. | Since MRAs are trying to change those issues you stated in the OP, wouldn't that mean that MRAs are also against the patriarchy and, by extension, an ally to the feminist movement? My problem with feminism is that it tries to maintain the female advantages of patriarchy while dismantling only the disadvantages. I would be more likely to support feminism if they were marching to be entered into the draft. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. | I think your fundamental issue is that MRM = anti - feminism. It's not. In fact if you go and read through the sidebar info at / r / mensrights you'll see they point out that it isn't anti - feminist. A lot of the top commentors in the sub also agree with this point of view and support many tenets of feminism. The issue is that many people automatically assume that something to do with mens rights has to be against women. Following from this many MRAs are misguided and follow this belief. It's a problem I believe has poisoned that particular sub and it annoys me to no end. However the true MRM isn't anti feminism and is in fact against male stigma and inequality enforced by national patriarchy and home matriarchy ( when it comes to child custody etc. ) | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. | So? You make a point that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy. And saying that this is wrong means that people don't understand patriarchy? That makes no sense. It's like saying ( invoking Godwin's Law ) that the holocaust was a result of national socialism in the 3rd reich, and anybody opposing the holocaust therefore doesn't understand national socialism. Are you saying that instead of being pro - Men's Rights, people should be anti - patriarchy? What's your motive? | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. | I'm not sure what you are getting at. It seems like a semantics issue. MRA understand that society causes all of those things, even if they don't use the word patriarchy. The problem I think is that using that word sounds like an affront to men saying : " You men are in power and it's your fault that society is this way ", when MRA don't have any more power than feminists to change it. If MRA activists are fighting to change these inequalities, then aren't they fighting against the patriarchy? Why is there any hostility? | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. | You did argue for the first part of your view ( " Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy " ) but not at all for the second part ( " and the Men's Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. " ). I'm not disagreeing with your view, nor do I agree. I don't know enough to do so. I'm merely pointing out that you did not " Explain why you hold your view ", as the Rules want you to do. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. | Don't confuse the term " patriarchy " with " traditional gender roles. " The truth is, society is much more welcome to women who want to break out of their gender roles than men who want to do the same. I don't think it's any more fair to blame men for the way women are expected to be than it is to blame women for the way men are supposed to be. Gender roles exist because of tradition, but first and foremost evolutionary advantages. It's accepted that testosterone and estrogen have different functions for the way they shape our behavior, so it's natural to draw conclusions about a gender based on what their body is " supposed " to do. The problem is, we're at a point in society in which gender roles aren't as important. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. | While I agree with your description of patriarchy, I think you don't understand the mens rights movement and why they need to exist as a complement to feminist organizations. I agree that patriarchy is the name that we give to the different roles assigned to men and women by Western society. I further agree that if patriarchy were dismantled, ( i. e., there were no socially imposed distinctions based on sex ) then the issues that MRAs raise would disappear as well. However, as a practical matter any advocate must prioritize some issues over others since we live in a world of limited resources. You are correct that women facing workplace discrimination and men facing child custody discrimination are both a consequence of a society that believes, " men are tough, capable, providers, and protectors while women are fragile, vulnerable, provided for, and motherly. " However, as a practical matter organizations like NOW prioritize the former. Why should we be surprised that some MRAs prioritize the latter? This is especially true when feminist groups seem to be advocating that laws be modified in the opposite direction - - even suggesting against allowing joint custody bills to become law. Fundamentally this is a difference between feminism as a philosophical theory and feminism as a practical political movement. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. | I keep hearing that " feminism is on your side " as a response to these issues, but I'm not aware of any organized feminist efforts to change alimony or child support laws. Are there efforts being carried out that don't get much attention or is there a lack of effort on the part of women's rights advocates to change patriarchal laws which benefit women to the disadvantage of men? If divorce laws and practices are demeaning to women by treating them as a protected class and propping up their gender role as the inherently superior parent, why aren't women demanding that this be corrected in huge numbers? | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. | To an extent you're correct, the patriarchy does disadvantage a majority of men. The issue is that we are told that men are'privileged'for being the subject of these disadvantages. Which is then used as a pretext to make men the subject of a moral panic. The only thing I challenge is your assertion that the MRM doesn't understand the patriarchy. We do explicitly, we just don't accept it as a pretext to further disadvantage men. Being born male means you're significantly more likely to end up homeless or in jail rather than CEO of a Fortune 500. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. | Can you think of any ways in which modern feminism actually mirrors and uses patriarchy theory to it's advantage? Looking at some of the material coming from feminists they seem to have moved onto a patriarchal values system and in some cases taken it to it's extreme. Can you think of any ways in which modern feminism has shown hatred towards men and boys, especially in the last few years? Can you think of any instance where feminism has specifically said that men have no need to fight for their rights as they are " dealing with it "? Mostly I find feminists that bang on about patriarchy are the marxist lot. Usually very young men and women in education, usually privileged to some extent having never worked and relying on their parents or the state for financial support. These are the kind of people who actually turned me away from a somewhat marxist belief system. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I think that Men's Rights issues are the result of patriarchy, and the Mens Rights Movement just doesn't understand patriarchy. | While many societies are patriarchal, this is not the root cause of gender issues. In pre - industrial societies, men were given power because they could more - effectively deal with the threats that people faced by virtue of their physical strength. Women were relegated to child - like roles ( in that men were expected to control and care for them ) because they had to be protected from physical harm. These gender roles led to patriarchal societies, and to the oppression / protection of women, but the former didn't cause the latter. Both patriarchy and the traditional treatment of women were the result of gender roles stemming from a society that faced mostly physical threats that only men could deal with. In my opinion, blaming gender inequality on patriarchy misses the underlying gender roles that led to both patriarchy and " female privilege " ( i. e. the protection of women from harm, even at men's expense ). By attacking patriarchy as the root of the issue, we tend to elevate women by removing male control of society, but we don't address the protection that women are afforded over men. Even if the definition of'patriarchy'is expanded to include these issues ( as is sometimes done ) then there's still the problem of using gendered language to assign a name to a problem that effects both men and women. I think both MRAs and feminists should fight against the common gender roles that have created gender inequality in society, rather than blaming patriarchy or whatever. tl ; dr I think patriarchy is a symptom of the root cause of gender inequality, not the cause itself | cmv |
I think most vegetarians and vegans are ignorant, and every single concept they have is absolutely stupid. CMV. | A lot of people have countered most of your points, so let me just point out that your second argument is a classic example of the broken window fallacy. If everyone stopped buying meat, everyone would have more money that they would no longer be spending on meat. There is no reason why they would not spend that money on something else. Thousands of families would lose their jobs in that industry, but thousands more jobs would be created in other industries from all the extra money people gained from not buying meat. They would cancel out. | cmv |
I think most vegetarians and vegans are ignorant, and every single concept they have is absolutely stupid. CMV. | From your responses so far, it appears that you're not aware of the environmental costs / impact of meat eating at the level we eat it today. Meat eating takes a lot of water resources. And they're responsible for a sizable portion of greenhouse gases. Look at how much grain and water it takes to make a quarter pound hamburger. Animals are not efficient at using the food they eat. That's why only about 10 % of energy from food is converted into own organic issue, across the board. Using a 10 % rough estimate, that means that 10 pounds of grain is used in order to make one pound of meat for you to consume. Many academics argue that eating meat is less sustainable than forgoing meat. | cmv |
I think most vegetarians and vegans are ignorant, and every single concept they have is absolutely stupid. CMV. | 1 ) Yes, you would have a large die - off of domesticated animals. This is a one time event. This only happens because humans have artificially inflated the population of domesticated animals. Also, there is a huge difference between caring about the evolutionary success of a species and caring about an individual life. 2 ) Imagine you could somehow afford to give a billion people jobs where they sit there and press buttons all day. In the short term that would be nice - no unemployment. However, in the long term, you have a serious problem, because 1 / 8 of the workforce is being wasted. That means that they can't perform the jobs they otherwise would have, so the cars / computers / teachingjobs will no longer get made, leading to a low standard of living for all. This will happen in reverse if you eliminate an incredibly wasteful industry : Those people will go into other jobs, increasing the standard of living. 3 ) Meat isn't anywhere close to healthy. | cmv |
I think most vegetarians and vegans are ignorant, and every single concept they have is absolutely stupid. CMV. | I am not vegan, but your fourth point is absolutely stupid. That's like saying you take pleasure from killing somebody, and therefore it should be permitted. Enjoying something does not make it acceptable. | cmv |
I think most vegetarians and vegans are ignorant, and every single concept they have is absolutely stupid. CMV. | I think for your second point, the economy wouldn't just suddenly collapse if people moved towards not eating meat. I think it's safe to assume that not everyone is just going to go vegetarian suddenly overnight. Even if the future is an all or mostly vegetarian world, we would reach that point gradually. Meat industries would fizzle out over time, but would be replaced by lots of other food industries. People are still going to need food, so even though they aren't eating meat, they are going to have to replace it with something else. New industries rising and old industries falling happens all the time, it's how we move forward in society and how we got to where we are today. | cmv |
I think most vegetarians and vegans are ignorant, and every single concept they have is absolutely stupid. CMV. | I am a carnivore, from a large family of bbq loving carnivores. My brother went to seek his fortune in L. A, became vegan, got married, invites us over, takes us out to a vegan restaurant. We are all leery and skeptical. We make your arguments, and more. Then the food comes out, a banquet of it. And it's fricken delicious. All of a sudden, we all knew, no matter how stupid we thought the philosophical motives, vegan food itself was it's own... genre / style of cuisine. A good vegan restaurant could stand amongst other choices, such as Thai or BBQ as a contender. After that night, we as a family, modified our attacks on vegan concepts from passionate mockery to light teasing. The food had spoken for itself! | cmv |
I think most vegetarians and vegans are ignorant, and every single concept they have is absolutely stupid. CMV. | So first you call vegetarians and their views stupid, then everyone here presents you with sensible arguments against this viewpoint which you also simply call stupid or just dismiss rudely. Then you say you don't care if animals are tortured, vegetarian diets are " gay " and repeat the same stuff over and over without any backing. What are you doing here? You clearly don't want your view changed nor are you capable of a civilized discussion about it. Why did you even post this? | cmv |
I believe that a pragmatic approach must be taken when approaching political activism and that you are not a hypocrite for championing one cause and ignoring another CMV | As you said, it's unnecessary to be an absolutist to take a defensible stand on an issue. If you're going to embrace pragmatism, though, you need to be very vigilant for intellectual laziness, because it's very easy to slip from " pragmatism " into " being self - serving. " And if you're willing to criticize one side of an issue, but engage in special pleading on every bit of overlap that issue has with you having the convenient life that you want, that's not really activism and won't really effect any positive change in the world - at - large. The most important thing is to dig through the externalities and hit the main issue at hand. The drug argument is an illustrative one because it's an example of how easy it is to get distracted. Do you oppose drug purchases BECAUSE the money goes to cartels? Or do you oppose it because you judge drug use to be foolish and harmful, and the cartel argument provides a useful tangible proxy to argue real - world harm from? I am an advocate for honest pragmatism. But pragmatism has its dangers, and needs to be policed carefully to ensure the arguments are taking place on an honest footing. | cmv |
I believe that a pragmatic approach must be taken when approaching political activism and that you are not a hypocrite for championing one cause and ignoring another CMV | Pragmatism is a natural consequence of the democratic system. Given that other people exist who have different values than you do and that democracy is a means of negotiating public policy. Pragmatism then is just the necessity of getting the best possible deal. Whatever you deem it to be. Authoritarian states don't need to compromise with their political opponents. That is why they are so attractive to ideologues. Bitter experience however shows these are sub optimal states for freedom and liberty. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 08 / 06 / 13 | I read the book on truthcontest. com, it was a lot of philosophy and not scientific by any means despite talking a lot about science. BUT it had a good perspective on " the present " and our place in the universe and consciousness. We are a part of something greater than ourselves and it would be a shame to throw that potential away because of ignorance. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 08 / 06 / 13 | Smoking weed for the first time changed my mind. I was already in favor of its legalization because I saw it on the same level as alcohol, but having actually experienced it, I'd say that it's far more harmless in terms of how it affects your state of mind. I can't say much about the physical damage it inflicts compared to alcohol, or the dangers of addiction, but I'd choose being surrounded by high folks over drunk people everyday. | cmv |
I believe that there is no right to civil marriage. CMV. | We have to assume that government rules are set up to be fair and uniform. It is not constitutional to tell someone that they don't have a right that another person has without a specific reason why they would be disqualified from that right. Now, you are semi correct when you say that it would be possible to codify marriage discrimination by providing reasons such as fertility, age, etc. However, that is not the way our societies are run. The Canadian constitution defines marriage as the union between two persons and is a right extended to all Canadians above the age of majority. Extending the issue to talk about gay rights, please consider the hypothetical situation blow. In this hypothetical situation, I'm a terminally ill widower who had a child with a wife who passed away and then realized my sexuality and wanted to remarry a man. In the event of my untimely death, marriage would have acted as a security to protect my child and allow my new partner the right to care for that child after I'm gone. Instead, because my partner and I cannot get married, the child, after my death, becomes a ward of the state and cannot be cared for by my partner. As I understand it, the term of guardian or godparent is not actually a legal right, regardless of what my will may state. | cmv |
I believe that there is no right to civil marriage. CMV. | The issue of extending marriage rights to homosexual couples is less about the legal basis behind being actually allowed to marry, and more about the idea that the law must be applied to all legal citizens equally. The equal protection clause in the 14th amendment essentially states that the law must be applied equally to all people regardless creed, race, gender, etc. Thus, bills like DOMA ( according to some ) violate the equal protection clause, due to the fact that they are discriminating against a specific group ( homosexuals ) of people by not allowing them the same benefits as others ( straights ). | cmv |
I believe that there is no right to civil marriage. CMV. | Do you think that the state's benefit in granting marriage rights must necessarily be the only consideration when considering whom to grant these rights to? E. g. the denial of equal marriage rights has been shown to create the mental distress of second - class citizenship. For the record : I also happen to believe that same - sex couples can provide all of the benefits that a straight couple can provide to a state ( possibly in different ways ), but I'm more curious about your reply to my first question. | cmv |
I reject the hard - line view that homosexuality is not a choice. CMV | It seems like you're confusing having sex with someone and actually being attracted to that person. Obviously, in the general case, people choose who they have sex with. They can clearly choose to have sex with one gender or another exclusively, if they want. We define " homosexuality " as being exclusively attracted to people of the same gender, and you can't consciously choose who you are attracted to, although you can choose who you want to have sex with. People who are attracted to people of both genders, but choose to have sex exclusively with someone of the same gender, are bisexual by definition, not homosexual. Unless you want to say that you can change who you're sexually attracted to by choice, it can't be a choice to be gay. Being gay is just what happens when you happen to only be attracted to people of the same sex. | cmv |
I reject the hard - line view that homosexuality is not a choice. CMV | It's maybe coherent to say that sexuality in general is a choice. I don't think it is, but it's possible to have a reasonable discussion about it. It's completely incoherent to say that only homosexuality is a choice. You're just treating heterosexuality as the default, which we have to somehow explain any deviations from. | cmv |
I reject the hard - line view that homosexuality is not a choice. CMV | That's just wrong. Having sex with the same gender or dating the same gender is not the same as actually being attracted to the same gender. You can, for convenience, choose to marry the same gender, and you can be very happy, but you can't, I repeat, CAN'T choose attraction. Pedophiles cannot choose to not be pedophiles, heterosexuals cannot choose to be homosexuals, and sadists and masochists cannot choose to be prudes. Tastes can change, and people may experiment and have fun doing it, but you cannot willfully change attraction. | cmv |
I reject the hard - line view that homosexuality is not a choice. CMV | Sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. Most reasonable people realize sexuality is a spectrum. It isn't black and white " yay or nay " or " yay I'm gay " ( lol ). You don't wake up and decide to permanently only like one or the other. You may realize it, but you don't choose it. Every action we make is a choice. Feelings though? You don't really choose your feelings or what you are attracted to. But again, this is quite common knowledge amongst reasonable non - close - minded people. Again, I just don't see your grand goal here. | cmv |
I believe humans need their rights limited to ensure survival of our species. CMV. | Yes, it would be crazy to get rid of currency. Currency is a government backed medium of exchange. If you get rid of currency, people will go back to bartering with other things - cigarettes, gold and jewelry, anything that people value as a medium of exchange. | cmv |
I believe humans need their rights limited to ensure survival of our species. CMV. | Let me just say that technically, what you've said is very easy to disprove. I'll grant you everything in your comment box, and still, the human species would not go extinct. We could have nuclear war, or famine, or over - population leading to a second Black Plague, but still, life would go on. There would be some people living in a secluded part of the world, and humanity would not go extinct. So if you take what you said literally, then no, all of those natural human forces could never completely wipe our species out. I think what you really mean to say is that humans need their rights limited to ensure the survivel of civilization / industrial society. In that case, I would say that you might be right. | cmv |
I believe humans need their rights limited to ensure survival of our species. CMV. | The only... well the primary problem with this approach is who gets to decide what is best for society? I can guarantee that i would disagree with you on some points at least. Who decides who's opinion goes? Democracy, that won't work, tyranny of the majority would quickly escalate. What about great minds? That won't work either because who decides who's mind is great? Sooner or later, given your approach, it will be you that is eliminated for the common good. | cmv |
[ CMV ] People focus too much on fighting social justice, and not enough on real issues. | While it is a matter of interpretation whether certain movements have been given more priority in current events than is necessary, I disagree that the presence of those issues is inherently a bias from luxury and security, or that we by necessity ignore other issues to " focus " on them. Don't forget, we were fighting for civil rights at the same time as both fighting the Cold War ( including the conflicts in Vietnam and Korea ) and protesting it. That event alone establishes both that civil rights issues are not necessarily something for the arrogant and safe and that we can argue about more than one thing at the same time. That being said, I believe that the concept of " real issues " is a matter of popular opinion : the big issues of our time will be the ones that everybody stands up and fights for. If you agree with that definition, you must be able to concede that the current social justice scene has won the public attention and, at least for now, fits the description for a " real " topic of debate and controversy. | cmv |
[ CMV ] People focus too much on fighting social justice, and not enough on real issues. | This seems to assume people have a set amount of activism they'll engage in, and then allocate that activism to various issues according to what they think is important. And so less focus on LGBT means more focus on things like Israel and Palestine. But I don't think that's the case. If people focused less on LGBT issues that doesn't necessarily mean they'd focus more on Israel, they'd probably just be less involved in politics. People are involved when they feel engaged on an issue, and if people were engaged on the issues you mention they'd do something about them. No longer doing what they're doing now won't magically compel them to do more about other things, they still wouldn't be engaged on those issues. | cmv |
[ CMV ] People focus too much on fighting social justice, and not enough on real issues. | " Real issues " = whatever issues that personally affect me Welcome to the Republican Party's mentality, mate. The problem is that it's difficult to come up with an objective triage as to which issues are real and which issues are unimportant. And the reality is that issues are not equally important to everyone. | cmv |
[ CMV ] People focus too much on fighting social justice, and not enough on real issues. | Civil rights aren't a luxery, they are something you have to earn and fight hard for. It's something people have died for. It's not up to you to say one injustice is less of an injustice just because another exists. And you can fight for more than one issue at once. | cmv |
I believe a technocratic government engineered by intellectual elites would be much better than democracy. CMV | In a perfect world, this would be great. Then again, in a perfect would, we wouldn't have skilled politicans " manipulating public opinion " anyways. I don't see how a gladiator like academic arena wouldn't be corrupted. | cmv |
I don't understand why anyone thinks consequentialism makes sense as a model of morality. CMV. | Let's say I am a pretty hardcore consequentialist, and I get to make the decisions. I make the call to arrest and then humanely execute Mr. X to harvest his organs and save a thousand other lives, because I know it will be good for society. I feel pretty crummy that I had to kill that guy for a week or two, but eventually get over it and feel justified because I did more good than not. Mr. X's family is pretty upset despite their generous settlement, but I know that a thousand more families don't have to suffer through the death of a loved one because of it. Why am I wrong? | cmv |
CMV : I believe that if men could suddenly become pregnant, the abortion debate would disappear overnight ( in favor of " free abortion available on demand ). | I think your fundamental premise that women are overwhelmingly against abortion is wrong. Tons of Christian women are against killing babies. And if the avenue to avoiding killing babies is to promote abstinence or safe sex or monogamous sex, they're going to promote it. That's not an attempt to control your sexuality. They seek to eliminate the easy out. I would argue that most people that are pro - choice don't actually WANT to go out and get pregnant and have to abort it. Christians seeking to ban abortions are doing it because they feel the unborn life is sacred, not because if they ban it, you'll have to have less or safer sex. | cmv |
I believe that preventing someone from voting solely based on their age is a gross violation of human rights. CMV | At first I thought, no, children would be easily manipulated. Free candy, vote for me. Then I remembered, our politicians are already doing this to there parents, might as well give the kids a shot too, maybe they can see through the bullshit that there parents can't. | cmv |
I believe that preventing someone from voting solely based on their age is a gross violation of human rights. CMV | Saying that age - restricted voting is unethical hinges on the idea that there is a better alternative. If there is no better alternative, then the ethical choice is age - based. You might compare it to being given the option of losing your heart, your lungs, or your legs. Losing your legs isn't a good thing, but it would still be smart to choose your legs ( that is, if you wanted to live anyway ). | cmv |
I have doubts that sales tax is necessary in the US, and believe that it should be abolished. CMV | VAT taxes function almost identically to sales taxes. The government doesn't milk taxes to pay for things. It doesn't need to. It has direct taxes to reduce the impact of government debt on prices and interest rates. We could have zero taxes but just live with high inflation and high borrowing costs. | cmv |
I believe that legalizing 3D printers for public use does more harm than good. CMV | It's easier to make a firearm with various things bought in a hardware store than with a 3D printer, and the product will be more lethal and durable. 3D printing is in its infancy. Deciding that it's useless and has no potential for innovation is kind of like condemning the PC in its early stages. Maybe you're right, maybe you're titanically wrong. Best to let a bunch of people with 3D printers decide. | cmv |
I believe that legalizing 3D printers for public use does more harm than good. CMV | 1 - Guns arent the only things you can make with 3D printers. 2 - Are you saying other products that exist mainly for novelty's sake shouldnt be legal? 3 - You need to do more research into the things 3D printing can produce. Despite my previous point there are many uses and more in development that provide valid and useful services. One example is 3D printing's ability to fabricate structures and products that would be impossible / expensive to create using traditional methods. This includes not only the precision that 3D printing affords but the method ( think of creating a hollow cube... 3D printing can create it as one solid whole piece instead of combining multiple components ) | cmv |
I believe that legalizing 3D printers for public use does more harm than good. CMV | Honestly when I saw the title, the first thing that came to me mind was " Please don't mention 3D printed guns. " Anyway : 1. Like others have said, as the technology is still in its infancy, there are more readily available, equally as untraceable firearms that could be made from materials from any hardware store. Not to mention, if you're in the US, creating your own firearm isn't illegal as long as certain requirements are met. At best, it is just another method for non - gunsmiths to get their hands on a homemade firearm, with some bonus advantages 3D modeling, digitilisation, etc. can give. 2. Many new technology started of as a novelty. As the technology matures, people would eventually find different ways to exploit and find different uses for it. Even if it doesn't, what harm does owning something for the novelty have? That's literally the foundation of the entire sports car industry. I don't see sports car do anybody harm ( outside of car accidents, of course ). | cmv |
It is logically inconsistent to ban abortion but allow for a " rape exception " CMV. | Think of it this way. Most people would say they believe killing someone is wrong. But if you pressed them, you could probably find some examples of situation where they think it's actually acceptable. For example, most people would believe that if a policeman shoots a person about to kill another, that's an acceptable taking of a life. Most people would agree that in a wartime scenario, it's acceptable to shoot at those who are shooting at you. Those who believe in euthanasia believe it's okay to take a life if the person requested to it and is in pain ; others who support the death penalty would believe that it's acceptable to take a life if the person committed a heinous enough crime. So the foundational framework of our society's attitude towards life - taking is " It is not okay to take a life, except in the following cases where the taking of the life provides a great enough societal good. " For those who believe in rape exceptions, the rape case qualifies under the greater societal good. It's not a position I agree with, but it is no more logically inconsistent than any of the other cases I described. ( For the record, I'm fully pro - choice ) | cmv |
It is logically inconsistent to ban abortion but allow for a " rape exception " CMV. | I don't think it's really inconsistent. I don't believe one person's needs can create an obligation for another person to forgo their rights. If an adult needs tissue donation to survive, that doesn't create an obligation on anyone to provide the tissue. If an adult needs food to survive, it doesn't create an obligation on the grocer to provide food. Similarly, I believe that the fetus'need for a mother to live doesn't create an obligation on the mother to provide her body for the fetus. A common counter argument to this view is that having sex implicitly consents to providing a womb for any fetus that may result. I disagree with the counter argument, but it certainly wouldn't apply in cases of rape. | cmv |
It is logically inconsistent to ban abortion but allow for a " rape exception " CMV. | I think you and a lot of other people have been fooled by the anti - choice movement. You may have encountered people who genuinely believe that abortion should be banned because it's a " human life ", because there are plenty of people like that, so you think that's what anti - choice politics is based on. In reality, though, organized anti - choice groups that actually affect policy are primarily motivated by the idea of the immorality of sex outside marriage, or women's independent sexuality ; the goal is to punish women for having sex and to make all sex a high - stakes endeavor that people wouldn't take so casually. Seen in that light, the rape exception is completely logical. It's also logical that the anti - choice movement opposes contraception, and sex education - two things solidly demonstrated to reduce abortions. | cmv |
It is logically inconsistent to ban abortion but allow for a " rape exception " CMV. | It's not inconsistency so much as it is what is called a political compromise. Most real pro - lifers would admit under questioning that they don't believe in an exception, but know they wouldn't have the votes for an outright ban. Many in the middle, to add to the need for this compromise, sorta think abortion is bad but couldn't countenance forcing rape / incest victims to bear a child. So they might be willing to support an abortion ban with those exceptions. So, sure, if you really believe that abortion is murder except in rape and incest, you're being inconsistent. But I don't think you'd really find many people like that. Instead, you see people who are willing to compromise to get broader legislation enacted. | cmv |
It is logically inconsistent to ban abortion but allow for a " rape exception " CMV. | I don't think it's logically inconsistent, but I do think it's as arbitrary a place to draw the line as any other non - scientific, non - cognitive approaches to working out abortion law. I suppose this isn't an attempt to change, but rather to shift your view slightly. But the position can be made logically sound by adding the premise you point out : - There are more harms associated with a rape victim raising the child conceived by that attack than there are in aborting the pregnancy. Not inconsistent, just a bit silly, I reckon. | cmv |
It is logically inconsistent to ban abortion but allow for a " rape exception " CMV. | Their argument would be " Assuming you consented to sex, you should bear the consequences. " If you didn't consent to sex you have less obligation to bear the consequences. So the fetus has a certain amount of right to live, but the woman also has a certain right to do what she wants with her body. In the case of rape, the woman didn't consent to the baby so she is not obliged to bear the consequences. As such, her bodily autonomy outweighs the fetus'right to live. It would be like if I decided to try and forcefully take an organ from you. I have a certain amount of right to life, but you have a right to bodily autonomy, and unless you consent to giving an organ your right to bodily autonomy outweighs my right to life. This would apply even if I was taking the organ for my daughter. She might not be guilty, but she doesn't have the right to make you do something risky like an organ transplant. | cmv |
It is logically inconsistent to ban abortion but allow for a " rape exception " CMV. | For some people it has to do with reaching a compromise. They'd prefer if there were no abortions but are willing to sign on for a " rape exception " because it will stop some abortions. For other people it has to do with responsibility. According to them, if you engage in an action that can bring a baby into the world then you have a responsibility to bring it to term, if you were raped you didn't make that choice so you don't bear the responsibility. | cmv |
I believe that welfare payments should be abolished and the money spent on other social programs instead. CMV. | Giving cash to the poor is a very good way to care for them. Conditional cash transfers in Latin America, Turkey &Bangladesh; basic income experiments in Namibia and India, cash transfer experiment in Uganda - all of them are huge success. Nutrition and health of poor improved, school attendance improved ( more children went to school instead of working ), crime reduced, more people started small businesses. Costs of programs were relatively low and money mainly went to the poor ( unlike many other " social " programs and subsidies, which can benefit not the poorest ). | cmv |
I believe that welfare payments should be abolished and the money spent on other social programs instead. CMV. | Looking at your general argument : Here is an examination of the effectiveness of cash transfers. Poor Economics is a great book that challenges the idea that " poor people are not responsible enough to be given cash and trusted to use it responsibly. " Do you have any statistics to back up this claim, that direct cash payments to poor individuals is corrolated with increased spending on drug use and luxury items? Or is this baseless speculation / founded on a few stories you've heard in passing from friends or media? Furthermore, what is to stop poor individuals from flipping food stamps ( by selling groceries )? | cmv |
The only way to move past racism is to move past racial pride CMV | Pride creates division whatever type of pride it is. Division is not a bad thing, it is diversity, it is what makes you interesting compared to me. Racism well and any other ism is not because we are different, because we don't know each other well enough. We need to preserve out diversity, but we also need to accept our diversity and understand each other better. | cmv |
The only way to move past racism is to move past racial pride CMV | Racism isn't caused by the presence of pride, racism is caused by a lack of education. You can have plenty of pride and still be educated enough to know when you're overreaching in life with it. Specifically, the kind of education we need to end racism is critical thinking skills like fallacies. People need to stop taking the wrong kinds of shortcuts in identifying the behavior or character of a neighborhood or individual. Once people aren't trying to rely on shortcuts to understand people and live with them and respond to them then racism will have taken a huge hit. This is why people say ignorance is the issue. Ignorance is the issue because people act on things they know aren't defensible justifications for something, or they genuinely don't know. Willful ignorance and ignorance are both the issue. | cmv |
The only way to move past racism is to move past racial pride CMV | Careful not to conflict supremacy with reactionary pride. Black pride and similar ideas explicitly combat the prejudices of others and help people cope with their position. It's unfair to target a minority's coping strategy when fighting racism because all that achieves is weakening the people who were already being weakened. There is nothing really wrong with trying to find strength in something the majority are often using agains them. It's just saying that being a person of colour isn't something one needs to be ashamed or or hide from or try to escape. Pride is often a way to celebrate history and family, and there is nothing wrong with that either. | cmv |
The only way to move past racism is to move past racial pride CMV | So, I'm a social psychologist, who studies stereotyping and prejudice. It sounds like you're advocating for a'colorblind'paradigm, which doesn't work for many reasons. 1 ) Race is one of those interesting social categories because it's grouped in with gender and age, but is socially constructed. That is, we ascribe meaning to the color of one's skin that is completely arbitrary. If you were saying that we should do our best to make race a distinguishing mark like brown hair or big feet, then I would agree with you and stop there. However, it doesn't seem like that's what you're advocating really, leading me to point 2. 2 ) To the extent that race does have meaning in society ( especially in the US ), to advocate for a perspective that ignores the experiences based on one's race is to erase large parts of who that person is. A multicultural perspective is much more effective because it acknowledges a minority member's experience, and affirms who they are as a member of that group in a way that establishes equal standing. Here's a sample paper for your perusal. | cmv |
The only way to move past racism is to move past racial pride CMV | This is a more semantic approach, but there's a difference between being proud of something, and thinking that said thing is superior to others. Being proud of your race / heritage is different from thinking your race is superior. Being proud of your child is different from thinking your child is superior to other children. Also, can you define the difference between " celebrating " heritage / race, and taking pride in it? | cmv |
The only way to move past racism is to move past racial pride CMV | I disagree with you, but only slightly. The way past racism is for everyone to quit making it an issue. Privately, everyone is racist. EVERYONE. Me, you, Jesus, Obama, everyone. The variable is to what extent. Most people are only slightly racist. Some, are very. But most people understand that feelings don't justify unlawful action. Basically " keep it to yourself. " If we accept that we cannot change that fact, and we learn to live with it, and QUIT making every thing we do about trying to either a. prove we aren't racist, or b. prove that you are, THEN we'll move past it. | cmv |
The only way to move past racism is to move past racial pride CMV | The KKK did not start with racial pride. It started with racial hatred. The KKK actually started 3 times : first to oppose Reconstruction and hurt freed slaves who became too successful ; a second time to oppose immigration ; a third time to oppose the Civil Rights movement. Each time, it was a reactionary force that came out of fear and hatred rather than out of love or pride. There are some groups that do come out of racial pride : churches that cater to a certain ethnicity, the General Society of Mayflower Descendants, Italian - American clubs, Irish American Clubs, Jewish Community Centers, etc. etc. None of these groups have morphed into hate groups over time. | cmv |
The only way to move past racism is to move past racial pride CMV | Racial pride only increase racist feelings. Racism is people not understanding why people are ethnically and culturally different. When they're told about problem which involves other races, race is the source of the problem, even for people who try to blend in and fail at it. You can't pinpoint race and culture, because it ends in conflict, you just need to make things clear. In western country, different races and culture are tolerated if they agree to obey the law. I agree racial pride is very stupid, I live in france and here when arabs marry, they often take out their Algerian flag and show it. Imagine if you go in any other country and do that with any other flag. In many situations it would end badly. I agree that in some few cases, people go in other countries and behave like they're invading it, spreading their culture like a superior one, and in some cases, disobeying the law. But you can't tie those people and the ones who share the same religion / culture / ethnicity. | cmv |
The only way to move past racism is to move past racial pride CMV | Racial pride is a response to racism. If someone tells you that you're a lousy person because of " factor X " then you have three non - violent choices : 1. Ignore them 2. Agree with them 3. Tell them you like having / being / doing " factor X " Gay pride is similar. If no one was homophobic and there was no oppression of homosexuals, then it is hard to imagine that the concept of " gay pride " would have emerged. Many have argued that gay pride parades hurt the gay rights movement ; I'm not going to argue that either way. I'll just say that I don't believe there would be gay pride without homophobia, and I don't believe there would be racial pride without a threat - - real or perceived - - against people of that race. ( But let us distinguish between cultural heritage celebrations and racial pride. ) | cmv |
I think the military is a last resort for people who can't do anything better with their lives. CMV | You know that the one of the only ways to get a clearence to work high jobs in the fbi / cia is to be in intel in the military, which requires a bachelors. Which is commonly sought after, and the military is a great stepping stone for starting your life. Sure, its the last resort for some, and the first for others | cmv |
I think the military is a last resort for people who can't do anything better with their lives. CMV | As someone who would dodge every damn draft imaginable and sooner live in the woods than join the military, I saw several bright ( and several not so bright ) kids from my highschool enlist immediately after graduation. I think patriotism is a bigger factor than you think. I think the issue is you aren't particularly patriotic ( nor am I ) so it's difficult to wrap your head around how that sort of thing can effect someone. | cmv |
CMV I think taxation is fundamentally immoral and destructive. | To be a citizen of a country is to submit to that country's laws, and in most every country in the world those laws include empowering the government to levy taxes under threat of force. It is not immoral for a democratic government to use force to carry out a duty it has been constitutionally empowered by its citizens to pursue. For those who are perturbed by this aspect of citizenship, they don't have to remain under the authority of that government, they can renounce their citizenship and leave. They might find that there aren't really many places for them to go that don't employ some form of taxation, but then that's not the fault of individual governments - - it's not their responsibility to provide free independent land for people who don't like the laws. | cmv |
CMV I think taxation is fundamentally immoral and destructive. | Well if you'd like to watch the world burn, I totally see where you're coming from. There is no proof that people will want to pay money to support currently funded government programs, especially if they don't pertain to them. Who is to say that the rich won't just do everything in their power to keep getting richer, and not want to help out the poor and the weak. A study was done with the game monopoly. One player was given more money than the other players. There were also pretzles laid out on the table. The richer play reached for more pretzels more often while the poorer play was more hesitant about touching the pretzels. The rich would end up feeling entitled because they have the money to fund the programs and get what they want done - - done. If we get rid of taxes or even government, chaos will ensue and we will still be governed, but by the rich who some of which lack a moral compass. | cmv |
I don't believe being pro - life is sexist or misogynist. CMV | It's misogyny because it's basically saying that women are too stupid or immoral to make their own decisions so they need to be forced to conform with another person's subjective beliefs. ( The bulk of the movement ) is religiously driven and lead by white males who " know better " than women what their pies should be used for. What you, them, or anyone else " believe " is inconsequential. | cmv |
I don't believe being pro - life is sexist or misogynist. CMV | As a human being, I have the right to my own body. If someone is using my body in a way I feel is invasive, harmful, or that I simply don't like, I have the right to make them stop. In the case of abortion, I am exercising my right to my body. It's incredibly sexist for only women to have that right stripped from them - in any situation where a man has someone else using his body, he's allowed to make them stop. Why are only women told they are not allowed to do this? Certainly, they typically have the right to their bodies outside of pregnancy... but to strip it of someone, and only someones who are female, in any situation means that you are giving separate and different treatment based on gender, which is sexist. It is sexist that only women have situations where their right to their body autonomy is taken away. | cmv |
I think that the police should start wearing small cameras to record what they do. CMV | A first person view may tell a very different story from a third person view. If the officer is alone and wearing the only camera on the scene, you can only see the effects of his actions - and then from a limited perspective - while you are unable to see what the officer actually does. A first person camera also eliminates much context from the scene, as you cannot see surroundings. This could potentially make an officer's perfectly reasonable actions appear out of order. Is it okay for an officer to lose their job because the person watching the video couldn't see the whole scene and misinterpreted what limited scene they did see? Additionally, it would be very easy for someone who was with an officer alone to make it appear that the officer had hurt them or pushed them down because we could not see the officer, only what is happening directly in front of them. A camera could definitely be taken advantage of to make an officer appear at fault if it were common knowledge that every officer most definitely has one. | cmv |
I think that the police should start wearing small cameras to record what they do. CMV | I may be repeating the other commenters, but simply put, you're putting faith in a specific technical solution for a systemic problem. The solution you advocate can ( or will ) either : 1. be exploited / bypassed 2. not address the culture of abusive police Therefore, cameras are not the answer, they are maybe part of an overall reform of the American policing system. | cmv |
I think that the police should start wearing small cameras to record what they do. CMV | The cameras aren't just watching them, they're watching you. What you're kind of accidentally saying is, the police department should have officers on the streets carry cameras to watch all citizens at all times. Maybe you don't have a problem with that, but I think the idea of that all citizens on the street should be filmed and the films logged in the police department is much more controversial than whether cops should be filmed | cmv |
I think that the police should start wearing small cameras to record what they do. CMV | Lots of great points in this thread. I would not want personal cameras to be on during the entire shift, 24 - 7 etc. This creates a surveilled society. However, I would love to see personal cameras during any action that might lead to ticketing or incarceration. Any home invasion, traffic stop, arrest, etc. | cmv |
I think that the police should start wearing small cameras to record what they do. CMV | Most big cities already do require this. In Albuquerque however we've run into the problem that the officers cameras often have " technical difficulties " or " forget " them. We actually have a Justice Department investigation going on for that and a few other issues. The only issue I can see is consent. Many states require both parties to agree to be recorded, which could lead to some problems with a constant on camera collecting evidence. | cmv |
I believe people should have the option to pay the IRS directly at tax time exactly what they owed each year instead of having it deducted ahead of time from each paycheck. CMV | You can opt out of having IRS taxes taken out of your paycheck. If you claim 99 instead of 1 or 2, the paycheck will be tax free, and you will then have to file at the end of the year to determine what you owe. Most people don't know this little trick. This is how I do it, and how my husband does it. IRS also has a very low interest payment plan as well if you find out you owe too much. Keep in mind though that you should plan on owing, and should set aside money for it just in case, unless you are certain you won't have to pay anything ( i. e. you have a side business that you put your deductions into that ends up evening things out for you ). | cmv |
I believe people should have the option to pay the IRS directly at tax time exactly what they owed each year instead of having it deducted ahead of time from each paycheck. CMV | I don't know exactly how it works, but Canada has a " working income tax credit " where they send you money equal to what you'd get back in your tax return, to solve this very problem. I think. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. | cmv |
I believe people should have the option to pay the IRS directly at tax time exactly what they owed each year instead of having it deducted ahead of time from each paycheck. CMV | The amount of people who would default, go into debt, or otherwise be unable to pay, would DRASTICALLY increase, resulting in lower revenue, and greater American Debt. Doubt it? Look at how many people can not manage their finances NOW. Then add in the requirement for them to manage their own taxes. | cmv |
I don't see how arguments to legalize Same - Sex Marriages can't also be used to argue to legalize Polygamous marriages. Please CMV. | The short argument is that polygamous marriages destabilize a society. For every rich old guy with 10 wives, there's 9 single and frustrated young males. It's pretty self - evident that this is a bad thing for a society, whereas same - sex marriages ( assuming an equal distribution of gay males and females ) don't have the same effect. There's further arguments that rely on historical examples, where there's widespread abuse and such, but that's probably less concrete and convincing. | cmv |
I don't see how arguments to legalize Same - Sex Marriages can't also be used to argue to legalize Polygamous marriages. Please CMV. | I don't see it as an equivalent change based on the fact that marriage in you definition is established as mutually consenting. I recognize mutually consenting to require equal consent into a partnership. In my view, it is inherently impossible to have equal consent when there are an unequal number of partners. I may need to do my own CMV on this, but I recognize Polygamous marriage to be much closer to underage marriage, in that one partner clearly has a controlling interest in the relationship, and therefore it cannot fit the definition of two consenting adults as I understand it. | cmv |
I don't see how arguments to legalize Same - Sex Marriages can't also be used to argue to legalize Polygamous marriages. Please CMV. | While both traditional and same - sex marriages consist of an equal partnership between two consenting adults, a polygamous marriage fundamentally challenges this equality. In marriage as it is currently understood, each spouse agrees to commit him - or herself wholly to the other. However, in a polygamous marriage, one of the spouses must commit to multiple others and therefore cannot give him - or herself wholly to any of them. In addition to representing a substantial change to the concept of marriage at the most basic understanding of its partnership, polygamous marriage is also inherently unfair. One spouse cannot be devoted to all of his or her other spouses equally. One spouse will always spend more time with, and give more attention to, some spouses than to others. This will result in some spouses being slighted to varying degrees, even if the polygamous relationship is entered with the best of intentions. As a result, a polygamous relationship violates the idea that marriage is an equal union. | cmv |
I don't see how arguments to legalize Same - Sex Marriages can't also be used to argue to legalize Polygamous marriages. Please CMV. | What is wrong with polygamous relationships? I won't change your view, because there is nothing about it to change unless you believe it's wrong. If it doesn't affect your life, why DOES it bother you? If I must change your view, see two adults in a marriage as keeping the economy as is. Then see polygamous marriages as changing how certain fine details work, such as filling out forms for pretty much anything. Then think about how it may affect taxes and the economy in other ways. The odds are, it won't be a negative change, but if it would be negative, that could be your reason to believe two adults is okay while multiple is not. | cmv |
I don't see how arguments to legalize Same - Sex Marriages can't also be used to argue to legalize Polygamous marriages. Please CMV. | Consider that marriage is currently a contract. There would need to be a significant amount of changes made and it would still lead to a " hot mess. " This is why contracts are almost always between two entities. In the event of a breach the details of the falling out can be a single, weighed decision ( with other smaller elements either going to a logical A or B ). when you add in multiple parties, things begin to really get complicated. If you have a contract with multiple people, how do you handle it when only one or a few parties terminate or breach the contract? Property division and custody issues would become extremely complex and would involve multiple people. | cmv |
I don't see how arguments to legalize Same - Sex Marriages can't also be used to argue to legalize Polygamous marriages. Please CMV. | Being discriminated for something you are vs Being discriminated for the number of people you go into a contract ( like marriage ) with You don't see the difference? Quantity of partners you choose to get involved with should be compared to being born black, or gay? I am not saying I am for or against polygamy, but it is definitely its own separate issue and battle. | cmv |
I don't see how arguments to legalize Same - Sex Marriages can't also be used to argue to legalize Polygamous marriages. Please CMV. | Would consensual polygamous marriage among adults be such a terrible thing? It is already legal for two consensual adults to marry. We are just tweaking that to reflect socially acceptable beliefs about gender. Technically if a male to female transgender individual wished to marry a woman, they could so long as they were still male on paper. So there we have two people who identify as female, marrying legally. If the male to female trangender woman decided to legally become female, would you still consider their marriage valid? Gender is a spectrum with increasing social acceptance around those who don't fall into typical roles. Why shouldn't marriage reflect that? I don't buy into the slippery slope of if we change this then we can change anything. You can stop at one change, or you can make more changes as they become necessary. | cmv |
I don't see how arguments to legalize Same - Sex Marriages can't also be used to argue to legalize Polygamous marriages. Please CMV. | Yeah I mean I can't change your view because I completely agree. Any argument about the consequences ( citizenship, insurance, social security ) cannot justify a prohibition of rights. So I would just say people can marry whomever they want and preferably the government would stay out of it. Of course it wants to offer tax benefits to married couples, but it really cannot say that either man with two wives, a couple of two husbands, or a man and woman couple is inherently more stable than the other. I don't know. I still need to think this through more. I guess change my view too? | cmv |
I believe people shouldn't criticise those who they can't do better than, CMV. | Not everyone who wants to complain about the food, needs to be able to cook said food because your taste buds are unrelated to your skill in cooking. If I give you a rotten steak, can you not say it's rotten because you can't cook steak? You can listen to music, and you can say you don't like it. Doesn't mean you should be able to play better music because your ears and musical taste are independent of your skill in playing a musical instrument. You can look at a situation and come to the conclusion that it's FUBAR, like, for example, the job and unemployment situation, but it does not require you to be able to come up with a solution because they require two separate skill - sets. One involves common sense, the other involves critical thinking / academic training / experience. Some problems don't even have a solution. Does that mean that no - one can point and say " well that's a problem " because it's unsolvable? We have people in authority / power to solve problems ; the general public expects these people to have knowledge that they themselves don't possess and thus they are expected to be solving the problems that they should be fixing. | cmv |
I believe people shouldn't criticise those who they can't do better than, CMV. | Imagine a football team after a terrible game ( say, they I've lost to 0 : 10 ). They have a coach and he's probably 50 or 60 and is no longer capable of playing better than anyone of them. Does that mean he can't criticise them for playing awful? Of course not, cause he has the knowledge. Knowing how something should be done and being able to do it are two different things and only the first one is necessary so that you have the right to criticise someone. | cmv |
I believe people shouldn't criticise those who they can't do better than, CMV. | Should basketball coaches coach their players even though they can't play as well themselves? I say that there is a difference between complaining and criticizing. I am in no position and don't have the qualifications to run the country, but I am still going to make constructive criticism of our president because that is my job as a voter, to provide oversight of the government. Sometimes knowing what is right and saying it even if you couldn't do it is still worth saying. It's fine for this to bother you and be a thing that you criticize the criticizers about bit you should realize that it is an overall benefit to have a critical society. | cmv |
I believe people shouldn't criticise those who they can't do better than, CMV. | Performing a skill, and critically evaluating a performance of that skill, are completely different tasks. It's like pitching and catching in baseball : they're complimentary aspects in a particular interaction, but not at all equivalent. Food critics, for example, have sophisticated palates. Chefs have excellent creative food preparation and presentation skills. Yet, excellent chefs may have terrible palates and terrible comparative skills, and excellent food critics may be a disaster in the kitchen. | cmv |
I think that for a parent, any reason for owning a handgun is outweighed by the inherent risks of having one in the home. CMV | You are systematically discounting both the increase in personal security and the benefit of feeling more secure from having a firearm in the house. Unlike the risk posed by having a firearm ( which is quantifiable based on incidents that actually occur ), it is incredibly difficult to quantify the benefit of having a firearm, for several reasons. First, in situations in which a firearm is brandished in a home protection scenario, it is hard to quantify what would have happened without a gun present. Second, many people have guns primarily for extreme situations that fortunately don't occur very often, but would be very bad if they did ( i. e., a breakdown of law and order following a natural disaster or terrorist attack, etc. ). Third, people get a very subjective but powerful benefit from feeling more secure, knowing that they will never be in a situation in which they are powerless against intruders in their own home. Some people feel they can control the risk of accident through safe ownership but cannot control their safety against intruders without a gun, and that sense of empowerment, of control over one's own security, is important. You simply ignore it. In short, you recognize that your position is based entirely on emotion because you have no evidence that the risk outweighs any benefits of enhanced security. It's fine for you to feel that way ( i. e., you fear the accident more than you fear losing control of your security to an intruder or following a catastrophe ). But you leave no room for people whose emotional response is different ( who fear the intruder more than they fear the accident because they can exercise control over the latter but not the former ). | cmv |
I think that for a parent, any reason for owning a handgun is outweighed by the inherent risks of having one in the home. CMV | As a parent, it is your responsibility for keeping the firearm in a safe place where children can't access them ( aka. a safe ). And if the children get access to them and end up killing themselves, that's your fault. If you want your child to be safe around guns or motorcycles, don't ban them from your child, that'll just make them curious and want to do it more, and end up hurting themselves when they eventually obtain the opportunity to get it. Teach your children how to be safe, and don't be the person who bans going outdoors because " it's dangerous. " It's dangerous to be alive. There is a sizable chance that we can die each and every day, but only thought being taught can we negate some of the risk by being ignorant and incompetent when it comes to certain things. TL ; DR : Do your job as a parent, and teach your kids. | cmv |
I think that for a parent, any reason for owning a handgun is outweighed by the inherent risks of having one in the home. CMV | First, for some important figures. The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270, 000, 0001 to 310, 000, 000. This puts it at approximately 1 per person in the United States, and certainly 1 per adult. However, the most common causes of unintentional injuries leading to death among children include motor vehicle crashes, suffocation, drowning, poisoning, and fire - and burn - related injuries... not firearms. So clearly, there is a greater inherent risk in keeping cleaning supplies and candles in your house than there is in keeping a gun. However, your point also includes the idea that a gun without bullets is an ineffective tool for self - defense which I would argue is also an incorrect assertion. I mean, any time a gun is drawn but not fired in self - defense is an example of a time where the gun ( not the bullets ) was used defensively. The words " Stop or I'll shoot " are incredibly powerful in their own right. And finally, based on your OP and comments I gather that you've never loaded a gun before... From legally stored with ammo separately to fully loaded and aimed can take me all of 10 - 15 seconds. 10 - 15 seconds may be a lifetime when your children or family are in potential danger, but at least it's only 10 - 15 seconds rather than an unlimited amount of time. | cmv |
I think that for a parent, any reason for owning a handgun is outweighed by the inherent risks of having one in the home. CMV | There are simple solutions to this problem. First of all, you could simply place the gun where it is not accessible to children. If you're children are young, then put it where they cannot reach it. A better option would be to do as my father did and make certain your children know what a gun is, how it works, and how damn dangerous it is. I had access to many different types of guns as a child, but I was educated enough to avoid doing anything dangerous. | cmv |
I think that for a parent, any reason for owning a handgun is outweighed by the inherent risks of having one in the home. CMV | I've grown up all my life around handguns, they weren't left laying around in the open, but they weren't in safes either nor did they have locking mechanisms on them. I was taught however from an early age to always respect and how to properly handle firearms. I never once went out of my way to play with them because I knew what they could do, and my father was responsible enough to show me how to be safe around them and how to use them. And in 25 years of firing guns, cleaning guns, and handling them in all manners I have never once accidentally or intentionally misfired or shot someone. The responsibility in prevention of accidents is with the parents to teach their children proper respect. The deaths caused by handguns are very small as you'll read in other posts who have access to the statistics. More children are regularly abused by parents then who get killed by firearms, this does not mean that people should not be parents knowing their child is more likely to be abused or kidnapped by them then a stranger. And yes having a gun and ammunition in your home can increase the chances of someone getting killed or injured, but so does having stairs, a kitchen, a shower, or a vehicle. All of which cause more injuries each year then firearms. | cmv |
I think that for a parent, any reason for owning a handgun is outweighed by the inherent risks of having one in the home. CMV | For me, as unsettling as it is, I feel that having a gun in a gun safe for home protection is essential, especially with children in the house. So long as I live in a country where obtaining a firearm is easier than the right to vote, I know that the odds IF a home invasion occurred, that the invader had a firearm is definitely in the realm of possibility. I also know that a firearm is one of the most radically one sided weapons we can have and having any other item as defense against one is foolish. It really comes down to, IF the situation arose in which I needed to defend my family against someone who had a gun and I did not have one myself and I lost someone I loved due to the one sided nature of the conflict, I would never forgive myself. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.