summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe that Communism is so obviously wrong that all Communist leaders deserve to be executed even if they never unjustifiably imprisoned or executed anyone. CMV | I'm not even going to address how obviously inane the idea of killing politicians you disagree with and get right to the heart of things : there is no basis for saying that Communism is " obviously wrong ". Just by citing one economic thinker ( a field known for having extremely diverse opinions due to its attempts at modeling incredibly complex systems in different ways ) does disprove another. By your logic, Austrian economics is " obviously wrong " because Paul Krugman thinks so and Paul Krugman is " obviously wrong " because his views oppose those of famous Austrian economists ( Hayek, etc ). Historically, we have never implemented true communism. And even then, historically it has only occurred in countries where the standard of living for the poor was so terrible that they had motivation to revolt. Notably, almost all mass starvations under Communist regimes occurred concurrently with periods of " modernization " - Stalin's five year plans, Mao's Great Leap Forward, etc. - in which resources were diverted from the people who needed them to live to industrial projects to attempt to modernize entire economies. In a country like the US, where we already have things like railroads, factories, a modern military, and airplanes, no such event would need to occur. In our economy, which has the capability of producing sufficient goods and services for everyone, not only is Communism theoretically viable, but it actually might be for the benefit of many Americans. So to call Communism " obviously wrong " is simply false. | cmv |
I believe that Communism is so obviously wrong that all Communist leaders deserve to be executed even if they never unjustifiably imprisoned or executed anyone. CMV | 1 theoretical communism is completely different than the so called " communist countries " 2 you forget that many people are brainwashed in other cultures. Information isn't as free in other cultures. How can you blame them for their circumstance? 3 the results are obvious to YOU. Not to others. You are in power. You make a descion that causes disastrous consequences ( this happens all the time, humans make mistake ) if someone else saw it coming, wouldn't you deserve to die? | cmv |
I believe that attractive white women lead easier lives than the rest of society - CMV | It makes life easier in certain aspects but when you aren't taken seriously in any postion you hold because " you must've gotten hired for your looks " as opposed to your brains, it starts to get old. Or when you have only a select few girls who you can truly call your friends because others find you intimidating. Or when you get sexually harassed by guys on a regular basis because inorder to have that a majority of guy friends " you must be banging them ". Sure its awesome when you get pulled over for speeding or something trivial like that but it certainly isn't rainbows and butterflies all the time. | cmv |
I believe that attractive white women lead easier lives than the rest of society - CMV | I've always been curious how technology plays a role in this. The whole structure is built upon it, is it real then? Everyone is one comet, solar flare, disaster from the true natural order of male and female returning. | cmv |
I believe that attractive white women lead easier lives than the rest of society - CMV | I think the simple truth is that humans as a whole still are growing. We all suffer from things like this in different ways, and we all impose things that cause others to suffer. The thing we can do is try to be understanding when someone brings something like this up. | cmv |
I believe the hippie ( and the American " far - left " ) culture has lost its way. CMV | " lost its way " implies hippies / far left had some goal in mind that they've gotten distracted from. What goal is this? I hope it's not the case that the evolution of priorities of any political movement is automatically a case of the movement " losing its way ". | cmv |
I don't believe true equality will ever exist - - CMV. | True equality? Could I ask what you even mean by that? Do you mean Stalinist - bureaucrat equality, where everybody gets the same? No that's not possible, nor does anyone want that. Most people mean'equality'by'everyone has equal liberties / rights / freedoms'or more optimistic souls'everyone has an equal chance to be happy.'I can answer you better if I know what you mean. | cmv |
I don't believe true equality will ever exist - - CMV. | There has been a trend of groups finding equality all throughout human history. Sure, there have been setbacks ( see post - WW1 Germany ) but there has been a steady upward trend. Think of it as a rocking boat slowly coming to balance. True equality is in our future. | cmv |
I don't believe true equality will ever exist - - CMV. | I believe that life isn't fair, and that the drive of human progress is to correct that error in reality. Will this lead to'true equality '? I can't say. I do have hope for the future, however, that most if not all purely physical elements will eventually lose all relevance when it comes to judging people. | cmv |
I don't believe true equality will ever exist - - CMV. | Some people faster smarter and stronger than others. What is important is equality under the law, and that is possible. I think that'true equality'of the type that could be implied by your post probably shouldn't exist. It would be boring if everyone were identical, and probably wouldn't be a very sustainable state of affairs. Equality under the law is all we really need, and I think is achievable, even if not right this instant. | cmv |
I don't believe true equality will ever exist - - CMV. | I think that equality - everyone being the same - is a little off the mark. We all have unique personalities, skills, viewpoints and capacities, no two people are exactly the same, so measuring whether two people are'equal'is pretty much impossible. What we can work towards is equity - fairness. So you might be born smarter than me, or richer, or more fortunate in some other way. We can't really change most of these things, but we can try to give everyone a fair shot, and give them all the support they need. We can try our best to not show favour to one group of people over others, and to make sure that where we can, we give everyone the same privileges and responsibilities in life. | cmv |
I don't believe that doctors should be able to conscientiously object to providing medical care. CMV. | I think that it is important to pick up on point 8 here - " if you don't like the job, get out of the game. " It is a requirement of the job to be objective, and to prescribe appropriate medical care to someone who requests it. If that medical care is something that the law of the land states a person has a right to request - for example contraception - then as a medical professional, your ethical standpoint must take second place to the requirements of your patient. You are there to represent their interests, not your personal ethics. | cmv |
CMV I think politicians should be paid minimum wage with little or no benefits | It is a nice idea, unfortunately it doesn't seem to work with how people work. If anything, this would actually increase government corruption. If you were struggling to feed your family, and then it turned out that you could make a ton of money on the down low just by voting a different way, 99 % of people would probably choose family of ideology. This is the really tricky thing about the problem of politics, and why no one has come up with a perfect solution yet. To be efficient and actually get things done, we need to centralize power, but centralizing power in a person means those people will always be more powerful than the rest of us. Welcome the Robot Overlords? | cmv |
CMV I think politicians should be paid minimum wage with little or no benefits | How would paying politicians less money cause any of the things you're suggesting? I actually have no idea how you think that would work. Politics is hard and time - consuming, and nobody would ever do it on minimum wage. If we refused to pay politicians well, why would anyone who doesn't have money from somewhere else ever agree to be a politician? | cmv |
CMV I think politicians should be paid minimum wage with little or no benefits | Would not change anything. It is the already wealthy that mosty get into office, due to the ability to fund campaigns. The less than wealthy politicians simply become accountable to their wealthy campaign contributors. Once in office, networking with the right people that can make you become rich is incredibly easy. | cmv |
CMV I think politicians should be paid minimum wage with little or no benefits | If we didi this we would block all non - rich people from running for public office. But I do agree that we need to do something but I don't think paying them nothing is the solution. If we gave them decent pay for the rest of their life regardless of if they were in office, and said they could not ever hold a job that pay them again I think we would get similar results. We should bar former congressman from working for lobbying firms. | cmv |
CMV I think politicians should be paid minimum wage with little or no benefits | This was actually first addressed in Ancient Greece. Before paying the members of their assembly ( the politicians ), only the wealthiest could take part on politics, what would drive into a Government ruled by few ( aka Oligarchy ). [ side note : this is a good example of why studying history is not worthless ] And, as someone said, Better wages make up for a better competition for the job. Be as humanist as you may, if you can't provide for you and / or your family, there's no way you'd pursuse for a low wage job, rather than a better paying one, so we'd be left with either the richest or the leftovers. Also, a worse wage would make bribing much easier. | cmv |
Gay men are incapable of a committed loving, monogamous relationship. CMV | I'm a gay man ; I've been in a committed monogamous relationship for 12 years. My mother, on the other hand, was married four times to four different men and had maybe half a dozen different short - term boyfriends in between her marriages. Maybe i'm in the 2 %, but I see no reason to believe that's true. | cmv |
Gay men are incapable of a committed loving, monogamous relationship. CMV | I think that your statement would cover all men in general, due to the evolutionary urge to spread their DNA around. It's just the business contract known as a marriage that causes them not to have multiple relationships. Gay men don't have marriage, maybe that's why they are more likely to have more partners. | cmv |
Gay men are incapable of a committed loving, monogamous relationship. CMV | Of course my evidence is only anecdotal, but I am gay and have been in a committed monogamous relationship for 17 years. That is the longest term relationship in my family, including immediate family who have all been married at least there times. I am also part of several gay themes meetups and am, active in several gay organizations, in all instances, majority of men are partnered and most of those relationships are a decade if not decades long. Also, of course you admitted this. It is wildly unfair to judge gay people by criteria that they are not permitted to engage in, namely marriage. | cmv |
Gay men are incapable of a committed loving, monogamous relationship. CMV | I'll just chime in on a similar note to others. If you're view is based on anecdotal experience, you should be swayed by the anecdotal experiences of others. I've met lots of gay people, but most of them I honestly don't know what their sexual lifestyle is. But the two close gay friends I have are both in long - term monogamous relationships. Meanwhile, I know lots of heterosexual friends who at least at this point in their lives seem entirely disinterested in a long term monogamous relationship. So my experiences seem to refute your position. In addition, may I ask how you know the gay people you know? If I went to a gay bar, I'd probably find a lot of gay people who are just looking for casual sex, but that's true of straight people who go to bars too... so watch out for confirmation bias. | cmv |
Gay men are incapable of a committed loving, monogamous relationship. CMV | You freely admit there are exceptions, so the phrase you should be using isn't " incapable of ". It's " disinclined towards ". And, honestly, it's a viable option, so why not? There are trade - offs and drawbacks such as possible loneliness in later years ( as well as the obvious limited shelf life of gay men ), but if they're happy with it... enhhh. It's an ideal pushed on us by the mainstream gay culture, and I'm not a historian so I can't tell you where it came from, but it's heavily engrained there. I think it's sad, because I'd rather have a committed relationship as opposed to the six - degrees - of - buttsex thing that goes on now ( where you're connected to any given gay dude in the country by a chain of six sexual partners... probably. ) I think the reason it doesn't happen like this with straight couples is because A : women usually want children, biological clock and all that, and B : It's discouraged in culture. | cmv |
I believe that both parents need to consent to having a child for one to receive child support from the other - CMV | If society can provide for the child, then the father ( or mother, if she splits ) does not have to. Problem solved. However, this brings up an interesting point for discussion. Why should members of society ( you and I ) pay for the care of the child, when the biological father, while choosing to have a child, did choose to have sex - - an act which can result in pregnancy. Why should we pay instead of him ( or her, if the mother abandons the child with the father )? You and I did not choose to have sex with the woman. We don't even know her. And now, we are burdened ( collectively ) with providing for the child. | cmv |
I believe that both parents need to consent to having a child for one to receive child support from the other - CMV | Bob : Let's have a child. Alice : Ok! Bob, 1 month before birth : By the way, I'm out. When is it too late for the guy to opt out? I think his options run out at the sex where conception occurs. He can't force the woman to abort. If men could opt out of their responsibilities, then I think we would have more false promises, and single mothers with hard lives. | cmv |
I believe that both parents need to consent to having a child for one to receive child support from the other - CMV | This reeks of'Men's Rights'bullshit, yes there are PLENTY of flaws in the legal system that more often than not benefit women, but there's PLENTY of flaws in the'society system'that more often than not benefit men. Bottom line is, nature provided us with sex purely to make babies, there's no such thing as a 100 % contraception method. Don't have sex if you aren't prepared for the IDEA of having a child. You already contented to having child by having sex, that's what sex is for. We as humans have separated " Sex " and " Sex to have children ", but in natures eye's it's all the same. | cmv |
I believe that both parents need to consent to having a child for one to receive child support from the other - CMV | No form of contraception is 100 % safe. Hormonal birth control is far short of a sure thing even when taken like clockwork, and its effectiveness is reduced over a long period from even a brief lapse in rigor. Short of a vasectomy, the most effective form of birth control is a condom, when used properly, that is. But even condoms do sometimes fail. That being the case, consent to intercourse means consent to the possibility, however remote, of pregnancy. In cases of rape, a person does not give consent to either the sex or the consequences. Consensual sex, however, carries with it the risk of pregnancy, and a person can no more rightly demand that a partner terminate a pregnancy than a government can demand that she not terminate it. If a child results, it is for the good of the child that both parents help to support it. If a man wants to avoid this outcome, he should not consent to sex without taking precautions. | cmv |
I believe that both parents need to consent to having a child for one to receive child support from the other - CMV | The child support laws are not made to benefit one parent or the other. They are meant to benefit the child. Why should the child suffer because you consented to sex but not to having a baby? | cmv |
I believe that both parents need to consent to having a child for one to receive child support from the other - CMV | Sex is a consensual act. You cannot 100 % guarantee sexual intercourse will not result in pregnancy. The act of having sex is consent between both parties. After the woman is pregnant the man is out of choices. The child is inside the body of the mother. What right does a man have to force a woman to abort the child? If the man did not want a child he should not have had sex. He consented to have a child when he had sex with the woman knowing pregnancy was a possible outcome. | cmv |
I believe that both parents need to consent to having a child for one to receive child support from the other - CMV | Both parents do consent to having a child, except in cases of rape. When you consent to an act, legally, you consent to all of the reasonably foreseeable outcomes of that act. For example, when you go to a water park, you consent to getting wet. When you consent to sex, you consent to the possibility that a pregnancy could result. | cmv |
I believe that both parents need to consent to having a child for one to receive child support from the other - CMV | I think you are focused too much on intent, and not on results. It doesn't matter if neither wanted the child, what matters is there is now a child coming into the world, and it needs to be cared for. There are many reasons why the woman would choose to not get an abortion, just because the man doesn't want the child doesn't mean she should be forced to get one or be forced to support the child on her own. | cmv |
I believe that both parents need to consent to having a child for one to receive child support from the other - CMV | You consent to having a kid when you have sex. You know the risks. If some dead beat dad doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions, then he should be legally forced to | cmv |
I believe that both parents need to consent to having a child for one to receive child support from the other - CMV | These statements are gross generalizations and don't apply to all people, but they need to be said and considered. The baby doesn't really exist to a lot of men until it's actually born. Men don't have to acknowledge that they stopped a life when they refuse to care for the baby. Whereas for women, the baby is very much real at a much earlier stage. I know some women have felt movement while pregnant in their first trimester. It's much harder to have the abortion or to place a child for adoption, because it's an active decision, not a passive decision to not get involved. | cmv |
I believe that both parents need to consent to having a child for one to receive child support from the other - CMV | It is common knowledge that there is no 100 % secure method of contraception. I expect every person who is old enough to have sex to be aware of it. Even vasectomy may fail. I agree that consent must be given, but to my understanding, this consent is given implicitly by consenting to intercourse. So in my opinion it is totally fair to pay for a child that results of consensual intercourse. | cmv |
I believe that both parents need to consent to having a child for one to receive child support from the other - CMV | What would prevent men from ever saying they are willing to provide child support unless they actually want the child? Women have the burden of going through childbirth, but if men can have sex with anyone and not be held responsible for anything that may occur otherwise, do you think this is going to wind up going anywhere good? Additionally, I personally feel that telling a woman you will not provide child support is financial coercion into having an abortion. Women have more control during the pregnancy because they have a higher burden. More consequences, more control. If the father doesn't want to have that degree of control, he should be wrapping it up every time. What are your views on this when it comes to rape? | cmv |
I believe the US should adopt the laws and regulations of the top ranking countries on the list of inequality adjusted HDI. CMV. | Have you considered that country policies may need to be taylored to the particular populance? What about the democratic process? Should laws be passed that a minority of Americans support? | cmv |
I believe the US should adopt the laws and regulations of the top ranking countries on the list of inequality adjusted HDI. CMV. | What works in one place does not necessarily work in another. For example, most of those higher countries have a fairly homogenous cultural makeup. They also treat their free higher education differently - - only the smart get into college. Sorry Johnny, you didn't make the test scores, no college for you. While I agree with that, it would never fly here. It would be called a civil rights violation. | cmv |
I think police officers are currently above the law, when they really need to be held to a harsher standard of the law than civilians. CMV | Exactly because police are empowered to do things that ordinary citizens are not, they absolutely must be held to commensurately high standards. We need to recognize that police officers are imperfect human beings and sometimes make mistakes in judgment and conduct, but this should not mean that we excuse those mistakes. Rather, we must set reasonable consequences for them as a deterrent for further infractions. The hard part here is the determination of what " reasonable " means. Most police officers sincerely intend to do good. It is often difficult for people to accept that good intentions are actually a very poor predictor of behavior, and that psycho - social situational factors are actually far more reliable. This is why there need to be strict protocols in place that protect both the police officers themselves and citizens. | cmv |
I think police officers are currently above the law, when they really need to be held to a harsher standard of the law than civilians. CMV | Not going to try and change it ; i'm with you wholeheartedly. Central to the issue here, imo, is that we don't force or even try to enforce the spirit of the term'public servants'on our police force. And in kind we forget that it's our police force. In a country with functional democracy, or representative gov't, this is usually not an issue. In the US, because we don't have either, the relationship is much more'state vs. citizen,'and the police naturally fall into their role against people. | cmv |
I think police officers are currently above the law, when they really need to be held to a harsher standard of the law than civilians. CMV | They should be held to a stricter standard than today but never stricter than the law, the law should be equal to all at all times. Yes, some are abusing their power and should be dealt with. They are ( as all others ) not the law but under it and that some of them forget, that they are merely serving the law. If the law was changed for one grupp when will it be changed for another and a third? When will the law be changed to suit the needs of few instead of the needs of us all? The punishment that the law has decided is the punishment that they should face and no other, just as we all should. | cmv |
I think police officers are currently above the law, when they really need to be held to a harsher standard of the law than civilians. CMV | It would be cost prohibitive. Any group of people who would be required to wear cameras all the time would naturally demand a huge increase in salary to protect themselves against termination. Doctors, lawyers, firemen, lifeguards, teachers, pharmacists, and police. Every single minor infraction and slip of the mind or minor change to procedure, or even jokes to your friends would be under review. Taxes would have to go sharply up to either provide for such an increase in salaries or for some type of insurance plan the state would have to give to their employees in order to get them to go to work. Furthermore, the state would quickly have to, and would, indemnify themselves and their officers so as to ensure that people still show up to work. | cmv |
If government assistance came to an end tomorrow. Infant mortality rates would skyrocket. CMV | How much government aid are we talking here? Like the government stops all work completely and people fend for themselves in the economy, or are we just talking, like foodstamps? I assume your post is focused on the U. S., correct? Is your CMV as to whether or not infant mortality would skyrocket? Or is it that nothing else would happen except infant mortality would skyrocket? Your wording at the end makes it confusing | cmv |
If government assistance came to an end tomorrow. Infant mortality rates would skyrocket. CMV | People dont not have kids just because they cant feed them. People have kids because all people have kids. Seventy years ago, with Germany and Japan destroying three continents? People had kids despite the risk of losing the war. Ten years before that, famine, Depression, hell. People still had kids despite one in four not having a job. 150 years ago? The Civil War. Funnily enough, despite being enslaved, beaten, raped, burned, marked and whipped black people still had children. | cmv |
If government assistance came to an end tomorrow. Infant mortality rates would skyrocket. CMV | Infant mortality rates might skyrocket if government assistance literally ended tomorrow. But that doesn't necessarily mean government assistance actually decrease infant mortality. It might simply mean that because of the warped incentive structure provided by government assistance, more people have children than they otherwise would have. Without government assistance, it's entirely possible that you may have about the same rate of infant mortality, but also have lower birth rates. | cmv |
I believe that a meritocratic system of government is the solution to a broken system. CMV. | One of the advantages of democracy is that it informs the public and encourages participation. By having a say, some people become informed and empowered who otherwise might not be. Have your views on issues changed over time because of your participation in democracy? I think you can extrapolate that out and see how it is useful to society as a whole. | cmv |
I believe that a meritocratic system of government is the solution to a broken system. CMV. | Who decides which people are informed on an issue? Who decides which knowledgeable experts make governmental policy? How can we ensure that these deciders aren't just as biased as they are in a democracy? | cmv |
I think that cases of female - on - male rape are an incredible minority of overall rapes. And those who wish us to reconnoiter our thinking on rape as a more gender - neutral crime are misguided, and merely arguing their own political agenda. CMV. | For me the problem is that ( in the UK at least ) male on female rape is tackled by the law. The legal definition of rape here involves a penis penetrating a vagina. Anything else is sexual assault which carries a much smaller penalty. The other problem is view that men enjoy it or want it. This ostracises male victims and labels them as'cowards'among other things. While there are cases where this sort of thing happens to female victims ('she's asking for it'), it is often from the most bigoted and misogynistic. | cmv |
I think that cases of female - on - male rape are an incredible minority of overall rapes. And those who wish us to reconnoiter our thinking on rape as a more gender - neutral crime are misguided, and merely arguing their own political agenda. CMV. | It's incredible how feminist lobbying groups have managed to skew public perceptions of rape and sexual assault. Funny you should mention political agendas, as most feminist platforms actually revolve around the exploitation of rape - - that is, taking the horror of rape and then blowing it out of proportion to gain support for radical anti - male legislation. Then, anyone who opposes can be easily painted as misogynist, rape apologist, sexist, whatever. Here are three links which detail the reality behind the statistics ( both male and female ) : One. Two. Three. | cmv |
I think that cases of female - on - male rape are an incredible minority of overall rapes. And those who wish us to reconnoiter our thinking on rape as a more gender - neutral crime are misguided, and merely arguing their own political agenda. CMV. | In most places the legal definition of rape is forced penatration and being forced to penetrate doe snot constitute as rape. That leads to most things that should be called a female raping a male isn't actually called rape. Another issue is that the amount of shame given when reporting rapes for men is much much higher than it is for when women report that they get raped. Society sees men as the guys that should always try to have sex. Going against what society says should have happened is really really difficult and leads to a lot of victim blaming like " why didn't you just fight her off " or " you got controlled by a girl? ". Also a lot more uncomfortable questions like " well was she hot " that are absolutely inappropriate and discourage reporting. This leads to much less reporting so the number of rapes reported is much much lower than the actual number of rapes. Ignoring the problem is the absolute worst thing that can happen. it helps continue the current perceived gender roles, and shames men that are victims for not enjoying it. | cmv |
I think that cases of female - on - male rape are an incredible minority of overall rapes. And those who wish us to reconnoiter our thinking on rape as a more gender - neutral crime are misguided, and merely arguing their own political agenda. CMV. | Why define the problem in gendered terms at all? Why say " rape is a terrible thing, it is terrible in all cases, BUT we're going to focus purely on this subset of instances "? Why do you complain that those pushing for accurate discussion are motivated by politics, while ignoring the political motivations behind painting women as the sole victims and men as the sole perpetrators? The relative incidence of female - on - male rape is unknown, and it may well be a vast minority as you suggest, but it's certainly not nothing. And insisting on ignoring those victims is not really better than telling them to " walk it off ". | cmv |
I think that cases of female - on - male rape are an incredible minority of overall rapes. And those who wish us to reconnoiter our thinking on rape as a more gender - neutral crime are misguided, and merely arguing their own political agenda. CMV. | Women sexually exploit men frequently. The damage from rape is not ENTIRELY because of the act of having sex, but rather the power dynamic and the feeling of something so intimate being taken from you by force or deception. When you look at rape this way, as an exploitation of power, then the discussion is very two sided from the female / male perspective. In terms of physical damage, I would say the physical damage occurs to women almost exclusively. Except in male / male rape, which does happen and is an issue and is rape, so why exclude it? | cmv |
I think that cases of female - on - male rape are an incredible minority of overall rapes. And those who wish us to reconnoiter our thinking on rape as a more gender - neutral crime are misguided, and merely arguing their own political agenda. CMV. | I think the issue is that what we consider to be rape has been changing over time, and changing towards including more things as rape than before. Yeah violent rape is bad, and so is statutory rape, but most of the discussion today has moved to " gray " rape ; maybe you didn't resist but you said no, or you didn't say no but you were drunk, etc. It's a hot topic, because people aren't yet clear on the boundaries of what should be considered rape and how we should deal with that. So there's a lot of confusion, and people generally don't have as well formed a concept of consent and what constitutes rape as we would like. Statistically I'd say you're right that male - on - female rape is much more common than the other way around for cases of violent rape. But for the much more common case of gray rape I think it's easy for it to happen in both directions. Just because of the confusion over the idea of proper consent and people's differing opinions on that. I think if we're going to move to a broader definition of rape ( which is a gender neutral issue, rather than a political agenda ) then it doesn't trivialize rape to consider it a gender neutral issue. If anything we would want the discussion to apply in both directions, since that would help define consent for the public. | cmv |
I think that cases of female - on - male rape are an incredible minority of overall rapes. And those who wish us to reconnoiter our thinking on rape as a more gender - neutral crime are misguided, and merely arguing their own political agenda. CMV. | The oft - cited CDC NISVS 2010report reports about 23. 6 percent of men are victims in their lifetime of sexual violence, and the majority of perpetrators of that violence are female. Those reports of sexual violence comprise about a quarter of the overall cases they studied. 25 % is not a " minor drop in the sea ". | cmv |
I think that cases of female - on - male rape are an incredible minority of overall rapes. And those who wish us to reconnoiter our thinking on rape as a more gender - neutral crime are misguided, and merely arguing their own political agenda. CMV. | Discussions of male rape get men to think about how it would feel if they were being forced. The general consensus is that they wouldn't like being forced. The act of discussing and thinking about it is a mental exercise that encourages empathy with rape victims. If you wouldn't want something to happen to you, you shouldn't do it to other people. Done properly it is a useful tool for teaching people not to commit rape which is the most effective means of reducing rape rates. | cmv |
I don't see anything wrong with concealed carry CMV | If you were in a situation you were in trouble you'd want the help of a concealed carrier sure, but what if, due to poor judgement, the situation that was under control escalated? What if the concealed carrier just got fired from his job, and is looking to pick a fight? That's one way a situation could escalate. What if a bar fight ended up with half of the patrons shot because the other half had concealed guns? Concealed carry in my opinion is a method that empowers people beyond necessity. Open carry provides all the benefits of concealed - people can see your gun, you have an easy way to access it, and it provides a feeling of public security. People with hidden guns are blank slates - how do you know the guy you picked a fight with because your wife left you isn't going to pull a gun on you and shoot you, believing you were a serious threat to his safety? | cmv |
I don't see anything wrong with concealed carry CMV | The problem arises when people dont try very hard to conceal it. I think there should be a clear distinction. I was taught ( fellow texan ) that no one should know you have a gun with such a license. As someone that has had a gun pointed at my head, not everyone has that sort of self control. I agree with you, but I think there should be a way to keep giblett heads from having a ccl. | cmv |
[ CMV ] Argentina has no reasonable, manifestable claim to the Falkland Islands. | In Argentina's view, they owned the islands, when the British came in and forcibly established a colony. This isn't enough to destroy their claim. If a bunch of Russians sailed to an uninhabited Alaskan island and built some houses there, they would not be allowed to claim the island for Russia. So their claim may be wrong, but it is certainly reasonable. | cmv |
I believe everyone to some degree is racist. CMV. | Yeah I'd like to further the children argument because I think that that's the strongest one. I know anecdotal evidence is poor, but as a child, the only racism I remember seeing were pictures like this that caricatured other races. Children can see people with black skin, brown skin, short tall and they won't make any judgement other than " he looks different ". Children have to be told racist stereotypes to even know what they are. I think your main argument is that people are inherently racist no matter what. I would argue that racism is passed down ; it isn't something everyone has by default | cmv |
I believe everyone to some degree is racist. CMV. | Racism is institutionalized discrimination against others. I believe you mean that everyone to some degree is prejudiced, not racist. I fully admit to being prejudiced in some ways, but I'd never intentionally or willingly participate in institutionalized oppression of any race. Furthermore, I would never actively or purposefully discriminate against a person of another race. That doesn't mean that I don't think things about people that are based upon their race. Here is an article that explains this in more detail. | cmv |
I believe everyone to some degree is racist. CMV. | Some people are blind or deaf, and so are unable to make any judgements about race. Some children will have no opinions on race, and so will not be racist. So not everyone is racist. | cmv |
I don't believe corporations who take measures to avoid tax are acting immorally. CMV. | I feel like your first statement about the legal obligation of corporations to maximize profit for shareholders makes the assumption that laws are inherently morally sound. If that were the case then you might be right that corporations limiting the amount of taxes they pay is completely moral as long as its done by the law. However, I think it's fairly obvious and doesn't need arguing that moral soundness is in no way a prerequisite for a law. It follows then that following the law does not mean that corporations aren't being morally sound. In general I very much dislike the " profits before people " point of view. I think it is inherently flawed and immoral. It legally requires corporations to marginalized the well being of people ( workers and customers ) for the gains of the ( probably already well off ) shareholders. Not to mention it stifles innovation by putting the emphasis in the bottom line as opposed to the quality of product / service. | cmv |
I don't believe corporations who take measures to avoid tax are acting immorally. CMV. | Corporations have an obligation to the government before shareholders. Because they would not exist without the government. Therefore if they avoid paying their share of taxes as determined by the government. They are receiving services without paying for them. I'm not sure of your stance on the morality of that, but it is wrong on some level to receive services and not pay what is expected of you. | cmv |
I don't believe corporations who take measures to avoid tax are acting immorally. CMV. | There's a difference between " legal " and " moral ". As a society, we've established a system in which our governments provide us with valuable services in exchange for our tax dollars ( infrastructure, security, etc ). It is only fair that we all contribute for the benefit of enjoying these services. Circumventing the need to pay for these services, regardless of the legality of the pathway by which this is achieved ( the legality of which may also be unintentional ) is immoral in my view because it a violation of that basic agreement. | cmv |
I believe porn should be illegal. CMV | The feminists I know believe women should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies. Why should anything they choose to do be illegal? Now the reason prostitution is illegal and its legalization would supposedly lead to an increase of abuse and mistreatment of women. Though, I believe if it's legalized we will have better control over the problems | cmv |
I believe porn should be illegal. CMV | How do you define porn? One of the problems that the US courts had in the days when they tried to enforce laws banning'obscenity'is that they couldn't define it. Some things are obviously'porn ', some things are obviously'not - porn '... but the line between them is really, really fuzzy and always ends up being a judgment call on the part of the court. | cmv |
I believe porn should be illegal. CMV | I don't find it disrespectful to my body to have sex for money. Why should you get to legislate what I find disrespectful to myself? Many porn actors and actresses do very well for themselves and don't go down a " dark road. " Should all careers where people who pursue them have the potential to ruin their lives be illegalised? Many musicians, particularly popular ones, end up drug addicted and frequently die from overdosing. Should being a pop star be illegal just because it leads to abuse for some people? | cmv |
I believe porn should be illegal. CMV | It seems to me that if you're going to ban something you ought to be able to show a compelling reason for doing so. The only reason you've stated is because prostitution is illegal, and that isn't even universally true. If your position is that it's imoral, I would ask you if everything I think is imoral should also be banned. | cmv |
I believe porn should be illegal. CMV | Why is it ok to do something for free, but then morally devious to do it for money? Let's say that I'm stupid enough to make a sex tape. I now have that forever, but according to you, it's ok. I think, maybe I can get some money for it. The second that money touches my hand, I'm now a deviant. How does that work? | cmv |
I believe porn should be illegal. CMV | The fundamental crucial question that must be answered to solve your dilemma is " who owns your body "? In every subject we discuss and every law that we write the answer to that question should be the same. We should consistently answer that question - You own your own body. If someone else owns your body or even if someone else is protecting you from making decisions that involve only your body then you are a slave. A free person owns their own body and can make any decision about that body that does not harm another person's body. It should be legal for you to do drugs, prostitute, do porn, sell your organs, have an abortion, or commit suicide. | cmv |
I believe porn should be illegal. CMV | Why is porn somehow bad if it is made without money? It is still sex on video and a lack of respect towards the people in the video? Is it really that bad to be paid for your " services "? | cmv |
I believe The Patriarchy, as a theory, holds no explanatory or predictive power, CMV | Patriarchy is a term in sociology and anthropology that refers to how a society is structured in terms of gender. It is a descriptive claim, not a prescriptive one. Anyways, I think I've addressed this here. | cmv |
I believe The Patriarchy, as a theory, holds no explanatory or predictive power, CMV | If you look at the really simple everyday things in life, you will see that society is set up to have ( and keep ) men in the dominant role. Who changes their name at marriage? How are toys advertised to children? Which gender is in the overwhelming majority of powerful roles? | cmv |
I believe The Patriarchy, as a theory, holds no explanatory or predictive power, CMV | I'm not going to argue for the patriarchy specifically, but I will argue that your metric for judging the effects of discrimination leaves much to be desired. You can't just compare racism with sexism because there are plenty of things that skew the numbers to the point of meaninglessness. Here's one - sexism would seem to affect half the population, racism less than that. But even of that smaller percentage, half of them are affected by racism and sexism. The numbers will skew towards racism being worse even if they are exactly the same because you're counting one group twice. Another reason you can't compare them is because sexism and racism don't necessarily present themselves in the same way. I'm sure if you looked at statistics for black people being sexually harassed or the victims of sexual assaults the numbers would almost certainly tell us that women disproportionately face these problems. I'm also sure that discrimination doesn't need to be worse than the other group in order for it to be fought for, or in order for a causal theory for it to be true. Women are underrepresented in positions of power throughout the world, they don't make as much on the dollar as men, and many places still need to fight for their right to bodily autonomy. Saying the patriarchy doesn't exist because you don't see its effects in the same way as you would a different type of discrimination is entirely the wrong reason to reject it. | cmv |
I think Social Justice Warriors are simply immature people who don't understand that life is not always fair. CMV. | I've believed for a long time that you need all kinds to make civil right work. Until the stonewall riots, gays had plenty of movements trying to politely gain rights, but were effectively not allowed to exist. The inciting incident that sparked the stonewall riots, remember, was that police raided a private club for being a gay bar - - So, despite decades of doing things the polite way, no real progress had been made. After stonewall, things finally started to move, because suddenly not only was there someone there saying " We're willing to do this nicely ", but you had people who were obviously willing to riot in the streets. This seems to be a common thread. Martin Luther King may have preached non - violence, but the black panthers certainly didn't. Ghandi may have preached non - violence, but there were plenty of indian nationalists who were perfectly willing to fight over the point. Labour unions didn't gain their power solely through diplomacy, but also by literally rioting in the streets. | cmv |
I think Social Justice Warriors are simply immature people who don't understand that life is not always fair. CMV. | I don't think you're creating a valid basis for discussion here. You're describing a nebulous group that by definition " use public ridicule and condescension as their primary tactic. " I think if you want a real discussion on their tactics and whether or not they benefit the cause, you need to be more generous and more descriptive of what you're defining. | cmv |
I think Social Justice Warriors are simply immature people who don't understand that life is not always fair. CMV. | A lot of them actually are mentally ill. Look at Solanas and Dworkin. Healthy people don't rant about how all sex is rape or how 3 billion people are in a conspiracy against you. Looking at real life SJWs suggests that these people really are sick. Which explains a lot about them. It explains their lack of logical thought. It explains their conviction. Their brains simply don't work. | cmv |
I think Social Justice Warriors are simply immature people who don't understand that life is not always fair. CMV. | At first I thought this would be about convincing you that social justice is worth caring about. But from what you wrote here, it seems you think people who resort to attacking and belittling others are counterproductive to the movement of social justice and progress in that field. That's wildly different than what your title suggests, and it's also not really a viewpoint worth changing... | cmv |
I think Social Justice Warriors are simply immature people who don't understand that life is not always fair. CMV. | I think that by suffixing'warrior'on social justice, you've given yourself an out. Just about all change is brought about by reasoned people working in hearings and offices. Demonstrations occasionally do something and'direct action'seems to almost never work and often backfires. | cmv |
I believe we would be much better off with smaller countries and smaller governments. CMV. | I think it's worth you defining what government function you think are wrong. Do you think welfare is wrong? Do you think having a military is wrong? Do you think environmental regulations are wrong? Labor regulations? Do you think free education / healthcare is wrong? | cmv |
I believe we would be much better off with smaller countries and smaller governments. CMV. | I think that the belief in small governments often neglects the fact that international relations is anarchy. And due to that, there will always be countries with a bigger military, and those countries will take advantage of countries with fewer soldiers. Therefore it's important to spend a lot of money to produce a country with a large military so that other countries will not interfere with you. Since a government usually can't function while ONLY paying for a military, that means that off the bat the military will be a fraction of it's budget, and thus to get a larger military, you must increase the size of the budget as a whole. But it's not just enough to pay for a sizable military, you must compete with other countries and try to make it larger or as large. If other countries have nuclear weapons then you need to make them as well or else they can defeat you easily. Not doing so would enable another country to conquer you without much resistance. So you're almost required to inflate your budget to the point where your military can compete internationally. tl ; dr : If you're in a room with 10 people and one of them has a gun, they make the rules. If you're in the room with the guy with a gun, don't avoid getting a gun because it's not in your budget. | cmv |
I believe we would be much better off with smaller countries and smaller governments. CMV. | There is a mutual contract between you and the government : you pay taxes and serve certain duties ( jury duty for one ), and the government will protect you and provide you with services in return ( libraries, parks, etc ). Also, there are already smaller divisions of government : state governments. Would you like to go smaller? County, local. What's wrong with these smaller governments? | cmv |
I used to believe that prostitution should be legalized and regulated. TCMV. CMV back? | If prostitution was legalized, you could tax it and help towards the national debt. Also, if sex is agreed to by two consenting adults, it should be no different than any other business transaction, as long as both parties give / get what was agreed to, and both are of age and it's consensual. There's no downside. HIV / AIDS testing could be regulated through brothels, and as long as the women are happy, it should be legal. | cmv |
I used to believe that prostitution should be legalized and regulated. TCMV. CMV back? | With legal, regulated prostitution, a large segment of the industry at least has the rights and protections afforded to workers in other industries. With illegal, underground prostitution, none of them do. Even if you can't eliminate the harm completely, you can still minimize it. | cmv |
I used to believe that prostitution should be legalized and regulated. TCMV. CMV back? | Having finished your wholly depressing article, I can only observe that there are other systemic failures which need to be resolved and that you can't put the whole of the blame onto the legalization of prostitution in Germany. The article itself discusses how the women in question are victims of sex trafficking. How and why their victimizers escape justice is maybe a better course of discussion. Women are, in this case, still being victimized, and to be legislated against and further criminalized, in addition to their other problems will not ever be beneficial. In response to prices ; this always happens with the legalization of any vice. As risk decreases, competition increases, prices lower. That one will be unavoidable. | cmv |
I used to believe that prostitution should be legalized and regulated. TCMV. CMV back? | I think you're pretty much always going to have an illegal side of prostitution. There are just things society cannot tolerate but would still generate a market. To deny those prostitutes who would advantage from a legal trade that advantage because legalizing prostitution wouldn't magically solve all problems related to prostitution seems wrong to me. Instead of trying to find the perfect solution, we need to think realistically. And legalizing prostitution does put the power of the trade back into the hands of many women who would otherwise be exploited. | cmv |
I used to believe that prostitution should be legalized and regulated. TCMV. CMV back? | With Germany, they made essentially no effort to stop human trafficking. One of the benefits of prostitution being illegal is that you have an easy way to stop human trafficking. They are trafficked for sex so you can arrest people for that. When Germany made it legal they didn't increase penalties on illegal trafficking of prostitutes so they faced problems. Lowlifes had a badge of legitimacy to hide behind and so the illegal side expanded. Ideally, if prostitution was legalized lowlife gatherings of prostitutes would still be illegal. Foreign prostitution could remain illegal, and only prostitution which clearly complied with government regulations would be legal. That way lowlife scum would have nothing to hide behind. | cmv |
I used to believe that prostitution should be legalized and regulated. TCMV. CMV back? | IMO human trafficking is not a problem with prostitution law, but with immigration law, and people using it to argue for harsher laws don't make much sense. If someone is brought illegally into a country and then forced to work as a farm worker, that doesn't cause us to think about banning farms. So why, if someone is brought illegally into a country and then forced to work as a prostitute, does that cause us to think about banning prostitution? It's got nothing to do with how effective that would be, but rather just that prostitution is already stigmatized and someone is always looking for a reason to make it illegal if it's not or keep it illegal if it is. | cmv |
I think the funding and process of campaigning for a public office position should be highly controlled to allow a more even playing field. CMV | I can't write a lot now cuz im on my phone, but briefly, capping how much people can say will bias the system in favor of those whose ideas are already being accepted and put in place, which are the same wealthy interests you're against. And capping how much people can spend will favor those who have non monetary advantages. Like the party machine or the right friends or status quo bias. You can't just oppose any system in which the wealthy will have an advantage, because the wealthy will have an advantage in any system, and you'll replace one set of advantages with another. I think the current situation is actually pretty good ; studies show that above a certain ( relatively low ) point, extra spending doesn't affect ones chances that much. Much of the extra effort in raising money the wealthy are doing is having less effect on elections than whatever they'd do in a system where they had some other method for gaining an unfair advantage. To the extent that it seems like the wealthy are spending money to push their bad ideas, sometimes its not their money that's the problem, its that those bad ideas are inherently more popular than people care to admit. | cmv |
I think the funding and process of campaigning for a public office position should be highly controlled to allow a more even playing field. CMV | Incumbents are highly visible people. Competing with that visibility would be very difficult for a candidate whose opportunities are further limited by rules enacted by the incumbent. I don't think anybody except incumbents and lobbyists appreciate the current system, but it's still vastly superior to the open doors to corruption which the alternatives constitute. Put another way, you're suggesting that the wolves should get to decide how fast the sheep can run. | cmv |
I don't support gay marriage because I don't think a homosexual couple could a child of the opposite gender very well CMV | So is your objection related to marriage or adoption? I follow up assuming you are talking about adoption, because marriage has absolutely nothing to do with raising children. Is a child honestly going to be better off bouncing around foster parents or group homes rather than in a stable household with two parents of the opposite gender? | cmv |
I don't support gay marriage because I don't think a homosexual couple could a child of the opposite gender very well CMV | First of all, the'traditional'family has only been dominate for a few centuries. Even if a homosexual couple had some detriment in their ability to raise a child, look at the broader spectrum. Different couples vary widely in their ability to raise children already ; the small detriment posed by a gay couple wouldn't tip the scales much. | cmv |
I believe that marijuana should be illegal until technology is developed that can test recent use. CMV | " Illegal " is a pretty broad term If you mean criminal, then you are arguing in favor of the War on Drugs and you are wrong. Period. There is substantial and mounting evidence that total prohibition simply does not work. The primary results of the War on Drugs have been to criminalize being black / brown in US inner cities, and to empower drug cartels and gangs throughout Mexico and along the US border. If you mean simply that it should still be punished by ( at least ) a ticket / fine, that's fine but you're not actually doing anything substantial to stop " high driving ". | cmv |
I believe that marijuana should be illegal until technology is developed that can test recent use. CMV | So I would argue that since you already have huge use of marijuana, this threat exists whether or not the drug is legal. However if the drug where legal I assume there would be both an increased monetary incentive for developing such technology and it would be easier to research how to develop said technology. In other words I would argue that if we want to be able to diminish the amount of irresponsible potheads on the road we should legalize pot. Drivers are high whether or not you legalize it, but the technology to deal with it seems like it would be easier to develop under legalization. | cmv |
I think affirmative action should be done away with. CMV | Do you know any specifics of what affirmative action laws exist? I know some colleges try to create diverse populations, and these attempts are frequently thrown out by courts especially if they use quotas or a similarly unflexible form of affirmative action. As far as private sector affirmative action I am just completely unaware of its existence except when people complain about it. Another example I know of is governments preferencing minority owned businesses, although even this has to be at a targeted minority group that experienced actual discrimination in that specific place for it to be legal. My understanding is that'affirmative action'done in the private sector tends to all be self imposed decisions of employers to hire minorities for personal reasons or image reasons. Correct me if there is some law I don't know about. | cmv |
I believe that the environment and development can peacefully coexist. CMV | It will take a few steps : Justice in private property rights must be restored. The removal of privilege must be carried out. No corporate shield. The officers and employees of a company must have personal criminal and civil liability for the violation of another's personal property, and infringements must lead to complete restoration / restitution. At that point, the government can rid itself of a lot of overhead ( EPA, ton of regulators / regulation, etc. ). reallocate resources to justice and regulation of insurance companies. The insurance companies can take care of regulating. Although one can never know for sure, Deepwater Horizon never would have happened had an insurance company been liable for the payouts bringing not just " help ", but restitution for private property damage. No billions in fines paid to the government, but 100 + billion paid to individuals. | cmv |
I believe that the environment and development can peacefully coexist. CMV | I agree that this is possible in Australia. The US has 14x the population of Australia but only 1. 25x the landmass ( and much of that is in the arctic ). With our population density I find it harder to imagine this. In China and India I find it even harder. With low populations harmless development is an easy thing. If there were only a hundred million humans spread across world we could all eat meat six times a day and drive Hummers that run on coal and we wouldn't make much of a dent, environmentally. But as our numbers grow, we suck up resources faster than they can be replenished ( if they can be replenished at all ), we create more waste than the surrounding environment can handle, and we disrupt priceless ecosystem services ( like insect pollination ). So, to CYV, I propose that it's possible that your focus on Australia over the years has skewed your view of how possible this peaceful coexistence is on a global scale. | cmv |
I think secularism is untenable. CMV | A lot of religions want to end other religions. Christianity wants everyone to be a Christian normally, Islam wants everyone to be Islamic. A secularist probably wouldn't accept that they were practicing a religion, but they would likely say that religion was almost always detrimental to society and so we should try to end it or stamp it out. Their ideology is good, unlike every other ideology, so you should accept secularism. That being said, secularists normally just want to limit the legal rights of religious people and force them out of the public sphere. | cmv |
I think secularism is untenable. CMV | By what definition of " religion " does secularism fit? Secularism doesn't have a super natural / spiritual component. It's a view on what constitutes good governance - you can be a member of any given religion and still promote secularism It also doesn't, necessarily, mean that individuals can't publicly practice their religion, just that the government can't support them in some way. | cmv |
I think secularism is untenable. CMV | I think it is best if we see religions as a subset of ideologies. Religions are ideologies that hold that some form of deity or deities exist and often involve an element of faith ( this description is inadequate as it seems to exclude Buddhism but I can't think of a better one off the top of my head ). Anyone who describes secularism as a religion is either using a metaphor / analogy to imply there is an element of faith to the ideology, or is plain wrong. Secularism at its most basic is the ideology that religious ideologies should not be endorsed by government, and possibly some other non - governemental institutions. The aim isn't to remove religion from the public sphere, it is to remove religious motivation from government. It is perfectly fine if a politician is religious, but any policy she / he wishes to enact should be justified using non - religious justifications. You can certainly use the word secular to describe the absence of religion in other areas without professed athiesm. I often describe my family as secular, for instance, because although one of my parents believes in God I never recieved much exposure to religion. However, secularism as an ideology does not normally reach that far. | cmv |
I think secularism is untenable. CMV | I disagree that secularism wants to remove religion for the social sphere barring the family. It wants to remove religion from government. A secularist would have no problem with a TV network broadcasting Christian programming or people going to organized religion in churches or other religious institutions. A problem only arises when government starts endorsing religion by putting mentions of a deity in government affairs such as on the currency or in the pledge of allegiance. | cmv |
I Think the U. S. Needs a Radical Makeover of Student Aid Which Would Likely Close Some Colleges, and Force Others to Shrink. CMV | We tried something similar in the public school sector, it's called No Child Left Behind. While it works in theory, as soon as you incorporate the human element it fails miserably. Funds are allocated for unnecessary reasons, standards are subpar, and the ends aren't justifiable. It's literally a clusterfuck, please forgive that terminology, but I digress. The issue with college right now, and the reason we should focus on why it should be changed is stemmed from Reagan era politics. Prior to Reagan's administration it was totally cool and seen as incredibly noble for an individual to work a " blue collar job ", and people were getting paid very good and livable wages. As soon as Reagan entered the mix he changed the public conscious in that " everyone should go to college ". As a teacher I can assure you, not everyone should go because it's not for everyone. There are too many people who enter college and flounder, they don't know what they want to do, they don't take it seriously, they fail out, etc, etc. I can spout research topic on research topic on the subject, but in the end it comes down to changing the culture and that's what will improve colleges. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.