summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I Think the U. S. Needs a Radical Makeover of Student Aid Which Would Likely Close Some Colleges, and Force Others to Shrink. CMV | I think you are misguided in thinking that universities'only goal is education of the students. A HUGE part of university is the research going on in the departments. Many professors would want to focus on their research that would lead to their tenure. Also, I also believe you are misguided about the core curriculum ; there are many bodies that accredit universities ; to gain accreditation, the university must fulfill certain requirements like what is being taught in a major. That problem is already dealt with and is independent of the financial aid issue. | cmv |
We should use racial sterotypes in crime fighting. CMV | I'll agree that you're probably right we would catch more criminals, the question is whether it's worth it. Let's say we decided to search the car of every black person police pulled over. You'd catch a few more criminals at the expense of violating the privacy of a shitload of people. Is that worth the trade off? It sounds like the cure is worse than the disease. Maybe we should just stick with only going after people who give good reason to suspect illegal behavior. The only way I would support some racial profiling is if there's a case of an immediate and imminent threat. If we got a tip that there was a person with a bomb at an NFL game, I would tell my guys to stop searching old ladies and start looking for Arabic men. Sorry to the innocent people in this case, but the cure isn't as bad as the disease. | cmv |
I think feminism is wrong - women aren't oppressed, in the first world at least. CMV | Men continue to dominate commerce, industry, banking, athletics, religion, law, science, and politics. Everyone - man or woman - has bias. But men have had such a disproportionate share of leadership positions, for such a long time, that many societal institutions were constructed from the standpoint of a male - centric bias. Although women have come a long way since the beginnings of their liberation movement, this institutional bias still has some inertia left in it that permeates from the top to the bottom. Remember the absurdity of an all - male congressional hearing debating birth control? Or how about the peculiar fallout in the Steubenville rape? | cmv |
I think feminism is wrong - women aren't oppressed, in the first world at least. CMV | Before disputing any of your points, can you answer a question : How do you define feminism? Also, there is a pay gap ; and it accounts for all the discrepancies you've mentioned. It is a much much much smaller pay gap than many advocacy groups proclaim, but women do statistically ( it's important to emphasise that ) make less on the dollar per hour for the same job with the same education and background as men. | cmv |
I think feminism is wrong - women aren't oppressed, in the first world at least. CMV | Definition of OPPRESS from Webster's : 1 a archaic : suppress b : to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority 2 : to burden spiritually or mentally : weigh heavily upon Wikipedia : Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. [ 1 ] It can also be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety. First we need to agree on what oppression is, so do you accept these standard definitions of the word? | cmv |
I don't think equality is an independent value to be pursued for its own sake. CMV | There's no such thing as an independent value, and no value is ever pursued for its own sake. It's always ( and really read this as always ) pursued for the sake of the person valuing it. It's always a relationship between the thing being valued and the person doing the valuing. To put it another way, equality and liberty are just words that describe abstract concepts, and those concepts have absolutely no value unless they have some resulting benefit to someone, people, populations. So I guess I don't disagree with you really, I just think that there's no possible way for you to be wrong. It's kind of a tautology to tell the truth - we don't value X because it's X, we value it because of its relationship to us. But that's how values work. It's an implicit implication that when I value something, I do so because I find something to value in it, not because it's valuable unto itself. | cmv |
I don't believe that whistleblowers are heroes, and that they only do harm to the country they work for. CMV | " they only do harm to the country they work for "... well... yeah. He has done irreparable harm to the U. S. government. Now we know they're doing a ton of illegal stuff - - not just suspect, but KNOW. The government was doing harm to the U. S. people, according to our constitution. To me, the harm he " causes " the US government is far outweighed by the harm to the people that his actions could prevent. | cmv |
I don't believe that whistleblowers are heroes, and that they only do harm to the country they work for. CMV | Well not all whistle blowers are bad for their countries. I agree that manning and snowdan are bad for the US and the world. But the whistle blowers who told the country about the torture in Iraq were good for the country because they helped stop widespread torture. The government isn't always right. And whistle blowers who report illegal things are good. But I'd argue that manning and snowdan aren't whistle blowers because they didn't report anything illegal. They just told the world how we protect our country and put us in danger. But I also think snowdan doesn't know anything or else we would have him by now. He's done his damage. He really doesn't matter anymore. | cmv |
I don't believe that whistleblowers are heroes, and that they only do harm to the country they work for. CMV | Are the pursuits of individual governments really that important? If you come into possession of information that shows your home country is breaking its own laws and taking actions that are morally reprehensible, isn't it your moral duty to expose it to the world at large? What I'm trying to say is that the goals of the U. S. A. gov't are not the same as the goals of those who have the well - being of the world's citizens in mind. | cmv |
I don't believe that whistleblowers are heroes, and that they only do harm to the country they work for. CMV | In your topic you talk about " whistleblowers " but when you support that argument you talk about a couple specific whistleblowers. Whether you believe that Manning and Snowden were virtuous or not, I think it would be easier to try to find a counterexample to your sweeping generalization. Can you imagine a government secretly doing things that you wouldn't support? If so, can you imagine a scenario where a whistleblower tells the people without hurting the country too much? If so I don't see how you can not support whisteblowing as an idea. If you don't consider someone doing something for the benefit of the country at great risk to himself to be a heroic act, then I guess that's just semantics and you would have to define " hero " for me. | cmv |
I believe that in order to carry and purchase a handgun you must go through the same weapons training as the police, FBI or military. CMV | Your training is not as comprehensive as your instructor would have you believe. One course doesn't make you proficient ; it makes you competent. Sustainment training makes you proficient. In the military and professional law enforcement, that training is conducted as a matter of course. Your average CCW holder is an enthusiast and probably shoots a great deal ( more than many law enforcement and non - combat arms military ) in their spare time. Their constant hours put in on the range over time are better training than your 30 - hour course from an Israeli. | cmv |
I think Republicans have an old fashioned view on governing and aren't able to fully fix, run, and help the country. Please, CMV. | 1 ) " Neocons " are called that because they really did have new scholarship and new thinking. The ideas they had were pretty abhorent, in my opinion, but definitely not based on older principles of governing. ( You can find quotes from prominent neocon intellectuals instructing politicians to do whatever it takes to get elected ). The'Tea Party'is actually an outgrowth of this, in some ways - they serve their constituency ( which is a gerrymandered far - right district for most Tea Party congressmen ) over and above the country. In other words, they absolutely and totally pander to their electorate to remain in office - just like the neocons tried to do on a national level. 2 ) All politicians are selfish - their primary goal is re - election. Welfare is definitely a factor in this ( congressmen with anti - Welfare districts are overwhelmingly anti - welfare, and the reverse also holds ) but to be honest the anti - Welfare view is based ( intellectually, anyway ) more on the idea that welfare is not effective long - term than it is on a dislike of the poor. Every Republican would like more middle - class and lower - class votes, but it's just not effective for politicians of either aisle to really focus on those votes because business interests raise money for campaigning much more effectively. | cmv |
I think Republicans have an old fashioned view on governing and aren't able to fully fix, run, and help the country. Please, CMV. | 1. All current principles of governing are based on older principles of governing. 2. Are you actually saying the Democratic Party of the United States does not only care about themselves, for the most part? Both parties are cancerous and corrupt, and are out to boost their own benefits. The " whole welfare debate " cannot seriously be broken down to " Democrats love underprivileged people and Republicans are greedy misers. " 3. They are very conservative when it comes to social issues. I agree, and they cannot possibly justify this stance in a progressive world. I think the worst part is the false dichotomy you've made between Dem / Rep. The great victory of our current Democratic party is their ability to seemingly have convinced a nation that they are extremely liberal and wish nothing more than to prop up the working class. This is coming from a Left libertarian ( no affiliation with American libertarians ). | cmv |
I think Republicans have an old fashioned view on governing and aren't able to fully fix, run, and help the country. Please, CMV. | I can try to tackle # 2. Many conservatives and libertarians believe that it is just as selfish to have a government take the hard - earned money from its citizens and do whatever it would like with it ( Welfare, in your example. ) To them, the freedom of the citizens to do what they want with their money, and to be rewarded for hard work. Also, to many conservatives, welfare makes people just mooch on welfare instead of finding a real job, and those that do work hard have their money taken from them only to be given to someone who hasn't done their share. For your point # 3, there are still many people who agree with conservatives'stance on social issues, as the people are still electing conservatives. I'm not necessarily on board with this way of thinking, but this is their logic as I understand it. | cmv |
I think Republicans have an old fashioned view on governing and aren't able to fully fix, run, and help the country. Please, CMV. | I'm a conservative / republican, and I have always thought it meant adhering to a traditional view of government. Traditionally, the government has not spied on its citizens. The Patriot Act is only a decade old. Also, traditionally, the government has not jailed citizens en masse for minor drug offenses. The war on drugs has only been going on in earnest for about fifty years. That means that traditionally, for the first two hundred years of this country, there was no war on drugs. These laws seem authoritarian, which is not how the US government has acted traditionally. To continue along these lines, the question " Should gays be allowed to marry, " or " Should we regulate people's taxes even more by paying for this drug war on marijuana " to me, a conservative, shouldn't even be a question to begin with. I believe in the conservative ideology that holds benefiting the lives of its citizens paramount, but to never overstep its bounds further. Gay marriage shouldn't be in front of the Government because it has nothing to do with the fundamental rights of man, that is until groups are creating vast shifts in equality by disallowing it. | cmv |
I believe the United States of America can no longer be considered a " first - world country. " CMV. | Relatively speaking, U. S. citizens do enjoy a pretty high standard of living and quality of life. I think that's how most people now subjectively judge which countries are in the 1st vs. 3rd world. Ranking # 1 on various measures or being on an upswing aren't requirements for having pretty damn good standard of living / quality of life. | cmv |
I believe the United States of America can no longer be considered a " first - world country. " CMV. | Just so that you know, with your Edit 2 :. Most of your responses to your comment 4 are phrased in such a manner to reaffirm the racist opinion. The stance you claimed which is that having a diverse populace with large demographics of minorities disqualifies you from being 1st world is racist. You have gone further to specifically say having large populations of non - Caucasians. That stance cannot be defended without making you look more racist. You may not think of yourself as racist, or mean to be, but that opinion and comment most assuredly are. | cmv |
I believe the United States of America can no longer be considered a " first - world country. " CMV. | The definition of 1st world country is : The United States and its allies during the Cold War. The definition of 2nd world country is : The USSR and its allies during the Cold War. The definition of 3rd world country is : Those nations unaligned during the Cold War. The wealth, level of corruption, state of healthcare, state of education are all only tangentially related to the classifications and in no way define them. | cmv |
I believe the United States of America can no longer be considered a " first - world country. " CMV. | One thing I actually cannot stand is people who feel the need to call out redditors for daring to criticize the United States. It does not make you unpatriotic or a baseless complainer for trying to have an honest discussion about some of the faults of this country. We may disagree about the notion that the U. S. is no longer a first world country, but one thing we should all agree on is that the U. S. is not an unimpeachable country so great that it is not even worthy of criticism. 3 ) As far as finance, the U. S. debt as a gross number seems extraordinarily high. As a percentage of GDP, it's not terrible, and the annual deficit is getting lower year by year. We are easily able to service our debt. It's about 2 - 3 % of our annual budget. | cmv |
I believe the United States of America can no longer be considered a " first - world country. " CMV. | 1. Education ; We have schools for everyone, this in itself means we are not third world. 2. Spying sucks but at least we have a functioning government. 5. Their is no such thing as crime in some third world countries, it is literally fend for yourself 6. Corruption doesnt lower our nation to a third world status, especially when we have strict laws against it. 7. Why is having or not having healthcare a sign of a first or third world country? These points all demonstrate the U. S. Decline but none of them point to a third world status | cmv |
I don't believe that anyone " deserves " more income than anyone else for any reason. CMV | Other people have given arguments closer to my own position to no avail, so I'm going to try something slightly different. Do you think that any person " deserves " more provisions ( in place of strict income ) than any chimp, gorilla, dolphin, or lower animal? By extension of your view, the other animals are simply worse off based on accidents of birth ( genetics and environment ), which they should not be held accountable for. Thus, they are entitled to as much care as any other set of life. | cmv |
I don't believe that anyone " deserves " more income than anyone else for any reason. CMV | At the very, very least you are forgetting about average work hours. Someone that works 70 hour weeks does, in fact, deserve twice the salary than someone that works 35. You can stretch this example a bit by including things like education ( a doctor deserves to earn more than a dishwasher because he spent time learning his craft ), risk ( an underwater welder deserves more because he is risking his life ) and probably a few others. People in this examples do deserve different wages due to their different contributions to society. | cmv |
I don't believe that anyone " deserves " more income than anyone else for any reason. CMV | Using your example, the doctor doesn't determine his own value or how much income he deserves. The amount he is paid is determined by the people who need his services. In other words, his value is assigned to him by others. He doesn't claim anything other than he can remove tumors from your brain for compensation. It's just that society tends to want to compensate the few people that can save their lives well. | cmv |
I don't believe that anyone " deserves " more income than anyone else for any reason. CMV | It seems like nobody could deserve anything within your framework, since you can argue that all of their actions trace back to things beyond their control. A rapist, a doctor, human rights attorney, so on and so forth. Is that a fair characterization? | cmv |
I don't believe that anyone " deserves " more income than anyone else for any reason. CMV | Idealist and would never actually work. Bob decides the environment didn't allow for him to work more than 2 hours a week, so he makes as much as everyone else. Does Bob working 2 hours a week get paid the same as farmer Joe working 50 hours a week? If so, what's the proof someone not working at all should not make equal income? | cmv |
I don't believe that anyone " deserves " more income than anyone else for any reason. CMV | You are comparing two cultures which also makes it seem absurd. The medicine man in Mali ( or upper class idk what that is in a culture like that, chief maybe ) will be " rich ", and the doctor in france will be rich. The skills they perform in relation to their environment determines their wealth. They deserve it because although genes and Socio - eco - level helped, they also put forth the effort and acquired the skills | cmv |
I don't believe that anyone " deserves " more income than anyone else for any reason. CMV | If everyone was paid the same, where would be the incentive to excel? There would be rampant mediocrity, as if we were all working in a government department. And although people start off at different places on the ladder, the idea is that through their action or inaction, their determination and their skillset, their income will vary. Contribution of value to society is rewarded. I wouldn't want to remove that incentive, despite the fact that you think it is an injustice. I think a greater injustice is that some people are born into circumstances where it is not possible for them to participate in the free market and enjoy the benefits of an income meritocracy. | cmv |
I don't any woman should be allowed to serve in a combat role in the US unless all women are required to sign up for selective service. CMV | This makes no sense. Why would you punish women who make the choice to serve? It is like saying no wealthy person should be allowed to give to charity unless we force all wealthy people to do it. | cmv |
I think those who feel some afro - Americans are racist towards white Americans ( i. e. Spike Lee ), fail to take into account the injustices of pre - Civil War America let alone the time up to and during the Civil Rights movement. CMV | You realize it's 2013, right? Granted, the past was awful. There's still a lot of racism in the world. But at some point, you need to let sleeping dogs lie. Slavery was awful, no one reputable debates that. However, no one alive was a slave. We need to move on. if we keep telling blacks they should feel indignant and whites feel guilty for something they never experienced, it does more harm than good. I'm not saying forget it, I'm saying move forward. | cmv |
I believe that Libertarians have no idea how their dogma, especially the " non - aggression principle " would actually work in a real society. Please CMV! | Hey, just so you know r / libertarian is for philosophical libertarians, not necessarily the Libertarian Party. The NAP is embraced by small " l " libertarians but more of a guideline for big " L " Libertarian Party members. To see the more pragmatic views of big " L " Libertarians, check out the party platform. | cmv |
I believe that Libertarians have no idea how their dogma, especially the " non - aggression principle " would actually work in a real society. Please CMV! | The principle of " banning the initiation of force against another " is already, for the better part, the rule we abide by in 99 % of our dealings with each other - every time there is an exchange between 2 or more people that is voluntary. Like most of our internet interactions. It's violated in the case of taxes, regulations - and from ordinary thieves which are rare etc, but that represents a small percent of most of our interactions. You see it actually working in society all the time! When it does get violated, the right to retaliate is ( ideally ) reserved to the government - and that should be their primary function. ( The non - aggression principle is only about outlawing the initiation of force ). ( I think those libertarians who advocate no government police / army are actually anarchists? ) | cmv |
I believe that Libertarians have no idea how their dogma, especially the " non - aggression principle " would actually work in a real society. Please CMV! | I see libertarianism more as an observation of unintended consequences than an ideology. For example, if you bail out the banks with money from taxes, the banks have no incentive to avoid risk, will take more risks, and they'll just end up bankrupt again anyway. Meanwhile innocent people who want nothing to do with banking end up having all their money taken from them to pay for it. That's not an ideological point. It's an observation of the real world. I could extend this to any facet of libertarianism if you'd like. Libertarian principles can be derived from real world observation. The non - aggression principle is an attempt to tie them all together, but we don't have to implement a " new world order " based on the principle to see the ideas of libertarianism in action. | cmv |
I believe that women should focus on having children in early adulthood rather than careers. CMV | We ( in the west at least ) live in a world revolving around individualism with liberty for all as the moral core of society. Core components of self - fulfilment are success and achievement. The benchmark of success is social status. According to sociological concepts social status is most commonly linked to three variables : education, profession / career and income. Founding a family conflicts with all three of these, it puts them on hold and ultimately inhibits how far you can go and how much you can achieve. How can we expect 50 % of our population to go against what individualistic society teaches us to do? What you suggest is that women decide against self - fulfilment for the sake of the greater good of the entire society. When was the last time you decided against your own interests when facing a fundamental personal decision? Let alone doing it for an abstract greater good of your people and at - subjectively - great cost? | cmv |
I believe that women should focus on having children in early adulthood rather than careers. CMV | The knife cuts both ways on fertility and mutation rates and ( coming from a single parent household ) two parents are generally better than one to raise a child for success and decent quality of living. If you're arguing this for women, it would only be fair to argue this for men as well. Also, your worries about a younger generation being unable to support a burgeoning population doesn't take into account population dynamics. The US's population pyramid is fairly stable, even accounting for the the baby boomers, due to the fact we can attract a large amount of working immigrants ( who pay into social programs such as Medicare ). Compare this to nations like China that don't have the option. | cmv |
I believe that accepting free will as an illusion does not mean no one should be held accountable for their actions. CMV. | Being accountable means being responsible for the action. If all actions are reactions to stimuli devoid of any free will or independent decision, the responsibility rests equally upon all stimuli that caused the action. A murderer's mother who raised him poorly should be equally accountable for his actions, as should the victim for providing the situation in which the crime occurred. Yes, punishment can modify a persons behavior if free will exists or doesn't, but if it doesn't, aren't we just punishing a black hole for consuming a planet? | cmv |
I believe that the two - party system is dysfunctional and needs to be eliminated - CMV | A big issue is that by sticking to party lines, politicians are using common sense. Going against your party means being made an outcast and the party will fund a candidate to oppose you in the next election. Money = votes so you're screwed. Most people in office are career politicians, so staying in office is the way they make their living. The incentives to vote to make the country a better place pale against losing your elected office. Going'rogue'against the party is pretty much political suicide. I think this is the issue here, rather than the two party system. | cmv |
I believe that the two - party system is dysfunctional and needs to be eliminated - CMV | Let's contrast the practical outworkings of the American and Canadian electoral systems. Both award seats to whoever gets a plurality in any election, but Canada has three to five strong parties ( it varies ) and the US has two. Nonetheless, I find the range of views that get a voice through the American system is broader than in the Canadian system. The big difference is that Canadian parties are very rigid and top - down - - candidates are approved by party leadership, sometimes against the wishes of the local riding association. This means that candidates need to please the party leadership and party caucuses are not very diverse. In contrast, local branches of American parties have much more freedom to nominate candidates who don't fit the national party mold - - look at Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich as politicians often in conflict with their own parties. In Canada they would have lost party backing and not allowed to stand for election for their parties, but Paul in particular was able to continue representing his unusual platform against the wishes of his party leadership because he had strong backing from his own electorate and local party. tl ; dr It would be nice if there were more parties, but the American system does an okay job at representing a wide variety of views through strong and independent local party politics, and reform happens from within existing grassroots party structures rather than through new parties. I wish Canadian parties were similarly weak at the top and strong at the bottom. | cmv |
I believe that the two - party system is dysfunctional and needs to be eliminated - CMV | democratic principles usually require that a government at least has majority backing. when there are multiple parties, different parties form coalitions in order to meet this majority requirement. while people at least get to vote for a group that better - represents their personal interests, the back - room deals and power - sharing arrangements that arise from this coalition forming process distort the will of the electorate. | cmv |
I believe that the two - party system is dysfunctional and needs to be eliminated - CMV | The current South Africa is just a few decades old. Many European political systems also have many parties : few of them have ever lasted longer than a few decades. For a " dysfunctional " system, the U. S. model has certainly the most stable democracy that the world has ever seen, lasting for centuries with a single Civil War, and no military coups or failed governments, and only one presidential resignation and one impeachment. A two party system makes forces political representation to be more moderate, weeds out the fringe elements and extremists, and decreases the chance of gridlocks by putting power in the hands of a single majority party instead of a coalition. | cmv |
I believe that the two - party system is dysfunctional and needs to be eliminated - CMV | I would have agreed if I hadn't seen the implications of multi - party system in India. The problems of multi - party as witness in india : 1. Parties have great agenda for the elections. But, once elected, they form alliances between themselves and muddle the agenda that each of the parties were elected on. 2. Elected members switch between parties so often that population loses track of what the politician stands for. So, the principles that the elected members stands on becomes a negotiable trait, instead of values that the politician bases his policies on. 3. The politics of alliances becomes more important than the general running of the country or region. Politicians spend more time trying to survive in the multi - party and sniping for power. | cmv |
I believe that the two - party system is dysfunctional and needs to be eliminated - CMV | Yeah you're right the 2 party system is ridiculous but the problem is that most of America is made of sheep, so no politician will gain enough political ground without a generalized group name behind them. It's just kinda one of those things that is " just the way it is " and although it could be changed ( there are plenty of better solutions ), it likely won't. That's just how it is, unfortunately. I can't Change your view in that regard but in terms of swaying the opinions of the many, a 2 party system is all that Americans have enough attention span for. | cmv |
I believe that the two - party system is dysfunctional and needs to be eliminated - CMV | Well, there are 12 parties in the Israeli Parliament. People don't exactly call that the model of democracy. And then you need to assemble a ruling coalition. In practice, this means glomming together people from disparate parties so that you can have a government. The result is a large hetereogenous group of people with varying backgrounds banding together for most things in charge of running the country for a while. In other words, what the US ends up with after an election. | cmv |
I believe that the two - party system is dysfunctional and needs to be eliminated - CMV | I agree a multi - party system would be strictly better, but the two party system isn't an abject failure. People's political opinions on most issues really do cluster into a few major groups. Most non - political issues that get to a vote are quite popular with everyone pass Congress handily. It's actually pretty rare that Congress votes on any bill where support is split strongly but that split doesn't reflect the two major parties ; the only ones I can think of are SOPA and the recent bill which attempted to defund the NSA. | cmv |
I believe that the two - party system is dysfunctional and needs to be eliminated - CMV | I know your views already been changed, but I want to throw in my 2¢. Parties tend to fall on either the left, or the right of the political spectrum. A majority of people have left leaning political views. So, there are more left wing parties than there are right wing. This gives power to the right wing, by dividing the left further than the right, removing the balance of power. Which, is the manner in which fascists often take control, see germany and spain. | cmv |
I believe that the two - party system is dysfunctional and needs to be eliminated - CMV | I'll be the jerk to answer your question with a question. Putting my views aside, right now the US formally has two parties - - no labor party, no leftist parties, not even a social democratic party to speak of. Given a system other than FPTP, do you think it would make a tremendous amount of difference if, instead of two business parties, we had three? | cmv |
China will be more powerful than the United States within 20 years. Please CMV. | Just a few years ago, Chinese scientists trained in North American were rushing back to China to take advantage of amazing opportunities. Today, most of my Chinese colleagues agree that they will not bother. The goldrush is over. A pending demographic inversion, a pending housing crash to make the last one seem cute by comparison, a pending water shortage, a pending environmental disaster, and once the growth stops, a pending revolution... I would not want to be China right now. Well, or the US, really, if I'm honest. | cmv |
China will be more powerful than the United States within 20 years. Please CMV. | Well, your first source actually has some pretty negative conclusions about China when comparing it to the United States, in the last paragraph. The second list is using purely totals. Considering that China has about 4 times the population of the United States, the statistics are only marginally useful. Per capita wise, the United States is still crushing China in all 40 of the metrics. It is also doubtful that China will maintain the growth rates. All the currently developed nations went through similar massive growth during their development, and then became slower as their economy matured, like Japan. China is projected to be the same. | cmv |
China will be more powerful than the United States within 20 years. Please CMV. | How many Chinese are learning English, moving to America, and never going back? How many Americans are learning Chinese, moving to China, and never coming back? There's a huge cumulative advantage toward a country with all the best institutions, a more functional democratic government that affords human rights to its residents, environmental protections, cleaner cities. I know a lot of Chinese studying here. They have no intention of returning home to live in crowded polluted cities.. 7 out of 10 Chinese who enroll abroad never move back home.. | cmv |
China will be more powerful than the United States within 20 years. Please CMV. | Japan before the bubble burst was the China of the last century. There is a great deal of evidence that China's tiger is paper. They will be the Japan of this century. I will give you the argument in 50 years but 20 is too optimistic considering the coming fall. | cmv |
China will be more powerful than the United States within 20 years. Please CMV. | China's growth is unlikely to remain so high. Back in the 1980s, Japan was growing very rapidly, and there were many who predicted that the Japanese economy would surpass the US. Japan did not sustain those rates of growth. Extrapolating from current unusual trends does not usually do a very good job of predicting the future. Chinas recent growth rates are unusual, and such growth rates have rarely been maintained in the past by other economies. Those growth rates are typically experienced when an educated and disciplined society has its economy liberated from some constraint, so it can undergo a period of " catching up ". The more it catches up, the more the rate if growth tends to slow. China will become a very powerful country, and a very large and important economy, but its current high growth rate relative to the USA is likely to erode rapidly. | cmv |
China will be more powerful than the United States within 20 years. Please CMV. | China is industrializing, and once that's done they'll either crash or be able to develop fully. Either way, their rapid growth won't last forever. The same thing happened to Japan about 30 years ago and look what has happened. | cmv |
China will be more powerful than the United States within 20 years. Please CMV. | China's economy is utterly dependent on the US, and also the EU to a lesser degree. Their own population is incapable of buying their own products. In addition, as other people have already noted, China has some serious demographic issues. People are willing to keep quiet as long as the economy keeps growing, but if that ever stops, China will implode. Basically, if and when the US goes down, it will pull China down with it. | cmv |
China will be more powerful than the United States within 20 years. Please CMV. | Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a lot of industry growth in China because of the cheap manual labor and super lax laws on EPA regulation. Because of this, they essentially rake in billions from other nations to export cheap components to each country. In 20 years, will the US still require this from China? I would put a lot of money in the " mostly No " category. There is a single piece of technology that will make nearly all of that industry obsolete. It is known as 3 - D printing. And everything from Nike shoes, clothing, and every engineering component will take advantage of this technology. So my prediction, all the " overseas businessman " who are merely using China's resource and relaxed regulation will return to their home countries, and China will grow several Detroit's. | cmv |
China will be more powerful than the United States within 20 years. Please CMV. | China is running out of water. It barely has enough clean water for its population, and by 2030 it will have very little clean water. It is actually expected for the country to hit a major calamity or revolution some time in the near future if they really mess up bad. | cmv |
China will be more powerful than the United States within 20 years. Please CMV. | All of the comments so far seem to be about China's ability to continue at current growth rates. Yes, it is unlikely that China will overtake US GDP / capita rates this century, if at all. Demographics, corruption, the " middle - income trap " are all genuine problems. BUT : China doesn't need to have 1st world living standards to be the world's biggest economy with the world's biggest defence budget. Also, many of the non - gdp components of power such as allies, satellites and a sphere of influence are less secure for America than we assume. Most non - western countries in the American sphere have no love for them. Chinese aid comes without complaints about human rights and democracy. When Chinese total GDP overtakes the USA's there will be a diplomatic stampede of 3rd world autocracies into the Chinese sphere. It is depressing but your original analysis is spot on. China's total GDP will inevitably overtake the USA's within 20 years, and China will then be the greater Power. | cmv |
The minimum wage should be removed and replaced by unemployment benefits. My gut says there something wrong with this so by all means, CMV. | " Enough to keep yourself above water, but not fun " If a deadbeat is guaranteed a place to live, even a shithole with roaches and rats everywhere, and just bologna, peanut butter, and spam to eat, and not have to work... They will not work. Period. Just making sure you realize way too many people would consider this a happier life vs having to actually work for a living. Hell, give me a cheap tv with bunny ears and a mediocre computer with dial up internet and I could stay home for months and never leave the house except to get food and smokes. No, I need to have a job and get off my ass and contribute. To modify your view, I'd say your idea could hold water if other changes were made such as : Mandatory x hours a week of community service to get these minimal benefits. Can't get a job? No prob, here's some community service work you can do instead. Somehow they'd miraculously find a job... | cmv |
The minimum wage should be removed and replaced by unemployment benefits. My gut says there something wrong with this so by all means, CMV. | How exactly are low minimum wages subsidizing walmart? I can see how they are great for walmart, but I see no cashflow. I would then ask you, what problem exactly do you mean to solve? | cmv |
The minimum wage should be removed and replaced by unemployment benefits. My gut says there something wrong with this so by all means, CMV. | The problem with this, is that then corporations would be profiting off the labor done by people who are subsidized 100 % by the tax payer. We already subsidize plenty of people with jobs already because they don't make a livable wage ( IE food stamps ). Enough of our money already goes to corporate welfare. | cmv |
The minimum wage should be removed and replaced by unemployment benefits. My gut says there something wrong with this so by all means, CMV. | why are you calling it unemployment benefits? there's already something called that and is paid for by taxes paid while you were working. This just sounds like paying someone to sit around and don'thing. What would you do about people who arent employed and dont need / want to be employed, say students, retirees, heck even the homeless. Do they just get a check worth 40hrs of minimum wage a week for nothing? | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 08 / 13 / 13 | Honestly? Attending a large, urban, poverty - stricken public high school. I had previously only attended small, private schools generally composed of a very thin demographic ( read : upper - class, conservative, white, Protestant ). As some of these were religious, I had emerged rather I accepting of things which were against this religion. My new school has more than 2, 400 students across four grade levels. I have learned to respect poverty ( people aren't poor simply because they're lazy ) and later learned to not automatically apply this respect without knowing details ( some people actually are poor because they're lazy ). My views have been changed largely based off of the new cultures I was exposed to. I had honestly never met a person who wasn't straight, had little exposure to immigrants from other countries, and had rarely been presented with alternate viewpoints. The most view - changing thing was probably meeting my best friend, who came out our sophomore year. I had been told that anyone who was gay was evil or gross. But my friend simply didn't fit this idea I had in my head, and I realized that everything the adults in my community had been saying was wrong. | cmv |
I believe that peaceful protesting is useless in this day and age. CMV. | So violent protests are better? Especially in the context of more developed nations where the ability of a government to commit violence so greatly exceeds that of its citizens, how does this even begin to make sense? Can you point to a successful, violent revolution at any point in history where the people doing the overthrowing didn't have at least near - technical / tactical parity with those being overthrown? The point is, as futile as peaceful protests may seem to you ( and, really, the evidence you present is fairly weak ), they succeed often enough to affect tangible societal changes. Besides, when they fail they rarely ( if ever ) tear countries apart the way wars do. | cmv |
I believe that peaceful protesting is useless in this day and age. CMV. | Basing your opinion of a social phenomenon on just two examples is like if I said marriage is bad because someone I know got divorced. The primary goal of a protest is to draw attention to something. Whether or not the group succeeds in its goal is a different issue. | cmv |
I believe that peaceful protesting is useless in this day and age. CMV. | Your example of a violent protest didn't achieve anything. Not only that, but it was fundamentally misguided, as the new fee plan is actually better for poor students / graduates. A recent successful peaceful protest in the west is the protest against SOPA and PIPA. That peaceful protest achieved something, therefore peaceful protests are not useless. QED. | cmv |
I think the public school system is a good thing. CMV CMV [ moved from ELI5 by request ] | Most people that are against the public school system are not for complete privatization but are for a voucher system in which families would receive a voucher from the government that they would then use to select a school to send their kids to. The advantages of this system is that parents could send their kids to the school they see as the best fit for their child. In our public system currently parents simply have to send their kid to the school in their area. If that school is falling apart, poorly run, and filled with bad teachers the parents have no other options ( besides sending their kids to a private school for $ 10, 000 a year or more ). The voucher system would allow everyone to attend school, it wouldn't be limited to only the rich. | cmv |
Conservatives are more intolerant than Liberals CMV | I think the issue here is that you have stuck human beings into stereotypical categories. The view that needs to be changed is not that all republicans are intolerant, is that some people that happen to be republicans are intolerant and at the same time some people that happen to liberals are also intolerant. The problem isn't about political parties, its a people issue. | cmv |
Conservatives are more intolerant than Liberals CMV | Is self - interest automatically intolerant? Can I not work towards my own betterment or profit ( however I define it ) without any opinion on or interest in the welfare of others? Is there a difference between " I don't care about minorities " and " I don't care about people who aren't me "? | cmv |
Conservatives are more intolerant than Liberals CMV | The thing is that Liberals have ideals about how to treat people and can be really intolerant of people who don't believe the same way as them, particularly in that they refuse to view these people as valid points of view. I think that my father is one of the most intolerant people I know personally, and he's liberal. He has no racist, xenophobic, or anti - gay sentiment, but he regards everyone who has ever voted republican under any circumstances as stupid and / or evil. It gets him really mad to think about it. Sure, he could have been just intolerant of the ideas, but he's not. He's intolerant of the people. And I have a lot of liberal friends and my father is not unique among them. I used to know people who used racial or homophobic slurs, but I kinda distanced myself from them. I don't particularly recall them having a noticeable political lean. | cmv |
Conservatives are more intolerant than Liberals CMV | OP, check me on this, but no conservative has yet checked into this thread to express rage at their political opponents. And yet, I see a lot of posts by liberals which are less focused on analyzing and understanding the issues than they are on expressing rage and hatred at THEIR political opponents. I believe this should answer your question. | cmv |
Conservatives are more intolerant than Liberals CMV | Here's a comic that I think you should look at. It's fairly short, but trust me, it's well worth the read. I think you're claiming that conservative policies are more intolerant than those of liberals, and I believe many others have addressed those arguments in this thread, so I'll stay away from it here. Please do read the comic, though. | cmv |
Conservatives are more intolerant than Liberals CMV | Oversimplied, liberals generally tend to side with changing with the times. Oversimplied, conservatives tend to side with keeping things the way they are. " If it aint broke why fix it " mantra. Your view appears to be your negative interpretation of conservative ideals. They are often resistant to change because its worked just fine up to now. Many of them are actually open ( or tolerant ) to hearing an opposing view as long as there is solid information to back it up. If you refer to extreme right wing Christians that are anti abortion and anti - gay only for religious reasons, I propose they are a different breed entirely and it wouldn't be 100 % valid to lump all conservatives in with them. Just because someone is generally conservative doesn't mean they " hate gays and babykillers " | cmv |
Conservatives are more intolerant than Liberals CMV | On social issue yes I do think overall I think Liberals are more tolerant. On economics issue however I hear more pseudo science, ad hominem attacks, and a lot of loud rants from those on the left. Of course where I grew up The local college had the united states socialist party meetings there so this may be more just the extreme side. | cmv |
Conservatives are more intolerant than Liberals CMV | Liberals as a general group tend to preach open mindedness and tolerance, yes. But the moment you challenge an opinion of a typical liberal, he or she will break into emotional responses or personal attacks rather than considering your argument and rebutting logically. Liberals believe in " equality " and " freedom, " but they apply that only to social issues, not economic ones. A liberal would dismiss any challenge to government operated welfare, education, healthcare, etc. as the challenger simply " not caring " about other people. I'm a libertarian, and most of my friends and family are liberals. | cmv |
Conservatives are more intolerant than Liberals CMV | I think it depends on whether you believe that opposition equals intolerance. I mean, think on the issues that you strenuously disagree with for whatever reason... are you intolerant? If not, why not? What is different about your disagreement with an issue as compared to a conservative? And why are you more entitled to disagree with whatever it is that you do than a conservative? Off the top of my head, traditional conservatives are far more tolerant of gun owners and gun ownership than liberals. Another one is active belief in the Christian religions... although liberals generally seem very tolerant of other cultures, they seem to draw the line at Christianity ( just in my experience ). Also there are many studies out there which shows that the people in conservative states, on average, give more percentage of their salaries to charity than those in liberal states. | cmv |
Corporate sponsorship of politicians has hurt Democracy and the US far worse than any terrorist attack has, CMV. | A corporation is a collection of people serving a common purpose. What makes it different that a corporation is donating money to a politician than a collection of people who share the same views? If you're against all political donations, that seems consistent. But it seems odd to say when a group of people assemble, they can't act certain ways collectively, but they'd be free to act those same ways as individuals. | cmv |
Corporate sponsorship of politicians has hurt Democracy and the US far worse than any terrorist attack has, CMV. | Our congress overall is horrible, but not all of the representatives are bad. I feel what made the terrorist attacks different from normal proceedings is that the nationalism gave enough momentum for any action by the government ; that the bad politicians took advantage of the situation to pass overreaching laws to take our rights away. If it was not for the attacks, those laws would have never passed. | cmv |
Corporate sponsorship of politicians has hurt Democracy and the US far worse than any terrorist attack has, CMV. | Well, let's at least say that it has been a convenient foil to have been used for corporate interests to manipulate our government to be less democratic and to take away our freedoms based on fear of it. Complex inter - related issue. Also this might be removed. | cmv |
I believe that at this point, the American government is systemically and irredeemably corrupt, the Republic in Constitutional terms is dead, and that America as a country is in the final preparatory stages of a complete re - enactment of Nazi Germany, complete with domestic concentration camps. CMV. | I think the main problem with your post is your misunderstanding of Fascism. Fascism occurs in societies with a fracture between the middle and working class urban populations, when workers rights have not been dignified. Workers become radicalised and fascism is a reaction against that by the rural and urban middle class. A key feature ( the key feature ) of fascism is state corporatism, the state acts as a powerful controlling interest on privately owned industry and prices and wages are determined politically rather than by the market. Generally the government will have to become totalitarian to enforce it's policy but that does not make all dictatorships fascist. Tl ; Dr fascism = / = totalitarianism | cmv |
I believe that at this point, the American government is systemically and irredeemably corrupt, the Republic in Constitutional terms is dead, and that America as a country is in the final preparatory stages of a complete re - enactment of Nazi Germany, complete with domestic concentration camps. CMV. | If you look at the various civil rights violations, they are mostly directed at minorities, aka black people and hispanics. The government mostly hasn't used their power to imprison political dissidents which is the main step required to become like the Nazis. As such, this is more a sign that America is racist and that if you're black or hispanic they're going to screw you over. | cmv |
I believe that Washington State and Oregon's borders should be changed along the cascade divide. CMV | Look at incomes for the different areas. You would create a rich state and a poor state. The poor state would lose a very significant amount of funding for both education and roads, among many other things. Yes it would be nice that voting policies could be more inline with what people want, but I don't think it would be good for both in the long run. This is also in addition to the costs that would be associated with making the split happen. | cmv |
I believe that Washington State and Oregon's borders should be changed along the cascade divide. CMV | You know why this hasn't proposed seriously? Because the western parts of those states ( and also California ) are subsidizing the eastern parts. For example, in Oregon, Harney County has a per capita income of $ 20, 849, far below the state average of $ 26, 171. This means that Harney County ( and all of eastern Oregon, except for Deschutes County ) is paying below their fair share of taxes. As someone from the inland West in those states, you have to ask yourself : Is it really worth it to get fiscally gutted so you could gain some political autonomy? I'd doubt people on the eastern side of those state would be very happy, but I assure you, many people living to the west would love the extra money per capita. | cmv |
CMV on the exploitative nature of this Commercial Law. | Pretty much anyone is capable of getting a credit card. Even so, the benefits of rebate are usually less than the costs of interest, so no one is really forced into a disadvantage. If you want to argue that paying 3 % more to a bank is unfair, then you are free to protest by using cash. This will take away the payment to the bank without any quantifiable cost to you. If you want the convenience of paying with a card, then you'll have to pay the small fee to the people who gave it to you. | cmv |
CMV on the exploitative nature of this Commercial Law. | Cash also has costs. It puts the staff at risk of violent crime, and you have to hire people to bring a big truck to haul it around and guard it. Businesses have all kinds of overhead they don't itemize on receipts. Should you have to pay extra for shopping in the evening when they had to provide more light and heat? | cmv |
I think it is absolutely ludicrous that, in the USA, a person can enlist at 18, but can't buy alcohol. CMV | This is just a theory I have ( read : DISCLAIMER - I have no evidence for it ), but I think the drinking age at 21 makes sense even if IMO 18 year olds are mature enough to drink. Pretty much anyone in college can have easy access to alcohol, even if you're just an 18 year old freshman right out of high school. If the drinking age were lower, you'd have high school students who are old enough to buy alcohol, so people as young as 14 - 15 would have an easier time accessing alcohol. In other words, people have friends who are generally + / - 3 years within their age. When you're 18, it means that you can provide access to alcohol to your 15 year old friends. | cmv |
I believe that illegal immigrants in the US should be granted amnesty. CMV. | Do you believe that the united states should allow everyone who wants to immigrate to do so? ( Barring particular problems like history of criminality or something in their current country. ) If you believe we should simply grant citizenship to anyone who requests it, then that's actually a separate issue. If you think that some restrictions on numbers of immigrants is appropriate, then we should be rewarding the people who immigrate legally, as I have detailed in my longer post. But I thought this was worth checking on. | cmv |
I believe that illegal immigrants in the US should be granted amnesty. CMV. | If we grant amnesty again it will set a horrible precedent ; how are we ever going to be serious about securing the borders and controlling illegal immigration if we hand out " get out of immigrating legally " cards every forty years. Not to mention the damage illegal immigration does to the job markets in this country. Do you honestly believe the companies that are paying low wages will start paying minimum wage when thier workers suddenly become legal or will they simply wait for the next batch of illegal immigrants to arrive and hire them at sub - standard wages? | cmv |
I believe that illegal immigrants in the US should be granted amnesty. CMV. | They have committed a crime and continually disregard our laws and society by remaining here illegally. Why should their reasons for committing the crime grant them amnesty? The man who robs the bank to get money to better provide for his family does not get amnesty. | cmv |
I believe patriotism negatively impacts society, CMV. | Seems like what you've really got a problem with isn't so much patriotism as it is jingoism. Here's an analogy : since I left for college, I haven't lived within a thousand miles of where I grew up, but every time I run into someone from my hometown we have a great conversation because of our shared background. It's not to say that I'm not fascinated to meet people from new and exotic places - - it's just that there's still something special about home. That's patriotism. All it means is that you like where you're from. Shouldn't everyone? | cmv |
Obama is a good president CMV | Saying good president right now is sorta like one of those questions you have to take in the context of our given system and how good could he really do. If he didn't act as a tool to certain interests it would hurt his career and electability as well as all sorts of offers he is going to get in the future to represent very profitable interests. As a human being he could take the hard road and go all nut job on the system, but if he was like that he wouldn't get elected, and he probably wouldn't have much of an effect. | cmv |
I believe the concept of morality is abolished in the presence of reason CMV | What? What you are saying is extremely bizarre. You're acting like morality is a word that only applies to all or nothing circumstances. You are also trying to act like reason is an independent thing which has its own value. If you are not using reason to determine the moral state of something, then it has no units... it has no goal, and by extension it is not useful to determine moral issues. If what you are TRYING to say is that moral absolutism is not as good as utilitarianism, then that is certainly true. But no one quantifies utilitarianism as not a form of morality. | cmv |
I believe the concept of morality is abolished in the presence of reason CMV | The first definition of morality on google is : Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. It seems to me logic can be used to perfectly define your system of morals. The missing factor is you have to choose criteria to base your analysis on. That is where all the debate lies. But as your statement stands, just the opposite is true. Morality is defined by reason. | cmv |
I believe the concept of morality is abolished in the presence of reason CMV | Google for the is - ought problem. Reason can tell you whether something is true. It's silent on the topic of whether that something is desirable. No quantity of facts can determine whether one ought to perform a given action, unless you prop it up with some arbitrary axiom. P1 : Throwing the chainsaw at the kitten will probably kill it in a particularly horrible way. P2 : [ torturing and killing your pets is wrong, m'kay? ] C : Therefore, you should not throw the chainsaw at the kitten You can't prove the assertion without P2, and there's no way to conclude P2 without invoking some other unprovable axiom ( or a descendent thereof ) Morality is the set of axioms you use to support your ought - arguments You need it. | cmv |
I believe the concept of morality is abolished in the presence of reason CMV | Reasoning in humans works more like a lawyer or, in Jonathan Haidt's analogy, more like a Press Secretary than a President. Another metaphor is that reason is like a rider on an elephant, where the elephant is our intuitions, and we " judge first, explain later. " Plato had very much in common with your view, because he thought that reason should be the master of our emotions. Unfortunately this entices us into a trap : because every human is equipped with nature's most powerful computer, we're also each equipped with the world's most inventive press secretaries : not only can we justify | cmv |
I believe the concept of morality is abolished in the presence of reason CMV | I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Are you somehow saying logic and reason does NOT fit into the moral sphere? That ethics are simply a " gut feeling " field? This is simply not the case, and morality isn't just " feelings " ; it is the logical debate between what is good and what is bad. Logic IS applied to this. | cmv |
I think gun control is necessary. CMV | I think its a matter of priorities. If you place a higher value on safety than on freedom, then you can ( at the very least ) make arguments that gun control is a good thing. If you priorities freedom as more valuable than safety, then its pretty hard to make an argument supporting gun control. IMO, even if you could prove that guns make people less safe, they should not be banned. People have the right to own the tools necessary to defend themselves. | cmv |
I think gun control is necessary. CMV | How much gun control are we talking about? Because after a certain point, more gun ownership leads to a decrease in gun crime ( IMO, probably because nobody wants to start a gun fight when the three nearest people to him can pull out a piece and kill him ). Another source. I mean, I'm all for preventing convicted felons or the extremely mentally ill from buying guns, and almost nobody argues that automatic weapons should be available to all, but I think that for the most part, people should have access to guns. | cmv |
Many top comments in / r / worldnews are openly racist, xenophobic, closed - minded, and are poisoning the subreddit. CMV. | I think that moderation would be the key to dealing with it. But that is alway conttoversial. r / syriancivilwar just banned a regular contributor for saying that an israeli poster should be left in a room with some armed Al Nusra militants. The flipside of offensive angry comments is the possibility of biased moderation and censorship. | cmv |
Many top comments in / r / worldnews are openly racist, xenophobic, closed - minded, and are poisoning the subreddit. CMV. | I would argue that although naked racism is often the motivator for much anti - Islamic feeling, hostility to immigrants is a sad constant across the world. Zimbabwean immigrants are met with hostility in South Africa, Han immigrants in Tibet, Israeli settlers in Palestine, South East Asians in the Gulf states east etc etc This may be because throughout history mass immigration has traditionally been the result of military conquest. In Europe, for example, the entire basis of sovereignty since WW1 has been the nation. Mass immigration from other national ethnicities and cultures objectively reduces the Xishness of nation state X. It not necessary to hate a culture to be wary of merging it with your own. This is as true for migrants as for immigrants. If every man is my brother, what is my mother's son to me? | cmv |
Many top comments in / r / worldnews are openly racist, xenophobic, closed - minded, and are poisoning the subreddit. CMV. | Well to be fair, the situation in Switzerland from your post is a bit different. There are so many levels of this story that got ignored until you reach the conclusion that they ( we ) are racist, xenophobic and close - minded. So from my POV you need to get me another example. | cmv |
Many top comments in / r / worldnews are openly racist, xenophobic, closed - minded, and are poisoning the subreddit. CMV. | It doesn't dissuade or change the indicated types of comments, but sorting comments by " best " instead of " top " tends to give better results. It's especially helpful for bringing up comments that are late to the thread, and thus don't have as many upvotes, but are good enough that they have very few downvotes. In the case of the thread you posted, the best comments are about how it's not Swiss national policy, the commenters don't feel the law is a good idea but understand and explain why it was done, and things of that nature. Sorted by " best ", the " top " comment is the 9th top level comment, and all the ones above it are either explanatory, questioning, or disagreeing with the policy. There will always be racist / xenophobic / close - minded people. If you can't change them ( and there are certainly people that are trying to ), you can at least push them out of sight. Won't help in all cases, of course, but what will? | cmv |
In the United States, every gender inequality has an opposing inequality. CMV | The majority of those who are homeless are male. There is no harmful inequality that opposes this. The potential opposite ( more men own super expensive homes, I don't know if this is true but whatever ) isn't harmful as there's fairly good research that extreme wealth doesn't make you happy. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.