summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
In the United States, every gender inequality has an opposing inequality. CMV | This makes no sense. Different inequalities are different, you can't just pair them off and call them the same as far as how they hurt individuals. Measuring sexism is also not a zero - sum game. If we're assigning arbitrary amounts of harm to each thing that hurts one sex or the other, even if they come out to be the exact same number here that doesn't make them nothing. That just means that both men and women are suffering equal amounts of sexism. And how do intersex people fit into this idea? | cmv |
American universities, particularly the arts and humanities, teach young people to be confident, arrogant, and close - minded. CMV | Have you never spoken to a militant atheist who has a degree in physics...? It's not at all limited to the arts or humanities. If any generalization could be made, it's that the loss of humility ( of being humble ) in America coincides with the fall of religion and religious thought, or more accurately spirituality and spiritual thought. | cmv |
American universities, particularly the arts and humanities, teach young people to be confident, arrogant, and close - minded. CMV | In my experience, people who have gone to college are extremely smug to those who didn't. I blame American culture because we require these stupid degrees for jobs that shouldn't require them in the first place. This stupid piece of paper society we live in, it's all image and no substance. Instead of concentrating on love between two people we have to get a marriage license. Instead of proving your worth through experience we have to get a job license ( degrees ). | cmv |
American universities, particularly the arts and humanities, teach young people to be confident, arrogant, and close - minded. CMV | Here's a pretty interesting thing I learned when I tutored some international students at college : Asian academic writing is different from American academic writing. In American academic writing - as you are probably already aware - a good essay has a strong thesis statement and bold argument that is supported by evidence. In Asian academics ( Japanese, for example ), essays tend to " report the facts " more than pushing / supporting an argument. It was incredibly difficult for the students I was tutoring to grasp the idea of creating a strong argument and supporting it confidently. That being said, I think you could chalk up the confidence in Americans to American academic culture. If we believe in something, we are told to believe in it strongly. In terms of arrogance and close - mindedness though, those are not ( intentionally ) taught academically. Open - mindedness is highly valued in the liberal arts. The arrogance and close - mindedness just comes from when people take their confidence too far. | cmv |
American universities, particularly the arts and humanities, teach young people to be confident, arrogant, and close - minded. CMV | I think that it's rather American Culture that values arrogance, closed - minded views, and a strong desire to be " right " even in the face of opposition. I graduated from an American Univeristy with a degree in English. And what did I see out of my fellow English majors? A smattering of all types of personalities and viewpoints. Much like when I looked around campus in general ( and I went to a university that's primary focus was STEM ), there were jerks and there were arrogant closed - minded people but also a lot of open and understanding people. I think your lense is too narrow here, and what you're noticing is a result of American Exceptionalism and not some factor of the humanities at the Univeristy level. | cmv |
American universities, particularly the arts and humanities, teach young people to be confident, arrogant, and close - minded. CMV | When I heard about the trends in plastic surgery in Korea, not a single source mentioned it being a western influence. The only, only surgery I know of that's west - inspired is the chinese eye - tuck. It's not to make the eyes larger, but to add the appearance of a double eyelid. Look at Jackie Chan, his upper eyelids especially. He had the surgery. TLDR : you spoke to narrow - minded feel - good - about - themselves people. They can be found everywhere, not just colleges. | cmv |
American universities, particularly the arts and humanities, teach young people to be confident, arrogant, and close - minded. CMV | This is a pretty common trait in those who have one perspective in life. You have the advantage of having two perspectives. it takes a lot of bravery to even realise there are 3 and 4 and 5 perspectives. It's self preservation to remain crystalized in one perspective. And frustrating for those who have matured beyond it | cmv |
American universities, particularly the arts and humanities, teach young people to be confident, arrogant, and close - minded. CMV | American Culture teaches Confidence, Arrogance, and Close - mindedness Universities, the arts and humanities specifically, work to increase confidence, negate arrogance, and open the minds of the students. Sometimes they are successful in overcoming our culture, sometimes they are not. | cmv |
American universities, particularly the arts and humanities, teach young people to be confident, arrogant, and close - minded. CMV | Perhaps it's different in the United States but in Canada most of the Arts and Humanities majors reserve their arrogance / self - righteousness for their peers within the same study stream ( ie. the superiority of film vs. literature vs. music vs. fine arts vs. etc ). Most attempts to speak about an Arts degree to either Science or Management students is met with derision and jokes about working as at McDonalds or Starbucks for the rest of their lives. Certainly you'll find those that will fiercely defend the merits of the Arts and Humanities but amongst my group of academic associates we prefer to quietly enjoy our degrees and agree that all fields of study hold some merit. | cmv |
I have pre - concieved stereotypes towards Africa being a terrible place. CMV | Africa is an incredibly varied place with incredibly varied culture. I can assume that you mean Sub - Saharan Africa, but even then there are a lot of different people, places, and sights to see. If you visit Africa, you probably won't get chased by aids infected lions commissioned by Joseph Kony as the western world will often have you believing. There are middle class people living in major metropolitan environments who worry about paying taxes and getting their kids to soccer practice in almost every African country. However, it isn't a perfect, safe place and I wouldn't advise you to go visit the beaches of Somalia. I guess what I'm trying to say is the best way to change your view on Africa is to educate yourself. If you plan on backpacking there, narrow down where exactly you're thinking of beyond some large abstract concept like " Africa ". Even if it's just fifteen minutes on wikipedia, read up on the culture of a country you find interesting and I'm sure someone as open minded as you will be able to find the beauty in Africa. | cmv |
I believe teaching that " State's Rights " were the primary cause the US Civil War should not be allowed in public schools. CMV. | The states'rights issue and slavery, to me, are basically the same thing. If it hadn't been slavery, some other divisive issue would have arisen and we would be discussing whether womens'suffrage was the real cause of the east splitting from the west. Other issues factor into the discussion, including minority rights ( states or people! ), industrialization, tariffs, and other things. Was slavery a core concern? Yes. Why? States'rights. The close of the Civil War saw a shift from the US being a bunch of states working together, to the US being a more federal entity. It's unfortunate the issue was rooted in slavery, because now we've never really seen a proper resolution to the states'rights question | cmv |
I believe teaching that " State's Rights " were the primary cause the US Civil War should not be allowed in public schools. CMV. | The thing is though is that States'Rights were a primary cause of the Civil War. They had dealt with tariffs that had hurt them all for the benefit of the North and then they thought that the North was working towards taking what they thought, and wrongly thought, were the key to their livelihoods, slaves. States'rights just encompass all the issues that the South had with the North at the time. It's not a justification for their motivations, it's just the easiest way to summarize why it happened. I have lived in the South all my life and I have never been in a school where people hero worshipped the Confederacy, let alone use states'rights as an excuse for the Civil War. Sure, it's a reason, but that does not make it justification. | cmv |
I believe teaching that " State's Rights " were the primary cause the US Civil War should not be allowed in public schools. CMV. | Think about it from the perspective of the average soldier in the Confederate army. Not that he had any particular love for black people, but he probably didn't own any slaves, either. So why would he care about political battles that hardly affected him? What was his motivation for risking his life? It was a narrative about out - of - touch northerners taking his rights. This line of thinking was how the leaders of the South raised popular support for a war that served their own interests. | cmv |
I believe teaching that " State's Rights " were the primary cause the US Civil War should not be allowed in public schools. CMV. | I may be wrong, but isn't their states rights argument in regards to the new western states coming into the union and whether or not they should decide on their own to allow slavery? They were upset at the government not allowing the spread of slavery, not at the government for taking it away from them. I'm from Ohio and I was taught that that was more the issue and that slavery where it was already established wasn't under threat of being abolished until the war had already started. | cmv |
I believe teaching that " State's Rights " were the primary cause the US Civil War should not be allowed in public schools. CMV. | I personally never got the takeway in school of " state's rights is a bad thing, hell look at the civil war! " My interpretation of those times, is the human race was finally starting to become a new level of civilized, and more and more citizens were starting to care about things like human rights for all, not just white men. The " divide " happened when people who weren't all on the same page yet on topics like slavery and other issues, started to majorly disagree on how we proceed. So natually the more conservative regions ( south ) said screw you we'll just become our own states or country or what - not. In short I don't think your statement is really accurate that schools try to say state's rights is a bad thing and directly caused the war. The cause being provided is the radically different ways of thinking amongst strong influential forces on both sides. | cmv |
I believe teaching that " State's Rights " were the primary cause the US Civil War should not be allowed in public schools. CMV. | The Civil War happen to prevent secession from the south. That was the cause of the Civil War. Lincoln wouldn't have gone to war over slavery alone. He went to war to keep the Union together. | cmv |
I believe teaching that " State's Rights " were the primary cause the US Civil War should not be allowed in public schools. CMV. | Well, I think that people should know their history well before they get to be history teachers. This should be proven in university examinations, teaching licence examinations, however it's done in the US. If they've proven know their history well and still think that States'Rights were a primary cause of the Civil War then I think we kind of have to let them teach that. | cmv |
I believe teaching that " State's Rights " were the primary cause the US Civil War should not be allowed in public schools. CMV. | Technically, the " cause " of the war was that the Southern states seceded. They did secede because of multiple issues ( slavery absolutely chief among them, well over 50 % of the reason ), but the war was over whether states had the right to secede in the first place. The Union went to war to prevent secession, which the Northern states contended the South didn't have the right to do. The North didn't " like " slavery by any means, but the South had had slaves for a very long time at that point, so that's not why the North actually went to war. I am aware that the South fired the first shots. However, they fired those shots, partially ( mostly ), because they thought Lincoln would put an end to slavery. Whether or not that is true is up for debate, but the North could have, in theory, not gone a war over Southern secession. They could have just let those states leave. As such, while the war was " about " slavery, the " cause " was actually the question of what rights states had, namely the right to secede, not the right to keep slaves. | cmv |
I believe teaching that " State's Rights " were the primary cause the US Civil War should not be allowed in public schools. CMV. | This view is hotly debated even among historians. Even though more agree that slavery was the root cause ( even though state rights played a role in the building tensions ) this is not the consensus. A southerner can say " I believe teaching that " Slavery " was the primary cause the US Civil War should not be allowed in public schools. " just as easily. And I also think it is harmless for them to want to believe their ancestors weren't horrible racists and had other reasons to fight. | cmv |
I believe teaching that " State's Rights " were the primary cause the US Civil War should not be allowed in public schools. CMV. | How about the following - Southern states wanted to hold on to slavery. Perhaps the most effective way of doing that was limiting the roles of the federal government. A weak federal government wouldn't have the power to limit slavery, in their estimation. So the south rebelled for states'rights, but the states'right right they cared about was slavery. | cmv |
I believe teaching that " State's Rights " were the primary cause the US Civil War should not be allowed in public schools. CMV. | I agree that the civil war was absolutely'caused'by contention over slavery, but discussion of State sovereignty, the'right to secession ', etc... necessarily abound any honest review of the event. In the simplest terms, the South seceded following Lincoln's election for fear that something might finally be done about slavery. Lincoln pursued war with the self - proclaimed'confederacy'in the interest, primarily, of not going down in history as the guy who went ahead and let a nation with as much potential as the United States in the mid 19th century be split in half. When it comes to attributing'cause'to historical events, a good measure is to identify the most direct motivator of the least inevitable link in a basic chain of events. Personally, I think war for reunification was a far more inevitable response to secession than secession was to growing fears of an end to slavery. But again... you can't teach about the Civil War ( or reconstruction ) without talking about the legal / ethical extent of the federal government's role in the affairs of States and the constitutionality ( and ethical merit ) of secession. | cmv |
I Believe Late - Term ( Post - week 20 ) Abortion should be Illegal, with one very specific, single exception. CMV | What if the child is diagnosed with a severe genetic condition that will almost certainly result in it being born dead or dying shortly after? Assuming the diagnosis was past 20 weeks. Caveat, of course, with advancement of diagnostic techniques 16 - 20 weeks is about the latest point such diagnoses would be made. | cmv |
I Believe Late - Term ( Post - week 20 ) Abortion should be Illegal, with one very specific, single exception. CMV | . Let's examine the situation you brought up. A woman is pregnant with two daughters. She already has multiple daughters, by her own admission. Her admission might not be about gender, but the fact that she already has children like the ones she is carrying. She might not be able to care for more ; financially, emotionally and physically. I believe that if the mother believes that the child ( ren ) in question would not have a life to be valued, for whatever reason, then her assessment is probably more complex than just " Oh, I don't want any more smelly girls ". Most people make decisions for a multitude of reasons, and abortion of twin girls is especially one of those things. If the child is going to be unloved, under - cared for, or otherwise neglected / underprivileged, would you think that it might be in the best interest of the mother and child that the event of having a child be post - poned or removed? | cmv |
I Believe Late - Term ( Post - week 20 ) Abortion should be Illegal, with one very specific, single exception. CMV | Bottom line : your body is YOUR body, to do with as you please. If an organism depends on using your body to live, you have a right to deny that organism from using it. That is really the long and the short of it. | cmv |
I Believe Late - Term ( Post - week 20 ) Abortion should be Illegal, with one very specific, single exception. CMV | Would be just great if you could actually reply to a thread you make OP. For Rule 1 : What about if the child wont survive birth. Your position states it should be born. Are you advocating that? | cmv |
CMV - Human morality should not extend to animals. | For domesticated animals, I don't think you are necessarily extending the morality to the animal it's self, the morality you extend is to it's owner. UN - owned animals are put to sleep in shelters. I agree that animals that are used for food don't need to be treated morally, they just need to be treated in the manner that provides a quality product. | cmv |
CMV - Human morality should not extend to animals. | Pigs can form as strong if not stronger relationships with humans, yet we eat them. Christ there was that video a few years ago where a dude raise lions then released them, then years later came back and the lions remembered / did not eat him. We pretend that animals are these stupid beings because they don't share our complex thoughts,. | cmv |
CMV - Human morality should not extend to animals. | Morality is a fickle thing, the issue here isn't about extending morality for the animal for the sake of the animal. The empathy that is given towards an animal is more for the person that is providing the empathy rather than animal itself. Let me explain, the extension of morality / empathy toward the animal is beneficial for humans because it provides a reflection of person. ( E. g If you kick a cat multiple times, you might have issues. ) In essence to removal animal empathy would be removing a visible reflection on the state of ones morality as a whole. | cmv |
CMV - Human morality should not extend to animals. | I mostly agree with you, but it's important to remember that " human morality " both contains rules / guidelines about what we can morally do ( that is, what rights other beings have ), and what we should do. Thus, even though I agree that animals don't have rights because we have no reason to restrict ourselves in our dealings with them, in certain cases it is still in our self - interest to not treat them poorly - not out of consideration for them, but out of consideration for ourselves. Specifically, though factory farming and such are fine even when they cause animal suffering, it is because the suffering isn't the goal but an undesirable yet acceptable side effect of the real goal, which is relatively inexpensive food. But if causing animals to suffer was someone's actual goal, such as someone who would kick puppies for the fun of it, that would promote sociopathic behavior, and shouldn't be done. | cmv |
CMV - Human morality should not extend to animals. | There are some humans with psychological issues such that they cannot abide by human morals, regardless of social teachings. I still think we should extend our morals to them. It may not be a requirement, but it can often make people more sensitive to other's people's feelings if they can connect to an animal first. Also, unlike most other organisms ( who don't have brains and may not have nervous systems ), animals are very similar to us. Many have faces that make expressions very similar to our own, so we know when they are happy, sad, and in pain. We put plants in conditions that are unpleasant / painful / deadly while they are alive but ( for the most part ) not animals because we understand their pain. One of the tests for discovering if someone is a sociopath if figuring out how they interacted with animals as a developing child. It's one thing to burn ants with a magnifying lens, and a whole other thing to torture a dog or cat who is whimpering and making other signs that any human can understand means they are in pain. We kill them to eat them or defend ourselves, but we feel empathy ( like many animals can be trained to do ), so we generally don't take pleasure in their pain. It is often a sign that the individual can take pleasure in a human's pain as well. | cmv |
I believe recreational use of drugs like marijuana in the US is extremely unethical. CMV. | This only makes sense if you live in certain areas where it's hard to come by locally grown weed. I am in California. My whole adult life I have smoked weed that either my friends have grown, comes from Humboldt county, or now it's widely available in dispensaries. I don't know anyone in LA anymore who isn't smoking dispensary weed, which is not from cartels. There is no ambiguity here. | cmv |
I believe recreational use of drugs like marijuana in the US is extremely unethical. CMV. | If you have a problem with pouring money into criminal organizations, the fact that drugs are illegal is a backward thing to support. Make them legal, make it available, destroy the reason that people die over drugs. Hardly any person who does not do drugs now would suddenly want to if they were legal, and anyone who currently uses is going to get their fix whether or not it's legal. | cmv |
I believe recreational use of drugs like marijuana in the US is extremely unethical. CMV. | My first point would be that not all marijuana comes from Mexico. In fact, in my area of the world, most marijuana is domestically grown. The idea that mexican pot would make it half way across the world, and cross at least 2 national borders, doesn't make any sense. Therefore, for pot smokers who aren't smoking Mexican pot, it's perfectly ethical? Second, if anything, what you've proven is that the prohibition of these drugs is unethical, for the exact same reasons. You've also shown that the US pushing countries to criminalize drugs is unbelievably unethical, leading to untold death. Just becuase prohibition of something leads to civil unrest doesn't mean that the thing prohibited is itself unethical. After all, there were once prohibitions against black people being treated equally to whites, and that caused civil unrest - - do you believe that being black was unethical at that time? | cmv |
I believe recreational use of drugs like marijuana in the US is extremely unethical. CMV. | I could say exactly the same thing about drug laws. The money spent on drugs is in the black economy only because it is illegal. If it were legal, cartels could not profit. By this logic, acting in furtherance of drug law enforcement is highly unethical. | cmv |
I believe recreational use of drugs like marijuana in the US is extremely unethical. CMV. | If you smoke marijuana frequently, you can be pretty sure as to where your marijuana came from. The climate in Mexico leads to high production of marijuana but low quality if grown outdoors. Growing indoors is certainly possible in Mexico, but is not preferred because not only is indoor growing much more expensive, it carries additional costs compared to growing indoors in the United States. These costs are mostly transportation into the States, which is not as easy as one would believe. The economical thing for Mexican cartels is to produce a lot of a lower quality product that they can simply write off when seized. Anyway, because of this you likely know when you're buying Mexican marijuana. Which, as a frequent smoker in my day, I did literally twice and immediately regretted ( it was very inexpensive, but also very bad ). Almost all of the marijuana which I bought ( and by most I mean 99 % ) was either grown in the US or Canada. I don't know if this is true for all marijuana smokers ( and I suspect it is less true in states bordering Mexico ) but as someone who smoked on the east coast, I can say it was mostly true of every marijuana smoker I knew. Thus, many marijuana smokers are smoking without the negative ethical implications that you mentioned. | cmv |
I think'de facto'segregation was good. CMV | De facto segregation keeps people from different backgrounds from getting to know and understanding each other. It fosters the growth of stereotyping and judgements / actions based on these stereotypes. By staying separate, people just won't get to know members of other demographic groups. This could lead to hostility and discrimination between the groups. | cmv |
I think'de facto'segregation was good. CMV | Heh, I'm watching Through the Wormhole right now. If people believe they have no free will, they are more likely to act immorally. Segregation is restrictive and limits free will. Conclude what you will. | cmv |
I believe that the vast majority of rape is about sex, not power. CMV | One core question I think needs to be answered for rape to be just about sex is, if it's just about sex, why didn't the rapist use one of the easier venues to find sex? I mean, absolute worst case scenario, prostitutes are available in some jurisdictions completely legally, at very reasonable rates. To me, the fact that someone wouldn't just have sex, but would specifically rape a person seems to be satisfying an urge separate from the sexual. I'm going to use a slightly less charged example to demonstrate how strange it seems. Let's say you're starving, and you steal a loaf of bread. People would say your theft was about the hunger, and that'd be reasonable. However, let's say you're starving, but you are fully capable of buying a loaf of bread. Is it still about the hunger, or is there something deeper at work? | cmv |
I believe that the vast majority of rape is about sex, not power. CMV | When you say, " vast majority, " can you put a number on that? Do you mean to say, " 80 % of rape is about sex, while 20 % is about power? " Or is it more 51 - 49 %? Where does this information get us? Why do you believe that the motivations behind rape are so important? | cmv |
I believe that the vast majority of rape is about sex, not power. CMV | If rape were about only sex, a lot of rapists would just pay for sex, which is not hard or especially expensive. Rape is about having sex with a particular someone, whether they want it or not. This falls under the jurisdiction of power. | cmv |
I believe Jezebel. com is a poor advocate for women's issues. Rather than point out inequality and misogyny with the goal of persuading offending groups, they mock and attack accomplishing nothing. CMV | Jezebel is part of the Gawker Media network. It does not exist to advocate for women's issues ; it explicitly exists to generate revenue via webtraffic. Sensationalism is the most effective driver of web traffic on any website. Why would you hold them to a standard that they're not trying to attain? | cmv |
Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement are suffering from epistemic closure. CMV | Epistemic closure about what specifically - just " Birthers, " and " Climate Change? " Do you think that those the only two issues on the Tea Party's docket that suffer from extreme confirmation bias or can you list other issues? The Tea Party encompasses a wide range of beliefs on many different issues by my understanding. When you say, " suffering from, " what do you mean by this? Do you mean to say that they have good intentions but their judgement is clouded? | cmv |
Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement are suffering from epistemic closure. CMV | Do you think that the Tea Party is the only mainstream political movement in the United States that possesses this trait? For example, would you say the same about the Occupy Wall Street group? In a broader sense, would you say the same about Republicans or Democrats? | cmv |
Reddit is more libertarian than liberal ( in the American progressive sense ). CMV. | I really dont think that there are more libertarians than far left liberals. They are both really loud and spam their views nonstop. For every minimum wage hike article ( liberal ), there is a post about bring the gold standard back ( Libertarian ). Everyone else in the middle just isnt passionate about being neutral or not caring enough to spam like they do. Everything else you said does seem fairly accurate about the two groups though. | cmv |
I believe men who don't consent to a child should not have to pay child support. CMV | I think the birth control point is the only arguable one. Birth control should be the responsibility of both parties. Is she is on the pill, she is protecting herself. Going in raw - dog on her word is your negligence... You're essentially having unprotected sex with someone you trust. You should wear your own protection, as should she. If she sabotages yours, then no, you shouldn't have to pay support... But that is such a tricky area, since proving it is incredibly difficult. Accidental pregnancy too... You certainly don't have the right to force an abortion, and it doesn't seem fair that she should have to pay the sole price for an accident you both, equally committed. | cmv |
I am a legal US immigrant who absolutely cannot stand the idea of giving amnesty to the millions of illegals in the US. CMV | What if I said that YOU shouldn't be allowed to become a citizen and take a job that could have gone to a natural - born American like me? What's the practical difference between if the immigrants came here legally or illegally? Is being a legal citizen the only thing keeping you from working for $ 3 an hour at a fast food place while collecting welfare? | cmv |
I am a legal US immigrant who absolutely cannot stand the idea of giving amnesty to the millions of illegals in the US. CMV | I don't really understand how legalising current undocumented immigrants will " take jobs " from US citizens - presumably the market would even out soon enough. Amnesty would be, at most, an increase in the population ( assuming that without it current migrants would be deported ) and population has little to do with unemployment. Say the US population rises 10 % : this doesn't mean 10 % more unemployment and 10 % less services because you now have more consumers and more taxpayers. The US is certainly not " full " in terms of population : the land and space can support a much higher population so more migrants is no different to any other population increase. There is such a thing as a natural percentage of unemployment ; there is not such a thing as an absolute and inflexible, numerical quantity of " jobs " available. Employment rates are an economic phenomenon, not a scarce natural resource involving zero sum competition. tl ; dr : a higher population doesn't mean more unemployment, amnesty is nothing more than a population increase | cmv |
I am a legal US immigrant who absolutely cannot stand the idea of giving amnesty to the millions of illegals in the US. CMV | I'm surprised nobody brought this up yet. Maybe it's not fair, but what alternative solution do you suggest? We already have a lot of illegal immigrants in the US. Most of them are integrated into their communities, and many of them have children who are US citizens. They won't go away if we ignore them. | cmv |
I am a legal US immigrant who absolutely cannot stand the idea of giving amnesty to the millions of illegals in the US. CMV | So are you basically saying, " Now that I'm inside you can close the door! "? How does the fact that you are a legal US immigrant make you any different from an American citizen saying the same thing, ( or does it? just curious )? Also - have you considered that Mark Zuckerberg is perhaps already taking advantage of the cheapest labor all over the world wherever he can, regardless of who is available to him here in the US? Also - why do you refer to people in the US as, " illegals " in that way? I am an American citizen - if I commit a crime do you refer to me as an illegal as well? What makes that crime so abhorrent that they deserve to be called illegals? Why do you chose that word instead of something more neutral like, " undocumented persons? " Have you ever heard of the term, " No cop no stop? " Is our country not granting de facto amnesty now through basically not doing anything about so many undocumented persons...? | cmv |
I am a legal US immigrant who absolutely cannot stand the idea of giving amnesty to the millions of illegals in the US. CMV | Immigrants aren't taking'our'jobs. No one is entitled to some opening because of where they are born. If someone has equivalent skill to me and is willing to do the job for less money then they deserve the job, it's theirs not mine. How is it different if someone born here beats you out instead of someone that was born on some other island? The entire concept of immigration seems wrong to me. We're all humans just trying to live our lives. It's ridiculous to be nationalistic and act against each other simply because we were born in different areas sectioned off by those that came before us. | cmv |
I am a legal US immigrant who absolutely cannot stand the idea of giving amnesty to the millions of illegals in the US. CMV | You are addressing a human rights issue with an economics argument. The fundamental right to migration is based on human equality, human solidarity, and the common ownership of the Earth. We can't choose where we are born, but we can choose where we live, and we should have that right. And it is a right, until recently, we have always had. I'm always dismayed to see human rights given secondary concern to discriminatory laws and parochial economic concerns. The right to migration is as fundamental as any other right. | cmv |
I am a legal US immigrant who absolutely cannot stand the idea of giving amnesty to the millions of illegals in the US. CMV | The jobs illegal immigrants do suck ass. Do you really want to pick crops in the sun with no rights for $ 4 an hour? You can't get prisoners to work for that price. Why do you think your food is so cheap? Part of it is indirect subsidies because farmers don't have to pay illegal immigrants real wages. Several states had their farming industries collapse because of strong anti illegal immigrant laws which mean that crops rotted in the fields. Illegal immigrants pay taxes but don't get benefits. And you know what? They love the USA probably more than you. They risked their lives to come to it. | cmv |
I am a legal US immigrant who absolutely cannot stand the idea of giving amnesty to the millions of illegals in the US. CMV | Contrary to your assumptions, immigration reform would have economic and fiscal benefits for the US economy as a whole. People are going to migrate, no matter what, just like they are doing now. Because we refuse to allow migrants legal status, we are making it harder for them to get better jobs and to pay taxes. | cmv |
I am a legal US immigrant who absolutely cannot stand the idea of giving amnesty to the millions of illegals in the US. CMV | " SO what if you were illegally brought in the usa when you were 5 years old? How about you say thank you for the free education and benefits you got and go back home and make your country a better place. " Because the only home they know, just like me as a citizen, is the United States, and they're as American as anyone... | cmv |
I am a legal US immigrant who absolutely cannot stand the idea of giving amnesty to the millions of illegals in the US. CMV | I agree with everything you just said, but let me ask one thing : How in the hell are we going to deal with the millions of individuals who are here illegally now? I think that once you realize it is virtually impossible to kick them out without things getting ugly, you will accept the fact that amnesty, though a bad option, is the only feasible one. | cmv |
I am a legal US immigrant who absolutely cannot stand the idea of giving amnesty to the millions of illegals in the US. CMV | If someone is brought into the country illegally at 5 years old then the U. S is their country, it would be the only home they ever knew. Sending them back to " their country ", a place where they would have little to no identification with is wrong. Any person who works in this country would advance common good, the idea that illegals would somehow " steal " jobs from legal citizens is ridiculous. Yes the unemployment rate is far too high but there has always been some level of unemployment and the recent spike was caused buy many of the rich who profit from undocumented labor. Point being, the problem with unemployment does not rest with more people wanting to work, it rests with the people who systematically destroy businesses and bankrupt families to make a buck. | cmv |
I am starting to think that some individuals in the US Government could potentially use all of the information the NSA has gathered against us to form a coup and eradicate democracy. CMV | xkeyscore does not collect everything everyone does. In fact, it doesn't collect anything. It is simply a front - end for access to some ( or all ) of NSA's databases, which are collected under different programs ( PRISM for example ). It's not even a secret program ; Marc Ambinder talks about it in his book, " Deep State. " As far as I can tell, all of the actual collection programs require court orders identifying specific individuals for collection of information. The only one that doesn't is the collection of cell phone metadata. Which is probably not going to be enlightening enough to blackmail anyone. So in order for this takeover to occur, the NSA director is somehow going to have to convince FISA Court judges to grant court orders forcing content providers to provide, say, the email contents of a particular Congressman. This is highly unlikely. | cmv |
I believe that the current design of the European Union is flawed, and furthermore that there is no viable solution - it will crumble or disband. CMV | The other solution to these problems is a completely federalized Europe. If Euros are accumulating in the hands of Germans the EU government can use taxes and spending programs to move them into the hands of Spaniards and Greeks. In the US we perform this function mostly through social security and military spending. | cmv |
I believe that the current design of the European Union is flawed, and furthermore that there is no viable solution - it will crumble or disband. CMV | I agree that the current design of the European Union is unsustainable. But I do think there is one unlikely option other than dying. If Europe decides to actually become united and create a federal government much like the US they could once again be one of the most powerful economies in the world. If they effectively became the United States of Europe they could stay together. Economically this would be highly beneficial to Europe. And while it seems politically impossible remember it also seemed politically impossible at the start if the USA. But I would guess it could only happen if there was a threat to them, like the US deciding to stop military spending and china expanding. | cmv |
I believe that the current design of the European Union is flawed, and furthermore that there is no viable solution - it will crumble or disband. CMV | First, I'd note a difference between the collapse of the Euro and the disbanding of the EU. The return of the ( French ) Franc and the Deutschmark would not necessarily kill the EU, but it would kill the Euro. Second, there are proposed solutions, even by those who believe that the current path is unsustainable. A popular one ( with non Germans ) is expansionary monetary policy. This would lead to inflation in Germany, which Germans tend to be averse to. I've been told that journalists in Germany warn against a return to Weimar - esque hyper inflation. That sort of fear mongering is destructive - one only needs to look at the US to see that expansionary policy need not destroy the value of the currency, but it's there. | cmv |
I think the US should cease sending aid to Egypt during the current turmiol. CMV | Diplomacy works with either a stick ( punishment ) or a carrot ( reward ). This aid represents a carrot, and by removing it you leave the United States with only one option left, the stick. Personally, I would rather give the state department both tools than having to automatically resort to military threats to try and exert influence. | cmv |
I believe that all drugs should be legalized for recreational use. CMV | Actually, people can already buy the ingredients to make meth over the counter in most states, and the result has been that there are far more meth addicts now than there are heroin addicts. So I don't think " they'll get it anyway " holds much water. Usage is dependent on availability, and coke use is down being replaced by a far worse drug, meth, because it is readily available. If you look at the enormous costs to society in crime rates, health care costs, lost productivity for addicts and their families etc, it's hard to argue that it's beneficial to legalize those drugs. | cmv |
I believe that all drugs should be legalized for recreational use. CMV | I think dangerous drugs should be decriminalized, but not legalized. That means that using them wouldn't be a crime, but selling them would be. To be clear, by " dangerous " drugs I mean drugs that increase aggression and make you a danger to other people, like meth or PCP. Unless you're harming someone else, what you do with your body is your business. | cmv |
I believe democracies ought to make voting compulsory. CMV | Ok, but only if the entire populace votes on it first. THE ENTIRE POPULACE. Otherwise there will be certain people who haven't agreed to it. Also, all children by the age of three will have to agree to it or it's null and void. | cmv |
I believe that gun control is most harmful to the groups who tend to support it the most. CMV | Gun control as most people advocate would not likely stop any of the people you mentioned from getting a gun. Even with stringent anti - gun laws law abiding citizens will still be able to obtain them. Similarly, the people that advocate gun control are unlikely to get or use guns, even when they are easily available. Gun control proponents are usually opposed to owning guns for a list of reasons that have nothing to do with how hard they are to get. Gun control advocates usually would like to simply regulate the process of getting a gun more and would only actually deny access to guns to criminals or the mentally unstable. Other forms of gun control would reduce or remove access to " more dangerous " guns, not the hand guns typically carried for self - defense. Also, guns usually only serve to escalate violence in most scenarios. Other than the rare mass - shooting, there are not a lot of situations that can be effectively diffused by the use or threat of a gun. | cmv |
I believe that gun control is most harmful to the groups who tend to support it the most. CMV | A man could threaten me with a gun and rape me. I was sitting in my living room in a high crime area when someone broke in with a gun, my gun was in the other room and I could not react. My employer discriminated against me because I'm gay and I can't legally shoot him. Your situations are limited in the scope of possibilities. | cmv |
I believe that gun control is most harmful to the groups who tend to support it the most. CMV | I think that the opposite is more true. Gun accidents and suicides account for more gun deaths than any other type of gun death. You are much more likely to die from your own gun than from someone else's. Not restricting guns will only increase these numbers. I also think it is dangerous to assume all gun control restricts the ability of ordinary citizens to safely own a firearm. For instance, a universal background check would limit the amount of violent or dangerous people who could obtain a gun while only posing a minor inconvenience to those who wish to own one for responsible reasons. Simply put, I think you are over - emphasizing gun crime and ignoring other ways to die from a gun. Proper and sensible gun reform would limit both. | cmv |
I believe that gun control is most harmful to the groups who tend to support it the most. CMV | Guns are not very good as self defense weapons go, when properly secured for safe carrying they are hard to retrieve quickly enough to make a difference when someone attacks you. There are also many ways to defend yourself other than a gun. Stun guns and Tasers are both very effective at keeping attackers away without the lethal danger of a gun. As far as mass shootings go someone else with a gun could indeed save some lives but the point of gun control is to prevent the shooter from having a gun in the first place which would save more lives. | cmv |
I think a man should be able to " legally abort " a fetus he does not wish to have but the mother does within the same period the mother has to actually abort the featus. CMV | From an economic perspective, if the mother doesn't wish to abort ( and we can't force her to because of autonomy ), then either the parents or the state are responsible for the child. If the state pays, it is a negative externality where both parent's irresponsibility is a cost to the rest of society. Society has a reasonable interest in discouraging this and so is justified in levying a " tax " ( child support ) to reduce / offset the costs of this behavior. Because biology, males don't have the option of opting out once the pregnancy has occurred. Because autonomy, women do have this extra choice because that choice negates the negative externality. This is unfair, but reasonable because allowing men to sever their tie would leave the negative externality in place, but neutralize the " tax " that society puts on the behavior to discourage it. | cmv |
I think a man should be able to " legally abort " a fetus he does not wish to have but the mother does within the same period the mother has to actually abort the featus. CMV | Men absolutely get the short end of the stick when it comes to pregnancy, but unfortunately that's the way it has to be. The alternative is to force women to get abortions or to force kids to grow up without proper care. Child support is for the child, and if we have to screw either the dad or the kid, it really ought to be the dad right? | cmv |
I think a man should be able to " legally abort " a fetus he does not wish to have but the mother does within the same period the mother has to actually abort the featus. CMV | I really have a problem with the idea of " male abortion " as a term. It's pretty offensively selfish in my view. A woman getting an abortion absolves both parents of their responsibilities. What you describe more like a divorce than an abortion, and the father is the only person who remotely benefits, completely spitting the face of this being a concept of fairness. Also, everything you've talked about here tends to walk around the fact that you created a person. You have obligations to that person. You not wanting to be a father does nothing to absolve the child of the intense suffering your absence inherently generates. Your potential economic burden of having to provide for the life you are responsible for does not supersede that. | cmv |
I think a man should be able to " legally abort " a fetus he does not wish to have but the mother does within the same period the mother has to actually abort the featus. CMV | Abortion can be an extremely traumatic ordeal for the mother, they are affected by gestation in profound biological and psychological ways which can be tricky to overcome. A woman's ability to terminate a pregnancy, if anything, is more of a burden than a privilege when comparing with the father, especially if the father can so much more disconnectedly dissociate himself from the process by merely opting out. You are not equalising, you are making it greatly more unfair by offering this consequenceless escape - clause to the father, whilst simultaneously'forcing'the mother into an extremely burdensome decision should she be financial deprived, despite what should be a shared culpability. | cmv |
I think a man should be able to " legally abort " a fetus he does not wish to have but the mother does within the same period the mother has to actually abort the featus. CMV | Child support isn't really about the father. Child support is primarily about getting care to the child after it is in the world - for better or for worse. You cannot force a woman to give her child up for adoption, so instead we settle for child support to give the child a better life. It's not really about the father in any way - it's not to make his life better or worse ( though that is a side effect ), it's solely to give our nation's children a slightly better shot in life. | cmv |
I think a man should be able to " legally abort " a fetus he does not wish to have but the mother does within the same period the mother has to actually abort the featus. CMV | Whatever happened to people being responsible for their actions? If a man has unprotected sex with a woman and she gets pregnant then he very much should be held responsible for the child if he is the biological father. You can't just do whatever you want and then decide you don't want to be responsible for the outcome. Same thing for women if they're not on some sort of birth control and knowingly have unprotected sex. Each person needs to look out for themselves and be sure they're protected. I think the father of the child should have all the rights the mother has because half his DNA is in that child. I think it's irrelevant that the woman carries and births the child, they should both be equally responsible for bringing an innocent child into the world. Take responsibility for your own actions. | cmv |
I think a man should be able to " legally abort " a fetus he does not wish to have but the mother does within the same period the mother has to actually abort the featus. CMV | Does not a single one of the arguments in these threads convince you? You're supposed to search and / or use the popular topics wiki before posting a CMV, and this is one of the most popular opinions posted here. Read these threads and if none of the arguments convince you then edit some rebuttals to them into your post. | cmv |
I think a man should be able to " legally abort " a fetus he does not wish to have but the mother does within the same period the mother has to actually abort the featus. CMV | I actually agree ideologically, but the practical side requires that we decide otherwise. Forcing a parent to pay child support happens when the child is already there. Saying it was a fetus when the opt - out decision was made, does not change that we are now dealing with a born child. If we deny child support, the child ( not the fetus ) will be on the losing end. It one - sidedly puts the onus on women to provide or use contraception, and it disincentivizes men from using condoms, since they can just opt out of their responsibilities at a later stage. | cmv |
I can't trust someone who argues from pure self - interest rather than principle. CMV. | How would you feel about someone who argued from self - interest and principle at the same time, so that there was no contradiction between the two? For example, I would like to think that it is in one's true and " purest " self - interest to know the truth, to do what is right and to always act from this principle. It's selfishly pursued, because it earns you the greatest true values - a clean conscience / integrity / self - respect. Perhaps pure self - interest, if truly pure, is a good thing! It means you always go for the better value. And you'd scorn something such as a bribe or a short term gain or taking something you didn't earn, so you wouldn't steal. You'd want actual understanding and meaning, rather than the mere high marks at the end, so you wouldn't cheat. | cmv |
I can't trust someone who argues from pure self - interest rather than principle. CMV. | There are very few people in reality who will act against self - interest. The main reason someone feels the need to speak up for something in the first place is because they want to get something from their contribution. If, for example, your landlord decided to double your rent for the month, you could argue against it on principle, that that wasn't the agreement you signed when you first rented with him. But realistically, what makes you stand up to complain is self - interest, that YOU'RE getting screwed over and you don't want to accept that. That being said, this sounds like a general ad hominem fallacy. Basically, you're making a blanket statement that anyone who could benefit from their argument isn't allowed to argue at all. That's inappropriate, because it isn't a counter - argument to the other person's argument, just a dismissal and refusal to debate. | cmv |
I can't trust someone who argues from pure self - interest rather than principle. CMV. | That level of cynicism means you couldn't support Martin Luther King - after all, he's black and he wanted an end to discrimination against black people. You couldn't listen to a gay man who is fighting for gay marriage - after all, gays are fighting for the right to marry. Even the man who acts directly against their own self interest has been convinced in some causal way by an individual you would see as acting in their own self interest. | cmv |
I can't trust someone who argues from pure self - interest rather than principle. CMV. | You haven't listed pure self - interest. You listed partial self - interest. Raising wages for women / blacks will altruistically help a lot of people. Incidentally, yes, it will help themselves. But " pure " self - interest is something like, " I deserve the last ice cream bar in the freezer, because I didn't get one last time. " | cmv |
I can't trust someone who argues from pure self - interest rather than principle. CMV. | A rich person is extremely unlikely to give away their last pound and live homeless on the streets. They tend to, when they're alive, retain a standard of living that is very comfortable, but nowhere near as opulent as they could afford. They then decide that the wealth they lose from giving away the remainder of their money provides less value to them than the good feeling they get from giving away their money. If you stop thinking in strictly monetary terms, everyone acts ( or at least tries to act ) in their own self - interest. | cmv |
Men's rights advocacy on reddit has lost sight of reality. CMV. | While men are physically stronger, a women is still able to do a lot of damage for several reasons. First, while women are held back from defending themselves for physical reasons, men are held back from defending themselves for societal reasons. Second, it only takes 10 pounds of force to break a persons nose, pop a testicle, and other bodily damage can be inflicted through the use of a tool. While men are physically more capable, societal restrictions and surrounding objects are utilized. Third, we don't know how badly men are hurt compared to women - - since data has not been historically collected because individuals generally scoffed at the idea of men being domestic victims. Even if violence against men is less damaging, that does not excuse the current lack of initiatives to help male victims. It is commonly portrayed as a women's issue, which loses context of the situation and undermines the genuine plight of abused males. Finally, domestic violence is about asserting control, and that goes for men and women. Violence against men is not somehow deemed unworthy simply because the male gender is more controlling due to gender roles. | cmv |
Men's rights advocacy on reddit has lost sight of reality. CMV. | It's virtually never alright to hit anyone but I just have to point out that even your edit to try and save your factually inaccurate thread is wrong. Women are over 400 % more likely to use a weapon when committing violence towards men, so your song and dance about power dynamics doesn't hold up either. Promote true equality that doesn't put genders on two sides of a fence and against each other. If it's wrong, then age / race / gender / eye color doesn't change that it's wrong. | cmv |
Men's rights advocacy on reddit has lost sight of reality. CMV. | I think it's not just about men and women, but generally people like videos where someone who normally wouldn't face any negative consequences for what they did gets their comeuppance. This is often something like what you linked to because of the idea that a woman hitting a man is likely to get off scot - free. I think that explains why, for example, this video was so popular. If a man was hitting a woman in a situation where people thought he'd get off scot - free, and then he didn't, that would also be popular. It's not just someone getting their just desserts, it's someone getting their just desserts when you wouldn't expect them to. But nobody expects a man to hit a woman in public with people around and then just get away with it. Finally, there's a difference between " men's rights ", and " what gets upvoted on r / videos or r / justiceporn ". | cmv |
Men's rights advocacy on reddit has lost sight of reality. CMV. | The points I have to make are so simple I can bullet them : If there was a new video of a man assaulting a woman and her kicking his ass it would be on the front page. If this video involved only men it would still be on the front page. See Epic Beard Man as a case study because it's the same thing. Your dismissive attitude towards men ( a la : " I think most men are failing to understand, " "... much more common it is for men to be violent towards women ) is actually a much bigger MR issue. The fact that you are making this post in and of itself justifies the need for MR. | cmv |
Men's rights advocacy on reddit has lost sight of reality. CMV. | Actually, you are approaching this all from the wrong angle. The MRM is doing this specifically to make counterpoints to the feminists who commonly make similar one sided claims from the opposite angle which are generally not realistic interpretations of the full story. The difference is that the more radical feminists are simply doing this IPSO FACTO, where as the MRM is SPECIFICALLY trying to counter those people by showing both sides of the picture. So to dismiss this for that reason is to dismiss the reality that looking at thigns from both angles actually matters. Note that many people there are obviously sexist. But the same is true of modern feminism. And this is a double sided reverberating issue, and one of the reasons people are trying to point out that an egalitarian movement should replace both. ( Since sexists would keep away from such a thing, leading to more purity. ) | cmv |
[ CMV ] The Social Security system in America is doomed and should be phased out ASAP. | I agree with you about Social Security needing to be phased out. But not because it's dooming America. It makes absolutely no logical sense. Social Security is just a retirement plan that we're forced to use. In every other retirement plan, you end up with more money than you put in, due to interest or profit ( in the case of owning houses you can rent out ). But in Social Security, you can only hope to get out as much as you put in, because you have to pay for the handling of the money, and the higher - ups'mansions and all that. It should at least be optional so we can invest that money into something that actually makes sense. Sorry for not changing your view, this is just something that really irritates me. | cmv |
[ CMV ] The Social Security system in America is doomed and should be phased out ASAP. | So you want to go back to how it was before social security? You propose to replace social security with treasury bonds, and stocks. Did they exist before social security? Wouldn't the poverty levels of senior citizens rise dramatically? | cmv |
[ CMV ] The Social Security system in America is doomed and should be phased out ASAP. | Social Security will not go bankrupt, by 2035 it will be able to pay out 75 % of it's promised benefits but it will be able to do this indefinitely. And even this is easily fixed by getting rid of the payroll tax cap : no income over $ 120, 000 or so is subject to the Social Security tax which means that Bill Gates is contributing just as much to the system as a lot of middle class married couples. Getting rid of that cap will actually allow us to increase benefits in the long run. And because it's its own trust fund Social Security has never contributed a dime to the deficit and is currently keeping more then 20 million Americans out of poverty making it arguably the most successful anti - poverty program in American history. It's a great program that ensures a solid return for the money we all put into it, unlike if we invested it in the stock market where fluctuations like the 2008 financial crisis would've wiped out all of that accumulated wealth. | cmv |
[ CMV ] The Social Security system in America is doomed and should be phased out ASAP. | I'll contest your point that the " ROI " from Social Security is less secure than ROI from smart private investment because the gov't could change the rules for Social Security at any time. The government is equally able to change the law such that it could place a tax on all retirement funds ( Ex. It could decide to tax money withdrawn from a Roth IRA if it passed a new law ) or any income. However, changing the law in such a way would have dramatic backlash similar ( IMO ) to what we would see from a dramatic change in Social Security rules. Equally in both cases, you have to trust that the gov't won't just show up and take what is yours. | cmv |
I believe that Nelson Mandela is not a hero and has destroyed South Africa. CMV | You're looking at a success story, finding the flaws and commenting on how it deviates from perfection. Nothing is perfect, there is not a single event that can be pointed to where someone will not find faults. What you are not measuring, what you are ignoring is how badly things can go in the fragile post independence period. For a counter example look at Zimbabwe and that will give you a clearer idea of what a remarkable achievement Nelson Mandela's leadership has been. Some of his major successes that he achieved is managing to end apartheid without overt violent retribution, showing that power is not to be coveted by giving up the presidency, think George Washington. The man isn't perfect but he has held together a country that could have imploded. | cmv |
I believe that Nelson Mandela is not a hero and has destroyed South Africa. CMV | I think it's amazing Mandela was able to end the practice of apartheid without triggering a civil war, a genocide, large - scale retributive attacks, or large - scale terrorism. I don't know if anyone else could have done that. He had a gift of being able to walk into a room with his worst enemies, talk to them, and leave the room with an understanding that is incredibly rare. I think that if he hadn't existed, it most likely would have turned into a bloodbath that would have lasted decades ; there are plenty of examples of that happening in other parts of the world, and frankly both sides were ready and prepared to go to war over apartheid. I would agree with you that especially after he left office, the ANC became corrupt and took some problematic policies ; major changes in power are often quite difficult like that. But I still think he was a hero, and that he saved South Africa from a much, much worse fate then it would have had without that. | cmv |
I believe that Nelson Mandela is not a hero and has destroyed South Africa. CMV | The majority of violence and thugery were actually committed under his ex - wife Winnie's direction. She has always been much more of a radical. In 1986 as she delivered a speech in Soweto where she endorsed the practice of "Necklacing" - the act of burning people alive using car tires and petrol". She was quoted as saying "with our collective boxes of matches and tires, we shall liberate this country" As well as many charges of theft and fraud, she is also tied into murder charges as well. Source I can't comment very much on what Nelson has or hasn't accomplished. I simply don't know enough about his leadership to have an informed opinion. | cmv |
Family, not race, gender, religion, culture, or society, shapes individuals'viewpoints, attitudes, and personalities the most. CMV. | Family is obviously extremely important. But it's not as if all of these factors are totally separate. Family is influence by religion, culture, society, and religion. So these different factors influence family so does that mean they supersede family? No they are all extremely important and it is impossible to qualify which has the strongest influence. | cmv |
Family, not race, gender, religion, culture, or society, shapes individuals'viewpoints, attitudes, and personalities the most. CMV. | Family is informed by race, gender, religion, culture, and society ( likewise, all of these things inform each other ). You are correct - ish, but don't flesh it out - none of these things are a monolith, and none of these things affect everybody in the same way. Everybody is a special snowflake. And people change all the time. Gender used to not be something that influenced me in any way ( all the way down to people thinking I was gay, even though I am not ). One errant / r / AskMen post later, BAM. I'm an MRA now and gender influences me. Likewise, my family means so much to me. But they don't understand why I am somewhat passionate about mens issues ( I had a great family ; not everything was perfect mind you, but we all tried our damnedest ). The problem with your view is that you see things as these monolithic things influencing everybody equally ( that is, with similar / same amounts of force ). | cmv |
I believe that everyone is bisexual. CMV | While many or even most people probably have a degree of gayness and straightness in them, claiming that ALL people do makes no sense. Exhibit A : I'm a lesbian with zero attraction ( and quite a physical aversion ) to men. I'd rather be celibate my entire life than be with a man romantically or sexually, and I have a super high sex drive. I don't fantasize about men, watch porn with men in it or have sex with men. Gay male sex and hetero sex gross me out equally because of the male bodies involved. Don't hate men at all, I just have an aversion to their bodies. | cmv |
I believe that everyone is bisexual. CMV | So can a person be sexually attracted to someone on - line? Cause if all we're really interested in is one's personality, but restricted by taboo ( or whatever ) then it'd seem to follow... Is this just a clever method of instigating cyber - sex? ; ) | cmv |
I believe that everyone is bisexual. CMV | So say we represent your view by a spectrum. - 100 is totally straight, 0 is bisexual with no preference, and 100 is totally gay. In your view it is impossible that anyone can be 100 % straight or 100 % totally gay, but they can arbitrarily be 99 % gay or 99 % straight. Doesn't that seem... Well, arbitrary? I agree with the idea that most peoples'sexuality falls somewhere in the middle of totally gay and totally straight but don't see why this has to preclude the possiblity. | cmv |
I believe that a man is somebody with a penis and a woman is somebody with a vagina. CMV. | There's a difference between sex and gender, and sexual orientation and gender orientation. This is such a trite topic anyways. I will just link you to one of the dozens of other CMVs on the same topic. This really shouldn't be CMV, but teach me about transgender. | cmv |
I believe that a man is somebody with a penis and a woman is somebody with a vagina. CMV. | I know you said you're not referring to hermaphrodites, but how would you personally categorize someone with a mixture of penis and vagina? Or how would you categorize someone who somehow lost their penis or vagina ( such as through an accident or surgery ), and now has neither? Would you say that these people are neither men nor women, or do you actually use some other characteristic—besides just genitalia—to make that call? | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.