summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe that a man is somebody with a penis and a woman is somebody with a vagina. CMV. | Most people have covered the basics ( difference between gender and sex etc ) but I'd like to challenge your idea that it's just people who don't fit into society's expectations as some actually do. There are transmen who are feminine and there are transwomen who are masculine. But they still know that they are not what their genitals suggest even though their behaviour matches what society has ascribed as the " natural " behaviour for someone with their genitals. | cmv |
I believe that a man is somebody with a penis and a woman is somebody with a vagina. CMV. | First of all, word thing.'Intersex'is a broad category of medical conditions that involve a person having ambiguous genitalia or aspects of both male and female physiology that ultimately mean that the person in question cannot be neatly defined as either male or female. It does not mean transgender or transsexual. There seems to be a common misperception that transgender people simply don't feel comfortable conforming to society's gender roles and therefor assume they must be the opposite gender. This is not the case at all. It can be difficult for a person who is comfortable with their body and assigned gender to understand, but gender identity is something separate and apart from societal gender role. Quite frankly, there is a lot of misinformation and prejudice around transgender people. If a transgender person could be happy simply viewing themselves as a non - conforming man or woman, don't you think they would and therefor avoid the judgement of the people around them? It takes very real distress at one's assigned gender and / or one's body to go through all the difficulty, expense, and social ostracization of trying to change it. | cmv |
I believe that a man is somebody with a penis and a woman is somebody with a vagina. CMV. | Okay, I think I see where the issue lies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I I think your main issue is that you can't see why some people insist they have a gender that doesn't match their sex, when gender expression has become pretty fluid, right? So, it's important to note here that gender expression and gender are not the same thing. As a trans person, I can tell you that it has nothing to do with society's expectations of gender. If I was on a deserted island, I'd still be a girl. I might express it differently, but I would nonetheless be female. It's like how in different societies, things like distress or approval may be expressed differently, e. g. with different words or signals, but it's still the same idea. Also I think that others in the thread have sufficiently addressed that sex and gender are separate, so I'll leave that alone unless you have questions about that that you wish to ask me too. | cmv |
I believe that a man is somebody with a penis and a woman is somebody with a vagina. CMV. | Does that mean you'd consider a post - op transexual to be the gender the surgeon has reassigned them to? Everything from Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome to Klinefelter syndrome has blurred the line between male and female on a physiological level, and those conditions mean we have to take seriously the idea that psychological gender identity is real as well. ( And then there are the lobsters ) It might be genetic, or pre - natal, or something else, but the male / female self - identity is clearly more complicated than the plumbing. | cmv |
Living in almost any European country is vastly superior to living in America. CMV | I live in Germany, but I'm from the US. I think everyone here has made some good arguments, but let me just say two things : 1 ) America's economy and population are growing faster than Europe, both of which are good things for the future of the US and a challenge facing Europe. 2 ) In comparably nice parts of Europe, like Germany, things just aren't very different. People here eat fast food all the time, go to Walmart equivalents, complain about their health insurance, they drive cars... day to day life is basically the same. Americans get slightly less time off work, Europeans have slightly longer commute times, it's all a wash. There are some differences, but saying that the US is worse in any substantive way says ( a ) you haven't seen much of the US, ( b ) you haven't seen much of Europe, or ( c ) both. | cmv |
Living in almost any European country is vastly superior to living in America. CMV | All nice on paper, but perhaps you try actually living in southern / eastern europe before making such a bold claim ( if you have then I apologise ). Sure, people perhaps have certain additional mandated benefits, but factoring quality of pay with respect to buying power, many people are forced to work 2 jobs to sustain themselves and still have to live with parents to afford living costs. This was the situation in Italy where I worked ( even with those with higher education and respectable employment ), which if anything is one of the better - faring nations. What good are benefits then? What you are discussing are nice concepts, but they don't translate into a higher quality of life at all. | cmv |
Living in almost any European country is vastly superior to living in America. CMV | I have to ask about point 9. What the hell is " voluntary " infant circumcision? An infant can't volunteer. Unless you mean " voluntary " from the parent's point of view? But that's how it works in America AFAIK, it's not like the government forces you to get your child circumcised even if the parents are against it. | cmv |
Living in almost any European country is vastly superior to living in America. CMV | In Europe, college is free, but only the academically gifted get to go to college. It's not viewed as a right that everyone gets to go, and ensures the money is more likely to be well - spent. I remember one " high - school " final exam in English as a foreign language that a large portion of American high school students probably couldn't pass. Depending on your opinion on the subject this could be helping to change your view, or supporting it. | cmv |
Living in almost any European country is vastly superior to living in America. CMV | Criticizing America's military budget is a little bit hypocritical. European military budgets are small precisely because America's is so huge, not because of " more evolved " European priorities or sensibilities. In the wake of WWII, the United States assumed the responsibility of defending the free world from aggression and meddling from the USSR and its allies / satellites, and this meant spending a ton on its military. This left Europeans free to prioritize their welfare states because their sugar daddy - - err, I mean... ally and " equal " partner the United States was always guaranteed to step in and defend them no matter what happened. If the U. S. hadn't been willing to bear that burden, Europeans would've either had to sack up and spend more on defense or risk getting steamrolled by the advance of the Iron Curtain. Also, Europe's economy right now is anemic and is poised to grow at a slower pace than almost any other region of the world in the near future - - certainly not as well as the United States. There is less economic inequality, but there's also higher levels of unemployment, lingering uncertainty about the Euro, crippling youth unemployment, and an incompetent, out of touch set of officials handling monetary / budgetary policy. Europe has spent the last few years murdering its citizens with austerity for no real appreciable benefit. It's a good thing so many Europeans enjoy robust social safety nets, because they need them to protect themselves from their politicians'vindictive attempts to " fix " things that have left their economies worse off than before. | cmv |
I believe that without a unified organized revolution carried out by the citizens of this country, the United States will crumble within my lifetime ( I'm 36 ). Please CMV!!! | You should read " The Progress Paradox, " by Gregg Easterbrook. It explains the way you're thinking. There is scientific evidence that the way you are thinking is a product of evolution. The feeling that, even though things are getting unquestionably better, we are " in trouble " or " near collapse ". | cmv |
I believe that without a unified organized revolution carried out by the citizens of this country, the United States will crumble within my lifetime ( I'm 36 ). Please CMV!!! | $ 17tn debt is not terrible compared to GDP. Discussing debt without discussing GDP is like saying a 200lb person is fat without knowing his height. Right now, US debt is 73. 6 % of GDP, better than Japan, Italy, Portugal, Iceland, Singapore, Belgium, France, UK, Spain, Canada, Germany, and Austria. Second, your statement about other countries'calling their debt'is impossible.'Calling their debt'would be equivalent to you asking for 10 years of bank account interest right now, or your bank asking for all your mortgage payments right now. It's just now how the system works. | cmv |
I believe that without a unified organized revolution carried out by the citizens of this country, the United States will crumble within my lifetime ( I'm 36 ). Please CMV!!! | The odd thing about your rhetoric around the second amendment, to me, is that recent years have shown a tremendous strengthening of gun rights. It was only in 2008 that the US Supreme Court held, for the first time, that the second amendment protected a personal individual right ( rather than a collective right residing in the militia ) ; they'd never said that before. It was only in 2010 that the US Supreme Court held, for the first time, that the personal individual right to bear arms was incorporated against the states by the fourteenth amendment. Legal challenges to gun control regimes are slowly working their way through the courts and are winning. And while there was a lot of rhetorical support from politicians for increased gun control after Sandy Hook... it didn't happen, on a national level, because increased gun control is unable to get through Congress. They didn't even vote on it. | cmv |
I think the very fact that marijuana is so widely accepted makes it more dangerous than'harder'drugs, CMV | Alcohol is even more dangerous than marijuana because of it's acceptance. So we need to get rid of the discrimination of acceptance of recreational drugs in order to minimise their harm. There are 2 ways to do this. 1 / Outlaw all recreational drugs including alcohol and marijuana and tobacco. 2 / Make all of them legal. Both have issues, as a libertarian, it seems option 2 is the better solution. | cmv |
I think the very fact that marijuana is so widely accepted makes it more dangerous than'harder'drugs, CMV | It is nearly physically impossible to overdose on Marijuana, not one reported case of an actual OD from it ( through other complications sure, but not purely caused by over consumption of Marijuana ). Every other hard drug literally eats away at the body, killing it slowly, or quickly if too much is taken. So how is Marijuana dangerous? | cmv |
I think the very fact that marijuana is so widely accepted makes it more dangerous than'harder'drugs, CMV | With wide acceptance comes education on the matter. If someone wants to try drugs, soft or hard, they will. The best thing we can do is teach them the safe way to enjoy whatever they're trying. | cmv |
I think the very fact that marijuana is so widely accepted makes it more dangerous than'harder'drugs, CMV | Alcohol and cigarettes don't cause damage because they're accepted - - they cause damage because they're abused. A lot of the trouble that marijuana causes, like the harder drugs, is linked to the fact that it is still illegal in many places, and heavily tied to criminal activity. In this sense, becoming more widely accepted will open up more ways to acquire it legitimately ( reducing drug - related gang violence ), and spur discussion on the responsible use of drugs ( I mean, just see how well abstinence - only sex ed works at preventing teen pregnancy ). Of course, by opening it up to more people, you do increase the chances that people will use it irresponsibly. I'll certainly agree with you there. | cmv |
I think the very fact that marijuana is so widely accepted makes it more dangerous than'harder'drugs, CMV | Something " being accepted " is not a reason for it being harmful. The marijuana legalization movement is prevalent because more information is becoming available that's showing not only the harmlessness of it, but also showing the harm caused by the prohibition of it. It's blatantly obvious to marijuana supporters that the current drug laws are giving business to the true criminals of the drug trade and imprisoning the casual users... which is unfair and detrimental to the justice system. Marijuana legalization is widely accepted because it makes sense and it's a serious issue. | cmv |
I disagree with the concept of inheritance, CMV | One motivation for people to work hard is so that they can give their children and grandchildren a better life. That's a pretty strong motivation imo. Also, since your argument seems to be against the very rich passing down their money, what's to stop them from giving most of their money to their kids before they die? The people who would be hurt by this are the middle class. The ones who have some money to leave to their kids, but don't have the resources the wealthy do to give it to their kids before they die. And what about something like jewelry? If a necklace or something has been in my family for generations, why does the government have the right to take it from me? Is cheaper jewelry ok to pass down but after it's worth a certain amount then I need to give it to the government? | cmv |
I disagree with the concept of inheritance, CMV | Well the bottom line is whether or not people have a right to private ownership. If they do, then how they choose to use this property should be their own decision and theirs alone. Neither you nor the state have any right to judge who is the beneficiary of my charity and you shouldn't force me to pay a grossly disproportionate tax just because the money is there. | cmv |
I disagree with the concept of inheritance, CMV | Parents should be able to use their money for the sake of their children while they're alive, right? Why not after they're dead? I agree with you that it can get a bit absurd at the high end of the spectrum, leading to the perpetuation of ( for all practical purposes ) an entrenched oligarchy ( which is why most countries implement inheritance taxes... ), but that's not because it's necessarily bad in principle. Imagine someone whose parents die when he's 17, leaving him a modest sum of money - - how is it a bad thing that this inheritance will allow him to pay his way through college, buy a car, make a down payment on a house, etc? | cmv |
I disagree with the concept of inheritance, CMV | What is your stance on parents giving gifts to children while they are alive? To properly end inheritance you must also find a way to prevent parents from giving their children things of value while they are alive. If you don't, parents will just gift their children property when they get old or sick, and you will really only be ending inheritance for children of parents who die suddenly and unexpectedly. | cmv |
I disagree with the concept of inheritance, CMV | A big argument that I haven't seen mentioned here is incentive. Oftentimes, one of the biggest motivators for a parent to work hard isn't to give him or herself a better life, it's to give their children a better life. Destroying inheritance would kill that incentive. Another problem is your view of the wealthy elite. In all honestly, my father would probably count as a member of that elite. His parents, however, worked in a car factory for generations and discouraged him from going to college because it would hinder his chances at getting a job with the rest of his family. Of the 10 richest people in America, seven made their wealth themselves, and the three who inherited it are first generation rich ( the children of the Walton family, Wall - Mart ). I agree that being well off drastically increases your chances of earning money, but redistribution of wealth, well, doesn't really work. | cmv |
I disagree with the concept of inheritance, CMV | Essentially this means that it is illegal to give money to another person. This would also give people approximately zero incentive to make any long term investments, and instead they would just blow the money on a bunch of high dollar toys. As we know, investment is generally a good thing, and contributes to a strong economy, probably more so than welfare. Its all just going to be taken when they die, so they might as well enjoy it while they have it. Then once it's taken, a large amount of it will be eaten up by state bureaucracy before it ever goes to anything useful. If it ever does. | cmv |
We need a major war, revolution or a natural disaster to start humanity on the right track. CMV. | A disaster is likely to make things worse. Governments will crack down on dissent and use military grade weapons to control their populace. Authoritarian governments love wars. They are a chance to nationalize many businesses, get people to work together for the greater good. That was part of what national socialism was about. They wanted people to unite behind the banner of nationalism to help them achieve their authoritarian socialist goals. What we need is tools for the people to do small and cumulative improvements. | cmv |
We need a major war, revolution or a natural disaster to start humanity on the right track. CMV. | If you compare the countries and cultures of today's world to even those 50 years ago, and especially those 100 years ago, we have gone through simply massive massive improvements. No, nothing is perfect, and some things are going bad, but there are simply lots of facts to support that humanity can and is moving in the right direction. For an example, did you know that violent crime in the U. S. is at a 40 year low? Also, the green movement is growing majorly. People are starting to live more healthy lives. | cmv |
We need a major war, revolution or a natural disaster to start humanity on the right track. CMV. | Start over? You mean pushing humanity back to the 13th century or earlier. Everything you take for granted : Computer / Internet, cars, air conditioning, movies, music, quality education, would be gone. Take a look at some of the worsts place in Africa, now extend that globally. Constant wars between hundreds of groups, disease, corrupt overlords, massively uneducated populace, women and children sold into sex slavery, mass ethnic religious or racial killings, mass paranoia and hopelessness, spree - killing lunatics roaming everywhere freely. How could one possibly start over from that? This sounds like the ramblings of a cynic / misanthrope who wants to see all humans eradicated. You don't want change, you want an extermination so don't even try to deny it. | cmv |
I think that the War on Drugs could be won ( nearly non - existant drug use ) if we got very serious about it ; CMV | I agree that the war on drugs could be won. I disagree that tough love laws like this would help at all. Legalizing drugs, regulating them and taxing them, and using the income to provide extensive rehab, would probably take us halfway along the path. My biggest questions is why would we do that? Who cares if people use some recreational drugs if we made it safer than alcohol? | cmv |
I think that the War on Drugs could be won ( nearly non - existant drug use ) if we got very serious about it ; CMV | There already are countries where drug trafficking is a capital offense. Afghanistan is one of these countries and yet something like 85 % of the world's illicit opioids ( including heroin ) originate there. You can't legislate away demand for a product, and if you try all you do is create a black market of suppliers who operate dangerously and for outrageous profit. And do you honestly believe that your policies are something that should be implemented in the US or any other country? Why? The US is supposed to be a free country and that means that we are sovereign over our own bodies and no one can tell us what we can and can't put inside them, so long as we don't injure others. | cmv |
I think that the War on Drugs could be won ( nearly non - existant drug use ) if we got very serious about it ; CMV | This is like saying " I have a solution to our education problems. Lets shoot the dumb kids! " You're saying that you have an issue with people saying the War on Drugs can't be won, even though you yourself admit that it could only hypothetically be won? | cmv |
I think that the War on Drugs could be won ( nearly non - existant drug use ) if we got very serious about it ; CMV | Aham. And what would you do when dollar drops because the economy falls aparte because you just sent 9 % of the population to death row? There's no such think as a war on drugs, it never has been, is a bs term invented by and idiot who got to be president. There's only massive detention and jailing of communities and people. The US hosts more prisoners per capita than any country ever, and they made an industry out of it. You need to learn some constitutional rights, international human rights, and common sense to make sucha silly statement. You could be acused of a drug crime just for having meds in an unmarked container and not being able to find the precription. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I feel that people should overthrow the US Government. | We have a method of changing things : Start a political party and gain enough popular support to make the government change what it is doing. This doesn't necessarily mean that you must divert votes away from the big two. A minor party can educate voters, draw attention to issues, and endorse a candidate from one of the big two. Overthrowing the government will only lead to the destruction of democracy because an unelected minority would hold power over the majority. | cmv |
I think American's attitude towards foreign human - rights issues are not only condescending but harmful to the propagation of real change CMV | I want to make sure I understand you here : are you saying that the approach of the American government towards foreign human - rights issues is condescending and harmful? Or are you extending that criticism to the American people, as a whole, including the activities of the various nonprofits that engage in sorts of meddling ranging from Bible distribution to vaccination to food aid to targeted microloans? If the former, you may have a case : if the latter, I think you're painting with an unjustifiably broad brush, since obviously some groups will be clueful and constructive while others will be clueless and harmful. | cmv |
I believe that both Feminism and the MRM are preferentialist and exclusionary. CMV | People are motivated to fight for their own rights. Not only that, but people understand their own needs better than others. Much of the complaints of feminism are that men have made, and continue to make, decisions about women's welfare for them. It is therefore only natural that the women's rights movement is populated mostly by women, and it would be counter - productive if that were not the case. The Men's Rights Movement is in a similar situation. It's certainly good to come together in support of a cause, and you do see both men and women protesting anti - abortion laws and the like, but when each gender is defining what it is they want, they need to speak for themselves, and not be spoken for. | cmv |
I believe that some women deserve to be hit. CMV | The point that there are plenty of women stronger then plenty of men is an interesting one. I think argument fails in the biology. Testosterone builds muscle, estrogen builds flexibility. It is unethical for men to use strength to hurt women just as it would be unethical for women to use flexibility to hurt men. I am not sure how a woman would do that, but there you go. | cmv |
I believe that some women deserve to be hit. CMV | I think the view has to be changed completely, rather than stating some women deserve the ole slap up. ( Of course I'm assuming you strictly mean western women, because quite frankly most other cultures are perfectly okay with hitting women. In fact it is even encouraged with some cultures. ) What makes more sense too is that you should change your view from, " Ya know some women need ta'be smacked. " too a viewpoint were we should not hit other grown people period, and perhaps handle situations through a more conversational manner. | cmv |
I believe that some women deserve to be hit. CMV | It's okay to hit men in many situations where it would not be okay to hit women. This is a weird and undesirable double standard ; I agree with you there. I just don't see how you've determined that you should be able to hit women in those situations. The obvious conclusion is that you shouldn't be able to hit men. | cmv |
I believe that some women deserve to be hit. CMV | There is only really one condition under which I'd hit anyone and that is to disable them to prevent further harm to myself. I don't care what gender they are in this instance, if a man or woman swings at me and shows intent to continue doing so, I am going to hit them as hard as I can until they can't hit me back. This is a last resort though. If you hit someone for something they say, that displays an immense weakness on your part. | cmv |
I believe that some women deserve to be hit. CMV | It is never right to'hit'anyone, man or woman. Anyone who thinks it is right to hit people has serious mental health issues and is suffering immensely. We are supposed to be civilized human beings not barbarians. | cmv |
I believe that some women deserve to be hit. CMV | No one ever DESERVES to be hit. HITTING someone is the last resort of the feeble minded who are unable to deal with the situation in a non violent manner. I guess it is okay to hit ( male or female ) in self defence. | cmv |
I believe that free speech should not apply to all forms os speech, example, religious hate speech. CMV | Hate speech isn't what you're saying it is. The US has no hate speech laws, but there are laws against inciting violence. Stating that a group of people is inferior, sinful, wicked, or a societal burden is not the same thing as advocating that they be purged. Hate speech laws in their most extreme, like those of Denmark and The Netherlands, prohibit insulting a group of people. If you start trying to protect every group from being offended, that leads to things like anti - blasphemy laws, and laws against disseminating particular types of information to particular groups of people. The prohibition against inciting violence is one thing because it can be tied to a specific activity which is already illegal, but other than that, hate speech is free speech. If I hate someone or a group of people, I have the right to let them and everyone else know. | cmv |
I believe that free speech should not apply to all forms os speech, example, religious hate speech. CMV | You need to allow people to speak their minds in your society, or it creates more problems. Radical minds like the ones you describe are FAR more dangerous when they are oppressed, not when they are free! Hundreds of years ago, oppressed ideas of protestant Christianity or the idea that the earth is round were given far more attention because of they way they were being prosecuted. Nobody takes the American Westboro Baptist Church seriously because we give them the option to say whatever they want, and society listens and realizes it's wrong ( for the most part ). Another dangerous part of this idea is that if you restrict freedom of speech, the government chooses where to draw the line. This goes back to European history. You would make it illegal to say something along the line of " God hates religion X and he wants us to kill their leader " because it encourages violence. In Catholic Europe, that was taken to an extreme. If you said " I don't like the Pope and I think I should be able to worship god in my own way " you were viewed as one of these hateful radicals, and burned at the stake. While limiting freedom of speech in some cases might feel like it could help to eliminate problems, the simple fact is that it exists BECAUSE it is already limiting the problems that are far more prevalent when speech is limited. | cmv |
I believe that free speech should not apply to all forms os speech, example, religious hate speech. CMV | Some speech is oppressive this is for certain. You cannot fight oppression with censorship, you can only fight it with the truth. The reason it is a slippery slope is because I think we should censor all religious talk whatsoever. Still think its a good idea? | cmv |
I believe that free speech should not apply to all forms os speech, example, religious hate speech. CMV | In America we have a Supreme Court Justice who once said that the right to free speech does not give you the right to scream " fire " in a crowded theater. However, religious, and even racial hate speech is protected. This decision was brought forth by a Jewish lawyer defending the rights of Neo - Nazis to parade through a largely Jewish town. Basically, free speech cannot be used to cause panic, just for the sake of causing panic. Those who espouse racial hate speech believe what they are saying though. They may cause negativity, and even panic itself. However, a free government cannot have the right to tell its citizenry what they can and cannot believe in, nor infringe on their right to express those beliefs in a non - violent manner. | cmv |
I believe that free speech should not apply to all forms os speech, example, religious hate speech. CMV | Once the majority is able to silence the opinions of a minority, where does one stop? Now that you have the ability to stop religious hate speech, why not get rid of the next thing that offends the majority of people or " causes problems ". Of course, this could lead to lots of policy that is detrimental to society in the long term. | cmv |
I believe that free speech should not apply to all forms os speech, example, religious hate speech. CMV | I believe a world with free speech that is not completely free speech is an oppressed world. People should be able to speak their mind without being attacked, arrested, or silenced. Nobody can speak and change your beliefs if you don't let them. Nobody can destroy the world with words if you don't let them. | cmv |
I believe that free speech should not apply to all forms os speech, example, religious hate speech. CMV | I want to remind people here that we all live in countries where hate speech of one kind or another is already prohibited by law. You are all asking him " where does it end? " when you actually already know how it ends. We all know how a ban on hate speech plays out, stop acting like you live in some kind of free speech utopia. You are not just arguing against OP here, but also against the law of many western countries. | cmv |
I believe inequality of wealth, political power and fertility is essential for civilization to function. CMV. | You appear to assume that it is purely the working classes who are degrading your perception of high culture. I know plenty of middle / upper class people who watch Jersey Shore and the Real Housewives of Who - the - fuck - cares - where and eat more junk food than they should. In fact most of your argument seems to just consist of mass generalizations based on class. People cannot just be categorized into black and white sections of society. This is simply incorrect. | cmv |
I believe inequality of wealth, political power and fertility is essential for civilization to function. CMV. | Re : Being autonomous and hobbies, how is there a difference between that in netherlands and in other nations? What's your point? Also, there are plenty of lower class people that are autonomous and have hobbies. I don't think the poor are a big market segment for big screen tv sellers. There's no evidence that the poor have lower intelligence than the rich. I don't think the poor in the netherlands fit your description. Now you're arguing for a communist agrarian utopia with state population planning and eugenics... | cmv |
I believe Assange should face trial for the sexual molestation charges in Sweden CMV | I don't think anyone disagrees with you. It's just the fact that there appears to be a high probability that he will be extradited to the US immediately after the molestation trial happened. I don't understand why he can't be tried in absentia, with just his lawyer present in Sweden. If he is found innocent, then he can go free. If he is found guilty, then he can deal with that when it happens : ) | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Many costly private institutions, mostly high schools, colleges, and universities, offer up to 100 % financial aid based on your family's financial status. Your financial status does not affect your chances of acceptance ; admissions are need - blind, and the admissions and financial departments are completely separate. Almost of all of said private institutions even value social class diversity. They are supportive of accepting students born into a poorer family, if their academic merit meets standards. Children born into wealthier families may, however, have better access to prior education, thus boosting their academic merit. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Your idea that no child gets a better education than any other kinda destroys the idea of a meritocracy. If everyone gets the same college education because all colleges are equal then what incentive is there to try at all in high school or any non - college education? Obviously what exists now is a flawed meritocracy where wealth and status have more weight than merit in many cases, but what reason is there to believe that the kid who didn't care in high school will show more effort in college? Or even wants to go? | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | I come from Finland where we not only have free schooling from elementary to PhD, the government pays support for you after you move out so you don't need to take too much loans ( which are already really affordable ). The system is all as good as it sounds, the only problem is, that free education leads to a thing known here as " forever a student ". When there is no incentive to actually graduate you will get a growing group of students that would otherwise drop out. Now we have to remember that these schools are publicly funded, and like with all things publicly funded there needs to be some goals to be met. One of these goals is usually number of graduates per year. When only about 30 % of students can actually reach the masters degree in 5 years ( which should be the aim Source in finnish ), and this not even counting in all the drop outs. Basically free education gives a similar chance to everyone, but the problem rises because not everyone is cut for college education. While liferuining dept is by far one of the incentives to complete their degrees, it at least works. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | If I understand you correctly, you're proposing that to eliminate educational inequality, all schools should have equal financial resources ( at least proportional to the number of students attending them ), as inequality arises mainly from wealthy people operating in their own private educational system. If we assume that the system worked as you said, there would still be a lot of inequality in outcomes because financial resources are just one dimension of the problem. Simply put, well - off families are able to provide environments more conducive to learning than poor households : nutrition, health care, social interactions, expectations, connections, involvement, and so on. Kids in comfortable suburbs can focus on learning and their interests instead of being preoccupied with Mommy not being able to afford food after losing her second job or Daddy being sent off to prison. Additionally, children from poor families are already at a huge disadvantage when they first enter school because their environment didn't stimulate their brain development to the same level as their wealthier counterparts. Access to school is just one component of the problem ; you need a broad approach to solve inequality. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | What makes private schools better is that there is far more money spent per student, and the high pay attracts top teaching talent. Your goal of every student receiving an excellent education is pretty idealistic and ignores some basic financial realities. You seem to be approaching this from the idea that some people currently think poor people shouldn't be well educated... which isn't the case. If all schools were free to attend, their quality would drop, because the amount of spending per student would drop to cope with the influx of students. High quality faculty would be dispersed across the system instead of lured to a single school by high localized salaries, and the commensurate effect of lots of excellent teachers focused on a select few students would be lost. You also have the disruptive effect of people who would otherwise not attend school, doing so anyway because it's free. Are these people being given a housing and food allowance as well? I'll assume so, because otherwise we're still dealing with the inequity you seem to want to fix. With that, you then have to deal with people simply attending school for free money. There are certainly ways to combat that, but that leads to its own problems with a ballooning bureaucracy and added system inefficiency. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | I understand your concern, and you did address it briefly in the text, but you need to rethink your definition of " free. " Nothing is free. What you are talking about requires sacrifice on someone's part. Either universities start working for no pay, or we pay for the entire thing with tax dollars. What exactly is the advantage of all schools being equal? It's rather optimistic to assume that that means they'd all rise to the level of the best schools. In reality, for every school that is brought UP by that equality, another is brought down from excellence. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Guaranteeing equality does not necessitate an improvement. The wide range of quality improves the overall condition of the educational system. mandating equality tends to force the superior outliers to conform to a lower standard, not the inferior outliers to a greater standard, look at how NCLB workout for our educational system. Equalizing all schools would lead to a number of problems. Imagine a system where all schools had the same quality education, the same level of academics performance. Any student who was beneath that level would be unable to succeed in school. Any student who was above that medium would have their academic progress throttled. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Education is mighty important but in my experience I felt alone between students who didn't really care. They had wasted the money of their parents and or government on sitting around. But there must be a better way!! | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | The French public school system works that way, and the result isn't quite convincing. The most prestigious french schools ( like Sciences Po Paris, ENA, Centrale, La Sorbonne... ) are public schools. What happens is that other factors come in, like / u / the | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | P1 Taxation is the state forcing a person to give up part of his wealth P2 Forcing a person to give up part of his wealth is theft. P3 Theft is immoral P4 Immorality should be avoided P5 What you propose requires taxation--- C What you propose should be avoided | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | I lived in a country where all education was free. I was even getting paid a stipend while attending university. The quality of education was good, and the fact that it was free was a nice touch. Unfortunately there is no such thing as free lunch. Somebody still has to pay for it. The government that paid teachers'salaries took this money from my parents by paying them way less than free market would ( most jobs were controlled by the government, so the government set salaries ). The government also was notoriously inefficient, wasting money and resources. So I would rather pay for education directly rather than pay the government and let it pay for the education. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | I haven't looked through every comment in this post, so I'm not sure if this has been posted. I can see having free schools actually making the gap between rich and poor worse. You would end up with a system where anyone can say " I want my kid to go to this school with this reputation " regardless of income / social group. At that point, you end up with every social group and economic group mixed together, which, lets be honest, just adds to the opportunity for kids to say " I'm rich, therefore I'm better than you " and start more social divide. Sure, the education offered may be on par with all schools, but who is more likely to learn the most, someone who is picked on and shunned for being the poor kid surrounded by rich kids, or groups of people who all have the same background? It's not the right thing to say, but unfortunately, this is how our society has evolved. A kid who goes to school in beat up jeans and a t - shirt isn't going to want to go to school and get picked on / bullied by the rich kids in Polo and Ralph Lauren, negating any benefits from " equal education ". Instead, they're going to grow to hate school and possibly drop out ( if not cause a lot of fights or other issues ) and possibly take away from those who actually want to learn and be in school. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Making students who go to good schools go to sucky schools wouldn't wouldn't do anything for the students who already attend the sucky schools because parents who send their children to private schools still have to pay taxes to fund public schools. It would only harm the education of those who would normally go to private school. We would have less educated children and society would suffer as a whole. Essentially that whole " spreading the misery, not spreading the wealth " argument against communism. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | So let me get this straight : in order to create equality, people should be barred from spending their own money on their kids education? They should instead be spending it on important stuff, right? Things like iPads and TVs, not something so frivolous as their children's future. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Hey OP, I don't argue that only having public schools would be a bad thing in terms of closing the education gap. I think that good points have been raised already regarding the actual implementation as well as the potential outcomes. However, I think a different issue is the one of parental freedoms. Why as a parent should I be forced to send my child to receive a certain type of education? Is it the governments place to tell me how my child must be educated? If I have the resources that would enable my child to receive a better education and thus have an increased probability of achieving a certain standard of living, why am I not allowed to? | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | I'd imagine your student loans would be what drew you to this argument. Just remember, if the government pays for it, the government doesnt produce a damned thing. You'll be the one that feels it in your taxes. So that student loan crush? that will be your burden to carry as long as you continue to pay taxes. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | " Subsidizing the training of veterinarians, beauticians, dentists, and a host of other specialized skills - - as is widely done in the United States in governmentally supported educational institutions - - cannot be justified on the same grounds as subsidizing elementary education or, at a higher level, liberal education. " Education cannot be free and equal at the same time. But it can be fair and at a variable value that adjusts to the market | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | What would stop me from getting 10 masters degrees and spending my life as a student? Relatively little stress, 4 - 6 hours a day of'work'that is not mind numbingly boring and I meet new cool people every day? What would stop me from creating a university that pays lecturers $ 200k a year from taxpayers money? I want to go to university, they charge a price, I can or can not pay it. Why should someone else pay?'Because rich kids can go to Ivy league'is not an argument. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | If the government promised a blank cheque to pay for any and all school fees then I imagine schools would raise prices a lot. Plus, most of the good schools are in expensive areas where homes are costly. It doesn't matter what the government funds if all the schools nearby are crap. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | So besides grotesquely raising taxes for everyone whether they're in - school or not, this will also greatly reduce the efficiency of education across the board. Why? Well your solution to this of " giving money based on the amount of students attending " is very similar to a charter system. The issue with it, is that smaller schools will be underfunded, which will screw over the education of the students. Larger schools won't be able to make as efficient use of that funding, because a school's expenses are larger than just paying the teacher's salaries. More kids means more administration, more building space, more transportation, more food, and other expenses. The issue with this system is that costs like these aren't linear, and neither is the benefit of them. In the end you're just ending up screwing over the students who want a better education, in an attempt to help those who don't. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | People already take out huge loans to go to school, and the dropout rate is unacceptable. Free education would result in overutilization, without the attendant increase in quality necessary to support that. The result? Dilution and debt. K - 12 should be free and high - quality. I would argue that college should not be unless there's a push for credits earned through MOOCs. If you increase pressure, you must have release valves. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Competition and other key market forces drive down costs and increase quality in industries where there are mostly free markets. This results in better quality and more access for even the poorest people. There is no reason to believe education / schooling is any different. Certainly a case can be made for providing for poorest people who can't afford it themselves ( although I still think such arguments are weak ), but to make all levels of all of a product or service fully tax - payer funded is to hamstring innovation and efficiency. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | In the US, something like 40, 000 people graduate from law school every year, but there's only like 20, 000 law jobs available each year, which means lots of law school grads aren't ever going to get a legal job. If law school were free, even more people would presumably go. My question is, why should I pay for all these people to go to law school, when the country doesn't need all those lawyers? It wouldn't stop inequality since most of the best jobs would probably still go to Harvard and Yale grads. It would just give people 3 years of free education that they'll probably never use. It seems like the biggest effect of this would be that colleges would just become massive boondoggles. They'd get people to sign up for some minimal amount of education then overcharge the government. If I could I'd take a university class for the hell of it one semester, do it for free and the school can get another $ 10, 000 from the government for it... what's the use to society of that? If it costs the school only $ 5, 000 for me to take the class, and even that seems like a stretch, then they can give me various perks in order to attend, basically making it negative cost for me, and then not even care if I actually show up or anything. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | How far would we need to force the inequality? What about after - school programs? What about private tutors? What private institutions giving specialized classes such as Computer Training from Microsoft? How about activities during summer break? A rich child has access to books, summer camps that teach etc. A poor child has TV and Facebook. What about religious schools? Not everyone wants to go to them but rich people might find it better because its more specialized and higher level of standards and eventually they will become the " new private schools ". | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Part of the issue is that many people pay for private schooling not simply because they can afford it, but because of the alternate curriculum offered by the private school. They're willingly choosing to pay extra in addition to the tax dollars that supports their local public schools. Since it's a choice, under your system, you would have to make private education illegal. However, since people will still want alternative education, private schools will move underground. So you cannot overlook the costs of investigating and enforcing the new laws. Then there's the cost of adding all the private school kids to the public rolls. Expenses will rise due to the the influx of new students and new teachers. Those higher expenses will hit everyone in the tax district, and not just the people who previously opted for private school. So everyone's taxes will have to go up to cover the additional expense of students who previously weren't an expense to the district. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | It used to be like that where I was born, nobody pays ANYTHING until university ( now university got more expensive because of the crisis, but still " affordable " if your parents are middle class ) I heard in Finland is totally free and equal everywhere, and it's working great. Are you american? Does it sound so weird for americans? When I read about student loans and debts, or the impossibility to go to university it just sounds weird to me. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Who decides what it taught and what is not? Some people don't like the public school curriculum and this is where private education comes in. Besides, you have already agreed that homeschooling would be ok. Is it really that big of a stretch between homeschooling and private education? I think what you are saying is there should be a government program that would pay for private education of children by and accredited school if their parents don't agree with public school curriculum. This would make sense since those parents did pay taxes to have their kids educated. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Although the idea seems like a good one, I don't see how it can be enforced. If suppose all schools have equal resources or resources divided by merit, the rich can always create a parallell system based on money. The only way to avoid this is to ban all private tutoring. Now the problem lies in what constitutes " private tutoring ". Is going to a tuition centre after school, for " help " with studies an offence? I believe this will lead to a whole lot of freedom of speech issues. One more issue is, if the government controls the funding for institutions, it will give the government unnecessary control over the content of education. Even if autonomy is ensured for an instituition, by controlling the funds, the govt could control the content. This power might not be misused in the beginning but there is no guarantee that it might not be misused later on. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | It's not that public schools are bad. It's that more students and families that attend public schools are bad. The students create the bad environment, not the other way around. If you think education, or anything, should be free, then you are saying you have a right to forcibly take a good or service from another human being. The teacher must teach, and if they don't want to, that is too bad. Or if the teacher wants to opt out, you are still forcing someone else to pay for something you want. Maybe it is a societal good, sure, but it's like eminent domain - the public can take away private property, goods, or services for the public good. Then there should be no such thing as property rights. It is robbery, even if you think it's morally justified. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Lower - class people enroll in higher education far less than higher - class people. " Free " education means education is funded by the taxpayer. Free education means lower - class people, by paying for something they benefit less from, subsidize the rich. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | This is already the case in Sweden. A couple of years ago it became illegal to charge for ANYTHING school related. Lunch and enrolment was already free, but now you can't charge for class trips and such either. There is still a schoolwise gap between rich and poor though, as they live in different places and the schools are run by the municipalities ( there are a few private schools, but not many, and they're still free to attend ). This means that places where rich people live can afford better schools. The gap is smaller, but still exists. | cmv |
I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Should you be allowed to hire a tutor? If so, could you hire a tutor for 8 hours a day? Are you allowed to know more than the school system will teach you? What if the school system becomes corrupt? Also, I don't see how this would stop the differences between schools since much of that is a problem of socioeconomic geography separation and local tax collection. | cmv |
I believe no crime deserves the death penalty. Cmv | You will change your mind when you have kids. Imagine someone rapes your kid then slowly cuts off their skin with a knife and leaves them die. You would want to personally do the exact same to the monster. | cmv |
I believe no crime deserves the death penalty. Cmv | While there's not really conclusive evidence that it works, he death penalty is supposed to serve as a deterrent - it's not just about justice. Inevitably, innocent people are going to be put to death, just like innocent people are going to serve life in prison. But if the dp could cut 20 % of murders, wouldn't that justify even a 10 % innocent execution rate? You say that it doesn't make anyone feel better, but a lot of people get closure from seeing a murderer put to death. There's a lot of good arguments against the death penalty - the cost, the potential innocents killed, the barbarism f the concept - but I thin its highly likely it has saved enough lives to make it worth the cost. | cmv |
I believe no crime deserves the death penalty. Cmv | I'm to lazy to modify this response to fit this comment so here is my response to a similar comment. If you are going to be logical about all laws consider this. Females at the age of approximately 15 are fully capable of sexual reproduction and sentient beings, would it not be logical to allow them to make their own decision about their sexual behaviour instead of society opinion on the matter being relevant? The whole point of punishment for criminals and jail time is societal justice. If you are going to be completely logical about dealing with criminals you would first attempt to rehabilitate them, and if they started to cost more to society than they are worth you would kill them. If you are going to follow logic in all your decision making then lets take a look at mentally handicapped people they are worth nothing to society and are a huge financial drain on our healthcare system. Logic would dictate that we simply kill them off to put our resources to better use, but we don't do that because of emotion. Compassion, love, hatred, and revenge theses emotions make us human and we have a human's justice system. We are not machines thats why we must keep emotion as part of the decision making process of or laws, or we will be nothing but robots. | cmv |
I believe no crime deserves the death penalty. Cmv | It sounds like you're saying that the death penalty shouldn't be used because we might use it on someone who doesn't deserve it. I don't think this is the same as your position as stated in your subject line. I think that in theory, there absolutely are some crimes that deserve the death penalty. But because of multiple problems in the American criminal justice system, I don't trust us to only use it only on those people. The risk of misusing it are too high, and so in practice I don't think we should use it at all. | cmv |
I believe no crime deserves the death penalty. Cmv | Presumably, it's okay to arrest people and punish them. Some punishments are worse than others. It seems very much like many life sentences, such as ones at very high security prisons, are quite worse than any death sentences. Given that you are okay with life sentences, then, you ought to be okay with death sentences, given that some life sentences are worse than all death sentences. | cmv |
I believe no crime deserves the death penalty. Cmv | I'm an advocate of the Death Penalty and my view was further reinforced recently by a Law & Order episode. A prisoner in remand ( sentenced to life for a previous murder ) escapes from his cell and infiltrates civility ; ends up killing 4 schoolkids in a standoff with police. He is unrepentent and tells the state that he will kill again. In such a case, the Death Penalty can serve to prevent a future injustice. The fact that it placates the general public and restores a semblance of justice is a secondary effect. The Death Penalty should not be a first resort, but it must exist as a final one for serial killers. Outside of a academic / philosophical discussion, the politics of letting a serial killer live has social ramifications | cmv |
I believe that capital punishment is necessary for violent crimes such as murder, mass murder and acts of manipulation that result in murder. CMV | Why should they get a quick death?, wouldn't a long prison stay make them realise that they were wrong to commit a crime? Capital punishment isn't really that much of a deterrent when you think about. People who commit these, very serious, crimes are often desperate. So capital punishment, in many cases, doesn't even put someone off committing a crime. | cmv |
I believe that capital punishment is necessary for violent crimes such as murder, mass murder and acts of manipulation that result in murder. CMV | You could just let them stew in prison for life instead. Prison's dangerous, they'd be going nuts just trying to survive each day. You say one wrong word and someone'll put a knife in you before the day's out. The prisoner you would want to kill would consequently constantly be on edge as a result - except he doesn't know when he'll die. So he may want to die sooner than he would if he were given capital punishment when he'd be waiting for years to die. It's more taxing mentally and physically to imprison them for life instead of killing them. Let them stew. | cmv |
I believe that capital punishment is necessary for violent crimes such as murder, mass murder and acts of manipulation that result in murder. CMV | Is the murder of an innocent person an acceptable risk if our justice system were to make a mistake? I don't have the figures but with plea bargains, something like 40 % of innocent people will confess. Also read this one. He was given ice cream for his confession. | cmv |
I believe that capital punishment is necessary for violent crimes such as murder, mass murder and acts of manipulation that result in murder. CMV | It's more expensive to kill someone than it is to lock them up for the rest of their life. Why should society be in charge of who lives and dies? If you were locked up ( doesn't matter the reason or your guilt ), would you want society to determine if you get to live or die? | cmv |
I believe that capital punishment is necessary for violent crimes such as murder, mass murder and acts of manipulation that result in murder. CMV | I used to think the same way as you until I moved to Japan. In Japan they have capital punishment. They also have a ridiculously high rate of conviction ( 90 % or something ). That is pretty scary when you think about it. Now as a Canadian, we know Canada isn't Japan and our legal system is different. You cannot however make the claim that our justice system is infallible. Because of this some innocent people will be executed. What if that person was you or someone you knew? The government and courts have enough power, they don't need the power to kill as well. | cmv |
I believe that capital punishment is necessary for violent crimes such as murder, mass murder and acts of manipulation that result in murder. CMV | I am assuming from you're post that you are not necessarily asking all convicted murders should face the death penalty, just those who commit the most horrific crimes. The first point I will make is who decides one murder is worse than another. Murder is the ultimate crime and no murder should be classed as worse than another. Our legal system and our ethics, tell us that taking someone's life is the single worst thing a human being can do, even religious people will tell you that only the god they believe in has the flight to take a life. This leads me to my second point, we don't use a legal system that is based upon revenge or the notion of an'eye for an eye '. If the state, in passing laws, concludes that murder is unconditionally unacceptable then how can it justify the taking of a life. I equate it to a parent telling their child that stealing is wrong as they shoplift. The final argument I will give you against capital punishment is that people are wrongly convicted ( I am on a tablet and don't know how to post examples ). Once a death sentence has been carried out there is no coming back. | cmv |
I believe that capital punishment is necessary for violent crimes such as murder, mass murder and acts of manipulation that result in murder. CMV | We can leave aside the arguments about cost and about humane treatment, and go from a different angle : I don't grant the State the right to kill its citizens for any reason. The State is ( in a democracy ) supposed to act in representation of the body politic. That is to say, what the State does, what actions it takes, are theoretically validated by you and your fellow citizens. Every time the State executes someone, it does so in the name of every other citizen. This is essentially mob - murder by a different name. I am unwilling to lend my sanction to a process that notoriously disfavors the poor and people of color, as well as the ever - present worry of executing the innocent. | cmv |
I believe that capital punishment is necessary for violent crimes such as murder, mass murder and acts of manipulation that result in murder. CMV | I don't support capital punishment in the slightest. I'm not saying mass murderers don't deserve death, the problem is that far too many people have been executed, and then later it's discovered they were innocent. That collateral damage is unjustifiable. What are we to say to the family of those people? " Woops, it turns out your husband was innocent all along. My bad.. " | cmv |
I believe that capital punishment is necessary for violent crimes such as murder, mass murder and acts of manipulation that result in murder. CMV | Perhaps you are viewing this from wrong angle. You should consider cause and effect in any instance of violence. Nobody is born evil or good, these are arbitrary terms that have no value in discussion. And if you do consider cause and effect as part of an equation for all violent acts you'll realise that people who commit violent acts can't be held responsible more than you can blame a feral bear killing other animals for food. Only reason why we have this weird " justice " system is because we are all feral beasts and we want revenge rather than see things rationally. In a way, truth hurts, but ignorance is a bliss. | cmv |
I believe that capital punishment is necessary for violent crimes such as murder, mass murder and acts of manipulation that result in murder. CMV | The capital punishment debate is really rooted in the perception that prison should be either used as a punishment or for rehabilitation. I'm firmly in the rehabilitation section so I don't think capital punishment serves much of a purpose. I think, where possible, people in prison should be rehabilitated back into society. Those that cannot should remain in prison. Leaving the beliefs part now you really have to deal with the problem of innocent people being killed by capital punishment. I can see from your post that you abhorre unlawful killings. Do you similarly abhorre an innocent person being killed by capital punishment? With imperfect justice you have to decide effectively how many innocent people you are willing to kill to punish some murderers. Would you let one innocent man be killed to kill 100 murderers? 10? 1? 0? | cmv |
Extremists in the environmental movement cause more problems than they solve and make the rest of us look crazy. CMV | The purpose of extremism is almost never to address a problem directly but to draw attention to it. PETA doesn't throw red paint on one person's fur coat to get rid of that one fur coat, they do it so the news stories about it make people aware that fur coats still get worn and that PETA isn't okay with that. Same for lab animals. Take a more general view : what's the purpose of, say, a suicide bomber ( i. e., maximum religious extremism )? The suicide bomber doesn't think that every infidel can eventually be killed by more suicide bombers. He's making a point, and drawing attention to his cause. Now, does environmental extremism make the perpetrators look like criminals? Yes and no. There's an awareness on all parts that laws are being broken, but there is an arguable difference between criminality and civil disobedience, and people come down on different sides of that for different things. That's the point though : if you create enough awareness and enough people agree with your cause ( if not your means ) then eventually laws get changed, and history fails to remember you as a criminal. | cmv |
Extremists in the environmental movement cause more problems than they solve and make the rest of us look crazy. CMV | The general theory is that extremists made regular activists look reasonable by comparison. The mainstream population is more likely to engage with regular activists once the shock wears off. In the end it's moot. You always get extremists. | cmv |
Extremists in the environmental movement cause more problems than they solve and make the rest of us look crazy. CMV | Too play devil's advocate, I'll provide an argument. Simply put extremism acts sort as a the assassin ninja of the group. ( Morality aside ) They'll tread with where the average person dares not go, and quite frankly where people are usually to scared to go, and sometimes you need someone extreme to change the world. A good example would be Jane Goodall who spent much of her life literally living with chimpanzees, and her life has been dedicated to " extreme " environmentalism. She has very literally changed the entire field of primatology. So in essence extreme can mean two things, extremely good or extremely bad. And I think the examples you have given are only of the extremely bad and extremely uneducated side of extreme environmentalism. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.