summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe that reverence towards the military, has reached an unhealthy, and imbalanced extreme within contemporary Western society. CMV. | I think this would much more reasonably be about the USA specifically rather than the Western world as a whole - I can't think of all that much going on here or with some people I know in other Western countries that comes close to what you're talking about. The biggest news story about the military in Canada recently, for example, is " Did the Prime - Minister and friends lie to the parliament about the costs of some new planes? " The military here takes some funding, sure, but it's hardly as much and even the most militarist party is fairly content with the status quo in that area - indeed they've even been the party to put some cuts in. I remember once in NYC I saw a recruiting booth in Times Square or the area. For reference I'd have to get well out of the city core in a city of some 3. 5 million people to get to the only regular - forces recruiting office in the city. | cmv |
I believe that men should be able to either have a say on abortion or not be held liable for child support. CMV. | The problem with the former rises is what happens when men want abortion when the women don't? Do we force it upon her? Of course not, if you're pro choice you would realize body autonomy is a huge issue here. | cmv |
I believe that men should be able to either have a say on abortion or not be held liable for child support. CMV. | The best point I've seen about this is that men and women are equally responsible for child support once the child is born. The abortion option for women exists because we can't force women or anyone for that matter to support a life form that is biologically dependent on them. That is the justification for abortion, not an unequal right to parenthood | cmv |
I believe increasing the minimum wage would almost single handedly get us out of recession CMV | Increasing minimum wages leads to businesses raising prices on goods, which lowers the value of money vs goods. This means that the minimum wage would have to go up again and again. The effect would diminish soon enough, but you can already see how this solution is complicated because of where the implementation takes place. You'd have all this deadweight loss. One better solution, due to simplicity and minimal deadweight loss, would be to implement Pigouvian taxes on finite resources like natural resources and land ( not property ). This would minimize speculation on these resources and therefore market distortion from artificial scarcity, and so it would change the values of economic rents to reflect their true costs. These taxes would replace the existing tax code, and the revenue could pay for public good infrastructure like universal healthcare, roads, bridges, food aid like subsidized CSAs, and emergency apartments. In an economy like this, wages would reflect the actual value of the labor, which means they would be higher without any regulation. | cmv |
I believe increasing the minimum wage would almost single handedly get us out of recession CMV | "Workers ought not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work! ' they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wages system! '" - Karl Marx | cmv |
I believe increasing the minimum wage would almost single handedly get us out of recession CMV | The financial markets are doing fine right now ; unemployment is the only thing that's really wrong with the economy as a whole. I'd argue that we should increase the minimum wage for other reasons, sure. But it's definitely not going to decrease unemployment, or do anything else for the people who don't have jobs. | cmv |
I believe that liberals will never admit that there is anything wrong with black culture. CMV | I think that many liberal people are perfectly aware of the problems in black culture but perhaps feel that there is not a great deal to be gained by stating the obvious. Merely pointing at a black man and shrieking'You're statistically more likely to commit a crime!'is unlikely to have a positive effect on his life. Many feel that due to the deep rooted nature of some of the issues, a pragmatic, softer approach will prove more effective than shaming. | cmv |
I believe that liberals will never admit that there is anything wrong with black culture. CMV | Are you kidding? Liberals LOVE to flagellate themselves over the evils they've inflicted on Black Culture. They may not place any blame there, but they certainly recognize the existence of the problems. | cmv |
I believe that liberals will never admit that there is anything wrong with black culture. CMV | I'm a liberal and admit there are problems with black culture. There are also problems with white culture. And Chinese, Hispanic, ect. The problem arises when you just focus on one, especially when it is one of your that is not your own race. | cmv |
I believe that liberals will never admit that there is anything wrong with black culture. CMV | First of all, there is not just one black culture, but yeah, " liberals have a primitive and simplistic view about race ". Maybe you refer to ghetto - culture? Then again, depending on which city / neighbourhood that might also include latinos. So. Again, I think the simplistic view, it's you that has it. Let's just assume you're referring to ghetto - culture. Yes that is a problem, as it hinders their own opportunities. | cmv |
I believe that liberals will never admit that there is anything wrong with black culture. CMV | You're generalizing to the extreme here. Not all liberals are one person ( " the liberal mind " - - what. ) Not all black people are the same. There are a lot of cultures within groups of predominantly black people, and there are a lot of black people mixed in with other larger cultures. You're making claims that can't possibly be true because you're assuming all liberals are the same, and the same with all black people. You could more precisely talk about " gang culture " or " drug culture " or " low - income urban Chicago culture ", but talking about " black culture " is making way too many assumptions and you're lumping together too many unique people. Also, not all liberals are asshats that scream racism at every mention of black people. They're just the loudest. Just like not all republicans are white supremacists, but sometimes it looks like it from a liberal's point of view. | cmv |
I believe that liberals will never admit that there is anything wrong with black culture. CMV | When you say " black culture ", I think that you mean " ghetto culture ", which exists in just about every poor community, regardless of race. And what is with all of the anti - liberal rhetoric? You sound like Fox News ; liberals aren't all ultra - annoying genders studies students. | cmv |
I believe that liberals will never admit that there is anything wrong with black culture. CMV | The problem is that talking about " black culture " is a bizarre way to frame the issue. When people complain that bankers and corporations are destroying the country, they don't talk about " white culture ". So most of the time, when someone's talking about black culture, they're implicitly not willing to talk about any kind of systemic discrimination which might influence the behavior of many black people. For instance, how can you talk about a black culture of criminality, without also noting that everyone assumes black people are criminals? | cmv |
I believe that liberals will never admit that there is anything wrong with black culture. CMV | The liberal ideologies you speak of seem to revolve more around the treatment of culture rather than racism. These are two very different things. When racism is specified into types, it is not to blanket racism over everything, but to actively avoid racist blanketing, and more specifically, cultural blanketing. Any casual look into afrocentric thought can explain a lot of past wrongs done to and surrounding black culture in the US, but what is wrong is to dismiss this holistically as black culture. There are specific underlying factors to every story, and what you describe can be better explained as a trap that liberals find themselves in. Cultural issues stem from many different branches, and to address any one issue is to address many branches. The most effective way to deal with any specific problem is to deal with the problem's specific branches, but because we are not looking at the whole tree, we are not blanketing everything as " everything that is racist " or " everything that is wrong with culture x ". As a result it seems as though liberals aren't fighting major causes anymore, but they are. The liberal ideologies you describe admit to intricacies that have to be dealt with as a part of the problem, but the whole problem is understood as too complex to properly address all at once. Liberals fail to address the whole of a problem upon casual observation not because they are avoiding it, but because liberals actively avoid hasty generalizations and blanketed solutions. | cmv |
Pre - existing child pornography should be legal and freely accessible, CMV | First off, for an indecent image to be made, a child HAS to have been abused, so legalising any images is like saying that the abuse that child has suffered and has to live with doesn't matter. When is the cut off point? Is it any indecent imagery made after a certain date or all images created before the time it arrived on a person's computer? Because if it was created 10 minutes ago to now, it is now pre - existing and that means a child was abused 10 minutes ago. Indecent imagery is graded on a 5 point scale ( in the UK anyway ). Say a paedophile is attracted to level five material, should they be able to access images of a child involved with sadism or bestiality? At what level do images stop being supplied? | cmv |
I Think That Strongly Held Beliefs Are Detrimental To Both The Individual Who Holds Them and Society. CMV | You only noted strongly held beliefs in things normally associated with negative consequences - ie religious extremism leads to stoning people to death, extreme nationalism leads to superiority complexes leading to subjugation of others, communism has historically lead to starvation and genocide, alternative medicine to the deaths of children, etc. However, some strongly held beliefs are in things like that " murder is wrong " or the belief that " rape is never tolerable or acceptable. " What are your views on more or less positive beliefs like those? | cmv |
I Think That Strongly Held Beliefs Are Detrimental To Both The Individual Who Holds Them and Society. CMV | I strongly believe that it is wrong to hunt down and kill those on the Internet who annoy me. Would you like me to rid myself of that belief? I think a more nuanced form of your question would be more valid : it is detrimental to not honestly challenge your strongly held beliefs to determine whether they still constitute a net positive to society. You will be happy to know I have challenged my above belief many times, and you are safe. : ) | cmv |
I believe that an regular unarmed police force is better that an armed one. Please CMV | It depends on the country. In the UK and Ireland there are very few gun owners. It makes sense to be much more sparing with our armed police. In places like America where most of the population has access to guns it would be suicide for the police to go unarmed. Being from the UK myself I sometimes feel uncomfortable around armed police but it would be strange not to arm the police in a country where any citizen can arm themselves with a gun. | cmv |
I believe that an regular unarmed police force is better that an armed one. Please CMV | As another commenter pointed out this viewpoint would not work very well in my country America. The police should be armed not only to protect themselves but also to protect the general public. It is very easy to get a firearm here and many criminals choose to purchase one. This places not only police officers but the general citizenry in danger without immediate options to stop or stall those criminals. In a country like Ireland police have the luxury of calling for backup when a situation involving a firearm presents itself. In the US many officers potentially face a gunman on a daily patrol or routine traffic stop. It's unrealistic and in my opinion unethical to place them in such a compromising situation. While an unarmed police force may work well in your country it is not something that could work well everywhere. | cmv |
I believe that an regular unarmed police force is better that an armed one. Please CMV | I'm from the US, and I'm a firm gun advocate. However, I also understand your concern. In our country, I'd like to see them maintain their arms, but become more accountable for them. There seems to be little to no accountability in many situations. Thats just my short two cents. | cmv |
I am a strong believer in social Darwinism and believe that free market capitalism is the best way to rid society of undesirables. CMV | Remember the phrase " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness "? It's indicative of something most Americans and people in general value - - preventing needless death and suffering. America has long since surpassed the point where we are capable of keeping every person at a reasonable standard of living. Is the last 10 % of one guy's several - million dollar income more important to society than those many poor people suffering? Also, many people have legitimate reasons that they can't be self sufficient, such as war injuries. | cmv |
I don't believe electing a third party candidate to the US presidency will change much. CMV. | I think it is more the cause of the FPTP voting system than anything else. CGP Grey explains it better than I could. Also he explains a different voting system, the alternative vote. | cmv |
I don't believe electing a third party candidate to the US presidency will change much. CMV. | The last time we elected a 3rd party President, it helped touch off a civil war, end slavery and expand the United Sates to the West. Oh, and the party wasn't really a 3rd party after that. The very act of electing a 3rd party president today would still be politically earth - shattering. The 3rd party would have some chance of becoming a major party, possibly unseating either the DNC or GOP for that role. Now, you do have a point : The electoral college system when combined with first past the post makes it very difficult to do. The Republicans also got their start on a local and regional level focusing on being the anti - slavery party. So, starting with congressional and state - level offices is perfectly understandable and probably necessary. Still, even with gains on those levels, I still think electing a 3rd party person to the Presidency would change the political landscape of the United States. | cmv |
I don't believe electing a third party candidate to the US presidency will change much. CMV. | Historically speaking, whenever a thirdmpartymgains traction, the major parties co - opt its platform. See, for example. The Socialists and Progressives of the early 20th century. So if a Green Party or Libertarian won a national election, the Repubs and Dems would be scrambling to adopt enough of the winning party's planks to peel off enough voters to win the next election. | cmv |
I don't believe electing a third party candidate to the US presidency will change much. CMV. | Even if very few representatives of your party ever get elected, your votes can still have significant power. In the 1890s, the main economic debate was about whether to use silver money or stick to the gold standard. Both major parties supported gold. But since the Populist Party wanted silver and had about 10 - 15 % of the vote, they were able to convince the Democrats to run a pro - silver campaign. In modern - day terms, that would be like the Green party convincing the Democrats to support free college for everyone, or the Libertarian party convincing republicans to cut 80 % of military spending. If you can get a major party to fear losing its votes to a third party, they will make concessions. | cmv |
I don't believe electing a third party candidate to the US presidency will change much. CMV. | In addition to what other people say, a successful third party will inspire other parties. For example, if a libertarian is elected, many democrat voters will think " hey, I don't have to vote for a major party, I can vote Green Party ", and suddenly the main parties have less power. Also, this will likely happen at all levels of government, with third party and independent candidates suddenly getting much more attention | cmv |
I believe it should be illegal for cops to break traffic laws without turning their lights / sirens on. CMV. | In a lot of cases, traffic laws are so loosely obeyed ( e. g. speed limits ) that it doesn't make sense for officers to be the lone obeyer. For example, try driving 55 on the interstate. Traffic will rampage past you, tailgate, cut you off, etc. It makes sense for officers to match their driving speed to the road condiditons. I think / u / grim | cmv |
I think the word " racism " has lost any useful meaning. CMV | It's all about degrees. Many people call others things like " monster " in a joking fashion, but then also call child molesters and murderers " monster " in complete dead seriousness. In the much same fashion that you would mockingly call your friend who said something politically incorrect a racist, you might call him an idiot for doing something stupid. You wouldn't call him a racist with the same level of seriousness that you would call a member of the KKK, though, right? TL ; DR : It's all about degrees, tone, and intentions. | cmv |
I don't think people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes in public. CMV. | I guess all automobiles should be banned as well? Also we should ban the burning of wood or anything for that matter!?! Volcanoes should definately be banned. if you want to avoid toxic chemicals in the air you should stay inside, and not expect everyone else to cater to you. | cmv |
I don't think people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes in public. CMV. | If you don't want to inhale secondhand smoke you should avoid it. I can think of an example where it may not be possible to avoid it. Say you need to enter a building with only one entrance and that entrance is crowded with dozens of smokers. It's just not possible for you to enter the building without walking through their smoke. It's a problem, right? Does it really have anything to do with being able to smoke in public, though? The problem is that they are all crowded towards the door, not simply because they are allowed to smoke in public. Aside from situations like that, most of which are remedied by regulations saying you can't smoke within x number if feet of the door, you can likely avoid exposing yourself to smoke in any significant quantities. | cmv |
" Rape " is overused and watered down - CMV | I get what you're saying, but outside of the loons on the internet, not many people agree that getting drunk and willfully sleeping with someone is rape. Its just that its a delicate situation, and someone who's gone through a traumatic situation isn't exactly in a mood for a semantics argument. Now, if people start getting prosecuted for going home with a drunk girl, thats where we need to start getting riled up. Until the courts rule that drunk goggles = rape, I'm not too worried. tl : dr : Don't listen to the crazies on the internet, most people still have common sense. | cmv |
" Rape " is overused and watered down - CMV | The fact that your go - to example of " clear " or actual rape is a stranger jumping out from bushes is a huge problem. The vast majority of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim ; the situation you described is actually very rare, while the situations you consider to be less legitimate happen much more often. Any sexual intercourse that happens without both parties'explicit and informed consent is rape. Intercourse that occurred because of threats or coercion is rape. Intercourse with a person who is passed out / blacked out / so intoxicated that they are unable to give consent is rape. Your view of clear - cut, true rape does not happen often and you are marginalizing the majority of survivors whose rape does not match your standards. | cmv |
I believe my choice of owning a gun for home defense is nobody's business. CMV | Inevitably you'll get into disagreements with your housemates / flatmates / roommates at some point. I personally don't feel comfortable arguing with my boss, as he has the power to end my employment and ruin my career. I might feel even less comfortable arguing with someone who has the power of life and death over me. | cmv |
I believe my choice of owning a gun for home defense is nobody's business. CMV | Your choice to own a gun for home defense is nobody's business but yours and the people you live with. Living with roommates is going to require you to make a number of concessions. Possessing a deadly weapon is a big responsibility, and you clearly seem to understand that, but you are essentially asking your potential roommates to share that responsibility. Their right to refusal of that responsibility should respected. Get a gun when you live by yourself or with someone else who wants to share that responsibility. | cmv |
I believe my choice of owning a gun for home defense is nobody's business. CMV | There are really three outcomes of having a gun in your house : 1 ) It's never used or even brandished, it sits in the closet and never has any impact on anything. This is the most likely scenario. 2 ) It's used to a positive outcome for you and your roommates. Like you preventing a serious assault / murder during the course or a robbery. 3 ) It's used in a negative outcome for you and your roommates. For example, someone is purposely / accidentally shot, or the gun is stolen by a criminal, etc.. Without even delving into which of 2 and 3 are actually more likely ( as you know, this is a very loaded question, and it's hard to find good data either way ), your friends probably feel 3 is more likely. You probably feel 2 is more likely. Regardless, it's their business because it impacts their safety ( in whichever direction ). | cmv |
I believe my choice of owning a gun for home defense is nobody's business. CMV | Crime has been going down in the world in the past few decades. We are at an all time low. You are far more likely to hurt yourself or someone else with the gun than you are to be robbed and be successful in stopping a robber because it is so unlikely you will be robbed. Also even if you are robbed having a gun in the house only makes it worse. If the robber has all the power they will not hurt you but simply take your stuff. If you pull a gun on them they are much more likely to panic and shoot you. Most people would rather have their stuff stolen than greatly increase their likelihood of being shot. But I see your point that people should not care about what weapons are in your house and if you lived alone I'd agree with you. But you are endangering their lives as well as your own so I think it is understandable why they would not be alright with a gun in their house. | cmv |
I believe my choice of owning a gun for home defense is nobody's business. CMV | Let's suppose that you and I get into an argument and that you threaten me. My knowledge of whether or not you own a gun will go a long way in determining how much of a threat you pose, and what measures I should take to protect myself ( including, perhaps, purchasing a gun ). The fallacy in your reasoning is the assumption that your actions don't affect others, or that there is no legitimate reason to judge you based on your ownership of a gun. | cmv |
I believe my choice of owning a gun for home defense is nobody's business. CMV | I can only join the chorus and say that not wanting to live in a house where there is a lethal weapon present ( even if said lethal weapon is safely locked away by a responsible user ) is an entirely legitimate concern for a flatmate to have. Some people don't like pets in a house. Others don't want to live with smokers. Some people, y'know, don't like the idea of living with a gun in the house. This seems like a reasonable concern, especially given that the gun is much more likely to kill you or one of them than it is to kill an intruder. | cmv |
I believe my choice of owning a gun for home defense is nobody's business. CMV | Statistically speaking, houses with guns have a higher rate of homicide than houses without. This could be either because guns present make it easier for people to commit murder, or because people more likely to be involved in one self - select for gun ownership ( a person fearing for their life may legitimately choose to own a gun, increasing this statistic ). From their prospective, if they're not interested in owning a gun either of these reasons for increased homicides in gun owning households can be nothing but bad news for them, so from a raw statistical standpoint they are correct in not wanting to have housemates who are armed. | cmv |
I think that compulsory voting laws should be implemented in American national elections. CMV | Without practicality - minded reforms to election procedures and laws, compulsory voting by itself would result in complete logistical chaos. If you think lines at polling places are bad now, imagine how it would be if everyone were required to participate, particularly in states like California where ballots can contain more than 100 contests apiece, each of which must be filled to cast a valid submission. You would practically paralyze the country by making everyone waste an entire day in line. This would disproportionately harm lower - income individuals who can't afford to miss a day of work. It would also be extremely expensive for states to properly administer an election with such a huge turnout, as it's the states that foot the bill for elections, not the federal government. | cmv |
I think that compulsory voting laws should be implemented in American national elections. CMV | Can I still vote for Mickey Mouse as a write in? I am an American and I haven't voted in years. I don't see the point. I cannot honestly tell the difference between George W Bush and Barack H Obama, I doubt we'd be any a different spot if Romney was elected. its all a sham, the parties are basically the same. | cmv |
I think that compulsory voting laws should be implemented in American national elections. CMV | How would people be punished for not voting? A fine? That would affect the poor disproportionately, and they are the ones less likely to vote in the first place. A prison term? In the country that already boasts the largest prison population per capita by far? | cmv |
I think that reliable birth control should be a requirement to receive long term public assistance | You have the problem backwards. The long - term danger to our society is not that poor people will have too many children, but that falling birth rates will leave us with an even worse Social Security situation than we have now : too many old people drawing from SS and too few young people paying into it. This is what's happening in Japan right now and about to happen in Germany, and it's a recipe for disaster. Even if those welfare kids are costly right now, they're a net long - term benefit, and they should be encouraged ( CMV ). | cmv |
If a woman dresses like a slut, gets drunk and otherwise knowingly puts herself in a dangerous situation, I believe that if she gets raped she deserves it. Please, CMV. | You could be lying naked in my bed, and I still would not rape you. There is nothing you could do, wear, drink, smoke, inject, dance to or place you could be that would make me rape you. Know why? Because I am not a rapist. I am not interested in having sex with anyone unless they are clearly into it as well. | cmv |
If a woman dresses like a slut, gets drunk and otherwise knowingly puts herself in a dangerous situation, I believe that if she gets raped she deserves it. Please, CMV. | Well, I used to believe this too, and used the analogy of someone who climbed in the lion den at the zoo and got mauled. Totally their fault, right? And the old poem " Love in bloom / love in blossom / If you want your finger bit / stick it at a possum. " Also true, right? But shouldn't we expect better behavior from people than from wild animals? Granted, this may be a " perfect world " argument, since admittedly people can and do often behave like wild animals, with " eat, f | cmv |
If a woman dresses like a slut, gets drunk and otherwise knowingly puts herself in a dangerous situation, I believe that if she gets raped she deserves it. Please, CMV. | As a man, I can go out, get drunk, wear whatever I like, accept drinks from strangers, walk home on my own, and not worry about whether I'm going to get raped ( mugged maybe, but that's a different question ). Why shouldn't a woman be able to do the same? If she can't do what I can safely, isn't this a sign that, rather than the fault lying with the woman, it's a problem with our society? | cmv |
It is immoral and should be illegal for US companies to pay less than federal min wage in other countries. CMV | You want to toss the idea that different areas have different standards of living as well as different cost of living, but you can't do that. If a house in Mexico cost $ 12, 000. 00 USD, and the same house in America cost $ 160, 000. 00 USD, how do you toss that fact aside? Different states within the United States have different minimum wages because of this very fact. In Alabama of South Carolina $ 7. 50 / hour is livable, by in Hawaii it would be starvation because the cost of living is so much higher there. Then you have the issue of what is and isn't provided by each government to it's citizens. If the country has socialized medicine, should the wage be lowered because they don't have to buy health insurance or pay out of pocket for medical treatment? And if so, wouldn't that then require that countries that aren't socialized be required to standardize insurance rates so that it's fair to everyone and not higher to some? What about countries that have little to no medical care at all, should they be given more or less? | cmv |
It is immoral and should be illegal for US companies to pay less than federal min wage in other countries. CMV | So would you also make it illegal to import anything from any country with a lower minimum wage than the U. S.? Because really, no one making iPhones in China works for Apple. They all work for Foxconn ( et al )... and Apple just buys iPhones from them. Unless you also take that step, your idea will have no effect. And if you do take that step, you can't believe how the trade wars would destroy the global economy. We've been down that path before. The minimum wage is probably a bad idea anyway, and is only harmless because we never set it very much above the lowest prevailing wage ( only 2 % of U. S. hourly and non - hourly workers make minimum wage, which should tell you something about how useless it is ). | cmv |
It is immoral and should be illegal for US companies to pay less than federal min wage in other countries. CMV | On the contrary, I think it would be highly immoral to pay 3rd world workers a U. S. minimum wage. Why? Because it would destroy their economies and severely damage ours. If 3rd world countries can't offer relatively cheap labor, they've lost one of their big advantages. Their export markets would collapse, and they would never be able to movie up the value chain like, say, South Korea or Taiwan have. To insist that workers be paid a fair wage by the standards of their country is one thing. But it insist that they be paid American level wages? That is total insanity. A terrible, terrible, criminally bad idea. The economic ruin that would result would destroy countless lives. | cmv |
It is immoral and should be illegal for US companies to pay less than federal min wage in other countries. CMV | As far as the economics goes, you should check out Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson ( free pdf ). It covers most if not all of what you have brought up, although not directly. But I want to take this in the direction of individual choice and self - determination. Would you deny a poor Chinese farmer the opportunity to take a factory job at $ 2 / hr if they demonstrated they understood what they were getting into and really wanted the job anyway? ( Let's ignore the fact that it would quadruple their income and take up fewer hours of their day. ) Where is the morality in denying people the freedom to choose these kinds of things? No offense, but do you think you are better than them, that your desires should take precedence in someone's life over their own? | cmv |
It is immoral and should be illegal for US companies to pay less than federal min wage in other countries. CMV | I would argue that it is more than just standard of living ( although standard of living is a part of it ), but also the worth of money in different countries. For example, in France, things are more expensive because people earn more than in the USA. A burger in the US may cost $ 2, but in Paris, that same burger may cost $ 2. 50. The same applies to all items, they are more expensive to Americans, but since the french earn more, items costs are just right for them ( I hope that makes sense ). The opposite could be said for China / Indonesia / India / etc. Everything is cheaper there because their average household income is lower. It would not make sense to pay them $ 7. 25 because is too high for their pay rates. Salaries are lower and everything is cheaper there. Paying a Chinese man $ 7. 50 in China is not the same as paying an American man $ 7. 50 in America. ( of course, I am generalizing to make a point ) | cmv |
It is immoral and should be illegal for US companies to pay less than federal min wage in other countries. CMV | I hope you have a lot of money to pay for the stuff that gets made overseas, because that stuff is going to go through the roof. Restricting trade in this way will result in consumers having to pay exponentially more for many products. The added costs of paying X amount more per worker is going to drive up costs which just get pushed onto the consumer. So if you feel up to spending exorbitantly more for everything, be my guest, but you'll just be lowering the quality of life here while also not raising it anywhere else. | cmv |
It is immoral and should be illegal for US companies to pay less than federal min wage in other countries. CMV | Three things : First, there are so many differences between countries that, at the very least, minor adjustments are necesary. For instance things are extremely cheaper in India, its PPP GDP | cmv |
It is immoral and should be illegal for US companies to pay less than federal min wage in other countries. CMV | The minimum wage is, from an economic point of view, pretty terrible. It causes unemployment. If a person's labor is worth less than the minimum wage, then no business will hire them. If the job isn't absolutely necessary, or can be automated, or outsourced, then that person is out of a job. On top of that everything costs more. The only people that actually benefit from the minimum wage are those who have jobs that are worth more than it, and can not be replaced. Even then it just raises prices, especially on things that use lots of human labor, and not by an insignificant amount. This does not mean that people should be left in poverty because the supply and demand value of their labor is too low. Something like a basic income would work to keep people out of poverty without bad incentives or causing unemployment. | cmv |
CMV : I believe that perpetrators of victimless crimes ( ex. prostitutes, drug dealers, those who gamble, etc ) should not be jailed and / or fined for their crimes | OP would you be willing to expand on your definition of victimless crime to those that violate traffic laws? I'd love to see how driving 5 over in the fast lane while not driving recklessly or endangering other drivers is a crime. There are some conflicting statistics but i'd say there's also a good case to be made that red light cameras make it MORE dangerous on the road and not less. | cmv |
CMV : I believe that perpetrators of victimless crimes ( ex. prostitutes, drug dealers, those who gamble, etc ) should not be jailed and / or fined for their crimes | Drug dealer strings a kid out on meth at age 12, the kid drops out of school, steals and shoots people to pay for his habit. Hooker gives a guy a disease, he takes it home to his pregnant wife, their baby is born blind. Another hooker does this thing with her tongue that breaks up a marriage, the husband commits suicide, his orphan kid is the one who gets on meth at age 12. What's a victimless crime? | cmv |
CMV : I believe that perpetrators of victimless crimes ( ex. prostitutes, drug dealers, those who gamble, etc ) should not be jailed and / or fined for their crimes | Your examples aren't entirely consistent. We, for example, go after those who pick up prostitutes more than prostitutes themselves for some of the reasons you state. We want to discourage prostitution but ultimately, we understand that the prostitutes are usually the victims. Going after pimps and johns is a much more effective way to deter the behavior than arresting the prostitutes themselves. Similarly, we heavily regulate and control gambling establishments because gamblers themselves are usually the ones hurt by their behavior. We punish bookies or people who set up illegal casinos or gambling rings far more harshly than the gamblers themselves. Drug dealers on the other hand, are treated as perpetrators rather than victims, because this is usually the case. Drug dealing is not a victimless crime, even if they don't intend it, those who sell heroin or meth are hurting people. I understand that the dealer isn't dealing drugs in order to hurt people, but they certainly aren't ignorant of the consequences of their actions. Drug dealers can witness firsthand the deterioration of addicts who they sell to, but they're not going to stop a heroin addict and say " hey man, I think you've probably had enough " they're going to take his money no matter what. | cmv |
CMV : I believe that perpetrators of victimless crimes ( ex. prostitutes, drug dealers, those who gamble, etc ) should not be jailed and / or fined for their crimes | I can think of instances where every perpetrator you mentioned isn't committing victimless crimes but harmful crimes instead. It's possible that prostitution can be a victimless crime, along with gambling and drug use. I don't see drug dealing as a victimless crime at all. I don't think someone who makes money illegally should be able to keep that money, so I think fines when money is involved in the crime is fine. I agree that being in jail or prison and having a record makes it more difficult for people to have regular lives from that point forward. I'm not concerned about pimps or drug dealers or members of organized crime who are running illegal gambling having difficult lives in the future because of their crimes. I am concerned about a drug addict or a person who just personally uses drugs having to be incarcerated or having a record. I am concerned about a prostitute in the same way. I am concerned about a gambling addict or someone who just gambles. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | Social pressure causes us to do things that provide a perceived social benefit even if there is an associated risk. Once this starts, the physiological and psychological changes help perpetuate the activity. After all, it makes you feel good so you want to do it more. To put it another way, have you ever had an alcoholic beverage before? Obviously not, since drinking causes liver damage and other serious health risks. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | A lot of people have a really hard time saying no to someone. For example I know a lot of kids who started smoking in the first week of college. Many smokers consider it rude to not offer a cigarette to someone in a social situation. And during the first week of college people will just say yes so that they have a chance to talk to this person and not be left alone. It's awkward to go outside with a smoker and not smoke. They take that cigarette and then they feel like they have to be a smoker because they told people they smoked. It let's them make smoker friends who go to parties and are apart of a secret smoking club. They know that smoking is bad. But that isn't their current concern, it's making friends in college. The same is true of going to a high school party alone. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | What about people who do only smoke once in a blue moon? Is that really any stupider than drinking? I enjoy a hookah or a cig once in awhile. I don't enjoy it enough to smoke more than that. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | People under 21 aren't usually good at thinking through the long term consequences of their actions, are subject to peer pressure, and generally just have an inability to think things through. And it only gets worse the younger you get because it's just a product of brain development. The less developed your brain is, the more prone you are to impulsive decisions, and the limited life experience you have tells you that you're the exception for bad consequences. I remember a story about soldiers being given instructions a day or two before D - Day. They were being told by their commanders that the casualties were expected to be ridiculously high and that they all only had a small chance of survival. The soldiers looked around to their comrades and thought to themselves " I feel sorry for the poor bastards who are going to die ". The point is that the same thing that made the soldiers think everyone else was going to die makes young people think they aren't going to be the ones to die from lung cancer. They aren't going to be the ones who are going to have to carry around an oxygen tank. And so on and so on. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | Interestingly enough I am a 21 year old smoker from Ontario, Canada. As you said we are all painfully aware of the consequences. For me personally I started smoking cigarettes because I was an avid Stoner and it was something to do after you got freshly baked as well as drunk. From that point you get into the mindset that you can do this a couple times here and there and be fine and not get addicted. Like as long as your not still smoking 30 years later you will be fine. Well addiction happened and 4 - 5 years later I am still a Smoker trying to quit several times a year. I quit the ganja atleast. TL ; DR Smoking goes well with highs and intoxications, then addiction picks up faster than ever. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | "Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming " Wow! What a Ride! " - Hunter S. Thompson So what if it kills you? Something eventually will. You might as well do what makes you happy. You specifically say you want us to " explain what convinces a person under 25 in North America " to start smoking. Well, here it is : It's cool, and it feels good. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | I smoked for 4 years and I'm 21. I know the health concerns and knew what I was doing was bad for my body. I didn't start because of social issues, or stress or try to claim ignorance to the things it caused. I enjoyed smoking and remember me first time was on a'trip'( drugs ). I enjoyed it and ignored everything else until it caused for me to hate the addiction. It became a habitual scheduled activity at the end and now I vape. Tldr : I enjoyed it and for that sole cause I started. I now have quit and vape and it's very similar. Just because something is bad for you doesn't mean your an idiot for doing it. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | I generally agree with you, but I have a bizarre counterexample which I believe meets your requirements. My sister is schizophrenic, and for a while she wasn't doing so well and was stuck in a mental hospital. Normally, the hospital didn't let the patients go outside, but they would give into requests of smokers who wanted to step outside to smoke a cigarette, because not doing so would stress out the patient ( and stress is very bad for schizophrenics ). So, my sister started smoking just so she could go outside more often. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | There is a proverb that says :'curiosity killed the cat '. When there is a lot of negative propaganda around something ( be it tobacco, alcohol, drugs ), when you get bombarded with all that propaganda, that frequently builds a extremely strong sense of curiosity, you can't see why something that is actually reachable, is prohibited or just frowned upon. You see that friends do it, you go to social gatherings and they do it, so you might as well give it a try, what could happen? So yes, all that anti tobacco and general anti drugs can tease young people into it, while it's a stupid decision, its a natural human behavior to feel curiosity towards the forbidden. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | My best friend committed suicide a week and a half ago. He picked up smoking about a year and a half before then, around the time he left for college. He came from a family of smokers, so I'm sure there were multiple factors influencing his decision, but the rationale he gave me was that it helped him cope with the stress and depression he was experiencing. Calmed him down, distracted him, whatever. I used to give him a hard time about it because I was worried about him getting cancer or experiencing health effects, but I realize now that he was risking death at 50 to try to deal with mental health issues that killed him at 21. You can disagree with his reasoning, and there's probably other better ways of dealing with those issues, but if it helped him feel better ( even via placebo effect ) then it's pretty hard to disagree with his conclusion. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | I can't argue your logic. As a smoker, I made that dumb decision long ago and currently deal with the annoying consequences. But to play devils advocate, you ask for an explanation as to why anyone since a certain date and age would ever take up the habit. I would say that plenty in your age range know full well the dangers of meth. But there are still plenty in your age range out there doing it. There is well established dangers to sex but there are still plenty of you out there having sex at young ages in spite of not only the STDs but early life altering pregnancies as well. There's more than enough danger involved with alcohol but there's still no slowing of underage drinking. Smokers mostly took up smoking ( and drugs, booze, sex and anything else ) for the same reason then as teens do now. A combination of peer pressure, rebellion, depression and doing whatever they felt was needed to feel good when they mentally felt bad. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | Hi, from Montreal an started smoking at 15 ( ten years now ). I could tell you why I started and give you an excuse but I won't. My vice is cigarettes, I enjoy them. Others like eating two Big Macs or chips and chocolate. I don't enjoy food in that sense I few food as energy and don't eat fatty foods or fast food style restaurants. I grew up with a parent who abused food and became diabetic and another parent who smoked but was athletic and very healthy. The world is not black and white and you are definetly too young to be arbitrarily setting a date that people should not be smoking by. Especially since we have known the health risks associated with smoking much earlier then your " 1990 " | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | I have two close relatives who are in their early 20s and both started smoking in the past few years. When I tried to dissuade them, the argument I usually got was essentially that they wouldn't get addicted, that one or two cigarettes wouldn't hurt. I have another relative in his 30s who used to be a light smoker like them but started smoking ( and drinking ) very heavily when he became depressed. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | Everyone I know my age ( 18 ) who picked up smoking said they started because it is a social thing. It makes you cool. Very few of them liked it at first, but now they all like it. I personally don't think it's cool, but that's their decision. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | The problem is that you are assuming that humans have brains that range from 0 % to 100 % logicality, and that those who make more stupid decisions in life are below 100 % That's not the case. We are not computers, our decisions are highly influenced by our emotions. And our emotions can make us justify things that we wouldn't otherwise do. It's bad to be an outsider, it feels bad to be an outsider, and if you have reason to believe that smoking will make you fit in then your emotions WILL cloud your judgment and make you come to conclusions that seem very logical to you. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | I started smoking, because back as a teenager, on summer nights, I'd be with friends at someones house, deep in the woods. Inside, we would be drinking and laughing. But stepping outside, having a cigarette and a more private conversation with someone, leaning in the cooling air against the hood of a car. There are many memories that I have from times when I was able to connect with someone through the mutual activity of smoking. I knew it was destructive, but there was something to even that idea that was appealling as a teenager. I've smoked on and off since then. It definitely is a useful social tool, though these days, there is so much negativity around it, it probably hurts more than helps relations. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | I don't understand how you want people to change your view. Whole you can think the decision to smoke is stupid all you want, smokers don't blame their smoking on anyone. They do it because they enjoy it. So I don't know where the hell are you getting the " no one to blame but themselves " part. People get into smoking for the same reasons many people pick up any other drug. Boredom. Peer pressure. Experimentation. A lot of people think they can dominate or control cigarettes. That's how people get into it. Just because you would never try it doesn't mean others won't, the world doesn't revolve around your views. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | To be edgy, cool, or rebellious. Teenagers are often beset by demands, obligations, and rules. Some attempt to push back on that by deliberately being obstinate and uncooperative. This isn't making a " bad decision ", its a force of habit based on their personality and the culture which surrounds them. People at my highschool obviously knew the risks. The slang for cigarettes was " cancer sticks ". It is far beyond " not knowing " and into the fact that this very danger makes them alluring. The same phenomena happens with fighting, driving fast, and being a bully. People who grow up in a certain type of culture use these " dangerous things " to artificially inflate their status within their friend group by appearing " fearless " among people who have a lot to fear ( ie - drunken / abusive families, sexual abuse or assault, gang shootings on the way to school ). This is one reason why chronic smoking is largely a class activity in groups with low socioeconomic status. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | Might sound silly but we all die of something. I don't feel the need to live to 100 years old, watch my body disintegrate and loose my mind. Smoking might kill me, something else might, I don't base my life decisions on weather it will shorten my life. I'm just here for the ride. | cmv |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. | The reason it's not automatically stupid is because there's no logical answer to " how risky should your behavior be? " For example, I really enjoy cigarettes, if it weren't for the downsides I'd smoke a pack a day, but don't smoke them very often at all because I don't want to take on the 25 % ( give or take ) risk of lung cancer a regular smoker may face. ( Also $ $ ) Someone else may enjoy cigarettes just as much as I do, make a bit more money, and decide they're happy with a 75 % chance of not getting lung cancer. Neither view is more rational. Different people just are willing to take different amounts of risk to get what they want. ( Game theory deals with this in some depth. ) People start smoking cigarettes aware of the risks and just decide they're ok with the risks, same as any other risky behavior ( football, skydiving, driving over the speed limit, etc. ) The error in your thinking is you assume that everybody views the downsides in the same way that you do. | cmv |
I believe that humans should be imprinted / chipped at birth. CMV | Let's ask a question : what would change your mind? So far, you've rejected every argument placed in front of you by asserting your willingness to trust authority figures and rejecting every analysis of the technical limitations of your idea. So, I'm left wondering if your belief is actually falsifiable at all. | cmv |
I believe that humans should be imprinted / chipped at birth. CMV | Ok, Imagine these Chips were implanted at birth, and you needed one of the these chips to buy something with credits that get applied to your chip from working all day. Then you decide that you aren't happy with how the government is doing. So you go to a protest. You get arrested for protesting and the cops scan your chip, now the government knows you are against them, so they decide to shut your chip off. Now you can't get food, cant get the money you earned working, cant use a bus, can't do anything because you decided to try and change something in your government. Thats why I don't like " chips " | cmv |
I believe that humans should be imprinted / chipped at birth. CMV | Imagine if the germans all had chips implanted in them during Hitler's rule. The Nazis would have been able to use them to locate Jews in hiding and put them into camps. Same with the US and Japanese Americans during WWII. Does it sound like such a good idea now? It doesn't matter if you have nothing to hide, because those in power may very well abuse this even if you've done nothing wrong. | cmv |
I believe that humans should be imprinted / chipped at birth. CMV | That's a great idea, I agree with it in some ways, but the dangers outweigh the risks. For example, just hypothetical, but since Anonymous hacked into the FBI website " for the lulz " wouldn't it be possible that they would hack into the tracking chip database? Revealing where anyone with this chip in the world is? Sure, the police could have it programmed to follow only someone who has committed a crime or been reported missing, but there are ways to bypass that if you can hack. You could falsely report someone missing, or you could hack into the database to change someone to a wanted criminal. | cmv |
I believe that humans should be imprinted / chipped at birth. CMV | One of the concerns that emerged after Col. Oliver North offered Terry Waite a tracking device was that if the Lebanese terrorists who ultimately kidnapped Waite knew about it, they'd skin him alive to find it. Although it didn't turn out that way, the concern remains. Even if you randomize the location of the chip, the fact that | cmv |
The United States of America has the best justice system in the world. CMV. | The United States represents 5 % of the worlds population, yet have 25 % of the worlds inmate population ( 743 prisoners per 100, 000 people ). The US is hell bent on punishment but dose very little to provide rehabilitation for criminals. Once these criminals are released they continue to commit crimes and further attribute to the problem. I believe that a proper justice system should attempt to prevent crime more so then to punish. In comparison, Canada is 123rd in the world for prisoner incarceration rate. Norway for example, has a radically different approach to dealing with inmates. I will not do any justice explaining their system but its based on treating inmates with respect and attempt to rehabilitate them back into society. This comment explains their system fantastically. | cmv |
The United States of America has the best justice system in the world. CMV. | The american justice system is a circus. With constant zimmermans and when judges are being payed by the PRIVATELY owned prison systems how can you claim the best? There is so many different regulations on everything from taxes to drugs ( federal and state levels ) that no one actually knows if they are ever breaking laws. Half of your trials get media attention which only ends up making a jury that is actually non - bias basically impossible. There are DEFINITELY better justice systems in the world. Many European countries have far superior systems in place, albeit, dealing with smaller countries and smaller populations is easier but coming to justice shouldn't really be affected by anything like that. | cmv |
The United States of America has the best justice system in the world. CMV. | Probably some of the worst attempts at changing OP's views I've ever seen. I assume you only want to talk about the criminal justice system. I question your assumption that offering the most rights to the accused equates to the best justice system in the world. Wouldn't a much better measurement be which system does the best at convicting guilty defendants and acquitting innocent defendants? In which case, given the United States'unique exclusionary rule, it seems the US probably doesn't have the " best justice system, " since it includes a rule that actively prohibits the entry of highly probative evidence. I'd also say the 5th amendment is another rule that prevents accurate results, since often the accused is the one eyewitness who has the most information. Finally, juries seem to me to be more prone to bias and mistakes than, say, a panel of judges. ( At least that has been my experience in civil litigation. ) | cmv |
Most Charitable Donations in the U. S. are Actually Luxury Spending. CMV. | "... My home they burned as well, and in the street I saw piles of heads... Tell me again what you saved. " " Your life " Mirri Maz Duur laughed cruelly " Look to your khal and see what life is worth, when all the rest is gone. " - Game of Thrones In short : There are and should be two types of charitable giving, the kind that saves life, and the kind that makes life worth saving. | cmv |
Most Charitable Donations in the U. S. are Actually Luxury Spending. CMV. | You can save a life for $ 2500 today, but that doesn't guarantee that any people are saved in the long term. Donations to save Rwandans from malaria in 1990 were not as effective as they seemed, especially considering that the ensuing slaughter seems to have had as much to do with overpopulation as with ethnicity. A $ 2500 donation to physics research at a state college won't save any lives in the short term, but it will rachet humanity ahead in a way that is much harder to undo than increasing the population of an impoverished country. And if there is a better state of society ahead of us, then by shifting us toward it, this donation may save more than one life. | cmv |
Most Charitable Donations in the U. S. are Actually Luxury Spending. CMV. | To this I would mention many many people donate to what emotionally impacts the donator. What if an underprivileged youth was granted the opportunity to see an opera, go to an otherwise unaffordable museum, or given the opportunity to go to college and this opportunity changed that persons life in such a way that they became hugely successful? Because of what helped them, the donator is going to support the organization that supported him / her. Basically, you are ignoring any possible emotional connection any donor may or may not have, which is to say most donors are really trying to give to the best causes. It just happens that not everyone agrees on what the best causes are. People are naturally going to give back to the organizations that helped them the most ; in their eyes it is the best possible use for their charitable donation. Another thing to note : while plenty of people have pointed out that saving lives is not the only measure the effectiveness or worthiness of a charity, but I have yet to see anything that mentions fringe benefits ( and a " fringe benefit " could be saving live ). Who is to say that an underprivileged youth that received a life changing experience would not have otherwise become a murderer or some other detriment to society? Obviously complete speculation but I do think that it is worthy of note that these donations to universities, arts programs, and other " non life - saving " charities could, in fact, save many lives. | cmv |
I believe there is no inequality in hiring opportunity for women with equal experience and qualifications as men. CMV | A coworker of a friend of mine once interviewed for a position with another firm. She's an experienced licensed architect. At the end of the interview, she was told, " We just can't really afford to hire a woman right now. " ( Because, you know, babies. ) A VP of sales for a company I used to work with made it clear that he believed women did not belong in sales. A popular college bar in a town where I went to school had an informal but rigidly enforced " Sticks in front, slits in back " policy that relegated all female employees to the kitchen, while men got all the much better paying bartending positions. Those are three examples off the top of my head that show clear inequality of opportunity between men and women. I do think that the situation is improving, but it is by no means a level playing field at this point. | cmv |
I believe there is no inequality in hiring opportunity for women with equal experience and qualifications as men. CMV | Saying there's no inequality of opportunity, period, is different from saying that women with equal experience and qualifications are equally likely to be hired. The second thing might well be true, but even if it is, it doesn't mean a whole lot. It's possible that sexism against a man / woman prevented him / her from obtaining equal experience and qualifications. Example : In soccer, the coach always played his son instead of me. As a result, he became more experienced and thus, more deserving of being put in the game in the future. But it was still unfair to me. | cmv |
I believe there is no inequality in hiring opportunity for women with equal experience and qualifications as men. CMV | I am curious if you admit there was every any " inequality in hiring opportunity for women with equal experience and qualifications as men ". Are you denying this has ever happened at all? Like sexism has never existed in the workplace? | cmv |
I believe there is no inequality in hiring opportunity for women with equal experience and qualifications as men. CMV | But the problem occurs when the entire board of directors are compromised of older white men. Sure we may see more diversity in the entrance level, yet there's a huge pattern of the similar faces at the top. These people who have the powers to promote and share corporate roles tend to favor those similar to them and carry old stereotypes that hurt minority groups. It's not just merit that gets the job and the promotion, but a lot of it hinges upon subjectivity and connections. I'm sure we will see more women at the top, but it's likely that there will always be be more men due to such tradition. After all, if the baby boomers are promoting and choosing other men for their job. Who's to say the new leaders won't just repeat the cycle? | cmv |
I seriously think that people in the Western world really have no right to complain about " corruption " and the like in their countries, and doing so is extremly inconsiderate of real problems in the world. CMV | This post is confused. You sound like someone who has had your families past poverty shoved in his face from a young age which has developed into a sort of resentment for anyone complaining about western politics. It's not perfect here, not by a long shot, so why the hell shouldn't we aim to make it better? Because your moms family is super poor? Sorry, that recommendation is so removed from reality and human nature that I'm not sure how to respond. You're not speaking in the context of ethical theory, you're talking pragmatically - you're saying we actually shouldn't focus on US politics as US citizens, that's just ridiculous. You've mish - mashed several disparate points together, argument isn't rlly coherent. | cmv |
I seriously think that people in the Western world really have no right to complain about " corruption " and the like in their countries, and doing so is extremly inconsiderate of real problems in the world. CMV | It insults you that people want better living conditions for their families? Everywhere in the world people would like better living conditions and better forms of authority and politics and economy. Let me analogize what your opinion is for you with a girl named Stacy. Stacy has no right to complain about her abusive boyfriend Frank because Stacy's friend Janet has a boyfriend way more abusive. Stacy should just realize how GREAT she has it because Janet has it worse, much worse. | cmv |
I seriously think that people in the Western world really have no right to complain about " corruption " and the like in their countries, and doing so is extremly inconsiderate of real problems in the world. CMV | The real problem with corruption is that it is a self - perpetuating cycle. As corruption grows, people come to view it as the only real path to success. It simply becomes how things are done. Normally, I don't like slippery slope arguments, but corruption is one of the few cases I think they absolutely apply. | cmv |
I seriously think that people in the Western world really have no right to complain about " corruption " and the like in their countries, and doing so is extremly inconsiderate of real problems in the world. CMV | Have you considered that an active civil society that does not tolerate or quietly overlook corruption is probably one of the main things separating western countries from the corrupt third world countries that you are describing. Sunlight is the best cure to corruption, and in the US and other western countries it comes in the form of " whining " from individuals and the media that you so deplore. Perhaps the answer isn't for us to whine less, but instead for those other countries to whine more. Just governance isn't something any person should be thankful for, its something they should expect and demand. | cmv |
I seriously think that people in the Western world really have no right to complain about " corruption " and the like in their countries, and doing so is extremly inconsiderate of real problems in the world. CMV | There is always someone who has it worse than you, that doesn't mean you have no right to strive for a better life. The only reason your life is as good as it is now is because people that came before you weren't satisfied with what they have. Who are you to tell someone when their life is good enough? | cmv |
I seriously think that people in the Western world really have no right to complain about " corruption " and the like in their countries, and doing so is extremly inconsiderate of real problems in the world. CMV | I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that we often don't appreciate enough how good things are here, compared to poorer countries. Public complaining is often the only way to ensure that corruption practices are investigated and prosecuted. By effectively saying that we should tolerate corrupt people in rich ( er ) countries, you're effectively giving them a free pass to continue their corruption practices. Lets take a step back, and not look at the complaining people, but those that are complained about : corruption in rich countries is just as well perpetrated by evil people. They are similarly wicked in their personalities and in their actions to the ones in poorer countries, and therefore they equally deserve to be fought against. | cmv |
Alimony is an outdated and unfair legal obligation in today's society of equal gender opportunities. CMV! | Because in the United States men and women are not equal. If they were, abortion rights wouldn't be hotly contested but instead recognized as a social and equalizing benefit between two parties. Power is not shared equally. Responsibility is not equal. It is expected in the United States, whether overtly or subtly, that women are responsible for the gestation, birth and caretaking of children in a multitude of roles. Men are responsible for the facilitation of women in those roles, and alimony is designed to help accomplish that. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.