Datasets:

qwedsacf
/

story-generation

Tasks:

Text Generation

Languages: English

Multilinguality: monolingual

Size Categories: 100K<n<1M

Tags: story-generation

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Dataset Viewer

Auto-converted to Parquet

View in Dataset Viewer

Viewer

Split (1)

train · 427k rows

summary stringlengths 1 551	story stringlengths 0 85.6k	source stringclasses 5 values
The only political ideology that makes any sense to me is Libertarian Socialism i. e. Anarchism. CMV	How would you take a society like ours and turn it into a Libertarian - Socialist society? Would you use reason to convince everyone to stop what they're doing or would you have to use government force to change everything? Furthermore, if people are free to spend their money as they want how would you stop people from making more than others and eventually developing another class structure?	cmv
I think factoring in a potential mate's race is evolutionarily justified. Please CMV!	I understand the view I suppose, but it seems to me that blatant discrimination on skin color is very rare, at least in my parts of the south. The greater stigmas are cultural and economic, and will be based on your own belief, class, and your childs name and friends. None of these will change because of the skin color of your partner.	cmv
I think factoring in a potential mate's race is evolutionarily justified. Please CMV!	First and foremost : you are in college, right? The likelihood of marriage and kids are outweighed by the need to experience new things at this point in your life. I am a white guy who was also raised in the deep south. I lost " friends " in college when some of them found out I was dating a black girl. I can assure that my life has not suffered one ounce because of those " losses ". I am currently married to a Latin woman, and our children will have every opportunity that we can provide them. Whether ignorant rednecks like it or not, the country is changing. On a more superficial note, I have always noticed that most of the mixed - race people I know are ridiculously attractive - so you may be giving them a leg - up on the rest of their generation.	cmv
I think public funding of elections could solve many of our political problems. CMV.	Most private funding comes from about 47 people though. The majority ( about 80 % ) of ads released by the top privately funded 501 ( c ) 4 groups were misleading. Keep that in mind. Then remember that people's opinions are swayed by ads, in New Hampshire exit polls for example 3 / 4ths of people said they were influenced by ads. Factor in the fact that in races with deceptive advertising, there was 15 % less voter turnout among informed voters according to a George Mason University Study. This election cycle had 5 % less turnout than 2008 as a result, and in a country like the US that's literally millions of people	cmv
I think public funding of elections could solve many of our political problems. CMV.	Unfortunately, public funding for elections would be easy for corporations to tap into. Monied interests have a large influence on our government. Our government would have to be less corrupt than it is now for such measures to work successfully.	cmv
I think public funding of elections could solve many of our political problems. CMV.	I agree with you, but there's a problem with deciding which candidates to fund. Are you going to set up a standard candidates have to meet, and is that standard going to have anything to do with how good they'd be in office? If not, are you going to let any idiot who fills out the form to run have all that money?	cmv
I think that all mothers should be stay at home moms. CMV	well I don't know if I'll be able to change you view, but I'll give you my experience as a child of a working mom. My dad as you believed is not caring or gentle. He live with us however did not feel the need to provide for us. my mom however in my opinion was the best mom A kid could ask for. She made sure we all had toys, food and clothing. She's worked two jobs at some point for us. and when she wasn't at work she made her time with count. She's worked incredibly hard her whole life and has little to show for us because of she does for her family. I have the most respect for mom. I'm sure she would have loved to stay home with us everyday, but life isn't that easy for everyone.	cmv
I think that all mothers should be stay at home moms. CMV	But what about single mothers? and what if the mother is unfit to be a mother? Is there no gradient between that kind of mother and a mother less equipped to care for a child?	cmv
I think that all mothers should be stay at home moms. CMV	It is a disservice to your child to only have them around the parents. Kids need to be exposed to lots of different points of view and lifestyles if you want them to develop into a well - rounded adult. Secondly, " Spending every possible moment " with a child creates a sense of dependency in both the mother and child that will almost certainly lead to separation issues later.	cmv
I think Israel is almost entirely to blame for the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. CMV.	With such a general opening statement, it's hard for me to know precisely what your view is, let alone try to change it. How exactly are you defining " Israeli - Palestinian conflict ", for example? Armed conflict? Political disagreement? Mutual antipathy? And if you don't abrogate responsibility from militant / terrorist groups, then what do you assign Israel responsibility for? If I were to boil it down to one question : what do you think that Israel should do that would end the Israeli - Palestinian conflict?	cmv
I think Israel is almost entirely to blame for the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. CMV.	I think the existence of Israel is almost entirely to blame for the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, which is much different than Israel's policies being to blame. What you're dealing with are two distinct nationalistic entities disputing over one land mass, which is bound to cause conflict. You can argue that Israel's policies have enhanced the conflict, but then again they've been under attack since 1948, and especially since 1967 and the Six - Day War. An increase in terrorist attacks combined with an iron fist response results in the absolute clusterfuck that that situation is in today. Let me put it to you this way. Israel's response to terrorist attacks breeds more terrorist attacks, which leads to harsher responses, which leads to more terrorist attacks, and on and on and on. My personal view is that the only way any peace will ever be attained is if Israel leads the way and loosens up their grip on the area, stop building settlements, and stop occupying areas outside of Israels jurisdiction. Except that's risky just because of security reasons.	cmv
I don't see why people oppose US drone attacks, please CMV	You are creating a false dichotomoy. It is not a question of using drone strikes or putting boots on the ground ; it is a question of killing men you don't have the decency to look in the face or just ceasing to kill people. The fact of the matter is that every single problem the West has had with or from the Middle East since the eighteenth century has been blowback for Western operations there. We can keep slinging rockets from drones into wedding parties in Pakistan ( yes, that really happened ) and keep getting hostages taken in Algeria and bomb plots in Paris, or we can just mind our own business and stop giving people justified reasons to hate us.	cmv
Here's what I would change about American gun regulations. CMV	I agree with what you say, but my only CMV point I can offer is this : For many heavily - politicized cases of " background check " or testing / evaluation that the government is responsible for, they have often swayed the test or grading in the direction they want. For example, even after blacks were permitted to vote, they began to require an " intelligence " test to be able to register. If they didn't want you to vote, you'd " fail " the test... There were questions like " how many bubbles do you find on a standard bar of soap? " Of course, white people got different tests. This is the cornerstone reason why we currently don't require a test to register for voting. Basically, if the government were in control in administering this test, they would do their best to sway it so no one was " qualified " to own a gun... Hell, your desire to own a killing device makes you insane by definition ( according to their new test ). I'm not saying they'd racially discriminate, but if you give them another level of control over something, they WILL abuse it. I agree that owners should need to be skilled and safe, and be able to prove that, but I know it will be extremely hard to implement fairly and without corruption.	cmv
I believe must police precinct value Job security and profit over actually trying to prevent crime - CMV	It seems to me the cops are tasked with enforcing the laws on the books, whether they like them or not. Does it seem to you that police organizations are excessively advocating for continued drug prohibition? My intuition is that they'd rather spend scarce resources chasing murderers and robbers, as opposed to, say, arresting someone for smoking a joint at a concert.	cmv
I believe everyone should have the right to do 100 % of what they want to do, no matter how crazy. CMV!	I think unlimited freedom nominally is impossible to create, because it is necessarily self - inhibiting. Through the actions of some, who would use their individual freedom to reduce the larger amount of collective freedom through exercising control for personal gain. The strongest would rise to the top with no restraints, and be granted more power than others so would naturally come by more freedom than those beneath them. Society would reflexively fall back onto might - is - right so there would be an innate stratification of people. I believe the law and authoritative bodies are the best mechanism to allow for freedom, equality and safety which are more important and fundamental rights than being able to kill whoever you like.	cmv
I believe everyone should have the right to do 100 % of what they want to do, no matter how crazy. CMV!	( This isn't true but i think it's a good example ) Imagine that I have a daughter ( i'm male ) and the mother isn't in the picture. I'll put this child in the basement and as it grows up i'll condition it, first to perform oral sex, but once she hits puberty it'll turn to full on penetration. I'll live in an isolated area and not allow her to leave the building and because it's the only world shes ever known it'll seem'normal'to her. Liberty means that you can do what you want to as long as your not stopping someone else from doing what they want. She grew up in a world where all shes ever known it being raped by her father, does it sound like she can do 100 % of whatever she wants? I'm doing what I wish to do and it stops her form being able to do what she would otherwise desire to do. " daddy, i don't want that in me anymore " " too bad, i'm bigger, and I do want it in you "	cmv
I believe everyone should have the right to do 100 % of what they want to do, no matter how crazy. CMV!	It depends on how you view morality. What is good? Is it ok to cause or permit the suffering of the people or other beings around you? If not, then your freedom ends where their suffering begins. I think " every man for himself " left our genetics long long ago, and I believe it is for this reason alone that human beings have amassed the resources and skills to completely dominate this planet. Cooperation and compassion ( and the societal structures that enforce cooperative or compassionate behavior ) are in our very nature. I may not be able to persuade you that " absolute freedom " is not a good thing. But I'm reasonably sure that it's absent from the human condition. Perhaps that's reason enough to live with limits to your freedom in the interest of harmony and human progress.	cmv
I believe everyone should have the right to do 100 % of what they want to do, no matter how crazy. CMV!	I'm not sure I follow you. What is stopping you from doing exactly what you want at anytime you want however you want? If your answer is " society " or " police " or " government " then I'm still not following... the reason those concepts stop you is because people want them to stop you from doing particular things - should those people not be allowed to stop you aswell?	cmv
I believe everyone should have the right to do 100 % of what they want to do, no matter how crazy. CMV!	The brain is hardwired to survive, so if there is an easy way to survive, we will automatically and unconsciously strive to do that thing that allows us to survive. As it turns out, the easiest way to survive is to trade certain freedoms in order to receive protection. You sacrifice some freedoms and power and give it to someone else who, in return, uses their increased power to protect you and anyone else who gives up some freedoms and power as well.	cmv
I believe everyone should have the right to do 100 % of what they want to do, no matter how crazy. CMV!	You can do whatever you want, just not around other people who have agreed to waive certain freedoms in order to prosper together. This concept is called " society ". Move to Antarctica and do whatever the hell you want to do.	cmv
I believe everyone should have the right to do 100 % of what they want to do, no matter how crazy. CMV!	Your freedom ends where mine begins. Let's say no society, still the same. Because if you killed me, my freedom wouldn't begin at all. So how peaceful your anarchy will be depends on how you limit your own freedom ( same for others ). An anarchy could work if we really governed ourselves. A really famous mexican saying goes something like : respect of others'right is peace. The word rights is relevant because it conflicts with freedom, like private property rights. What I really meant is that, and in response to those mentioning rapings or killings going rampant, the freedom of these people becomes hindered by the freedom of the actuators ( killers or whatever ). So it's never a true freedom scenario were there are two or more people interacting together. Maybe go to the wild and you'll have total freedom within human limits. IMO.	cmv
" TRUST WOMEN. " All things considered I believe this is all we need with respect to reproductive politics. CMV.	People have human rights that must be protected by the state. I believe that a vagina isn't a magic human rights nullifier. This side of a vagina you have the right to life and full protection from society. That side you are at the mercy of somebody's whims and have zero rights. Doesn't seem right to me.	cmv
" TRUST WOMEN. " All things considered I believe this is all we need with respect to reproductive politics. CMV.	Not a lot of reasoning here, just " it resonates " i. e. it fits my pre - conceived notions. Carl Sagan also wrote " There have been no differences in intelligence between men and woman found, after child - rearing is taken into account " which might be a paraphrase from'The Dragons of Eden ". He too goes out of his way to reach the conclusion he wants to reach.	cmv
" TRUST WOMEN. " All things considered I believe this is all we need with respect to reproductive politics. CMV.	Whenever anyone starts screaming " NO QUESTIONS! HEIL ME! " and insisting that they are so far above mere mortals that they can not be wrong, it is best to be suspicious.	cmv
" TRUST WOMEN. " All things considered I believe this is all we need with respect to reproductive politics. CMV.	[ quote ] There are two pieces of writing that I think are absolutely spot - on when it comes to the difficult issue of abortion. [ / quote ] It's not difficult at all, it shouldn't even be an issue. If the girl / woman wants an abortion, let her have it. I find it distasteful that even in civilized countries this subject is still being debated. What is there to talk about? No sperm is sacred, get over it.	cmv
I think all public schools should have a uniform dress code. CMV	I live in southern Louisiana, where we have uniform policies in most public or private schools. There seem to be two main approaches to implementation of the policy. For truly identical uniforms, all orders are made from a single store. This accomplishes most of your values, but can be cost - prohibitive - with no competition, the store can easily raise prices. What my school did was offer a range of clothing options that were acceptable - khaki pants, shirts of a certain color, etc. This was easier for low - income families to afford, but even with basic homogeneity of dress, class separation becomes evident. Richer kids would buy nicer, name - brand pants and shirts. And you could tell when money was tight in other households - white shirts were stained or dirty - looking, colored shirts faded, shoes worn down, belts fraying. It also resulted in a lot more time spent enforcing the dress code, as there would be confusions and borderline cases. It seems like the dress code can only achieve its goal if it is strictly enforced, but when strictly enforced it can deprive people of more basic educational goals.	cmv
I think all public schools should have a uniform dress code. CMV	I went to both public and private. Most public schools are not enforcing some sort of psuedo dress code and it's nice. It establishes that students go to that school, and will minimize any inequality during normal school interaction. car circle / bus circle though, you'll be double judged on the car thats waiting for you.	cmv
I think all public schools should have a uniform dress code. CMV	Having different clothes etc is not a source of bullying nor is it the main source of it. I grew up in a country where 100 % of the schools have uniforms. It did not by any measure made everyone'equal'regardless of race or class. Bullying still existed in all the schools I went to and I went through 4 schools all up til uni. Bullying comes in many forms and all this did was cut out the'I have better & cooler clothes than you'portion of bullying and it just amplified other forms of bullying. It definitely did not cut clothing costs for families. Every year or two while growing up my family had to spend new uniforms for me and my siblings on top of the regular clothes they bought for us for regular wear. The way I see it, if your school did not have uniforms, you can still keep wearing your regular clothes for school and still wear it outside of school. Oh and uniforms costs a small fortune here on top of the textbooks we'd have to buy every year.	cmv
I think all public schools should have a uniform dress code. CMV	You can't stop bullying by giving all students the same clothes. Others will still stand out because of their face, their body, their abnormal behavior, their preferences, their race, etcetera. Clothing is not the fundamental reason for bullying : it's used just as an excuse. Clothing can be used to hide things. Overweight people can wear certain clothing to hide it ; sweating people can wear something to conceal their wet armpits. A standard uniform can't help all of those people.	cmv
I think all public schools should have a uniform dress code. CMV	Many people are forgetting to mention the idea that clothing plays a huge role in nonverbal communication. The way a person dresses often says more about a person than they do. You can already tell a lot about someone if a he / she is dressed sloppily, dressed as an emo would, dressed extremely nicely, etc. This may be intentional or unintentional, but it still plays a key role in the communication process.	cmv
I think all public schools should have a uniform dress code. CMV	If you're only argument is cost and bullying you obviously didn't go to a school with uniforms. This is nothing compared to the " worldwide scouting movement. " Bullying will never stop as people naturally take on alpha roles. As for the uniforms when they know you HAVE to buy them, they set the price to what they NEED to turn a profit. No more thrift store shopping for school clothes.	cmv
I think all public schools should have a uniform dress code. CMV	I don't know about cutting clothing costs, our uniforms cost a fortune! Maybe if low - income families got financial help with the cost of the uniforms. Also, KeeperZA is right. Bullies will always find some reason to pick on other kids.	cmv
I think all public schools should have a uniform dress code. CMV	Not to imply anything, but when I hear this proposal I immediatly think of the UK and several fascist groups. School uniforms will create friction between educational institutions as well as a hirearchy within the school. This is due to the clear military reference and therefore people will be more prone to other'militaristic'ideas	cmv
I think all public schools should have a uniform dress code. CMV	I was told by my principals in schools with dress codes that it was created for equality for lower income and higher income students, but that was not the case. I was still bullied because my clothes didn't come from high end stores like Aeropostale etc. And kids still bully regardless. If your children are artsy and different like I was it will be hell for them. One summer I had to shave my head because of an accident, and it hadn't grown very much by the time school came around so I wore headbands to feel more feminine, and I got suspended.	cmv
I believe there are no valid arguments for eating meat, other than " I like the taste " - CMV	I just bought, 3 nectarines, 4 plums, a broccoli crown, A large sweet onion, 2 red bell peppers, 1 / 2 lb of green beans and two packages of blueberries, and a 1 / 2 gallon of milk for $ 8. 50. I looked at the chicken a the price per pound depending on what type of cut it is can range from $ 2 - $ 6 per lb. I should preface I am not a vegetarian nor do I want to be. Eating fresh produce is better for you and can be accomplished in a constrained grocery budget. Quinoa, the mother grain, is a great source of protein that has all 7 amino acids needed to build protein. There really is no substitute though for a great steak or juicy burger. [ mouth is watering ]	cmv
I believe there are no valid arguments for eating meat, other than " I like the taste " - CMV	I completely agree that many if not most of the processes by which we treat our animals for meat is inhumane. However, there is nothing inhumane about eating animals, simply look to biology for that, all animals eat different animals for various nutritional reasons. If you're staying healthy than being a vegetarian I believe is a great thing, but hard to truly be healthy ; keep that in mind especially as you grow older. And something I saw not too long ago, a lot of people don't eat meat because they say it's cruel - well isn't it " cruel " to eat the very thing that converts light into energy for us? That gives us oxygen and resources? That provides a habitat for all other animals? And death for a plant is just as real as death for an animal. It's impossible to live thinking we can avoid hurting everything that helps us, I would say moderation is key, perhaps try organic meats, farms that don't treat their animals unfairly, and thus be healthier.	cmv
I believe there are no valid arguments for eating meat, other than " I like the taste " - CMV	I like meat for its texture and taste for the most part. You might say'there are plenty of other things that imitate the texture '. Well, for some part, this is true. Most things can be imitated and / or replaced by mushrooms for example. But having a piece of game ( hunted animals for its meat, like birds and swine ) is godlike. It's amazing texture and taste is something unique that i will NOT want to give up. What i find a good thing however is to make meat free - ranged. That said, it tastes better as well! Apart from that, your vegan vision and idea gives me a'i dont care, good day sir'kinda attitude.	cmv
I believe there are no valid arguments for eating meat, other than " I like the taste " - CMV	My only argument against vegetarian diets is the formation of human teeth suggests a history and disposition to be an omnivorous creature. Also, the in wilderness humans would track, kill, and eat other animals, so what's wrong with continuing a modernized version of the same old same old? I disagree, however, with animal farming in some of the states you might see it in, that's gross and saddening. There's nothing wrong with vegetarians or the lifestyle. I just don't see why I should change my diet for it all.	cmv
I believe there are no valid arguments for eating meat, other than " I like the taste " - CMV	While I would agree that it is just as possible for a vegetarian diet to be healthy for most people, there are some that are physically required to eat meat. I have a friend that has an admittedly rare issue with anemia. While most anemics are able to take iron pills or consume plants that are rich in iron, her body doesn't process either of those sources correctly. Her only choices, at least according to her doctor, are to eat red meat at least twice a week, or recieve regular transfusions	cmv
I believe there are no valid arguments for eating meat, other than " I like the taste " - CMV	I read health and fitnessblogs and books, including some who tried to combine a vegetarian diet with exercise. I recall one of the writers felt more lethargic both after his workouts and on rest days. He had increased his protein intake by eating more beans, nuts and tofu. Once he made the decision to start adding animal protein in his diet, he noticed a marked improvement in his musculature and performance. If I remember corectly, he didn't eat meat every day, rather chicken, fish, or a little lean beef two to three times a week. I know one person's experience doesn't equal a scientifically rigorous test, but it is better than nothing.	cmv
I believe there are no valid arguments for eating meat, other than " I like the taste " - CMV	There was a post I read a few months ago that discussed the biological similarities of humans compared to herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores. Since I read that, I cannot disagree with you. Our bodies were designed to eat plant life. However, since we do eat meat, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't eat animals that have been domesticated. I see no reason dog, cat, goat, rabbit, etc., shouldn't be more common.	cmv
I believe polygamy should be a legal part of marriage. CMV.	The two legitimate arguments I've heard against it are that - it tends to be male - dominated - marriage rights get very messy when polygamy is involved. I think it's a valid argument, but I imagine that we might be able to devise a legal system that allows for polygamy.	cmv
I believe polygamy should be a legal part of marriage. CMV.	I don't have a problem with polygamy itself. It does have a bit of a storied past, however, and the question of how you can curtail its past abuses without infringing on peoples'freedom is a thorny one. It can be especially abusive with certain insular religious communities. Invariably, it will be one man with many wives raised in a community that teaches that women are meant to be subservient. That has historically lead to abuse and suffering. Wikipedia has a decent article on the history of polygamy and Mormonism. This is not to say that all marriages of this sort would be like this, but I have no idea how to legalize it without opening the door to those abuses again.	cmv
I believe polygamy should be a legal part of marriage. CMV.	my issue with polygamy is this : if polygamy is allowed it should be done equally where both man and woman can have multiple spouses. but this leads to family trees to be more like family webs and if this continues, inbreeding becomes inevitable. with each passing generation there is an increased chance of mating with someone of closely related genetics causing an increase in birth defects. the scary one of these being a weak immune system which and snowball into further complications for mankind.	cmv
I believe polygamy should be a legal part of marriage. CMV.	Polygamy would result in the destruction of the host society, that's why no seriously polygamist society has survived. Unmarried guys are the principle instigators of revolutions, crime, etc. For related situations, look at the problems China is predicted to have as the one child policy's side effect of there being way way too many boys being born kicks in.	cmv
I believe the downsides of immigration from the third world and modern multiculturalism significantly outweight the positives, and thus Europe should severely limit immigration from Africa and the Middle East. CMV.	You are wrong on one issue. The increasing " reserve army of labor " has only positive effects for the ruling class. A non cohesive community is the goal. The ones to decide don't care about criminality, costs or hapiness of their slaves. Mass immigration may be bad for you, but it aint for the 1 % making the rules. You are wrong thinking you democratically decide anything, you are a powerless slave, manipulated trough media and a rigged democracy.	cmv
I think that if a job requires higher education, the company should be required to fund said education. CMV	I think that is too much risk for businesses to take. A college degree is expensive, much more expensive than I want it to be, but still, it would take years for a company to recoup the losses which makes hiring people difficult. And also, what do you do about people that already have a degree from a previous job? Do you have to pay them more to make up for it? If so, how is that different than just paying everyone a wage?	cmv
I think that if a job requires higher education, the company should be required to fund said education. CMV	So they're supposed to wait 4 years before hiring someone for a position they need soon and hope that person doesn't change majors or fail or a billion other things? Really? Why in the world would they take on someone with that kind of liability vs someone who already has that degree? - - - For your personal issue your best bet is to go above and beyond and prove to a company you are highly competent.	cmv
I don't accept the reassigned gender of people who have been gender reassigned. CMV	I'm happy that you're acknowledging that it's really about the ick factor but are otherwise openminded about the whole thing. I know exactly where you're coming from. You clearly understand the rational arguments and the trans person's perspective, so to be honest I think the only way your view could be changed on this is exposure therapy.	cmv
I feel that Islam is, on the whole evil, and that many Muslims in Britain should be deported. Please CMV	The only muslims who make the news are radical muslims. Media outlets are giving a distorted world view - point because it is more profitable to report horrible things. Just a few examples can include : WestBoro, Terrorists, White Supremacy, Anti - GBLT, School Shooters, etc. There's a saying that goes " All news is bad news ". Average people and stories never make the news because they're as boring as Bakersfield.	cmv
I feel that Islam is, on the whole evil, and that many Muslims in Britain should be deported. Please CMV	Talk to some Muslims, it's so easy for you to change your view that way. I'm ashamed to say that I used to be racist toward some nationalities until I made friends from those countries. Now I have a completely neutral view of people from these countries, even though the media tries to convince me otherwise.	cmv
While I agree with vegetarianism, I still eat meat because I don't think it will make a difference to the meat industry whether or not one person eats meat. CMV	I'm going to disregard the arguments for and against vegetarian and just focus on your line of thinking : " It is okay to do it because it doesn't make a difference ". It is wholly immoral, in my opinion, to act against what you think is right purely because it won't make much of a difference. You should always act in accordance with your own morals - they should be strong enough that they guide your actions, not the other way around. While not eating meat won't stop slaughterhouses, it will allow you to have a clear - conscience.	cmv
While I agree with vegetarianism, I still eat meat because I don't think it will make a difference to the meat industry whether or not one person eats meat. CMV	As one in a similar situation morally I feel similarly, though my concerns are purely hedonistic! I love me some bacon. For your economic concerns i can try to change your view! Essentially when you go to a restaurant and order a salad, the restaurant may not notice, but you have made a decision eith your money. If you do that more ( or more people do it ) the average amount of meat the restaurant buys will drop ( probably minutely, but over time the price of meat will go up because demand is going down ). The same goes for the supermarket. If you buy meat, then the supermarket will continue to buy meet in the same quantity. If you don't, then while the effect might be small, it's small in the right direction and will push the quantity of meat demanded down! So while your individual impact is small, it can be small in the right direction or the wrong direction. I've decided to simply do the better thing, not the best thing, and eat less meat : p i just have such a strong taste for it that until eating vegetarian is a more affordable and easy solution, I wont be giving it up altogether!	cmv
Chris Dorner didn't need to be burned to death. CMV	How do you propose police deal with a person who is barricaded inside a building and uses firearms to shoot at anyone who comes near the building? As far as your due process claim goes, the proper center of analysis is the 4th Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures, since the encounter happened during the course of an attempt to arrest Dorner. It doesn't really matter whether you analyze the situation under the Fourth's prohibition on unreasonable seizure or the Fifth's prohibition on depriving life without due process, however, as Dorner was actively shooting at police officers, and had in fact hit two of them during the final shootout. When a person poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the arresting officers or others, use of deadly force is constitutional. See, for example, Tennessee v. Garner.	cmv
Chris Dorner didn't need to be burned to death. CMV	He had important information that was damaging to either the LAPD or someone BIG. They weren't going to let that guy live. Not. A. Chance. BTW : Found burned with a PLASTIC Id beside him... suuuure. Not buying that for one second.	cmv
Chris Dorner didn't need to be burned to death. CMV	While he certainly should have been put to trial, the reality is that Dorner probably would never have surrendered. Given that there was a shootout and various attacks on police officers, getting the man in handcuffs was a matter of waiting until he ran out of ammunition. That isn't a good plan for somebody with the intelligence and planning that Dorner possessed, because he was an excellent shot and would know to conserve ammunition for shots he knew he could land. Inevitably more law enforcement personnel would have been injured or killed if Dorner wasn't taken down one way or another. You can't storm the building without taking heavy losses, that kind of casualty rate for one man is unacceptable. Should they have burned him out? Probably not, but personnel on the scene had to make a decision before he slipped away and / or killed anyone else.	cmv
Chris Dorner didn't need to be burned to death. CMV	I doubt an argument could be made he deserved burning to death. This is a country where even murderers deserve due process of law. Denying him that was probably illegal and likely motivated by the passions of LAPD rather than morality or necessity. I also suspect they didn't want him to go on the stand and testify about his experiences in their police department.	cmv
I believe info about people who have concealed - carry weapons permits should be public. CMV	If you believe that having a fire - arm on you will help you defend yourself, publishing this information can help criminals pick targets. Robberta : So what do you say, shall we hit 24a in main street tonight Robbingtong : No, the internet says those people have guns, lets attack 22b instead. The knowledge of who can carry concealed weaponry also kind of destroys the whole " concealed " part of carrying concealed weapons ( theoretically of course ) Just playing devils advocate here by the way.	cmv
I believe info about people who have concealed - carry weapons permits should be public. CMV	Devil's advocate on this since I don't really have a belief either way, but : If you make a list of concealed - carriers public, then people can just check the list to find out whether anyone in particular is armed. If the list is secret, then you never know who has a gun and who doesn't ( unless you're part of law enforcement and check the list for reasons of security ) and therefore, everyone is potentially armed.	cmv
I believe info about people who have concealed - carry weapons permits should be public. CMV	One boring and hopelessly pragmatical point to consider is that no one would ever bother check that list. I mean sure, you as a journalist might make an article or two but then it would be forgotten and nobody would care. Essentially this would be just a huge list ( like a phone book in larger cities ) that were filled with names nobody knows and nobody wants to look at. The end result would be extremely similar to the one we have now. This isn't really a counterargument but I think it should still be kept in mind.	cmv
I believe info about people who have concealed - carry weapons permits should be public. CMV	First reason and that of concealed carry weapon holders, less than 1 % will ever commit a felony. ( this is from my class for my permit, I need to check that though ) So what good does it do to call out the people that are law - abiding. This isn't the same as having pedophile maps or what not. Second is exactly what happened in New York, addresses on that list were targeted by criminals for burglary. So in that case you're actually helping to put weapons in the hands of criminals.	cmv
I believe info about people who have concealed - carry weapons permits should be public. CMV	Let me preface this by saying I'm not trying to be inflamatory ; this is a serious question. Would you feel more comfortable with a simple carry permit, not a concealed - cary permit? It requires the weapon to be in plain sight, not hidden from view. This type of permit has the benefit of being clear and open with all people, including law enforcement, that a citizen is armed. Someone with a carry permit who conceals the weapon on their person would be aproached by law enforcement officers as a potential dangerous criminal. Someone with their gun on their hip, in plain view, would be a known entity. I think a police department releasing permit holders'names is pretty useless ; I wouldn't be able to memorize thousands of names and recall them upon being introduced to someone. I still wouldn't be able to tell if they were armed.	cmv
I see no reason that prostituition should be illegal CMV	Do you think sex should be a commodity to be bought or sold or that is should be given freely? Material gifts may be involved in sexual relations have always been involved in sexual relations without commodification. The commodification of sex produces an uneven relationship whereby the buyer has an advantage over the seller.	cmv
I see no reason that prostituition should be illegal CMV	This is a very two sided issue IMO so let me list some of the pitfalls of legalizing prostitution : 1. Legalizing would essentially be making it socially acceptable, and the number of people seeing prostitutes would markedly increase. A great number of people would then be left with the experience of having a sexual partner being basically fully submissive and just doing whatever they wanted. This would likely pose problems to their future partners. 2. A lot of people, at times when they are having a rough patch in relationships, would be unfaithful if given the chance. Legalized prostitution would increase this. 3. Many get off on violence and humiliation, and this is something we would be saying it's okay for people to take out on prostitutes. 4. Many prostitutes are victims of international sex trade and aren't so much consenting employees as they are forced into the trade. Much of the money goes to the underworld. If you think legalizing the trade will help curb this, I'll point that strip clubs are legal and a lot of those strippers are girls that were trying to flee their own countries for whatever reason and ended up being forced into the profession.	cmv
I don't think white males are as privileged as they are made out to be. CMV?	Do you play video games? I found this article to be very useful to explain the concept of privilege. Basically, " privilege " doesnt mean that everything will be easy and great for you. It means that, all other things equal, white cis straight men will be better off than other parts of the population. Other thing to consider is that society doesn't exist in a vacuum. Those special scholarships and classes you mention are there as an attempt to balance out years of inequality. Sure, in a truly color / gender blind society, there would be no need for those. But society is not color / gender blind, and all the abuse of past years still has consequences today.	cmv
I think non - violent criminals shouldn't be sent to prison. CMV?	I'm not sure that your proposal is much different from what currently happens - I'm assuming you are talking about the US judicial system. The vast majority of the time, first time offenders receive probation or similar for non - violent crimes, such as drug and and relatively minor property crimes. Then, if they reoffend, the punishments they receive tend to escalate. Of course, there are exceptions to this general case, but by and large we are not incarcerating first time offenders for petty crimes.	cmv
I think non - violent criminals shouldn't be sent to prison. CMV?	You might want to ask when someone is " relatively okay ". Is a crime boss, that did not kill anyone himself, relatively okay? What about large scaled fraud that destoyed the life of thousands of people? Prison time serves as punishment, and to remove people from society. I'm not saying mandatory minimums and the drug war aren't ridiculous, but there are pretty of nonviolent but dangerous people around.	cmv
I think non - violent criminals shouldn't be sent to prison. CMV?	Fines are tricky. How can you fine someone with no assets? If a homeless man breaks into your store, causing a few thousand dollars worth of damage, there's no recompense, no wages to garnish. The only things people all have are time and bodies. We can punish them by taking their time, with prison, or we can punish by taking their bodies, through some system of corporal punishment. I mostly agree with you, but I think that jails should instead be segregated - property crimes and drug crimes have a lower cost to the fabric of society than anything involving violence or the specter of violence.	cmv
I think that men should be able to opt out of child support. CMV.	What if the woman is on birth control and it fails ( my mother was on the pill when she got pregnant with me )? And then of course you have woman who are opposed to abortion because of religious reason or simply because they don't want the risks associated with it. What about them?	cmv
I think that men should be able to opt out of child support. CMV.	A think a better option would be this : In order to receive child support, there must be parental influence in the child's life as well as guarantees the money is going to the child. If the mother ( or father ) wishes no child support then no influence, likewise going the other way. There are obviously circumstances that make this unfeasible, but that would be a court decision.	cmv
I believe prisons should not be privatized. CMV.	While I don't support privatization, there are two arguments that go for nearly any government contractor - 1 ) They will be more efficient. This is because of the lack of bureaucracy, and it's universally true. 2 ) They will be cheaper. This is because private companies can fire underperforming staff with relative ease, whereas the government is beholden to all kinds of government specific laws and regulations.	cmv
I dont believe new gun laws will change anything CMW	I think that the specific gun laws that were passed will probably have zero effect on crime and mass shooting frequency. However, I don't think this generalizes to every gun law. There is a temptation among anti - gun control people to reject any gun laws, hence the baffling gun laws in this country. I think gun laws such as stricter background checks, requiring dealers to actually take inventory, maybe making obtaining a gun require as much licensing as training as getting a driver's license does now, and tougher penalties on criminals with illegal firearms would have a much more noticeable impact on crime. These seem like very sane things and I don't really know why anyone would be against them. So, while I don't have a problem with your view as stated, I would resist generalization of that view to all gun laws.	cmv
I don't think democracy is necessarily better than any other way of governing a country CMV	Information about the needs and concerns of the citizenry is probably better passed in a democracy that in any other enacted form. It gives a responsive mechanisms to the needs of the people. This mechanism may be broken and inefficient, but most other forms lack this mechanism altogether. No matter how benevolent a dictator is, he cannot account for the needs of the people in the same way that giving the people a voice, however minimized and disenfranchised, can. There are many easy rebuttals to this point [ people don't always know what's best for them, certain voices tend to overpower others, etc. ] but overall I think it points to a general systematic principle that makes democracy appealing.	cmv
I don't think democracy is necessarily better than any other way of governing a country CMV	Well one of the things that shows from your original post is that you're familiar with the american system. The problem with lack of difference between candidates and low priority on keeping promises is that there's a two - party system in the US. Another part is that there is a ridiculous amount of money in the system in the US, in ways that would be illegal ( and career - breaking ) in many other democratic countries. Other forms of government can be better then democracy, for a while. Louis XIV was a very good king, and did a lot of things for his country, but when Louis XVI came on the throne, it turned out that you needed a competent ruler in charge, and hereditary positions just don't guarantee that.	cmv
I don't think democracy is necessarily better than any other way of governing a country CMV	The U. S. is only a representative democracy. I don't believe a true democracy has been implemented properly yet. What you said about Guantanamo Bay, don't forget that electing Obama didn't necessarily guarantee closing it down. There was no place for all the prisoners to go if it were to close down. The states didn't want these prisoners in their already packed prison systems. A non - elected official has a much easier time ignoring the will of the people than an elected official. Not to mention the peaceful transition of power as opposed to what is going on in Syria and has happened with the other middle eastern countries in the past few years. I believe the answer is more democracy, a direct democracy, not less democracy.	cmv
I hate vegetarians. CMV.	You can't use the inhumanity of other animals to justify our abuse of them. There's a lot of horrible things found in the state of nature that we as humans regard as unacceptable for our society. If I started torturing a dog or a cat, you know there is a little voice in your head that says what I am doing is wrong. It is that moral voice within us that recognizes that we have a duty to avoid inflicting pain and suffering on animals. " It will never stop the sale of meat... " Why? How do you know that? As more people become vegetarians, then the amount of production for meat will go down. Just because the movement hasn't reached a critical mass yet doesn't mean that it won't get there. All social movements have early adopters.	cmv
I hate vegetarians. CMV.	" Eating meat is a natural, ethical, completely normal thing to do. " natural : most undesirable human behaviour, including rape and murder, is natural. ethical : you can't justify something by saying it's ethical ; that's a circular argument. normal : many things are normal before we do away with them, including slavery and torture.	cmv
I hate vegetarians. CMV.	have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Can you imagine what it would be like if an alien race that thought of us as animals treated us that way? That's usually enough for most people. Besides, we're human. We're sentient. We're the best precisely BECAUSE we no longer need to follow our instincts to survive. It costs much more in time, money and resources to make meat products than it does to grow fruit and vegetables. If everyone was a vegetarian ( hypothetically ), there would be more food for everyone. Seriously, what reason do you have for eating meat, besides the fact that it tastes good?	cmv
I hate vegetarians. CMV.	I fully agree with your views on eating meat and am a proud omnivore myself. That said, hating moral vegetarians is pointless. Their not eating meat only benefits you. It leaves more meat for you, which lowers prices. Even if they try to change your views to being a vegetarian, that's really no worse than someone else you disagree with trying to change your views. Do you hate Jehovah's witnesses simply for trying to convert you? Do you hate any politician who tries to persuade you of a view you don't already have? Do you hate us for trying to change your view now?	cmv
I hate vegetarians. CMV.	Likening your own intelligence to an animal's when it comes to food but stating the vast difference when talking about anything else is what really annoys a lot of vegetarians, and I can see why. Animals don't have the ability to understand right from wrong in the same way we do. They are also not in the position to do so ; they need to hunt to survive. Do humans? Mostly not. We eat meat for taste and satisfaction, not for necessity, so people should stop claiming that. Okay, so you disagree with their actions, but why do you hate them? They aren't harming you, are they?	cmv
I hate vegetarians. CMV.	I think you hate because you could never see yourself able to make a change like that. You could never build the will power to stop eating McDonalds chicken nuggets, Taco Bell's carne asada burrito or your restaurant's top burger. Its easy and cheap to eat meat in America. But as some recent news has shown you don't even know what they put in the meat. Horse DNA is in that mystery meat at Taco Bell, which they pump through a hose into your taco. Meat is death and you put this into your body. I just believe that life brings life and death will bring death. Im not a vegetarian but I'm trying to cut meat out for these reasons.	cmv
I hate vegetarians. CMV.	It's one thing to disagree with my moral views, but why do you hate me for it? Will you acknowledge that animals feel pain and emotions? If so, what is wrong with me empathizing with that? By choosing not to eat meat, I am not hurting you or anyone else. And less animals are being hurt. I don't go around judging and criticizing everyone who doesn't agree with me. I still receive proper nutrition. Why does it bother you so much what I choose not to eat?	cmv
I think gay marriage is unnecessary ( in the UK ). CMV.	Class division is also felt by nominal differences. What if we went around calling mixed race marriages just'partnerships '? I know this is the dead horse of pro marriage equality logic, but it should make clear that names matter.	cmv
I think gay marriage is unnecessary ( in the UK ). CMV.	So long as marriage exists for heterosexual couples, homosexuals will want it. Maybe not need it, but to them, and even those who are straight, it's definitely an equality thing. The inability to get married as a homosexual couple suggests inferiority and a lack of full acceptance in society.	cmv
I think gay marriage is unnecessary ( in the UK ). CMV.	I used to think the same thing. Here is the argument that changed my mind. I hope this thought process helps. Marriage implies a mutually exclusive, financially invested, sexual relationship. This is the connotations that go with marriage. Civil partnership doesn't have this connotation in society even if it may ( I don't know if it does in the UK ) have the same rights. After 100 or 200 years civil partnerships might get these same connotations, but that is still 100 - 200 years of injustice and second class citizenship.	cmv
I think gay marriage is unnecessary ( in the UK ). CMV.	While gay couples are limited only to civil partnerships, there isn't true equality. It's as simple as that. The rights are same, but the name is important. Shakespeare was right to question if a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.	cmv
I don't understand why many Americans deify their founding fathers, and I feel as though I'm missing something obvious. CMV.	When you're interpreting a law, you ask yourself a series of questions : 1. What does it actually say, and is it clear on the exact issue in this case? 2. If it's not clear, what effect did the drafting body ( in the case of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, then the Founding Fathers ) intend for it to have? There's a whole lot more to statutory interpretation, but those are the two most important points. The Bill of Rights especially was extremely vaguely written, so when interpreting those laws, courts often have to resort to this sort of " what did they mean " speculation. That said, I think most legal experts'knowledge of the 18th Century is lacking or at the very least distorted by modern misconceptions.	cmv
I don't understand why many Americans deify their founding fathers, and I feel as though I'm missing something obvious. CMV.	I'm not going to try to change your view ( because I agree with it, so I'll be happy to see what people say here ), but, on a related note, I don't understand how " It's unconstitutional! " seems to be an argument against something. Presumably, the person who holds the " unconstitutional " view believes that it shouldn't be unconstitutional and that's the point. Laws change over time. Constitutions become amended because of the lack of foresight or the prejudice of those living in the past. Why is it so important to preserve a constitution at all costs?	cmv
I don't understand why many Americans deify their founding fathers, and I feel as though I'm missing something obvious. CMV.	I don't understand either. I think we ( Americans ) are long overdue for a Constitution 2. 0 or general re - write of the Constitution. If you think about it, the founding fathers basically wrote a document that would govern then, what is now the population of a single American state. It makes no sense that the power of the central government has only grown when the population has increased exponentially. The whole point of the Constitution was to limit the powers of the central government and government in general.	cmv
I believe the whole world should unite properly as a human race, CMV.	Is reducing war your reason for wanting a single government? Because there are certainly ways to reduce war without a single government, and ways to produce a single government without reducing war. In the first case, extremely overpowering networks of defensive pacts can reduce the incentive for wars, along with large amounts of trade. For example, these reasons probably guarantee no western nation will be invaded in the near to medium term. In the second case, you can see that single governments don't prevent internal wars in the middle east and Africa. Massacres in Iraq, Rwanda, and Kenya in 2007 show that governments with multiple ethnic identities can commit atrocities as well as any international conflict.	cmv
I believe the whole world should unite properly as a human race, CMV.	" if a little is good more must be better " ( this is the logic ur going for right? ) would be valid in this case, i dont see a problem w / " the more must be better " part ; my issue would be w / the former why do u believe that " a little is good "?	cmv
I believe the whole world should unite properly as a human race, CMV.	Different people want different governments, and so having different countries is a good way to provide what everyone wants. Ideally we could get to a situation where it is easy to move between countries so people who prefer the governing style of one place could just go there. If we only have one government, there'd be similar problems to having one company monopolize a given industry. There are other things we can do to try to reduce and eliminate war and have more international cooperation, like with the UN and EU. And whatever we're doing seems to be working well ; we're living in the most peaceful time we've ever known. I think simply having a more connected world via technological advances is what is largely contributing to people being less hostile to other countries / cultures.	cmv
I believe the whole world should unite properly as a human race, CMV.	Individual governments are probably inevitable because different groups of people have different values, different lifestyles, different traditions, etc. A single government can't attend to the contradicting values, lifestyles, and traditions of every group of people in the world, and the logistics of enforcing these values would be a nightmare. Wars are not fought between nations, they are fought between groups of people who disagree with each other. You can make one huge global country, but that won't stop people from disagreeing with each other. If you make one big nation, and try to enforce one set of values, lifestyles, and traditions onto all groups, you're going to have one nation with a lot of civil wars and revolutions.	cmv
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV.	libertarian here. Not ancap, but I do tip my hat towards them. My answer is that not all taxes are theft. Voluntary taxes are peaceful. Voluntary taxes like the lottery which taxes poor, old, humanities majors, and minorities are voluntary and not coercive. I'm fine with voluntary taxes like the lottery are not theft in the truest sense. Immoral, yes. Theft, not really. Peaceful, yes.	cmv
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV.	It's part of the compact involved in maintaining a society. The way it is supposed to work is We The People authorize our representatives to collect money in order to fund the government. Is your objection to the concept of taxation itself, or the specific things your tax dollars fund?	cmv
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV.	As marthawhite explained, this should not be viewed as theft due to Tacit Concent and Social Contract philosophies. To my knowledge, these are widely accepted philosophical ideas and date back at least to Socrates. More or less, this means that ( using the USA as an example ) you benefit from the government from the moment of birth. Security and rights are provided for, and often health and education are provided or aided by the government. You receive all these benefits ( and more ) for years and years of living in the country, always with the option to leave. In return for these benefits, you are expected to abide by the law which, once you're old enough and begin making money, includes paying back into the system so that these benefits can continue to be provided to you and other citizens alike. You are also given the right to vote and change the government as a result. A sweet deal if you ask me. I will try not to complain about taxes, because I recognize that the existence of my government means that my quality of life is one of the best in the world and has been since I was born, almost two decades before I ever had to pay for it. If I have a problem with the way the money is being spent or the laws, I will oppose it in the political realm.	cmv
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV.	Property rights are only protected through the threat of coercion by an entity seen to have control over the legitimate use of force. Do you think people who steal from you should be allowed to be punished by the government for that theft? If you do, you are giving the government authority to define property, and as such, define your taxable income as " not your property " making it not theft. I'm not going to try to change your view, but you must recognize that theft only makes sense in a state that respects the institution of property, and that this is not a natural state of affairs. Property and ownership, like government, are social constructs. Government does ultimately rest of the use of coercive force, but this force is necessary to create universal institutions.	cmv
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV.	There's a substantial difference between taxation in a representative governmental system and taxation without representation. That distinction is what sowed the seeds of the American revolution. In the latter case, yes, tax is theft. But in a representative system, tax comes through the consent of the governed, and theoretically, if a consensus develops in the electorate that there is over - taxation, their representatives will change their positions or be replaced. This is what the Tea Party movement is all about. What's happening now is that some people, presumably including you, hold a view of taxation that is not supported by a significant enough portion of the populace to affect a change in representation. So, the issue isn't really whether you believe taxation is theft, coercion or morally wrong, but whether you believe in a representative government with the power to tax. In short, I don't believe that taxation by " the government " is theft if it can be argued that we are the government. In that framework, the populace as a single body would be stealing from itself, which isn't theft.	cmv
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV.	Taxation isn't theft, it's a membership fee. To abuse an analogy, a country is like a club and taxes are the membership fee. There are a bunch of different clubs with different fees and members and benefits. Usually, you become a member of your initial club by being born into it, but you have the option to change. Some clubs will be more restrictive than others. Also, some clubs give their members more or less control over how high the fees are and what benefits you receive. The biggest failure of this analogy is that for all intents and purposes, you have to join a club. This isn't the clubs fault per se, it's just that all the available land is owned by one club or another, so you have to pick one. But that doesn't mean the fees are theft.	cmv
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV.	There are still places in this world where the poor receive no assistance at all, and receive no charity from the wealthy. In these places people are forced to defecate in the streets, mothers are forced to give birth in a dirty apartments and see their newborns die from preventable causes. They have no running water, no access to food, the children cannot read, and women are forced into prostitution so that their family will not starve. these people are not free. Thankfully the United States ISN'T one of those places. nearly everyone has running water and access to a decent hospital. the old can die with dignity and everyone has the opportunity to learn how to read and write. this is only possible because everybody works together and pays to have a stronger society ( and a stronger economy ). it is not theft to require everyone to help, because helping the needy is a moral obligation.	cmv