summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV. | taxes are like paying for a costco or a country club membership. and with costco and with the country club you get perks and access to things and people. with taxes you get access to the nation's protection, rights, laws, and access to their people and economy, etc. | cmv |
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV. | You were born between those arbitrary lines but you don't have to stay there. By remaining here you consent to taxes, same as you consent to paying rent by remaining in your apartment. You are free to go elsewhere. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from buying a plane ticket to somewhere that doesn't collect taxes. Most of those places are terrible places to live, and it's possible there's a correlation there, but that has nothing to do with your freedom. | cmv |
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV. | Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, describes the idea of a social contract. He states that we, meaning people in an organized society, at one point decided to trade some basic liberties, ( the right to kill, the right to steal, ) for safety. This idea can be applied to taxation, because one can say that they are trading their right to save all of their money for the right to be a part of organized society. Don't think of your taxes as going to other people in your society, think of it as your " society membership " fee. I think it is well worth it. | cmv |
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV. | I think most people are missing the point. Without roads, schools, law enforcement, and many other services, you cannot live the way you are now. Whether this should be handled privately or publicly is another debate. The point is, you will have to give money to someone to live successfully in modern civilization. If taxes didn't exist, companies would fill in the gaps and force you to pay for these services anyways. In general, taxes may be considered theft in the strictest sense of the word, but you cannot ever escape these payments unless someone else pays it for you. You will always be at the mercy of either government or corporate bills unless you decide to live in a farming commune. | cmv |
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV. | this argument is persuasive to some, but it is not logically sound because it employs logical fallacies to prove its conclusion. first of all, this is an argument from analogy. this argument also begs the question by using morally loaded words ( stealing and coercion ) to assert ( without proof ) that obtaining something without consent is always immoral, and it also asserts ( without proof ) that taxpayers are victims of abuse. this argument is not logically sound until its supporters can demonstrate that taking something from someone without their consent is ALWAYS Immoral. enforcing mandatory contribution by members of a group is ALWAYS immoral. - or - in the context of taxation, taking without consent is immoral. in the context of tax collection, enforcing mandatory contribution by members of a group is immoral. | cmv |
I believe taxation is theft and collected through coercion CMV. | An inherent assumption you have is that, since you were born there, you have some right to the land. But what gives you that inherent right? Currently, governments enforce property rights, aggressively stopping other's from taking it from you. By living on that land, you agree to a contract with that government, that includes taxation. Of course, you are free to not sign that contract. You can move elsewhere and live in a different way. But you do NOT have the right ( and privilege ) to live in the US and make up and follow your own rules. If you want that, I guess you'll have to take the land from the government in some way. | cmv |
I believe 100 % in American exceptionalism, and that that the world needs our leadership. CMV. | In what ways do the United States lead the world and why is it benevolent? Or sacrificial? How is it protecting and guiding the world? Why would it fall apart without the US? | cmv |
I think democracy is a terrible form of government. CMV | A pure democracy is horrible, because it is equivalent to mob rule. A government with democratic elements is better, because it retains the ability for the people to participate in government, while retaining certain sets of laws. No form of government is perfect, but some are better than others. It is my belief that you can't form a pure government. You can't have a pure democracy, republic, theocracy, monarchy, or anything. It just doesn't work the way it is intended. | cmv |
I think democracy is a terrible form of government. CMV | While democracy can be horrible and corrupt and even more abusive than other forms of government, the most promising solution is better and more direct democracy. I can see how a king might be rich enough not to be corrupted by petty merchants, but he can still get richer, and choosing friends who are as rich as possible, helps that goal. Rule by majority is necessarily better than any other alternative because it necessarily makes the most people happy ( subject to the constraints of not abusing a minority ). The fact that politicians spend more time educating us on how their interests are good for us, rather than implementing our interests, means that democracy is broken and corrupt, and needs fixing. | cmv |
I think democracy is a terrible form of government. CMV | The main problem with governments ruled by a particular group of people is that we would need some criteria for choosing who those leaders would be. A priori, there is no reason to choose a particular group, or selection criteria, over any other. If we allow a particular person or group of people to choose what that should be, then we have just pushed the problem back a step, because that group effective are the rulers. The only objective method for determining who would be the " best " ruler is to determine who would be the best ruler for the most people, and the only way to know that is to ask everyone. And now you have a representative democracy. | cmv |
I think democracy is a terrible form of government. CMV | Democracy is defined as " rule by the people ", not necessarily majority rule. And democracy is more than voting and decision making, it is a process. Democracy includes the freedom to assemble and demonstrate, and to petition the government and the responsibility to be informed. Either way democracy only works if the people are knowledgeable or can trust those who are their proxy ( as in a representative democracy ). What is derailing our democracy now is that our representatives depend more on those with money to get elected and are beholden to them, not to the voters. We really don't have a democracy, but a plutocracy, rule by the wealthy. | cmv |
I think democracy is a terrible form of government. CMV | First, a question ; What other form of governance is more desirable than democracy? Second, a correction. Democracy isn't the only way for a society to be free, it's a way for society to the most free because it allows for a peaceful exchange of power, thus limiting the potential for armed insurrection and revolt. Every other system of government that we've experienced, from dictatorships to monarchies to oligarchies, what we see is that real change is realized more through military uprising and revolution than the peaceful transition of power to another party. Now, you basically point out one of democracies great flaws, that it doesn't always come to the right conclusion, but... welcome to freedom. Freedom doesn't concern itself with what's correct, it concerns itself with self - determination, and those two things aren't always compatible. But what it does do is limit the ability and effects of bad leaders by allowing for their expulsion. I wish I could find it, but there was a study that compared and contrasted the efficacy of democratic institutions with other forms of government and what they found was that democracy resulted in more instances of mediocre leaders than other systems, which is overall a good thing. Monarchies and dictatorships tend to have highs and lows, with the caveat that the lows can and will completely ruin countries and impact that they have can easily last much, much longer and have far more negative long term effects than the alternative. All things considered, democracy is great not because it's great, but because it's not horrible. | cmv |
I think democracy is a terrible form of government. CMV | I'm no fan of democracy. However a point you are missing is that in most cases, to my understanding, our elected representatives are quite well - informed about the law, which is, after all, what they are supposed to be crafting. Many are ex - lawyers. So in many cases we are electing specialists. These specialists, unlike the ones you are suggesting, have the broadest ability to perform the function of governance, since they can write laws about anything and interpret the laws. It's not clear why we should have some other kind of specialists, say economists, creating and interpreting policies which would in fact be created and interpreted by lawyers who would then be their advisors, when those lawyers would be the ones who would have all the power anyway. One could require rulers to have both passed a civil service exam and have ancillary expertise in some other field of importance to the public. | cmv |
I don't see anything wrong with drug testing welfare recipients. CMV. | There's one point I don't see yet here, even though your V has been C'd : That of equity. This policy / idea targets only a tiny subset of people who get government money, with not much of a legitimate reason for singling them out. If the point is that all people who get checks from the government should be drug - tested, then I think it would stand up to constitutional scrutiny and general ideas of fairness. But that would require not only drug - testing welfare recipients, but also members of Congress, employees - including executives - of corporations that get government funds ( yes that includes banks ), and anyone else who in any way receives taxpayer money. At present there is no mandatory drug - testing for members of Congress, though I'd argue ( only partly tongue - in - cheek ) that they either are or should be on drugs - so why single out welfare recipients? | cmv |
I don't see anything wrong with drug testing welfare recipients. CMV. | It's a waste of ( taxpayer's ) money. For the number of people testing positive and refused benefits the money saved is less than the costs of all the tests plus all the resources still expended on homeless shelters, etc. I think Florida found that out. | cmv |
I don't see anything wrong with drug testing welfare recipients. CMV. | If you're from the US, then the 4th Amendment protects you from being searched without probable cause. Without probable cause, a government body administering / requiring a drug test would probably constitute an invasion of privacy. Private companies are not bound by the 4th Amendment, so they are allowed to test all they want. | cmv |
I think that most, if not all republican politicians are motivated by greed rather than in helping country ( US ) CMV | I hate to break it to you, but all politicians are focused on money. Not just Republicans. Liberals too. They may have a social stance you agree with more, but at the end of the day fiscal matters reign king. Social matters gain votes. | cmv |
I think that most, if not all republican politicians are motivated by greed rather than in helping country ( US ) CMV | I originally thought that ALL politicians are worthless. And i'll tell you, its been back and forth. Its run the gambit between a broken system where good people go to try and make a difference and fall prey to greed and fear, to complete disgust. Unfortunately I don't know where the truth lies. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I don't believe man are able to be raped by women. | Premise 1 : Rape occurs when a person forces another person to have sex against their will. Premise 2 : Women can force men to have sex against their will. Conclusion : Women can rape men. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I don't believe man are able to be raped by women. | You've also not mentioned psychological rape. This is often used in cases where the male is very young ( student - teacher rape ). Penetration certainly happens, but the male may not actually understand why or what he is doing, may be told what to do and behave, and with an erection not correlated to desire, this could be classified as a rape. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I don't believe man are able to be raped by women. | You seem to be playing a semantic game : Man = has a penis Sex = only can occur when a penis penetrates Rape = forcible sex If any of those definitions change then your classification falls apart. Not saying you're wrong, but someone who uses different definitions will disagree with you. Rape is a very loaded word and people will redefine it to suit their purposes in order to maximize the emotional impact. I don't know your background, but I'd take an honest look and ask why you define rape as you do. If a man raped [ penetrated ] a woman with an object would this be rape? | cmv |
[ CMV ] I don't believe man are able to be raped by women. | Am I correct in assuming you are a woman? I think this is important. You may not know this, but not all erections are voluntary. For many men, if their penis is stimulated in a sexual manner, they can't stop themselves from becoming hard. It is possible for a man to be overpowered by a woman by physical force, coersion, or by taking advantage of the fact that he is impaired by drugs or alcohol. She could stimulate his genitals and he, though he does not wish for the situation to continue, becomes erect. She inserts his penis into her vagina ( again, he does not consent and has expressed that he does not consent, but she forces him to ). Something I've seen several male rape victims struggle with is the fact that they were hard. The old " you can't rape the willing " saying is pervasive, but an erection doesn't necessarily mean that the guy was willing. Thus men can be raped. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I don't believe man are able to be raped by women. | Pleeeease be a troll. Reading your comments... You have to be right? People like you don't actually exist, it's just a charade being put on by the Internet... Right? Right? To actually attempt to CYV : Why define rape as exclusively something that can be done with a penis? What purpose does the word serve, in your opinion, that requires it to have this meaning? The fact is, all of the people with the view this thread is about define rape differently than you do. Why do you not accept their definition? Do you think a penis's involvement makes so much of a difference that all use of the word rape should be restricted to it? | cmv |
[ CMV ] I don't believe man are able to be raped by women. | I think the real question is do you think a woman penetrating a man without consent is just as bad as a man penetrating a woman without consent. No definitions of rape. Only feelings towards the actions. Do you think the woman doing it should get just as punished as the man doing it? | cmv |
I think the United States should cut off foreign aid completely. CMV | Foreign aid is less than 1 % of the budget and the vast majority must be spent in the U. S. So basically it's a way to force foreign countries to buy American stuff, which they then depend on, which then allows us to sell them even more American stuff. So foreign aid does not take money away from U. S. citizens. To the contrary, it puts more money in U. S. citizens'hands. | cmv |
I think the United States should cut off foreign aid completely. CMV | I was critical, until I met a lady who was working for the State Department, doing humanitarian aid in a volatile area. I wont say much about what we discussed except this, she was a woman who cared, the US policy on aid had enabled her to do what she enjoyed doing, which was helping people who needed it. And I completely agree that we need to focus more on internal issues. But we should continue our external aid programs as long as we can. | cmv |
As a mod of this here subreddit, my preference is to err on the side of permissiveness. CMV | I think it's good to delete things that are just blatantly sexist or racist or homophobic, like the first two you mentioned. Spreading those ideas just isn't good for anyone. Someone might see them and think, " Oh man, that totally makes sense! " and then start to hold that viewpoint. Yeah, free speech exists, but that doesn't mean saying things is always moral. And sense this is just a site people go on for fun, you are totally in the position to determine what is and isn't okay to say here. | cmv |
I believe procreation to be immoral. CMV | That is why it is pertinent to be prepared and consider as many multiple facets of having a child as two people can. Yes, I agree that many people want a baby to just because it's the " right thing to do " or " think " they are enough for the baby to have a healthy upbringing. Given that adequate preparations - both financial and mental - are made, procreation is not irrational. It is unfortunate that so many people procreate without considering the outcomes of it. Procreating and ruining another person's life is immoral. | cmv |
I believe procreation to be immoral. CMV | People should avoid imposing suffering on others because it is making their situation worse. Proving joy on others is good because it is making their situation better. If there is no starting position then you can't make it better, but at the same time you can't make it worse. The child in question has to exist before either potential joy or potential suffering become a concern, for precisely the same reason. | cmv |
I believe procreation to be immoral. CMV | Your post is somewhat contradictory. At one point, you argue that we shouldn't take into account the potential happiness of the potential person, but in the next paragraph, you do take into account the suffering of this potential life. You can't just take one. All life has happiness and pain. Most people ( in my opinion ) experience more happiness than pain. If I was experiencing more pain than happiness ( or at least expected to ), then I would end my life. I'm sure a lot of people would. Why continue living when you are hurting so much. So I would argue that it is not immoral to procreate based on " bringing into life a new person is imposing suffering onto another being " for the simple reason that most people end up experiencing a lot more joy in their lives than they do pain. | cmv |
I believe procreation to be immoral. CMV | People and animals have been having kids without considering the full implications for centuries. Heck, evolution designed us to do it by accident. That's why we regard sex as rewarding, not babies. It's only via modern birth control that childbirth is a choice anyway. To me, " procreation is immoral " cashes out to " humanity sucks and it should die out ". Personally, I like humans, I like humanity, I like what we've accomplished, and I want to see us colonize the stars. But right now people aren't having enough kids to replace themselves, which is a big problem. | cmv |
I believe procreation to be immoral. CMV | Ignoring the spiritual aspect, let's assign'happiness'as positive and'suffering'as negative. We also assume a non - existent life is zero, and a child starts at zero as well. Therefore the rational goal in living would be to end up with a positive score, anything higher than zero. Procreation creates the chance that the new life ends up in the positive overall, meaning that the chance is given that happiness ( in whatever fictional units or views you hold ) ends up outweighing the negatives. Additionally, the creation of a new life serves to create the chance that'happiness'is added to others lives, increasing their overall'score '. So again, I suppose if you ignore the spiritual aspect and assume life ends at death, procreation only creates a chance for happiness. | cmv |
I don't think democracy is always the best form of government. CMV | Democracy is far from perfect. No form of government is. It is, however, better than many other ideologies. If a country has a tyrannical dictator, then democracy would put ( at least some ) of the power back into the hands of the general populace of that country. It's not about the perfect system, it's just a system that works, and it's the best that we know. What would you propose as an alternative to democracy? | cmv |
CMV I believe that the United States should invest in a global ad campaign. | Unfortunately, being overly nationalistic is a problem people see with the United Sates, and advertising ourselves in a sort of, " Look at me! " kind of way would only add to that problem. Plus, showing off our ( awesome ) traits, in my opinion, sort of makes them illegitimate. It makes us look like we HAVE to show off our traits, instead of just letting them speak for themselves. Not only that, but tourism isn't really a necessary source of revenue for our country. Our tourist spots already get great tourism, those being Hawaii and NYC, alongside others. So, to conclude, over - nationalism is a bad idea, as that is one of the negative traits people see in Americans, and we don't really need it. | cmv |
CMV I believe that the United States should invest in a global ad campaign. | I would prefer to influence the world through our deeds. I think that electing Barack Obama was a step in the right direction, but leaving Gitmo open and expanding our drone program have been counterproductive. Frankly, I think it would be good to first get a better handle on our domestic politics, which are a mess. IMO not until our three branches of government start working more harmoniously will we be in a position to improve our image abroad. | cmv |
The argument that everyone should have a gun for defense reasons makes absolutely no sense to me - CMV | Sup cptn, Let me have a crack at this. As someone who is pro - gun rights but does not intend on owning one, i feel that I have my stance on the premise of rationality. Firstly, do you think that guns should be own by the government, specifically police and military? If yes, how do you justify it? If no, then your position seems to be atleast consistent ( which i love ). If we do make gun ownership illegal, how will you enforce it? and do you think there will be individuals who not comply? If there are some individuals who will not comply, do you think that they will be more likely to use it if they know others are weaponless? I can add more, but if you answer those questions, then hopefully we can go full circle. | cmv |
I believe a government is not necessary - CMV | No, perhaps the government is not necessary. Perhaps it is possible to function as a society without a " government " and do just fine. But what do you think will happen when you magically remove the government ( all its levels, branches, and services ) overnight? Do you think everyone will just get along in blissful anarchy? Far from it. The absence of government will create a power vacuum in society. Without a system to maintain order, people will look for someone or some group of people to fill the void. Towns start to defer to local chieftains to make decisions and the rich or powerful can bully people into following their will, and all the sudden, we're back where we started, a government - - albeit a rudimentary one - - exists to organize society. You can't get rid of the government because it will be immediately replaced by something else, probably less desirable and more autocratic. | cmv |
I believe a government is not necessary - CMV | ' Government'is just the name given to the organisation structure that mankind has made for itself. Governments represent all the laws and rules that man has made in order to keep society'safe'and'functional ', thus ensuring our survival through access to the services and goods that we need to stay alive. In theory, there is little wrong with government as long as it functions correctly. However, it rarely does work in this way, but that is because of the actions of individuals in power who have influence in political and economic proceedings. Removing government would not solve this problem as people will still use their individual power to enforce their own will. Government at least makes an attempt to try and prevent this. Government needs to be reformed, not abolished. | cmv |
I believe that, in this day and age, we don't need representatives in government. CMV | Similar to what's already been said, it's about specialization. I, as a thinking human being, am fully capable of learning how to fix my leaky sink, cook a perfect filet mignon, thoroughly clean my entire house, build a wooden cabinet, and determine how much funding should be allocated to the military. However, I'm really busy. And I have a day job. I don't have time to spend ten hours learning how to fix my sink and another two hours doing it, so I delegate to a plumber. I do need to be able to prepare basic food on my own but cooking things to perfection is an art form that takes years to learn, so I go out to eat when I want the best. Cleaning my house isn't difficult but it's time - consuming and I don't want to do it, so I get someone else to. Allocating military spending for an entire nation is all of those things. It takes time to learn, it takes experience to perfect, and most people may have opinions about it in general but don't want to spend months and months to get the minutia right. So why not delegate to someone whose job it is to have the knowledge, the experience, and the time? | cmv |
I believe that, in this day and age, we don't need representatives in government. CMV | Liquid democracy is better than pure direct democracy and representative democracy. In liquid democracy you can delegate your vote to representatives, or you can choose to vote for yourself. You can choose a different representative for each topic. You can always take your vote back from any representative. Your representative may pass your vote to another representative. | cmv |
I believe that, in this day and age, we don't need representatives in government. CMV | Simply put, no. Even the lowest of politicians has some form of higher education. Most politicians at the higher levels have masters or PhD's in political science, law, or economics. Beyond that, the office of your average congressman has a network of experts, pollsters, information gatherers, lawyers, economists, and other sources of information. This system works because it allows politicians to make informed decisions. Imagine if your everyday person had to vote on something like a budget. Most people don't know the issues, don't know the science behind the issues, and can be easily swayed in the wrong direction by the media. You aren't having other people make decisions for you ; you're electing the person who you think is best suited to run the country | cmv |
I think genetic engineering and'designer babies'are a good thing, CMV | One word : biodiversity. It's likely that one who is given the option to choose a desired genetic outcome will be, at the very least, influenced by societal standards, or favoring of a genetic outcome that best suits the challenges of present society. Assuming that this choice is available to many people, the result would ultimately be a population of humans with similar genetics and attributes as determined by societal standards, with only small differences. Apply the concept of natural selection and you see what's wrong with this. If a certain critical event ( say, a disease ) negatively effects one genetic makeup, then you'd better hope that it's not the predominant one. | cmv |
I think genetic engineering and'designer babies'are a good thing, CMV | Any heritable changes to the human genome are violations of the bodily integrity and freedom of choice of future generations. A'designer baby'has not given their consent to be changed in this way, and has had their rights violated. There is a growing push in Europe to ban the circumcision of male infants before the age of consent, as it is an irreversible change that should be made only by the person affected once they are mature enough to decide. Similarly, no genetic manipulations are reversible after birth if the individual doesn't want them, so no genetic manipulations are free of sticky moral issues. Yes, human competitiveness and well - meaning parents would be the driving forces, but that doesn't change the fact that parents have no right to consciously and permanently control the body, personality, and fate of their children. | cmv |
I think moral vegetarianism is wrong and maybe even pointless, CMV | First of all, props to you for conceding two of your points. I'll try to answer the other two. As a vegetarian, I occasionally get confronted with the question of why I don't care about the feelings of plants. Scientifically, I can say they have no central nervous system so no, I don't think they feel pain, at least not like anything we do. But the easiest way I found to relate to my meat eating friends is we all agree that torturing an animal ( even something as trivial as punching a cat ) is far worse than cutting grass, picking fruit, or kicking a tree. On a more interesting note though, let's suppose animals feel no pain whatsoever and plants do. Is humanity becoming more carnivorous the moral thing to do? In the developed western world, I'd say no, because most of the animals that we eat were bred and raised for the sole purpose of being eaten, and each of these require vast amounts of plants for themselves. So by turning to more vegetarian diets, we can cut out the'middle men'and consume less plants than if we fed all the plants to animals first and ate them instead. | cmv |
I think moral vegetarianism is wrong and maybe even pointless, CMV | I agree with others here. For me, the key to addressing 2 and 3 seems to be that the animals people would eat have spent their lives eating plants. Biologists pretty much agree that only about 10 % of the energy is kept from one level to the next in the " food chain. " This means that in order to get our energy from animals, roughly ten times as much plant needs to be harvested as if we got our energy straight from animals. I will concede that there are ways to harvest from plants ( like the bear eating berries example you used in one comment ) that don't necessarily kill the plant. I don't know whether these methods would harm the plant ( assuming we grant that plants experience harm / pain ), but I think it's irrelevant. Any method that could be used to harvest food from plants to feed livestock could be used to harvest food from plants to feed people directly. In other words, if there's a method to minimize the harm to plants when feeding animals, we could minimize it even further if we just use that same method to feed humans directly. So humans eating meat is necessarily causing less harm ( even to plants ) than humans eating plants. | cmv |
I think moral vegetarianism is wrong and maybe even pointless, CMV | I just have a quick question, the purpose of which will probably be nakedly obvious : If you think it's moral to eat meat, do you discriminate between animals? In other words, is it find to eat a cow, but not a dog, or a cat, or a horse? If you can make the distinction between those animals, then how do you fail to make the distinction between plants and animals? | cmv |
I think moral vegetarianism is wrong and maybe even pointless, CMV | Regarding points 1 and 4 : moral vegetarianism / veganism is seen as one of the first steps in an attempt to end meat consumption and to find agricultural methods which involve less collateral damage. Saying that moral vegetarianism won't change those things is like saying feminism is a doomed project because first wave feminism didn't bring about equality. Progress happens in baby steps. | cmv |
I don't see anything wrong with a consenting adult having as many sex partners as they want. CMV. | I'll address this with a counterexample : Say I get together with a girl whose last partner was a married man - and she wasn't the wife. Isn't that relevant to the relationship I'm in now, reflecting upon her respect for relationships and loyalty and trustworthiness? So at the very least, you should be interested in your partner's previous sex partners in regards to the circumstances of each. Second counterexample : Say I get together with a girl who has had twenty previous partners. Shouldn't I ask why? If she was just going for one - night stands, that's fine. But if she's had twenty failed relationships that might imply a problem, and the only common thing between all of a person's relationships is them. So even mere quantity of relationships can speak as to a person's desirability in a relationship. | cmv |
I don't believe men can be raped by women. CMV. | She was taller and stronger than me. She was more attractive than me. Surely a dream come true? She was drunk and she was doing something she would never do while sober, and I was a feminist all too aware she was using my body to rape herself. And I was powerless to save either one of us. And when she was done, she tried to kill herself. | cmv |
I don't believe men can be raped by women. CMV. | One thing you may not know is that rape is often physically pleasurable for female rape victims. Many women ( I forget the statistic but it's like 30 % ) have an orgasm from rape. The take - away is that rape is really a psychological attack more than a physical attack ( such as beating someone up etc. ) | cmv |
I don't believe men can be raped by women. CMV. | Men are not any more sex crazed than women. It is just more socially acceptable for us to act that way. In addition, men tend to be more confidant and thus flirt and come on to people in entirely different ways. | cmv |
I don't believe men can be raped by women. CMV. | I am a woman and I love sex. I'll just get that out of the way. It's not just men who love it. But if I were to be raped, there would be no way I could enjoy it. It ( most likely ) would not physically damage me, but just hurt me emotionally. It would do the same for a male. If it is not something he wants to happen and is 100 % against it ( rape ), then there isn't a way he could enjoy it. He would just be physically hurt. | cmv |
I don't believe men can be raped by women. CMV. | This has been pointed out obliquely, but I wanted to make it more explicit. Physiological response and emotional response are not linked. If, for example, a woman becomes lubricated during rape, that doesn't mean she " wanted it ", and that it wasn't rape. Rape is about consent ( or rather lack of it ) and power, not physical responses to stimuli. It is possible for a man to become physically erect despite not wanting the sexual activity. I suspect some of your confusion stems from the idea that a ) men tend to be larger than women ( and thus more powerful ), and b ) men won't become erect without " wanting it ". ( I suspect most men remember their teen years, where sometimes we wanted nothing more than to not be erect. ) | cmv |
I don't believe men can be raped by women. CMV. | Legally, rape relies on a lack of consent, and there are many ways a man can be subjected to sex that he did not necessarily consent to. Pain and trauma don't really entire into the equation. Imagine being drunk at a party, separated from your girlfriend / boyfriend for a weekend, and you unintentionally black out. You aren't in the right state of mind to make a decision about sex. In this case, if someone were to coerce you into a sexual situation, they would be breaking the law. I've left this statement open to either gender to demonstrate that regardless of gender the situation would be the same. No double standard. As for the " how can he get hard if he doesn't want to have sex " angle of the debate, it's been demonstrated in a number of studies that arousal commonly happens during a rape, as its the body's biological response to a sexual situation. | cmv |
I don't believe men can be raped by women. CMV. | That's a very interesting discussion that is going on here. While we're on the topic, could someone go into the difference of penetration? Obviously, a woman having sex involves a foreign object being put inside her, whereas men ( in a vanilla scenario ) insert a part of their body into another person. Do you believe this difference has something to do with how differently rape is handled with regards to gender? For example, male - on - male rape is very often the only form of rape of men that is discussed in a public forum ( usually the prison scenario ). In that situation, you find almost nobody who claims that this isn't rape, but in other scenarios, where the man is forced to do something with his genitals, a large portion of people dismisses this as " not rape ". What do you guys think? | cmv |
I think that people who express that they don't want help should not be helped, unless their life is at stake. CMV | When will a meth addict turn to you and say, " I need help getting off of this drug that is actively and rapidly destroying my life "? The same applies to most self - destructive addictions, all the way down to alcoholism. An alcoholic's life isn't in immediate danger, though it may kill them eventually, but over years of it they're going to lose a lot without intervention. And on the subject of intervention - family / spousal abuse. The kid or spouse who says they're just clumsy and the reason they have that black eye is falling down the stairs... and who apparently fall down the stairs a lot. Who spontaneously and clearly uncomfortably wear long - sleeved shirts in the summer. Who flinch away when you try to pat them on the arm friendly - like. Should you just stay out of that and let them suffer? Could you, once you've got a good sense of what's going on behind closed doors, and still be a good person? | cmv |
I think that United States politics is beyond repair and drastic, yet unrealistic changes need to be made in order for it to become effective. CMV | The fact that you're about to remove yourself from the political process is exactly the problem. People get frustrated, give up, and bow out. Congress is elected with only 37 % of eligible voters in years w / o a Presidential election. The reason why special interests, media stories, etc. are able to have such an impact is because they are fighting over such a small pool of voters. So, well, the reason why this is happening is because of people thinking like you are thinking ( and following through on that ). | cmv |
I can't shake the stereotype that the American South is still filled with racism and backwardness. CMV | I used to live in South Carolina, which is the " most backwards and racist " state in the south. There probably are a lot more racists there, but as a whole, the state isn't that much different from any other place I've lived in the united states. Most of the states have lower scores in testing, its also usually a pretty parallel line with poverty. The southeast is pretty poor compared to say, the northwest, midwest, or west coast. | cmv |
I can't shake the stereotype that the American South is still filled with racism and backwardness. CMV | Stop thinking North vs South and start thinking Urban vs Rural. Major urban centers are generally more progressive in every way than rural areas. It's just when you think of the north you think of NYC, and when you think of the south you think rolling Alabama cornfields. Think of Atlanta instead. | cmv |
I can't shake the stereotype that the American South is still filled with racism and backwardness. CMV | I have a theory as to why the south is still perceived as bigoted. baby boomers grew up in a culture where the adults WERE racist, and some of the harshest racism ( ie : lynching and Jim Crow ) existed in the southern states. A good bulk of the racism has died off with the older generations, but the memory still lingers in those who were raised by that generation. | cmv |
I can't shake the stereotype that the American South is still filled with racism and backwardness. CMV | I think the association you hold is held by many, many people in the U. S. It might be worth thinking a little bit about who all is harmed by the belief. I remember when I read an article pointing out that the association of the south with a lack of intelligence, lack of education, backwardness, etc. does the most harm to people of color from the south. A black man with a southern accent is just as judged in the north as a white man with a southern accent. The big difference is that the black person is also battling negative stereotypes held about black people. The result is that poor people of color from the south are the ones most harmed by it. Having that pointed out to me really shifted my view on things. TL ; DR Negative stereotypes about folks from the south make life extra hard for black, gay, trans, poor or other already oppressed folks from the south. | cmv |
I can't shake the stereotype that the American South is still filled with racism and backwardness. CMV | Here's something that's probably not the answer you were expecting : the rest of the country's bad, too. Just found this article where even in Hollywood aspiring script writers are explicitly told their leads need to be straight white men if they want their scripts published. That's Hollywood. The den of iniquity and progressivism so feared in the south. I'm sure statistics on racial achievement are abysmal in every state. Admittedly, the states that have approved gay marriage aren't southern, but there are still a ton of states all over the country that haven't. Let's not even talk about what it's like to be trans basically anywhere in America. The south might have more people who honestly don't see why they can't throw the n word around in casual conversation, but that doesn't mean it's massively worse than the problems anywhere else in America, or for that matter the western world. | cmv |
I believe global warming is undeniably real and caused by humans. To believe otherwise is simple denial and stubbornness. CMV | Playing devils advocate, but methane and water are actually larger contributors to thermal conduction in the atmosphere. Cows produce large amounts of methane of course and It could be argued that that only matters now that humans farm them. However, soil microbes also produce enormous amounts of green house gases like methane and nitrous compounds which are much much worse for the atmosphere thermally. So these are factors that are often ignored in media representations of global climate change in favor of the anthropogenic answer. That being said, our oceans take care of the water part. Microbial contribution is actually much trickier to account for. | cmv |
I believe global warming is undeniably real and caused by humans. To believe otherwise is simple denial and stubbornness. CMV | I believe that our current understanding suggests a strong probability we are the major cause or that we at least have the potential to reduce / stop the negative aspects. However, the environment as a system is insanely complicated and chaos reigns here more than almost anything else we have tried to study. We couldn't even begin to engineer a specific and efficient artificial solution so to think we have a good understanding of the causes is very optimistic. We wont know how right we are for decades, maybe centuries, but the only way we will get to that point is to keep trying to learn and to apply that learning towards solutions as we go. | cmv |
I believe global warming is undeniably real and caused by humans. To believe otherwise is simple denial and stubbornness. CMV | Playing devils advocate but I think I know some arguments on it. I'll assume that global warming is caused by carbon. Global warming is a natural process and it is just part of nature taking its course. There have been cold parts of Earth such as the Ice Age and there have been warmer parts of Earth such as right now. The fact that the 2000s decade was one of the warmest decades while 90s was cooler then the 80s cooler than that is not due to carbon dioxide but due to Earth going into a warmer period of time. There have been times in history where although there have been more carbon dioxide, there have been still cooler times. For example, The Little Ice Age which was from 1350 - 1850 had cooler temperatures yet presumably more carbon compared to years before 1350. In conclusion, because of the Little Ice Age, a time with more carbon yet cooler temperatures, global warming is not due to human activity but naturality | cmv |
In my opinion, Paul Krugman is one of the few pundits who lays out a good argument for how to improve the economy. CMV | if the keyenian school is so good why didnt they predict the housing bubble? or the great depression? like the austrian school did? i dont see how people keep running back to them. they always promise a sound future, when we have been going boom and bust ever since their centralizated control of currency went in | cmv |
American Societal Decay is the Karmic Justice Retribution for the Slave Trade. CMV. | You can only even begin to argue this if you believe the US is the only place to own slaves. The ancient Egyptians owned slaves. The ancient Greeks owned slaves. The Romans owned slaves. India had an entire caste that are only just barely not slaves. Do you know where the word " slave " comes from? It comes from the word " slav, " because white slavs were so commonly enslaved. Black people in early America were far from the only people to ever be enslaved, and the US is far from the only country to get its start in slave owning. The Roman Republic, and later, the Empire, lasted far far longer than the US has so far. Why would karma hit us after only 200 years when it took ten times that long for Rome to fall? | cmv |
American Societal Decay is the Karmic Justice Retribution for the Slave Trade. CMV. | So karma is that the descendants of those slaves are still being turned into slaves, only now it's legalized through abuse of the criminal justice system? Karma is that the wealthy are free to leave this societal decay, while the working poor suffer? You are aware that the wealthy were the ones who held the slaves, right? | cmv |
I think smoking should be banned in all non - residences. CMV. | Say I own a bar and I bill it as a place to come, smoke, drink, eat and socialize. Most of the other bars in my town have banned smoking, and smoking has a strong social aspect to it, so I get most of the business from people who like to smoke while they drink and socialize. Smokers make up almost all of my customers and I make it clear this is an establishment where people can and do smoke, so people who don't want that go elsewhere. It's my property and my business, who are you to tell me I have to ban smoking on the premises? | cmv |
I think smoking should be banned in all non - residences. CMV. | Say I own my own business and office selling things via internet, have no employees and see no customers. Assume I am not a fool so I smoke only in my break room to avoid making any box or product smell like smoke. As I work on quitting ( as society clearly disapproves of my addiction ), should I have to go 14 hours ( commute - work - commute ) between cigarettes, fixated for the entire day on the next smoke? I would not be inconveniencing anyone else but still I would be breaking the law should I light a cigarette. | cmv |
I believe that in a functional and constitutional democracy, a " right to bear ( fire ) arms " is a bad idea. CMV | If you live in a country with a functioning government, then chances are you have socialized healthcare and welfare. That's important. Think of a gun homicide as like a fire, with a'triangle'of required elements ( for fire, it's air, heat, and fuel ) before a spark can ignite into a blaze. The gun homicide triangle is gun, desperation, and mental health problems ( and this applies equally to mass shootings and gun crime, though you could argue that sufficient quantities of desperation can substitute for mental health problems and I wouldn't argue otherwise ). In the US, we need to be afraid of people with guns because crazy and desperate people don't get any help. Our nation has woefully insufficient social services and so tons of people slip through the cracks. In a functioning social democracy with welfare and mental health care, do you have to worry about poor, crazy people picking up a gun and shooting you with it to get drug money or because the aliens in their head told them to? In a culture that can maturely deal with the other two points in the Gun Triangle, what harm would firearms proliferation do? | cmv |
I believe that in a functional and constitutional democracy, a " right to bear ( fire ) arms " is a bad idea. CMV | As a first point, the second amendment was written well after flintlock weapons were in widespread use and swords were more or less reduced to ceremonial decoration. It was also a time when any large privately owned merchant vessel would be stocked with cannon, the day's equivalent of heavy artillery. In any case, compare the second amendment to the first. Is it reasonable in a democracy to severely restrict the freedom of expression because a person might be able to use that freedom to infringe upon another's rights ( e. g. slander )? | cmv |
I believe that personal firearms can don'thing to " prevent tyranny " in the modern age. CMV | The idea isn't that citizens maintain superior arms to the government. Standing toe to toe with an armored division, a collection of citizens with shotguns would be torn apart in minutes. The idea is that citizens have something to work with, should the need for popular overthrow of the government present itself. Guerrilla and insurgent tactics would be the name of the game, not open warfare, but it's hard to do anything without a weapon of some sort to begin with. | cmv |
I believe that personal firearms can don'thing to " prevent tyranny " in the modern age. CMV | This topic was discussed a little more in another thread. It all depends on scale. If the government is using tanks and hundreds of personnel vs a small isolated group, then we have a good idea how that's going to turn out. Individual conflicts with police and military aren't going to go well either. But if it's a nation - wide issue, I think an army of 3 million is going to have a hard time fighting against tens of millions of armed civilians over an area as large as the US. | cmv |
I believe that personal firearms can don'thing to " prevent tyranny " in the modern age. CMV | Call it insurgency, revolution, or guerrilla warfare ; The use of unconventional tactics has allowed small groups of people with few resources the ability to successfully fight against much larger forces. For a modern perspective, look at how hard it has been for the US in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the Vietnam War. There are tons of examples of small forces with few resources have successfully fought much stronger opponents. | cmv |
The United States government will never become tyrannical. CMV | The rich have been getting richer for decades ( really centuries ) and they do so through government laws and regulations. You would never buy a tank or pay someone to invade a country on the opposite side of the world to improve a rich persons business. Therefore in order to get you to participate in these acts of violence, the rich elite do so through government. The government isn't going to become tyrannical, it already is. It's an organization run by rich people, for the benefit of the rich. While there are a lot of bad things the government is already doing, many people don't seem to mind it when it is happening to others. They see things as a team sport, in that while a few might be getting most of the rewards, they at least get a few side benefits along the way. The 2nd amendment is there to tell politicians " we see what you do to others and if you ever tried to do that to us, then we will fight back ". | cmv |
The United States government will never become tyrannical. CMV | Tyranny is a subjective term in that tyrants rarely see themselves as so ; it is only the oppressed that usually throw such terms around. Keeping that distinction in mind, I would encourage you to recall the imprisonment of Japanese Americans by the United States government during the 1940s. From their point of view, that certainly could not have been very different from tyranny. It has happened once, and I have not seen anything since then to convince me that it could not happen again, given similar circumstances. | cmv |
I don't see the practical purpose of believing in privilege CMV | I agree it has no practical purpose. I would go further to say I don't think it is a meaningful thing to talk about in the way it is normally used, particularly re : racism and sexism, etc. I had a conversation with someone a bit ago where they basically accused me of having privilege for being a white male. As we got into the specifics of my situation that were at odds with their claims about my privilege, they backed off to basically saying it was a statistical kind of statement. The problem with this is that a claim of privilege is categorical, and not statistical, so if you can only claim it exists statistically, it isn't a thing. | cmv |
I don't see the practical purpose of believing in privilege CMV | Perhaps not acknowledged your own privilege, but it is important to acknowledge that others may not have had as easy of a time getting to where they are as you did. If you are looking at others in a different light this will surely change your actions. Therefore you acknowledgment of privilege changes your actions. | cmv |
I believe that prisons should be work camps where you must work if you want to eat. CMV. | The other problem that you are missing is that the number of people in jail would become a set amount based on the amount of work that needed to be forecasted. A decrease in crime would spell financial disaster and would have to be balanced with increased arrests. It cannot be in the governments best interests to have criminals, because then how can it be fair to the citizen? | cmv |
I believe that prisons should be work camps where you must work if you want to eat. CMV. | I think lots of people would agree with you about this, but it'll never happen. That whole " cruel and unusual " thing. Also, it would be an easy way to commit suicide, thus cheating the justice system out of the pound of flesh they demand. All it would take is a few pictures of starving prisoners for the public to start bawwwwwing over how barbaric this country is. Maybe, instead of starvation, make them work or sit in isolation till they do. Lessen the quality of food they get. | cmv |
I believe that prisons should be work camps where you must work if you want to eat. CMV. | Your idea, other than all the issues inherent to it, as exposed by most of the people here. Doesn't help the inmates re - enter society. If anything it makes it harder, since they get used to a " society " that looks nothing like the outside. Many countries are changing the way they think about prison. They make it easier for people to succeed in life once they leave by letting them get a degree or things like this If someone could find the full article or something similar please share. Back to my point, your system doesn't help the prisoners and it barely helps society by lowering the cost. The one most countries are adopting generates profit by forming professionals AND better citizens. | cmv |
I believe that prisons should be work camps where you must work if you want to eat. CMV. | The problem is that this system has been used in the past as a workaround for the emancipation of slavery. Slavery abolished? No problem! Make a bunch of pointless laws, and either target them at black people or enforce them in a racialized manner, and suddenly you still basically have slavery. The Prison - Industrial complex is already strong enough without letting them get slavery back, too. | cmv |
I believe that prisons should be work camps where you must work if you want to eat. CMV. | I apologize if someone already brought this up but not feeding prisoners, for any reason, would be considered cruel and unusual punishment and therefor unconstitutional. I think we, as Americans, want to evolve as a society. Rehabbing those who broke the law rather than punish them as a form of revenge would go a long way towards that evolution to a better society. It would be treating a social disease rather then the symptoms of the disease. | cmv |
I believe that prisons should be work camps where you must work if you want to eat. CMV. | There is a prison in Norway in which the inmates live together on an island with luxurious living conditions and high quality essentials. They operate a functional community working jobs and sustaining a miniature economy as long term rehabilitation. It looks excellent and really focused on rehabilitation and learning how to be a positive citizen rather than punishment for their actions. They still go by a strict schedule and are watched by guards, but the inmates are given a lot of freedom and trust. The statistics of crime and reoffending in Norway back up the success of the process. It's definitely not slavery, but it's a damn effective way of turning criminals back into good people. Here's an Article. Here's a video. Search YouTube for " Norway Prison " and you will find plenty more. I'm not really changing OP's view with this comment but I hope I've enlightened you to a great prison system that really benefits its visitors and would not make them resent their time in prison. | cmv |
I think that women have just as many, if not more, rights than men. CMV | I'm going to assume that by " rights ", you mean legal rights. Women, in almost every state in the US, don't have the right to show their breasts in public. That is at least one right that men have that women don't. Of course, I could easily name two rights that women have that men don't as well. Because the body of your text has little to do with legal rights, I'm actually not sure if your position is that women have as many rights as men, that women are not disadvantaged relative to men, or both. Which position is the one that you would like changed? | cmv |
I am against gay marriage. CMV | Marriage has already been redefined throughout history. It was initially not intended for love, but simply for the sake of childbearing, and was usually polygamous. Now, the polygamy aspects have disappeared, and there's a huge aspect of love to it. The fact that so many people marry when they're not even financially ready for a child, and that there are so many people who marry who can't have children only further serves to prove that marriage isn't just for childbirth anymore. For your incestuous argument, I actually agree. I can't find any compelling reason to bar siblings from marriage. Also, under utilitarianism, it would be moral to grant marriage rights to gays, as these rights benefit them, thus serving to maximize their utility. Plus, with it being legalized, it would help ingrain the idea that gays are normal and should be accepted, thus furthering the maximization of utility. | cmv |
I am against affirmative action based on race. CMV. | I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm going to assume you are a Caucasian, possibly male, in high school. I've just heard this a lot. There's a reason these are still in place today because, put simply, we still live in a hugely divided society race wise. Let me first point you to this study, showing the percent of race in college between 1999 - 2000 and 2009 - 2010. While the is still a noticed increase in a minority presents, they are still a dwarfed by the white percentage ( 77 % for a bachelors degree ). Secondly, the poverty in the United States is built by minorities stuck in dead - end counties and cities. Generations grow up within families that can't achieve better jobs ( because of old prejudices ) and children who learn at schools that are not suitible for moving onward ( think of the typical teen mom and gang filled schools ) causing a vicious cycle of poverty and missed opportunities. Take a look at this 2010 - 2011 interactive graph on race and poverty per American state. There is again a noticeable large percentage of Hispanics and Blacks in poverty. To sum it up, affirmative action is used to allow for minority groups to have a chance at education and to dissolve the race barriers we have in the world. | cmv |
Anarcho - capitalism or any form of state - less society is a terrible idea. CMV | Just wait. It will come automatically because of the internet. All we need is to legalise file sharing and abolish patents, and humanity will be on the path to a decentralised paradise. | cmv |
I don't believe women's right will endure. CMV. | One could actually argue quite the opposite. Prior to the agricultural revolution, when humanity lived in small nomadic tribes, women were the primary food contributors ( gathering nuts, berries, grains, etc. ) while men contributed an important but smaller percentage of food ( as hunters ). With the development of farming, which increased prosperity considerably, women were largely disenfranchised from this role as men took on the task of farming. More recently we have seen that in times of war ( which I'm assuming you would not call prosperous ) in western societies, the presence of women in industry increases substantially. It then drops when peace is restored ( and prosperity increases ) and men come home from war. I hope this helps. | cmv |
I don't believe women's right will endure. CMV. | Women are surviving better in the economic downturn than men. More women attend college. A higher percent of women graduate college then men. There are more women in industries that are doing better in the economic downturn then men. | cmv |
I don't believe women's right will endure. CMV. | 1. Barring a catastrophic global collapse, we are not moving back to a society where male brawn is central to production. We are moving in the opposite direction. 2. The shift in consciousness that has legitimated women's'position in society is not something that can easily be rolled back, because at least 50 % of the population in Western countries now believe in it ; a heretical movement it is not. A better argument points out that patriarchy continues to exist in most of the world, and asks if Western values transform the globe before rising powers like India and China issue a counter - movement. My money ( I have 3 $ ) is on " no ". | cmv |
Private colleges would be cheaper and better than public ones. Why is this false for college but true for charter k - 12? | I don't think most people think there is a problem with private non - profit universities. The issue is usually with private for - profit universities. The " best " universities do tend to be private, but non - profit. So I think you are correct, but with the small caveat regarding for - profits. Just do a quick google search regarding for - profit schools to see all the problems associated with them including lack of quality, lack of job prospects, questionable accreditation ( national vs. regional ), very high cost for what students receive, pushing of student loans, etc. Just wondering if you see a distinction, as your post just says " private " and Harvard = / = University of Phoenix. | cmv |
CMV Libertarianism is starting to make more sense than having a middle - of - the road ideology. | The first issue that comes to my mind when anyone mentions libertarianism is children. To quote the leader of the anarcho - capitalist movement Murray Rothbard " We must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. " The ideology of libertarianism is based upon the idea that voluntary transactions between consenting adults will bring about a prosperous society which completely ignores the issue of children. In libertarian society there will be a flourishing free market for buying and selling children as commodities which will certainly be in a symbiotic relationship with the child prostitution industry. Likewise, there will be a highly flourishing market for child labour since children are one of the best sources of wage labour for the capitalist. In slave societies the slave masters reduced risks that their slaves would die because they were their private property and of course they wanted to take care of their property. In capitalism the capitalists don't feel any obligation to minimize risks that wage workers will die because they can always replace a dead worker with someone else who will do the job for the same price. And who is more replaceable then a child? | cmv |
I believe it is hypocritical to be pro - life, but not a vegetarian. CMV | i think if someone believes that humans have souls and that animals don't and also believes that a fetus is alive, they wouldn't be hypocritical. it's like someone who thinks destroying wooden bowls is wrong and you're arguing about how they're totally fine with destroying a plastic bowl because they are both bowls. bowl = living thing and wooden = thing with soul. also, i don't believe in a soul. just trying to explain how it's not hypocritical. | cmv |
I believe it is hypocritical to be pro - life, but not a vegetarian. CMV | This whole debacle is all over a difference of opinion, when life becomes life. They believe a fetus is a human. Humans arnt the same as consumed ones such as beef or cow. It's not hypocritical, because its HUMAN life they protect. Whether or not is up to debate, and while you may not think so, from their viewpoint your analogy would be correct if they were cannibals. Your imposing your judgement of human life, sentience, over their conception of an entire physical person birthed at conception, from the sperm penetrating the egg till death | cmv |
I believe it is hypocritical to be pro - life, but not a vegetarian. CMV | Simply, I am against abortion because I see it as murder of another human being. It has nothing to do with religion, or when the soul forms, or any of that bs. Science shows us that from the moment of conception, those cells have unique DNA and are essentially a unique individual life form, and choosing to destroy that life form is no different than choosing to destroy a more developed human life, say, a 3 year old child. Fetuses are just humans not fully developed, but they are human, and it is life, and I feel that life is entitled to the same rights as baby is the second after it is born. I am not a vegetarian, because animals are quite obviously not human. I love animals. I am opposed to animal torture and extreme cruelty. But animals are not people, they don't have the same rights as people, and shouldn't need to be treated like people. | cmv |
I believe it is hypocritical to be pro - life, but not a vegetarian. CMV | I think many who are pro - life believe there is a special quality of humans, which begins at conception, which makes them " sacred " ( special, seat apart ) in one way or another. Many of these political / social views are tied to religious views concerning the " sanctity of [ human ] life ". Such people could potentially use your logic against you, and say that anyone who is pro - choice believes human beings are no more significant than animals. If humans can be killed in utero, they might say, humans might as well be killed after they are born, or at any stage of life. Morality goes out the window, so to speak. | cmv |
I believe it is hypocritical to be pro - life, but not a vegetarian. CMV | Many of the people that are pro - life are religious, so it's a tricky thing to try and " see " from their point of view because while you have just your morals guiding you on this one, its more their religious beliefs, not their own individual morals, guiding them. I am not vegan but I can relate with you on the pro - life / choice thing and I do get the whole meat killing thing. I also can't see their point of view because once people start talking about their religion and how it ties into this ie the zygote is already human life from the moment of conception, I just can't understand. : / | cmv |
I believe it is hypocritical to be pro - life, but not a vegetarian. CMV | Because a human fetus will eventually surpass animals in terms of sentience. Sure, It's less sentient right now, but even toddlers have abilities that animals aren't even close to capable of. It's that eventually, animals will " cap out " in intelligence and awareness, but fetuses will become humans, fully sentient. | cmv |