Datasets:

qwedsacf

/

story-generation

like 10

I believe it is hypocritical to be pro - life, but not a vegetarian. CMV

I believe that the argument is that the fetus is a potential person, possibly from aquinas or aristotle, the way that an acorn is a potential oak tree. The problem is that an acorn is in no way the same as an oak tree, and is not treated the same in law ( if you cut down someone's oak tree it is not the same as stepping on an acorn in their yard ). Potential things are not equivalent or treated the same as actual things. I am potentially going to exercise to be fit lol So I am not sure that the pro life arguments run that way. I think your argument may work in reverse, if you are a vegetarian that wants to avoid animal suffering, than abortion, if performed inhumanely after the fetus can feel pain, does not seem to fit. It would seem difficult to resolve the two.

cmv

This article is about a hedge fund manager who profited from gun company stocks after the sandy hook shooting. I don't think what he did was immoral. CMV

What this really comes down to is whether or not you believe that the company itself has any culpability. To use your example, do you believe that it's McDonald's fault? If you do, if McDonalds is to blame for killing a bunch of people, then by buying stock in the company you are doing two very important things. First off, you're funding them. When you buy stock you're giving money to the company in order to let them do things. You're also becoming a part owner, and as an investor at some level you do get some small bit of control over the company... voting on things at shareholder meetings if you choose to and whatnot. So in that example, since I think it's easy to say that yes, McDonalds is culpable for putting out a dangerous product, I'd say yes, you're actions are also immoral. The issue with gun manufacturers is a bit more complicated, as you can argue that the company isn't culpable for misuse of the product they put out. If you think they do, or should have, some liability for it, then it's easy to say that the investor likewise is doing something he shouldn't. If you don't believe the company has any liability then probably not.

cmv

This article is about a hedge fund manager who profited from gun company stocks after the sandy hook shooting. I don't think what he did was immoral. CMV

Is GM or Ford liable for people having accidents involving their vehicles? As a theoretical stockholder in GM or Ford, would that make you culpable for the annual deaths of thousands of men, women & children? Why should it be any different for gun manufacturers?

cmv

[ CMV ] Historical consequences are not contained in historical conditions.

For things to turn out differently, there has to be something that doesn't behave deterministically along the way. At scales relevant to humans, everything is deterministic. Your body is, your brain is, the bacteria in your body are, everything. Unless the position of an individual particle could cause or prevent the gay rights movement, it was inevitable.

cmv

I believe no living thing should be subservient to another. CMV.

In a simple business model, how do you make it work without bosses? How do decisions get made? Think of a consulting firm. How do you make sure everything's fair exactly? Who talks to the clients? Who decides which jobs are worth doing? Who's responsible for the schedule?

cmv

I believe no living thing should be subservient to another. CMV.

I agree that nobody should be subservient to others if they don't agree to it, but what is wrong with choosing to serve someone, as long as I am free to end this relationship at any time? How do you feel about, for example, BDSM relationships where one person is submissive to another? And what about parents and children? Do you think parents should not have any authority over their children?

cmv

I'm a Catholic, and our respected Cardinal says that seeking legal actions against priests accused of sexual abuse will just " add to the pain ". I don't see any wisdom in that. CMV

From a purely utilitarian view, the role of punishment is to deter future crimes. If the church is truly cured of pedophilia and cover ups, then the punishment will not aid in reducing future crimes ( 0 is as small as it gets ). So spending money to sue the church is inefficient.

cmv

I'm not sure the people caught on Dateline's " To Catch a Predator " should be arrested. Please CMV.

My only real complaint with TCAP is that it's televised. The men on this show shouldn't be harassed by Chris and then put on T. V. They should be arrested and taken to court, like any criminal. You wouldn't interview a drug dealer or a burglar before sending him to the pen, why a child predator? It's profiteering off fear mongering, simple as that

cmv

I'm not sure the people caught on Dateline's " To Catch a Predator " should be arrested. Please CMV.

Entrapment really isn't an issue because it is often quite clear that these people were predisposed to solicit sex with underage children, regardless of whether or not the volunteer offered the opportunity. I'm gonna challenge a different aspect of your post, however. The real issue for me is the age of consent. When I was 14, I had crushes on some of my teachers and would have had sex with them if given the chance. Even if you think it's weird or gross that an adult would pursue sex with an underage kid, the truth is that at that age I knew what sex was and I wanted it, and I was not alone. Unless you believe that anyone under 18 can never consent to anything, I don't see any reason for why I couldn't consent to sex when I was 14. From what I remember, the meeting set - ups on " To Catch a Predator " often involve the volunteer seeming receptive to sex and sometimes even claiming to have had it. I personally think it is bizarre that grown men would risk everything for underage sex, but I really don't see what right I have to stop them. Cases involving the of use deception or force notwithstanding, I don't know of any good argument for why it should be illegal.

cmv

I don't understand gay people. CMV. ( x - posted to / offmychest )

I will first pose you a question : do you recall a moment in your life when you actually chose to be heterosexually attracted, or is your sexual orientation the result of happenstance? I am of the position that our sexual orientation is not our choice, and if it appears to be, in experimental settings, there is a certain level of predisposition or " bi - curiosity " already present. Homosexual behavior is readily observed among the animals of nature, and it is theorized by some to be a way for sexual urges to be outlet without modifying the population. This is helpful to the species in a similar way that altruism is - - it is a behavior that is not helpful solely to the individual organism, but the species the organism belongs to. We ought to be positively affirming this behavior as a species and as a society, because it, alongside adoption, is extremely useful for reducing and preventing over - population. Just because it is your instinctual response to be disgusted that a male and a male or a woman and a woman are discovering sexual pleasure together with common genitalia does not make it morally wrong. We would be surprised how many of our " morals " are simply instincts of which we're afraid to let go for nothing more than fear of the unknown.

cmv

I don't understand gay people. CMV. ( x - posted to / offmychest )

I'll make it even simpler : There are a lot of reasons you might not like gay marriage, but why ban it? How does it hurt you ( or anyone for that matter ) personally? And if it doesn't hurt you, why do you want to tell other people how to live their life? Why can't they be free to make their own decisions?

cmv

I don't understand gay people. CMV. ( x - posted to / offmychest )

The right, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, to be treated the same, legally, as others in the same situation. If a law discriminates between one group of people and another, the government must have a rational basis for doing so. A law that discriminates on the basis of a supect classification - - that is, it makes a distinction based on race, gender, or another trait that has historically resulted in discriminatory treatment - - is constitutional only if there is a very compelling reason for the distinction. Definition provided by Nolo's Plain - English Law Dictionary.

cmv

I don't understand gay people. CMV. ( x - posted to / offmychest )

I guess an important question is : You seem actively angry with gay people. What is it that they've done / might do to you? Is there no way you can just " live and let live " and just ignore them entirely while letting them do what they want just as they let you do what you want? Why can't you and gay people coexist equally?

cmv

I don't understand gay people. CMV. ( x - posted to / offmychest )

Your lack of understanding isn't and shouldn't be the basis for stripping people or denying people of rights. I'm a staunch atheist, and I DO NOT understand religion. I don't get it at all. I actually kind of hate it, to be honest. The difference between you and I is that, as much as I may dislike religion and have bad feelings about it and not understand it, I'm not so extremely self - centered to think that my opinion is of such importance that it should go on to negatively affect other people's lives. I don't want to take churches away. I don't want to stop people from practicing what they want to practice. You don't HAVE to understand gay people, and I don't HAVE to understand religion. And just because we don't understand those things doesn't mean we shouldn't allow people that do understand them and value them to practice them in peace.

cmv

I oppose feminism, and I don't think women are equal to men. CMV.

No individual is equal to another individual. The problem lies in deciding who's - who based on ONE aspect of themselves - race / culture / sex etc. Take marriage for example. Who needs to go to work and who needs to stay at home, who needs to cook and clean, and who needs to raise babies? No one is saying the individuals are " equal ". It all depends on the capacities of the two individuals, based on their affinity, strengths, personality, ability to babysit, education and earning potential etc. But dividing the work based on genitalia is the problem. If I decide to be a stay - at - home husband while my wife works, I will be the laughing stock of the neighborhood for not being a " real man ". Sure, let there be inequality, but not generalization, not predetermination of roles.

cmv

I oppose feminism, and I don't think women are equal to men. CMV.

You didn't prove men and women aren't equal, only that on average, there are differences between the two. You then allowed for the exceptions, and asked we respect them too... The body of your own text defeats your attention grabbing title.

cmv

I oppose feminism, and I don't think women are equal to men. CMV.

If you truly want to be a supporter of equal rights then don't go towards feminism but try Egalitarianism. Its a movement of equality for both males and females. Feminism in a majority has shown that they don't care for the equal rights of men, they even have shown they don't care for rights of women as well when you look at their silencing display of how muslim women are treated. Feminism only cares about is american white women. Look at whats been going on in education as feminism has infected the classroom, boys are held down while girls are moving up and its been backed up by multiple studies and news articles that show bias against boys when it comes to female teachers. We'll live better if feminism was actually stamped out

cmv

[ Devil's Advocate ] The supreme court shouldn't go making up " new " rights. CMV

The Supreme Court doesn't " make up new rights. " Rather than pull something out of their collective ass, they look at history, judicial precedent, and most of all, the Constitution to extrapolate so called " new " rights. Consider reading the majority decision of a case where the justices explain their reasoning. Rather than think of them as " new " rights, it's probably better to consider them rights that have always been there, but have been violated or left unprotected in the past. Remember that these are nine of the most experienced legal minds in the country. They've each spent many, many years studying and practicing law. They know how much responsibility rests on their shoulders and the special position in which their branch of government sits.

cmv

[ Devil's Advocate ] The supreme court shouldn't go making up " new " rights. CMV

Why should popular opinion dictate rights? As one law professor told me once : society and government don't have rights - only people. The law does not enumerate what rights we have but in some cases specifies certain ones in reaction to society's or government's attempt to breach them ; it also specifies what powers the government has. Do we need to enumerate the right to breathe? If someone claimed to own all the air in a building and wanted to charge people per breath I am sure that would be challenged. Would the courts be " making up new rights " by stating that breathable air in common use areas could not be charged for?

cmv

I don't think " safe spaces " are a good idea. CMV

I think it's just a matter of " the benefits outweigh the faults. " On the Internet, safe spaces tend to become circlejerks, but really, when does bringing a group of like - minded people together not do that? It's just that their opinions are drowned out by the majority opinion when they try to argue or talk elsewhere, so they create spaces where only they can be heard. So it's either " have no say at all " or " have a say but there are some problems to go along with it... " and I think that giving the group their voice is the better choice.

cmv

I don't think " safe spaces " are a good idea. CMV

Safe spaces for who exactly? The only safe spaces I am aware of are those for women in certain regards. Are you asking about Safe Spaces in real life or on the internet exclusively?

cmv

I don't think " safe spaces " are a good idea. CMV

I think the issues you point to would only be issues if ALL spaces were " safe spaces ". In most of the world, people are not isolated at all from differing opinion. Having safe spaces doesn't eliminate discussion from a person's experience, it just allows them a window where, for instance they can take a break from people telling them that their husband beating them is their fault or that being gay is evil and unnatural. Other groups and other views can speak in the 99. % of the world that is not designated as a safe space.

cmv

I think the death penalty is more rational than life in prison CMV

The cost of killing a prisoner is much, much, much higher than life in prison. At first, this fact surprised me but it's very true. It's something like life in prison at even around 50 + years costs around $ 500, 000 ; whereas it costs multiple million dollars in legal fees to eliminate a prisoner on the death penalty. However, I also don't believe reintegration is plausible with the current prison system. I believe our prison systems need much reform in order for repeat offenders to cease to be such a high statistic.

cmv

I think the death penalty is more rational than life in prison CMV

The problem with the death penalty is that it is irreversible. What if new evidence comes in that indicates that the person you killed wasn't guilty? If you killed the person you can't release them like you could if they were in prison. I understand the point about how it can be a waste of money though. Perhaps someday we can put prisoners in cyrostasis like you see in some science fiction movies then it shouldn't cost that much to keep them around and that will leave open the possibility of reviving them later. There are practical reasons why the death penalty might be a good option like to avoid the costs of keeping them around or to eliminate them if you are really certain that they are committed heinous crimes such as rape. However, I think in principle we should oppose the death penalty based upon the fact that it is irreversible.

cmv

I think the death penalty is more rational than life in prison CMV

My biggest issue with the death penalty is that it cannot be undone. The justice system is far from perfect, so sometimes innocent people end up being found guilty. If someone gets the death penalty and it is found out that they are innocent afterwards, you can't undo that. But with any other sentence, they can just be let go.

cmv

I think the death penalty is more rational than life in prison CMV

I see it this way : The justice system shouldn't be a punishment for a crime, it should be the best way of ensuring safety and order to the public. Unfortunately, in order to keep murderers away from murder victims, we must take away their right to freedom. It is the only option. However when a murderer goes to prison they don't loose all their rights. You can't rape or torture a prisoner. The justice system should take away only as many rights as is necessary. It is somewhat immoral to ends someone's life on a financial basis. If they deserve to live they shouldn't be killed because it is too expensive to keep them alive.

cmv

I think the death penalty is more rational than life in prison CMV

In theory I agree there's nothing wrong with executing murderers. But when dealing with reality we have to handle more than just " theory ". For example, the death penalty costs more on average than life in prison ( due to things like the appeals process you mentioned ). " In theory " you can ignore that, but " in reality " you have to justify the extra cost of killing people. Also, in reality, we will never have a perfect justice system that gets all of its convictions right. So the death penalty will inevitably mean paying someone with tax dollars to kill an innocent person. If we instead do life in prison ( and save money doing so ), they still have the option to be released if new evidence turns up in their favor. The only reason to favor the death penalty in spite of those things is if there were strong evidence that it works better as a deterrent than life in prison. But we have many places that have changed their laws on the death penalty, and there has been no correlation suggesting that influences people's likelihood to commit violent crimes ( those people just aren't thinking of the consequences of getting caught ). So with the death penalty we will spend more money to reduce no crime while killing innocent people.

cmv

I believe that those caught excessively speeding or driving while severely intoxicated should get the death penalty. CMV.

where i live there is a steep hill that most cars need to go 30 to get up ( otherwise they would roll back down ) and the sensible speed is actually around 40 the speed limit is 25... why should someone go to prison for ignoring that sign?

cmv

Being gay is a choice. CMV

If being gay is a choice, we are all bisexual by default. It would seem kind of silly to discriminate against anyone if we all start out the same. However there is some evidence that shows that the levels of prenatal hormones effect sexual orientation.

cmv

Being gay is a choice. CMV

Most of your questions about nature vs. nurture seem to be about human behavior in general. Most modern psychologists see the answer in the nature vs nurture debate in a middle area : epigenetics, the theory that we are, indeed, born with certain genes and biological traits that influence who we are, but these inborn influences are triggered on / off and modified due to outside influences and experiences. And I think sexual orientation falls under this, too. There's certainly a crapton of evidence and research on influences like birth order, chromosomal segments, sex hormone development, and other prenatal factors that play a role in sexuality before the person's even born. But even so, as you said, nature certainly plays a role in the process of sexual development.

cmv

I don't believe wearing a seat - belt in a privately owned vehicle should be enforced by law, CMV

We know that seatbelts improve your safety if you are in a crash and increase your risk - taking behavior when you are driving ( thus increasing your chances of being in a crash ). Therefore wearing a seatbelt does not change your safety much on net but poses a threat to all other drivers around you. This means the government should ban or at least tax seatbelts because of the threat your seatbelt poses to the other drivers ( and pedestrians ) around you.

cmv

I don't believe wearing a seat - belt in a privately owned vehicle should be enforced by law, CMV

If, you are libertarian, then you would know about the " manufacturers Statement of Origin, " which you most likely don't have in possession. The truth of the matter is you don't own your car out right, because you go into contract with the state on how you will operate a vehicle on roads. It is more of a co - ownership. It is the reason why you pay taxes, the reason why you pay for registration, and the reason for a drivers license. This is the only way that the state would be able to grant itself the authority to oversee how one operates their vehicle. The true title of the car is the manufacturer statement of Origin. The state that owns the MSO is the state that the car is first registered with when the car is sold at the dealers. The only way to obtain is it to go up to the dealer and say, " I want this car, I am paying all in cash, and I am doing my own title work. " I know this from being a libertarian and working for a few months as an accountant at Honda of Dulles, VA.

cmv

I don't believe wearing a seat - belt in a privately owned vehicle should be enforced by law, CMV

It's not just personal safety, though. It's also other people's liability. Say you don't wear your seatbelt. What if another car accidentally hits your car from behind. If wearing a seatbelt, you would have survived, but instead you hit the windshield and, with the harsh impact, die. Instead of a smaller insurance issue, it now becomes manslaughter. I think it's similar to why police ( technically are supposed to ) enforce jaywalking laws. It makes you a liability to someone else.

cmv

I don't believe wearing a seat - belt in a privately owned vehicle should be enforced by law, CMV

I also don't think it should be enforced by law, but I think it should be enforced by insurance premiums. If you don't wear your seat - belt, it increases the likelihood that you'll get seriously injured in a car crash. Therefore, insurance companies should be able to charge more for people who don't wear there seatbelts. They could even have a clause that says something along the lines of " If you're not wearing your seatbelt during an accident, we will not be able to reimburse you for all damages... " etc. Therefore, Government really isn't necessary, but a free - market in insurance premiums is. Not sure if that'll change your view, but it's another way to challenge this argument.

cmv

I don't believe wearing a seat - belt in a privately owned vehicle should be enforced by law, CMV

Another thing to consider, you going through the windshield may not only hurt yourself. ER doctors will have their attention taken away from other patients. Donated blood would have to go to you rather than another person.

cmv

I don't believe wearing a seat - belt in a privately owned vehicle should be enforced by law, CMV

If you get in a collision where both drivers are facing each other, you could fly through your car's windshield, through his windshield, and hit the opposing driver, killing both of you. It isn't likely, but it could happen. Your body becomes a dangerous projectile.

cmv

I don't believe wearing a seat - belt in a privately owned vehicle should be enforced by law, CMV

It really comes down to cost - benefit pay out. Seat belts have been shown to greatly reduce road fatalities and injuries, and the only cost is to have the individual take 1 second to put it on and tolerate the minimal discomfort of wearing it. Going off of the libertarian streak, it is my understanding that libertarians favor the rights of the individual until it infringes on the rights of others. So operating on this premise, you have the right to look after your safety until you infringe on the safety of others. So let's say you get into a bad accident and you weren't wearing your seat belt. If you're not stopped by your seat belt, you can get ejected from the car and become a human projectile. Now you are putting other people's safety in jeopardy, which you don't have the right to do.

cmv

I believe authoritarian regimes are better for minorities in the middle east. CMV.

I would argue that it's less " Authoritarian Regimes are better " but rather " Stable Governments are better ". Any time where you have seriously disrupted the functioning of a society then you're going to have violence along the lines of loyalty. By defining the discussion between dictators and armed mobs you're ignoring all possible alternatives to those two things. Libya and Tunis both saw regime change followed rather quickly by a new comparatively stable government, they didn't have much in the way of minority violence.

cmv

I don't believe that " cop killers " are any worse than regular killers. CMV

The law tells us what is bad or what is worse, and the cops are the enforcers of that. Killing a cop is like rebelling against the law, so the punishments are more severe for rebellion. Therefore, you get two stars for killing a cop rather than one for killing a pedestrian.

cmv

I don't believe that " cop killers " are any worse than regular killers. CMV

Most murders are crimes of passion between acquaintances ; you find your spouse cheating on you and lose it, someone raped your sister and you go after them, whatever. Cop killings are almost always the killing of a stranger, either in commission of another crime or out of hatred for the institution they represent. So, on average, cop killers are more likely to already be criminals or acting out of hateful, impersonal motivations, which I think makes them worse than crime - of - passion style killers.

cmv

I don't believe that " cop killers " are any worse than regular killers. CMV

I believe that most of the time, you are right. And I personally have little respect for the police, who are willing to use force against peaceful people and justify it as upholding the law ( which doesn't make it okay to kill them, of course, but it's not worse than killing anyone else ). However, from a utilitarian perspective, I could argue that it would be worse to kill a cop if the cop is actually trying to protect people from violence. Now, you could argue that it would be just as bad to kill a civilian who was trying to protect others. However, the cop has had training and will most likely be more effective than a civilian at protecting people.

cmv

I don't believe that " cop killers " are any worse than regular killers. CMV

Ok, Devil's advocate time. Killing a regular person is killing an individual, killing a police officer is an assault on society as a whole. Police officers, while on duty, are representatives on the state. The state is ultimately a monopoly on violence and therefore killing a police man, in the United States at least, is in principle a direct assault on the democratic elected representative of the community from which the police ultimately derives their power from. Killing an average citizen is simply an attack on an individual, while tragic, does not carry the same weight as an assault upon an entire community. I guess in this regard, killing a police officer would carry the same weight as killing community leaders such as politicians or other " leaders " of the community. While it is true that the police and politicians are corrupt, they are in principle chosen by the community. Therefore an assault on a police officer is not just an assault upon an individual but upon all of us.

cmv

I don't believe that " cop killers " are any worse than regular killers. CMV

This kind of made me think about the way I think about the deaths if certain people. When I heard about a lot of the shooting this past year it hasn't really phased me. I kinda shrugged it off. However, today when I read about a Navy SEAL dying in a training accident I was actually sad ( I am working towards being a SEAL ). It made me sad that a person dedicated all of that time and effort into doing something in his life but just ended dying in a freak accident. I'm not gonna lie, I think I value the lives of people who help others more than regular people.

cmv

I believe that everyone should be free, 100 %. CMV

All we have to do is look at places where regulations aren't enforced. Let's look to the 2008 Chinese Milk scandal We're talking about babies being killed or hospitalized here because milk and formula producers wanted to cut corners for profit. Now libertarians might say that the market would take care of that. After such an incident, no one would put melamine in milk again, and the company would be penalized by the market. The problem is that we can watch and that didn't happen, several major incidents have happened since then. People still think they can get away with it, and if there are financial rewards and they don't think they'll get caught, they try it.

cmv

I believe that everyone should be free, 100 %. CMV

However, the effects of many drugs cause people to lose their ability to control their own actions, which can ( quite easily ) result in direct harm. The other laws that exist that restrict guns and make substances illegal were formed because of their potential to cause direct harm. While many will use these substances / items responsibly, there is a decent amount of people who will abuse the rights to these items and cause direct harm as a direct result.

cmv

I believe that everyone should be free, 100 %. CMV

I don't think that humans naturally take care for each other, And I know that's hard to believe since we all live in a society within a city which has morals and laws which leads to certain things you shouldn't do or aren't acceptable in society ( also known as taboo ). People who don't live in societys still have certain taboos of their own, but not like ours, and most of the time they are more violent and hostile. When you accept to enter into a government you give up certain freedoms ( rape, murder, yelling absurdities, theft ). If you wanted to leave society, it's completely your choice to leave and live out by the outskirts of a lake and live off the fat of the land. But there will be no police to protect you, no homeless shelter to run too, no public bathrooms, and other government spoils. Like I said before you can just leave right now! But be careful, not everyone out there is as nice as us. ( Holes reference )

cmv

I believe that everyone should be free, 100 %. CMV

I agree with you totally ; however, I don't believe it will ever happen in a countries such as the United States, Great Britain, etc. I believe they are all to large for this to happen because of the huge amount of government regulation. Only in small communities could this happen. In small communities it becomes everyone's job to take care of each other. This brings peace. Hippie communes from the 60's and 70's show evidence of this.

cmv

I believe that everyone should be free, 100 %. CMV

We should legalize drugs and treat drug addiction as a health problem. And personally, I think to get a firearm you should have to have a mental health test or something like that to make the gun - wielders more mentally stable. But no, I have to disagree on the cars, the laws are there to save lives and prevent accidents

cmv

I believe that everyone should be free, 100 %. CMV

Humans have the ability to be civil, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that we are all qualified to navigate the world safely and without doing irreparable harm to it. If there were no laws about automobiles, then there would be no quality assurances, no safety testing, no emissions controls, ect... This means that the average person has no way of knowing if they are getting something reliable and safe, or something that will blow up if they try to use the windshield wipers. Or, at the very least, everyone would have to do an unreasonable amount of research to determine such things. Having government restrictions and regulations allows for people to be confident that they aren't about to eat lead or have medication tainted with anthrax. On a macroscopic level, humans are irresponsible and near sighted. Maybe if we had a longer lifespan we would avoid the pitfalls of greed, but as we are the siren call of money means that we are, in general, terrible wardens of the earth and of each other. This is partly due to evolution ( after all, the one with the power is most secure and breeds most ), and partly due to trends in social views of how people should act ( which heavily reinforces gender stereotypes and doesn't allow for progress ). I would love to live in a libertarian utopia, but it is unreasonable. A person is smart ; people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

cmv

America Has Too Many Laws Regarding Liability and This Helps Create Stupidity.

The only way in which I could change your mind would be to argue for a cumulative cap on liabilities. That is, the more mistakes you make, the higher the cap if you are taken to court ( relative to some base line that is the norm, or acceptable ). I think this satisfies the incentive to reduce malpractice ( or keep it in check ), while not causing ridiculous increases in cost ( for consumers and practitioners'insurance ) I've never seen anyone argue against tort reform convincingly ( seen some pretty ridiculous attempts though ).

cmv

I can't stand flamboyant gay people. CMV

I agree that overly flamboyant people can be a bit irritating sometimes, gay or not. However, you must remember that gay people have their own subculture, and with different subcultures come features like style of clothing, mannerisms, attitudes, and special lingo. My guess is that gays often conform to these stereotypes because they have the need to form an identity and fit in with a group just like any other person. The difference between gay culture and most other subcultures is that it is associated with a trait that one cannot choose, and because of that it is seen as more of a stereo type than just another subculture. And as others here have said, many gay people aren't extremely flamboyant. So really, I can't convince you to like it, but I hope you'll realize that they are still just like you and me and are trying to fulfill the same social needs.

cmv

I can't stand flamboyant gay people. CMV

question : do you dislike it when females act that way? talking with lisps, walking around in leather, and acting super feminine? only asking because i feel the same thing but also for females who act that way. something about it just feels really shallow.

cmv

I can't stand flamboyant gay people. CMV

When you see a gay man acting flamboyant, rather than look at it and cringe. Look at it and remind yourself how much balls it really takes to be yourself in a world where people want to suppress that part of you. It takes a man with a lot of balls to act that way, and I'm proud of their strength. There are many gay lesser men out there that long to come out like that, but don't for fear of people that can't stand them.

cmv

I can't stand flamboyant gay people. CMV

I used to get really annoyed at flamboyant gay people. The way it was explained to me is that they behave that way so that people know they are gay. Better to scare off homophobes before you kindle a friendship with one only to have it end badly when they find out you are gay, or basically just so as not to surprise someone.

cmv

I can't stand flamboyant gay people. CMV

It depends which component of it annoys you. Are you annoyed by the perceived attention - seeking component of the behavior or is it the fact that they're not " acting like real men " according to you? And when you say " acting like a girl ", are you talking about acting like a stereotypical drama queen teenager girl screaming for attention all the time, or would you be annoyed by a cross - dressing man who's just acting pretty much like regular calm women act? I think most people can't stand loud and " fake " people regardless of their sexual orientation, but in a certain light that gender - bending rainbow - loving person might be the most genuine person in the room.

cmv

I can't stand flamboyant gay people. CMV

Hi there! I think it would be very relevant in this discussion to use the following link, as well as be cognizant of some of the word choices you used after reading the wikipedia page. " LGBTQ people that come the closest to mimicking heteronormative standards of gender identity are deemed most worthy of receiving rights. LGBTQ individuals at the bottom of the hierarchy ( transsexuals, transvestites, intersex, bisexuals, non - gender identified ) are seen as an impediment to this elite class of homonormative individuals receiving their rights "

cmv

I can't stand flamboyant gay people. CMV

Easy, watch this. It'll make everyone else seem a lot more normal. It's all relative. Kids walking around with swag shirts bothered me till I went to my local mall and saw a large group of them dressed like they traveled from mid - 90s Compton.

cmv

I can't stand flamboyant gay people. CMV

You should be okay with them acting like fools because it doesn't directly impact you. If they aren't touching you or blocking you from leaving, then they are within their rights to do it. I agree with you, actually. I also can't stand ghetto black women, trashy children, and spoiled, naive preteens / teenagers. Or frat / sorority kids. THey all make me want to punch them, but ( when I'm calm ), I recognize that they have every right to act however they want as long as it doesn't harm me. It has nothing to do with gay and everything to do with your pet peeves. Continue being annoyed, just don't ever revert to using your annoyance to justify suppressing their rights.

cmv

I don't think gay marriage is an important issue, and I don't think it deserves even 1 % of the attention it receives.

There are very important problems in the world and they certainly deserve more attention than they are receiving. This does not mean that we should marginalize institutionalized discrimination. This is not a matter of the government legitimizing any practice or changing the views of individuals, it is about the government actively discriminating against a group of people. I will agree that marriage not a human right, it is a contract. Government exists both to ensure human rights and to enforce contracts. Nonrecognition of gay marriage is a refusal of the government to enforce contracts between some individuals, thus creating a privileged class. While I will tacitly agree that it is not directly within the purview of the government to legitimize any social practice, I pose to you that there is an interest in promoting stable families ; moreover, there is an interest in promoting social harmony. Unrest reduces productivity and increases costs. In fact, if we can minimize disharmony, we could pay a lot more attention to all the world problems you previously enumerated!

cmv

I don't think gay marriage is an important issue, and I don't think it deserves even 1 % of the attention it receives.

I agree with you that this is an over politicized issue, and it's got a lot of different angles to play from, religious v. s. secular, conservative v. s. democrat, etc. The fact is, discrimination against gays is rampant and often brutal. This is going to continue yet for quite some time, but the closer society gets to acceptance of things like this, the less hate will spread. I also think you don't really understand marriage rights, they don't exist to give married people an advantage over singles, just to create harmony and balance in complicated family oriented financial endeavors. Tl ; dr Marriage rights aren't love, but they are helpful. They may not be the most important thing in the day to day lives of people, but they represent something much greater, equality.

cmv

I don't think gay marriage is an important issue, and I don't think it deserves even 1 % of the attention it receives.

You don't think its important because it doesn't affect you. What if someone in your family was in the hospital and you couldn't see them? Mainly, i think the issue is that by not being allowed to do what straight people do is discrimination and makes them seem unequal to straight people which in the eyes of the law is true right now.

cmv

I don't think gay marriage is an important issue, and I don't think it deserves even 1 % of the attention it receives.

The " pressing issues " of the world just don't hold viewers attention like these controversial issues. The media is shoving this issue down our throats because it pays. Gay people don't specifically want the right to marry ( or this gay person atleast ) we want equality - - in whatever form that may come in. The current biggest inequality we have to our straight counterparts is marriage and the incentives that come with it. You claiming marriage isn't a human right is a moot point. A lot of our laws are not based on human rights. Minimum wage laws, for example, are not " human rights " laws. Ultimately, I feel, we shouldn't even have a term for " gay people " outside of maybe labeling us people who cannot reproduce. Grouping people because of their likes and dislikes is how we create problems like this in the first place.

cmv

I don't think gay marriage is an important issue, and I don't think it deserves even 1 % of the attention it receives.

I live in a unique situation where my mother, brother, and sister are all gay. The issue, therefor, is very important to me because it's so easy for me to relate. The problem you are having is probably the same reason why I don't volunteer as much as I should or send money to Africa.

cmv

I don't think gay marriage is an important issue, and I don't think it deserves even 1 % of the attention it receives.

You are making interesting points. Here's my two cents : Whether the government should eliminate the privileges given to married couples ( it is a contract from the state's point of view after all ) is a separate issue. For better or worse, the family unit is considered by the majority of people to be beneficial for the society as a whole and therefore get some benefits. Prohibiting gay people from getting those benefits for no good reason is discrimination and a civil rights issue. That's why it is not the same as the " loud music " issue you brought up and deserves government attention to protect minorities from the majority rule in the form of constitutional amendments and legislation. Why it has come up now, I think it is a combination of social and cultural attitude change and what happened a few election cycles ago. It was used as a wedge issue to mobilize the conservative base. The laws and constitutional amendments took a while to go through the system to get to the supreme court right now.

cmv

I don't think gay marriage is an important issue, and I don't think it deserves even 1 % of the attention it receives.

People are giving compelling reasons why it is an important issue, let me give one why it deserves more than 1 % of its current attention. Poverty, hunger, infectious disease, the environment, economics, and child abuse are issues with either no obvious or at least very difficult to implement solutions. Marriage inequality could be fixed in a fortnight. BTW, I agree that all marriage privileges should be stripped in all aspects

cmv

I don't think gay marriage is an important issue, and I don't think it deserves even 1 % of the attention it receives.

First, you have the underlying problem that you don't believe marriage should be involved with the government at all. For now, they are, so assume that governments do indeed grant privileges for people who intend to spend the rest of their life together. If you don't think government should be allowed to determine marriage as a right, I believe that should be another thread. Second, if you accept the above, I would argue that if it is such a trivial issue, shouldn't be equally as easy to solve this issue? It is such a problem because we must convince people it is fine, but if we agreed that gay people are qualified for marriage irregardless of social taboo, we should federally disallow any homophobic laws the same ways we disallow any racist laws. DOMA should be striked down, along with any state laws that ban gay marriage. Basically, become Canada is this aspect because I'm fairly sure gay marriage is NOT a big deal over there any longer. Third, to address the issue directly, being treated and feeling like a second class citizen is a major issue, the same way certain races still feel like second class citizens, back then and now. We should not purposefully exclude gay marriage as a major issue simply because it is a " lesser " wrong. It is a wrong all the same and there are people out there being hurt by it.

cmv

I don't think gay marriage is an important issue, and I don't think it deserves even 1 % of the attention it receives.

Because of DOMA, which admittedly is on its way out, Gay couples do NOT have equal rights even where they can be married. And while you dont believe that its the governments job to achieve social tolerance, it is its job to ensure equality. Discrimination in all forms makes us poorer as a society. As Booker T. Washington said " You cant hold a man down without staying down with him "

cmv

I believe that a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy within the first two trimesters. CMV.

A fetus is a human ( biologically speaking ), and we mostly think we should have laws to protect the lives of humans. It's fine to have exceptions, but you need to have a good reason for those exceptions. Oftentimes the justification of an abortion is that the fetus is dependent on the mother, so the mother can make that decision. But dependence is not a good moral criteria for justifying freely killing another human - babies after they are born a certainly dependent on their mother for survival. Yes, someone else could care for them, but we also have advanced technologically where that is true for earlier births now too. Alternatively, if your criteria is capacity to experience pain, that develops at some point in the 2nd trimester, so it would not justify abortion throughout the entire 2nd trimester either. So... why do you think abortion is OK at 6 months minus 1 day, but not 6 months plus 1 day?

cmv

I have no sympathy for victims of suicide. CMV

Most people who commit suicide have some serious problems. Like, raped and dehumanized by a parent throughout childhood level problems. Even if these issues are never diagnosed formally, they can certainly lead to severe depression. Is hard not to feel bad for someone who has been through something like that. It's pretty rarely a perfectly mentally stable person who had one bad thing happen to them.

cmv

I have no sympathy for victims of suicide. CMV

There was this German football player, a goalkeeper who committed suicide a few years ago. He did this after 2 years of depression because his daughter died. I think his daughter was younger than 10. This for me is acceptable to a certain extent as I feel the loss would be devastating enough to not want to live anymore. However I don't agree if you have left a family behind ( preferably other children, not so much an SO ). Otherwise I agree with you.

cmv

I have no sympathy for victims of suicide. CMV

This is hard, as anyone who's ever considered suicide will tell you, they have no hope. Imagine a life where every day is worse than the next, imagine that you see nothing but pain in your future. Imagine that you feel nothingness and have no meaning. Depression leaves you feeling empty and soulless. It steals your smile and locks away your hope. Imagine thinking that not knowing what happens after death is more pleasing than to continue to live for one more day. This is how someone feels when they contemplate and commit suicide. Honestly I think it takes a lot of courage to go against your natural instinct and end your life. It also shows how hopeless and lost a person can be to take their own life.

cmv

I have no sympathy for victims of suicide. CMV

I don't know anybody that has attempted or actually committed suicide. but I can tell you while suffering from depression I've thought about it myself. I have to ask when you say victim do you mean the person that commited suicide? or do you mean the people that person has left behind? to me personally it means the latter.

cmv

I have no sympathy for victims of suicide. CMV

So with the mentally ill portion are you including severe depression and similar issues? I'm assuming you aren't from how you finished your paragraph. To put suicide into perspective for you, it's not that you want to kill yourself. It's that you don't want to continue living under the current set of circumstances that exist. A person who is unable to cope and find ways to change seek out the one way they believe will end their suffering. Wether it's mental, emotional, or physical suffering. That's not just my personal anecdotal belief but has been shown to be a common thought process. That's why when a depressed person says they just wish they didn't exist or could disappear it can be very serious.

cmv

I have no sympathy for victims of suicide. CMV

It's the easiest thing in the world to tell someone to buck up and start afresh but everyone deals with stress and misfortune in different ways. I'm not going to assume that you haven't been through traumatizing events in your life because you probably have ; you must remember that when someone contemplates suicide they are in a position where they don't see how things can get better. Most people who commit suicide don't simply choose to do so after losing their job or house as you suggest, the decision to do so takes place over an extended period of time.

cmv

I have no sympathy for victims of suicide. CMV

You're assuming that all people who commit suicide are lucidly aware of the opportunities they have, but felt entitled to more and killed themselves over it. But many people who have survived their suicide attempt will say they're happy they failed. That tells us that rather than being aware of the good things they have to live for, their perceptions were momentarily distorted so that they couldn't see those good things. We're all capable of making bad decisions under the right circumstances. And if those who commit suicide could have gone on to live full and happy lives if they just had some support during a rough patch, isn't that something worth being sympathetic about? You also assume that there's nothing you could possibly lose of greater value than the rights and privileges of an American. If you can't imagine such a thing, then maybe you're the one taking your circumstances for granted. Certainly there are people who have endured some truly terrible tragedies who would trade places with your average third - world citizen in a heartbeat. Surely they deserve our sympathies also.

cmv

Marriage is stupid. Especially if you're a male. Change my view, but it will be damn hard.

I am in the same boat as OP but would really want to believe marriage is good. The current system seems like a medieval institution for supporting a woman in return for assurance of an heir. Two things that seems awfully unnecessary in today's society. As well as the fact that you are strongly tying yourself to another person who you can never fully know or expect to not change. My father married an smart mechanical engineer who he loved and is now stuck with a housewife who believes in prophesy and conspiracy theories and spends all day either on facebook, shopping, or yelling at him.

cmv

Marriage is stupid. Especially if you're a male. Change my view, but it will be damn hard.

It is up to you to decide if the love and commitment part of marriage interests you or not. That is just personal opinion. There are however many financial and legal reasons that marriage is better that just a long term girl / boyfriend for both parties. Taxes and certain medical situations come to mind.

cmv

Marriage is stupid. Especially if you're a male. Change my view, but it will be damn hard.

Actually... Marriage arose historically as a business arrangement as a way to combine the assets and power of two families. Children solidified the deal and provided a continuation of the line to inherit the power and assets. Which is one of the reasons being barren ( unable to produce children ) is still grounds for divorce. Now, marriage has evolved as a way to protect the financial status of the partner that contributes less financially but perhaps more in terms of labor and childcare to advance the family... So not necessarily women, either. Essentially, it provides a return on your investment ( in the relationship ) if things should not work out and gives a means to be " paid " for the man - hours involved in maintaining a relationship. Not to mention giving you some legal rights to decide what to do should one partner become too sick to make decisions or decide to mistreat the children, etc. A person should get married for these reasons... And love, of course, which heavily plays into why these arrangements are fair. If not love for the partner, love for the family.

cmv

Marriage is stupid. Especially if you're a male. Change my view, but it will be damn hard.

If you assume that marriage ensures that the wife will only be with her husband, then this helps the male know that the child is his. I may be wrong, but I think that's why marriage originally became a thing. The wife got promised protection for her and the child in return for the husband knowing that his genes will be passed on. If you want to bring modern science ( paternity tests ) into this discussion then I guess I need to come up with something else.

cmv

Marriage is stupid. Especially if you're a male. Change my view, but it will be damn hard.

First of all you are assuming that the man makes more money than the woman which is plain sexist. Moving on, in general people get married to have babies. Most often, one parent needs to stay home to raise the kids, or at the very least, work less than they otherwise would. This arrangement assumes that the parents will be together forever and will share the benefits that both parties create. But of course this does not happen always. This is why the court is designed to " repay " the partner who stayed at home, so they will be able to support themselves now that they are not working in the old partnership.

cmv

I think that racial / other kinds of profiling can be justified. CMV

There was this popular study shown to me about different races of people taking a test. One particular question first reminded people of their races, like before they took their test there was a question about what race they were. When blacks were reminded that they were black, they did worse than the blacks that were not reminded that they were black. Same thing with women and math, when the whole women thing was not mentioned they did better as opposed to the women that were reminded that they were women and then the stereotype that " women are bad at math ". What I'm getting at is that holding these prejudices tends to make them come true, like a self fulfilling prophecy. If society expects you to be a certain way then you'll most likely define yourself as it because you yourself are part of that society. So I think it's not justified to expect people to be more prone to violence / crime than others because it will unconsciously make them live up to that image that they are given. Just like someone told all their life that they are smart, they will try to do smart things and disregard things that they feel only dumb people do. I hope my ramblings were coherent enough for you.

cmv

I think African - Americans haven't been able to break the cycle of poverty because their culture is trash. CMV

I think it is very bizarre how much people ( usually whites ) are baffled by people who do things differently. You only think of black culture as thug culture and white culture as being sophisticated because white people have the money. In x amount of years when whites are not the big dogs then I'm sure the prevailing notion of what is cultured will change.

cmv

I don't believe the term " feminist " has any significance anymore, CMV

I feel that the term feminist means something more than supporting equal rights for women. Of course, that is the literal definition, but I feel that that opinion is too widespread to need to its own name. I think most people feel that " feminists " are the ones who are active in the women's rights movement, more so than just " I want equal rights for all ". Because peoples definition of " feminist " has changed, the term has significance.

cmv

I think alimony in the U. S. is completely unfair - CMV.

No fault divorce is the norm these days, meaning one party can initiate a divorce unilaterally. The argument behind having the income earner provide alimony is that traditionally, one party was engaged in non - market production ( housework ) which has a high value for the household but less in the marketplace. It is also assumed that partners support eachothers career by making joint investments in eachother - e. g. the wife may stay home with the kids to help the father advance his career.

cmv

I don't believe people with children should get tax breaks. CMV

The child tax credit is given to eligible parents that meet several qualifications, and phases out at incomes in the US. It's not money divided by the exact amount of children. Why is it that you take a stance against tax credits against school funding and medical costs? There are laws mandating both medical treatment and schooling for children already, so couldn't that money be diverted to the tax credit and used by parents instead of the other way around?

cmv

I think 99 % of people ( including myself ) are not qualified to vote or even debate politics. CMV

I think anybody is qualified to debate politics as long as they come at it with an open mind. In the extreme case, a debate with a person who knows absolutely nothing about politics whatsoever would simply turn into an educational lecture, and there's nothing very wrong with that. You don't necessarily need to know everything there is to know about a subject in order to debate someone, unless you see it as a competition to be won ( e. g. debate club, presidential debates, etc ).

cmv

I think 99 % of people ( including myself ) are not qualified to vote or even debate politics. CMV

It is the candidates'job to communicate what they stand for. One advantage of party politics is that it is the party's job to vet candidates. If a voter at least compares what is communicated and sees how it relates to their view of the world and how credible, realistic and believable it is, that at least would be something.

cmv

I think 99 % of people ( including myself ) are not qualified to vote or even debate politics. CMV

Just curious have you heard the wisdom of the crowds? If not the idea is that statistically the more data points you get the more likely a correct choice. I believe the classic example was guessing the weight of a donkey at a county fair, the entire population's average guess was much better than the experts average guess. So if you make voting some kind of elitist thing where only the " qualified " vote, then statistically you are less likely to get a good result. Granted, it is debatable how well that statistics experiment translates to politics, as we have a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. However in general the more people that give an opinion ( guess on what will work for the country ), the more likely the outcome will work, even if those ideas are not the best informed.

cmv

I think 99 % of people ( including myself ) are not qualified to vote or even debate politics. CMV

The whole point of a representative democracy is that the voters don't have to know the specifics of complex issues. As far as debating though you are mostly right. Few people have enough knowledge to debate all of politics and many aren't even knowledgable enough to know they aren't knowledgable enough to debate a subject. Economics and environment are two great examples. The number of folks knowledgable about those subjects is much smaller than the number of folks willing to debate those subjects

cmv

I think 99 % of people ( including myself ) are not qualified to vote or even debate politics. CMV

I am not going to try and change your view as stated. I will instead challenge your assumption that we " need " politics in the first place. The question is : why did we get to the situation that it decides so much of our life when we have so little understanding of it? Why don't we move the decision making power away from government ( especially federal government ) into the area of the individual?

cmv

I think 99 % of people ( including myself ) are not qualified to vote or even debate politics. CMV

The problem is if we let the elite decide what is best for the world. They will enact what is best for THEM. The real problem is that we aren't educated enough to decide.

cmv

I think 99 % of people ( including myself ) are not qualified to vote or even debate politics. CMV

All political decisions are made based on emotion. Anyone can say " give me the facts, you can't argue the facts. " However, at the same time, anyone can argue the facts. The idea that you need to base your vote solely on information i. e. candidate's voting record etc means that no one would be allowed to vote in this county. Your value system dictates who you will vote for, not a statistic, nor a voting record, nor any of the other things mentioned. In short, you are almost correct. If your premise is that you need to be well informed and cast your vote based on said information then not just 99 % of the electorate is unqualified, but 100 % is unqualified.

cmv

I think 99 % of people ( including myself ) are not qualified to vote or even debate politics. CMV

Coming from a country with an non - opressive, yet corrupt dicatorship, I view democracy as means for people to vote for what they feel is right without the burden of having to objectively or rationally prove their point to the opposition. I never voted in my life because it's pointless for me - voting booth is rigged anyway. But if I were sure my vote is counted in a right way, I'd just vote how I feel like, without debating or explaining it. And I don't have to be a poli sci major to do so. That's the beauty of the system, enjoy it while you can.

cmv

I think 99 % of people ( including myself ) are not qualified to vote or even debate politics. CMV

You have very valid concerns about the qualifications of the average person to make an informed decision in the voting booth. But consider the consequences of only having the select few qualified people making the decision of who leads the country. In a system already filled with corruption, leaving all that power in the hands of a few is a scary thought. We need to fix a number of things with in politics, but taking the power away from the people isn't the way to do it. We should make it easier to have an informed opinion.

cmv

I don't think that people of low intelligence should have every right that an intelligent person has. CMV

You don't know the difference between uninformed / uneducated and " of low intelligence ". It sounds to me more like you don't want anyone with a different viewpoint than you to be allowed to vote, which admittedly would be inherently beneficial to you. I think instead of worrying about your view on this subject, you should concern yourself with your view of other people in general. People from all walks of life deserve to be able to live the way they choose. Talking in a manner that makes you feel disdain for them, or not knowing the meaning of a word that you do, does not make them stupid, and does not make them less deserving of rights. Acting in a way that you dislike does not mean a person deserves to not have rights. If you believe that, then you must inherently support people who fight against gay marriage and legalized abortions. After all, they're basing their arguments on the fact that these people are doing something they dislike, and the government shouldn't allow that. This argument you state here is eerily similar.

cmv

I don't think that people of low intelligence should have every right that an intelligent person has. CMV

Can you please tell me why understanding the definition of " acronym " is necessary to driving a car, voting, or otherwise being a functioning member of society? Can you please tell me why it is suddenly fine to make people vanish in the eyes of politics and society simply because you don't like them? Can you even satisfactorily define intelligence in this respect? How could you possibly exclude these people while not effecting the disabled? Are you fine with excluding those high functioning disabled individuals who are undiagnosed, or is constantly reiterating the exemption just a way to duck uncomfortable correlations to clearly unethical actions in the past? People are both far smarter and far dumber than you or I think they are at the same time. It's the standards and measuring sticks that matter as much as anything else when you could come down to doing this. After all, there are plenty of things about this post that are questionable, would you be fine with having rights taken away simply because someone else has arbitrarily decided that you are not smart enough to deserve them?

cmv

I don't think that people of low intelligence should have every right that an intelligent person has. CMV

it's been done it was called " eugenics " in America that lead do this man named Adolph Hitler trying to lead this problem to its ultimate conclusion. God you people are idiots. all men are created equal now go read a book and stop acting like your in some exclusive club because intelligence comes in many forms i can see a few of them missing from this conversation.

cmv

I don't think that people of low intelligence should have every right that an intelligent person has. CMV

Then who decides who can vote? Do they have to take a test? Jim Crow anyone? What if it were decided that you didn't have what it takes to pass the test and your right to vote was taken away? Would you think the system was fair then? Actually posting this question shows that you think you are more intelligent than the average person. You may be shocked to find out you aren't.

cmv

I believe that owning a gun doesn't make you any safer and it won't help you overthrow the government. CMV

1 : The army is composed of your own people. Only a matter of time for them to change sides in a revolution. Police is different, they profit from the state and are practically immune to punishment. What keeps the local police from repeatedly raping your 14y daughter and their mother? Morals? forget it. Its your rage and your gun.

cmv

I believe that owning a gun doesn't make you any safer and it won't help you overthrow the government. CMV

The US army has been losing control of Afghanistan, a small country where an AK - 47 costs 3 years salary. One imagines that the US would be even harder to keep control of, given the number of soldiers who would have sympathy for a popular uprising and the better information / training / weaponry available to citizens. Also, there is a middle ground. No - knock raids are more common in areas where gun ownership is lower, because the police are less likely to die performing them. Guns keep the government in check even without a revolution.

cmv