Datasets:

qwedsacf

/

story-generation

like 10

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

With a civilian populace armed with high powered weapons makes sure that if any government leader were to something incredibly stupid they could be taken out at range with a sniper rifle. If civil war were to break out the army would undoubtedly be on the side of the people because it is an all volunteer army. The people who signed up for the army did it to protect their friends and family taking that away would virtually make the entire army schism.

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 Vietnamese, Taliban, and countless other small countries have fought back against the US government successfully. As with most David & Goliath fights the US usually lost because of the costs associated with trying to hold onto an area of people that don't want you there. See the current price of all of the US Gov's wars as a perfect example. 2 - Myself and pretty much everyone I know has a conceal carry permit along with regular target practice and certifications to go along with it. If you really want to test you theory about this try breaking into a few homes and see what happens when you run into a gun owner. My final thought is that you sound like a city kid. People from cities always think they know everything cause they're so " cultured ". If you lived somewhere where you had to be protective of yourself and your own family without the help of police then you would know how ignorant your question sounds.

cmv

I don't think men and women are equal. I think they should be but they are not. CMV

We're equal on a human rights level, but there are double standards and have been for many years. There are double standards that favor both men and women, and they have just become traditionally accepted by society. The biggest one that affects women, is the constant emphasis on sexual appeal. Women are expected to be'sexy'according to whatever else is'sexy'at any given time, and that is detrimental. Being attractive is not a requirement for men as often as it is for women. There are many small double standards too, such as a man being expected to ask the woman on a date, things like that. There are so many finite inequalities that I think balance out, but on a basic level the equality is there.

cmv

I think that post - secondary education is a privilege, not a right ( ie. you should have to pay for it ). CMV.

I shouldn't have to pay to be considered qualified to apply for a job outside of a burger flipper. And that's why we go to college, to become qualified for jobs. Time and effort should be what you give to get a degree and later a job, not money. I agree about it being a privilege in the sense that you should work for it, but I also think everyone should have the equal right to an education. I'd rather go to school for $ 0 and get kicked out if I get bad grades as opposed to handing people money for a degree that I may or may not have put effort into earning.

cmv

I think that post - secondary education is a privilege, not a right ( ie. you should have to pay for it ). CMV.

It's in society's interest that you get a good education. We talk a lot about individual rights and freedoms, but we forget that a country where a lot of people have a college education is better than one where that's not the case. There's a government interest in making sure people are educated, so the government needs to help pay for it if the market won't behave.

cmv

I think that post - secondary education is a privilege, not a right ( ie. you should have to pay for it ). CMV.

The government doesn't subsidize education because it's a human right to have higher education. They do so because they think they think they can get a positive return on the money they invest by producing more skilled workers. Higher education means lower unemployment and more economic growth.

cmv

I think that post - secondary education is a privilege, not a right ( ie. you should have to pay for it ). CMV.

I've been accepted to some of the best music schools in my country ( U. S. ), and I probably won't be able to go to them because I don't have the money available. I've been working for years on getting here, and I've shown that I'm every bit as good as anyone else who goes to these schools, but it looks like I'm not going to be able to go because of money. No, you shouldn't have to pay for college ; the government's job should be to promote the health and welfare of the general populace and allow citizens to move up in life. Making education exclusive to the rich discourages the social mobility of the poor. It's unfair, and it's archaic that we still cling to this in the states. The government has an interest in making sure that the individuals bright enough to get into these colleges should be able to go - - it's lost potential that would have benefited society and also benefited the financial welfare of the state. The government could subsidize a $ 100k education in exchange for four times that in tax revenue later on. I don't know what I'll do, now. I'm going to appeal my financial aid awards. If I can't go, I'll probably work at Burger King or something and give up this dream.

cmv

I think if homosexual people can be recognized by the state, then polygamy and incest should be too. CMV

Marriage, at the government level, is just a business contract between two people that extends certain benefits ( tax, survivor's, etc ). Allowing one person to get these benefits from multiple people would be abuse of these benefits. Therefore polygamy is very different from same - sex marriage.

cmv

I think if homosexual people can be recognized by the state, then polygamy and incest should be too. CMV

I agree for polygamy but not for incest. Marriage is simply a useful thing for the government to recognize for its legal implications ( taxation, what to do with an adopted child if the person who adopted him / her dies, hospital visitation rights, health insurance plans, etc. ). So by default, the government should recognize it in all cases where it is useful in those legal situations ( that's why crazy people should be free have a ceremony where they " marry " their tree, but the government would not bother recognizing it ). However, as with all rules, exceptions should be made when there's a really good reason to do so. Restricting it to consenting adults is a good exception. Not permitting incest, which will lead to horrible birth defects, is another good exception. But restricting it purely on the grounds of a particular religion's belief about what God wants is not a good reason.

cmv

I don't believe the second amendment is a useful safeguard in the event that the US becomes a tyranny. CMV

I hear a lot of arguments against it because " the military could easily crush rebellion. " Who are they going to govern if they kill all of their citizens? We have enough privately owned guns to arm literally every person in the U. S. Are the elected members of government going to kill all of us?

cmv

I don't believe the second amendment is a useful safeguard in the event that the US becomes a tyranny. CMV

I think a lot of people have the idea in their mind that the defense against tyranny concept, which is the reason for the second amendment, is all about fighting the government when it comes to the door. And in that sense it's very silly to think that a hand full of individuals will make any difference form their doorstep with the entire weight of the government bearing down on them. And this is an apt perception because really no one man can make more than a small example of himself by dying on his front porch. The real idea of it is, once it becomes clear to a great many people that the government is hopelessly lost, that an army of volunteers can be drummed up from the masses to fight the government. This is essentially what happened at the foundation of the country, Englishmen denied their lawful rights rebelled against their own government and tore away to form their own nation. Rebellions of that magnitude require major factions to form usually with some military participation ( IE a state and it's guard units ), as well as militia grade forces ( all the decently fit people with decent modern rifles ) to constantly harass the seated power until it's hold is broken. The constant threat of that sort of thing being possible is supposed to be the people's last check on the government. It's supposed to keep the government from doing anything too absurd, not " oh they made up a stupid new program " absurd, more like throw citizens into prison camps without crime or trial absurd. It doesn't always work, but it gives people a thread of hope that if things did get out of control there would be an option other than roll over and take it.

cmv

I don't believe the second amendment is a useful safeguard in the event that the US becomes a tyranny. CMV

Here's the thing - the full effectiveness of the Second Amendment is best displayed when not in use. In other words, if the government actually went berserk on U. S. citizens as a whole, the Second Amendment will have half - failed it's purpose already. It is primarily a deterrent against tyranny, rather than an immediate defense against it. As for how the citizens vs. the " government " would turn out, I would like to point out that it would not be easy for many ( the majority ) of military members to turn on the people they swore to protect. It may be easy for a politician who sits behind a desk, but not for the 18 - year - old kid holding a gun. There would be countless members gone AWOL immediately, most of which would join the citizens in fighting ( if it ever came to fighting ). If the government were to really execute an effective " takeover ", it would be through the various police forces and governmental agencies, leaving the military out of it.

cmv

I dislike gender identity as a concept. CMV.

Pick up a copy of " Why Gender Matters " By Dr. Leonard Sax. Its got a lot of thinking point over the usefulness of gender and why a gender identity is important to many people / society. I used to have a similar opinion as you, and it really gave me a lot to think about.

cmv

I dislike gender identity as a concept. CMV.

What you mentioned is only one reason people would want to change their sex. People can sometimes actually identify with the body parts themselves ( for example they really dislike the fact that they have a penis ). Personally I don't identify with my body parts in a positive or negative way, but some people do.

cmv

I believe women should have full rights to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus is found to have a genetic disorder. CMV

Playing devil's advocate since I am pro - choice. However, if you believe that life starts at conception, then making any sort of concession to abortion rights would be philosophically inconsistent. So, if you are in fact pro - life, then ask yourself, would it be okay to murder someone with down's syndrome to " put them out of their misery " because from the pro - life perspective, there is no distinction to be made.

cmv

I believe women should have full rights to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus is found to have a genetic disorder. CMV

The fact you say they should be allowed to be terminated in the womb, but you don't advocate they should be allowed to be killed once born makes it seem that this is more of a question about abortion than anything else. You believe this because you believe it is a woman's right to choose as you believe it is part of her body. But what if the fetus isn't part of her body? What if you believe that a fetus isn't the same as a growth or an appendix? When does a bundle of cells become a person? Just know that it isn't simply fundamentalist Christians who believe that a person becomes a person when they are conceived, Chistopher Hitchens for example.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

Generally, we stay away from eating meat of other animals that are carnivorous ( like dogs ). The reason that I was always told as to why is that dog meat, snake meat, human meat, etc, carnivores eat smaller animals, which means that they contract parasites from eating them. For example, many dogs have parasites. Hence, we try to stay away from meats that may have parasites in them. There are also some parasitic fish we don't eat either.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

I agree with you that there is no moral difference between eating f. e. hamster and cow. ( I would not eat either, anyway ). I also think that if you are in a desert island situation with somebody else and this person dies of starvation you are not in the wrong by eating them. Now, I think that it often would be wrong to eat another human even if they consented to it before their death and said death was natural. I think a dead body belongs to his next of kin ( or other people who would mourn the dead person most ) and no longer the person who does not exist anymore. And those people should be allowed to dispose of him the way they are most comfortable with, as it might help them find closure ( Funerals are for the living, not the dead ). If those people felt eating the person would help them with that I can not find any moral objection against it, but if they want to bury the body but some random person unknown to them eats the body I think this is, at the very least theft. So, to me, eating a dead person can but does not have to be morally wrong.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

List of animals I have eaten : cow, turkey, chicken, duck, lamb, pig, aligator, kangaroo. I like dogs to much to ever eat one, they're very smart and My dog makes me so happy I couldn't bring myself to do that. I'd eat snake, not enough meat on a hamster, you'd have to eat dozens... hamster genocide. I don't really have an opinion, I'd never eat a human but I think the difference is that those animals were bred to be killed an eaten. Humans have to eat and we're at the top of the food chain, it makes some people feel guilty that humanity has to kill to survive but that just the way it is.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

Most meat we eat has been specifically raised for human consumption and is therefore the animals are slaughtered at a relatively young age. This is done not only for efficiency, but for taste. Meat from younger animals is more tender. The same goes for game, that trophy buck might make a great prize but if its getting up there in age the meat won't be very good. This is why nobody wants to eat your old dog, or your grandma.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

I love jelly belly jelly beans. but I don't like every flavor ( especially buttered popcorn ). by your logic I should eat every one. same for ice cream, sodas, liquors, anything of variety. Adam Sandler movies too.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

I actually agree with you on everything except eating human meat. Diseases aside eating someone's remains could be considered culturally insensitive to the deceased's relatives. Even then that is dependent on culture and therefore a weak argument.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

Everyone's different. Saying everyone should or shouldn't be " grossed out " by a specific type of meat is projecting your moral / ethical / cultural values on others and it just can't be done. People won't accept it. The Hindu will not eat a cow because it's sacred. The Jew will not eat pork. The pet owner will not eat a similar animal he has become emotionally attached to. The North American [ stereotypical ] will think it's'yucky'to eat pig / chicken innards. There are many factors that make something seem disgusting to people [ appearance, smell, texture, feel, emotional connection, religious ties ], to say it should /n't be disgusting for everyone would be like trying to enact a " Things that taste good and bad " law.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

As people have said - there are many varieties of meat that are simply unsafe to eat. Human meat is the obvious example, as there is a very good chance that you can contract a fatal or irreversible disease, but this actually applies to meat similar to us - monkey and chimpanzee meat, I believe, has been known in some cases to cause this as well. Look up Prion Disease for more info on the above. As for dog and cat meat and all that, it's purely cultural. Some cultures value dogs as companions, some value them as livestock. The morality is completely arbitrary and depends who you ask and where you are. So if you want an absolute answer, well, I think you may be out of luck. My personal stance is that there's no inherently immoral reason to eat hamster or dog or cat or what have you - however everyone has the right to make that decision for themselves based on their own moral compass. Then again, morality is one of those things where at the end of the day, there is no inheritantly and irrefutably true statement, so we're just getting into gray area here.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

I may not be grossed out by the idea, but that doesn't mean I'd like eating those types of meat. Snake tastes terrible, squirrel is really really gamey, and I haven't had human meat yet. So im willing to eat good tasting meat, and not willing to eat bad tasting meat ( unless, of course, I'm on a frozen Colorado mountain, we've run out of food, and i didn't draw the short straw : - ).

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

Like anything in the world, if people like it there will be a market for it. Because our culture doesn't support eating human flesh, it is almost nonexistent and so no demand exists. Were people not grossed out by it, you can be damn sure more people would want it. And if someone wants it badly enough, they will kill for it.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

Read the book'When Elephants Weep ". basically it goes on to tell anything with an advanced limbic system has feelings of joy, sadness, rage, sorrow, etc. So eating a fish with something that doesn't have these advanced emotions in my opinion isn't as bad as eating say a cow or a crow based off of it will never experience my " persona ; " definition of being an intelligent sentient being.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

I agree with you except when it comes to human meat. We have scientific precedent that cannibalism causes incredibly serious illnesses in many species. Cannibalism was the cause of Mad Cow Disease in cows. In fact, we have to add many types of ape and monkey to that list for humans, because they are so similar to us that the same health risks occur. In general, the meats our society eats and finds morally acceptable to eat, also line up with the healthiest and most suitable meats for us to eat, with few exceptions. But certainly if there is no risk to the human, or the animal isn't endangered, than there's nothing wrong with eating it.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

Cannibalism isn't terrible in all cultures. Our morality is established in part by nature, but mostly by culture. Cannibalistic societies usually only eat their enemies, and the do so with a specific purpose. It's not to just eat for sake of BBQ.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

I think a portion of this issue is that our discomfort with eating those kinds of meat comes from the fact that we have to kill those animals as well. We don't typically eat dog meat or hamster meat because we consider those pets. We give them names, house them and give them affection. We don't like to hurt things that we care about, and the idea of eating them is repulsive because it goes against our idea of friendship and caring. I know you discluded people in your preface, but I think it applies even more here. Just imagine telling your best friend " Dude, you're awesome and everything, but I'm hungry so I'm gonna kill you and eat you. " There's something repulsive in the idea that we would cause desecrate those we care about by doing something as barbaric as eat them.

cmv

If you are willing to eat meat, then I don't think you should be grossed out by eating ANY meat, including dog meat, hamster meat, snake meat.. even human meat. CMV

I just don't see the point in eating a scrawny dog or hamsters when I have have a steak from a meaty cow. We've domesticated dogs and hamsters to be our companions, not to be our food. We breed cows for good meet, and we breed dogs for companionship. It's part of our culture, so to speak. In other countries eating a dog would be okay, and eating a cow is a sin. In some cultures eating humans is not unheard of. TL ; DR it's all in the culture.

cmv

I think being a vegan for any other reason than your health is ridiculous. CMV

A lot of vegans / vegetarians I have talked to are very open to omnivores. I don't think they are trying to stop the industry so much as make people aware of the injustices of the food industry to animals, therefore hoping that better regulations will be put in for a more humane way of getting meat / milk / eggs / etc. It's also a personal thing. A lot of people have sex before marriage. Others wait until marriage. Waiting until marriage isn't for everyone, and that's fine, but it's just not something the people who wait for marriage are comfortable with. Similarly, vegans / vegetarians are doing it for themselves, for what they are comfortable with.

cmv

I think being a vegan for any other reason than your health is ridiculous. CMV

Well ; say you were a forward thinking person about a hundred years ago and treated black people the same as white people - would it be an acceptable argument to say " but you're never going to stop racism, so why bother? " Now what if black people weren't just discriminated against, but eaten? I am not a vegan, or even vegetarian - but I hope you see the point I'm trying to make. Just because everyone won't follow my principles doesn't mean I ought not to. On the other hand - vegan food can be delicious. I find most western meat dishes to be rather dull, for example. It's perfectly likely that people just don't like how meat tastes.

cmv

I think being a vegan for any other reason than your health is ridiculous. CMV

The fact that you aren't going to stop the industry is irrelevant. You said animal testing is wrong because they can feel pain. Therefore I am assuming you would think it is wrong to have a miniature slaughterhouse for your own consumption in your yard. Then you think adding to the demand of slaughter house meat is wrong. So buying processed animal products is wrong. Although this is not technically vegan ( ie, you can still eat roadkill ), I think the distinction for most people is trivial.

cmv

I think being a vegan for any other reason than your health is ridiculous. CMV

Peter Singer, one of the most famous / intelligent utilitarians of all time, put it basically like this : 1. We should avoid causing suffering when it is not necessary. 2. Animal suffering, while less problematic than human suffering, is possible, existent, and problematic. 3. Death is suffering. 4. Humans no longer need to eat meat to survive, or even to do so healthfully. 5. Killing animals for meat ( not to mention the suffering we put them through to get them there ) is unnecessary harm, and therefore we should not do it. Sorry if I've misrepresented the argument ; that's just the best I understand it. FWIW, I am not a vegan or vegetarian, but would like to be able to commit to one of the two.

cmv

I think being a vegan for any other reason than your health is ridiculous. CMV

Hmmm, I think that if I disagree with something on moral grounds I should not take part in it, even if that will not change society on the whole. - Won't you agree on that? Especially when it is relatively easy not to take part in it.

cmv

I think being a vegan for any other reason than your health is ridiculous. CMV

The main argument here is absolutely animal rights. They are sentient beings and deserve the same rights as non - food animals, such as dogs and cats - especially since they don't have voices of their own. They are not a " tool " for us to use. They deserve to not be forcefully bred and live in captivity their whole lives. It is unethical.

cmv

I think that feminism is 1 ) sexist and 2 ) harmful to equality. CMV.

I withdrew from my feminist philosophy class for this reason exactly. It should be self - evident that a group designed to promote one group's rights is inherently unequal. I was baffled at being part of the minority on that. So much for philosophy eh?

cmv

I think that all religion is bad and should never have existed, CMV

As much as you despise it, religion is a part of the human experience ; look at the point of it. It gives a creation myth and then an escontology that we otherwise couldn't explain. The other thing that it does is give a set of morals that we should strive too ; all of these things are an integral part of being human. Even atheists are tackling these same problems, they are just using the tools of the time to better explain them. Religion is old, and is implementing a set of values from another time, which isn't a bad thing, but just different from what you believe. There are very good things about being religious, that you may not hold to be the highest ideals, but it is on a person by person basis what those highest ideals are. Anyways, I just read what you said and i realized that I just have to change one part of your belief. Please tell me how Taoism or Buddhism is teaching people " If you don't agree with us, we have to kill you? " They are completely non violent and very passive about other peoples beliefs.

cmv

I think that all religion is bad and should never have existed, CMV

Going with the presumption that you don't think a morality exists, what would have happened if no religion existed? Maybe cavemen would learn not to steal each other's food because they got attacked if they did. But what about a developing man who comes across his neighbors stash of crops? If he knew he could get away with stealing it why shouldn't he? Religion gave people rules that benefitted all of society. I agree that we have no need of it anymore.

cmv

I think that the death penalty should be abolished. CMV

As a Grandson to murdered Grandparents : It is incredibly painful to know that because he shot my family members I now have to pay to house, feed, and clothe him. I pay for the TV he watches and the games he plays. I pay to keep him alive and relatively happy while my family members are buried in the ground with bullet holes. I fail to see justice served in this irony. As far as your fear of the innocence of the accused : Our justice system ( in the US ) is designed entirely around protecting the innocent. This is why in a trail you must PROVE guilt. If the prosecutor can not PROVE guilt then the person is deemed innocent. There is also a lengthy appeals process that typically lasts years to ensure that a guilty sentence was not an accident.

cmv

I think that the death penalty should be abolished. CMV

It is often used as a bargaining chip to get serial killers to confess and serve life in prison instead of wasting time and money with a trial. When given the choice between life in prison and a death sentence, a good portion of the accused will confess and take the life sentence. This saves resources of unnecessarily prosecuting someone who already knows they're guilty. It also creates closure to the families of the victims. I really think the death penalty should only be used in extreme circumstances when there is undeniable proof. It may also help prevent murders in prisons due to the threat of further punishment. There's not much to stop someone with a life sentence from murdering in prison other than the threat of a death sentence. Execution of people who turned out to be innocent is absolutely unacceptable, and that's why I only agree with it when there is a massive amount of evidence suggesting guilt.

cmv

I think that the death penalty should be abolished. CMV

The death penalty does have a place but with a few caveats : I believe it should require a higher level of proof than the " beyond reasonable doubt " necessary for a conviction. This would address the issue of killing innocents. Those convicted of violent crimes committed while in prison should be executed. Such behavior puts all inmates and guards at high risk. Life in prison is no longer appropriate and the monetary cost of execution is far less important. In these conditions the death penalty would be acceptable.

cmv

I believe that if you support democracy, you must respect the Christian opposition to gay marriage. CMV

If enough people in the country want something ( say, killing 10 innocent people ) that they reach the majority in a vote, should they be allowed to proceed? Or are there rules that can be protected even from the decision of the majority ( i. e. rights )? Democracy has great advantages, but the way of counting everybody's voice equally can lead to one group controlling another one merely because they have more people in it. It's important to balance people needs and requests, which means compromising and letting others make decisions for themselves, too.

cmv

I believe that if you support democracy, you must respect the Christian opposition to gay marriage. CMV

Democracy has always been the tyranny of the masses, that's why we have the supreme court ( and associated lower courts ) to discern what's fair and right. So my question to you is that if you support democracy, and they put it to a popular vote to put all gay people into internment camps, would you support that? Note : we did that to the Japanese less than a hundred years ago. I guess i didnt read your question as well the first time, what exactly do you mean by respect? Do you mean to acknowledge that they have a separate view on how the world works? Sure, ok. Making laws based on religion is deeply against the american view of democracy though. So if we had enough muslims in the country that wanted to force women to wear burkas, would you respect that view?

cmv

I believe that if you support democracy, you must respect the Christian opposition to gay marriage. CMV

Majority doesn't mean the decision. What if majority decided to kill all gay people? That would be dark ages, not democracy. The argument here is not who has more votes, but rather are the current laws interfering with the rights of gay people to be married. Legal rights and religious rights are separated, and rightfully so, because religions often encourage slavery, gender inequality and gruesome punishment for crime.

cmv

I believe that if you support democracy, you must respect the Christian opposition to gay marriage. CMV

If you support democracy then yes, you are 100 % correct. However, there are no true democracies in the world, we have our own blend of democracy. The constitution specifically had this sort of thing in mind when it established the Supreme Court. The executive branch represents the ideas of the majority, the Congress the individual areas, and the Supreme Court the minority. They are supposed to protect the minority from having rights taken away from them by the majority. That is the American democracy. The 1st amendment prohibits laws based on religion, and hopefully the Supreme Court will actually one day enforce this on this issue. Banning the benefits associated with marriage, which you can see is a pretty sizable list, based on religious values is a clear violation of the 1st amendment. Some of those are provided privately ( sharing your spouses employment insurance and visitation rights ) but others are federally provided, meaning the federal government is discriminating based on religious inspired laws. We have a democracy, but we also have various protections against the majority in case they try to take away rights of the minority ; the majority can't always get exactly what they want

cmv

I believe that if you support democracy, you must respect the Christian opposition to gay marriage. CMV

There is such a thing as tyranny of the majority, wherein the majority view controls everyone simply by being the majority view. popularity does not always equate to something being right and religious people controlling the lives of others with no argument other than their religion is a textbook example of this. You dont even need to believe in inalienable human rights for this flaw of democracy to be apparent, it is one of the major criticisms of democracy. Democracy isnt perfect but that doesnt mean we should simply lie down and accept its flaws. If you're actions are not motivated at least partially by some sort of coherent argument which can stand under scrutiny then you shouldnt be acting.

cmv

I believe that if you support democracy, you must respect the Christian opposition to gay marriage. CMV

In our country, there is to be a separation between church and state. Therefore, laws should not be made based on religious beliefs, they should made based on the constitution. The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman - The Constitution does not. And making gay marriage legal does not REQUIRE anyone to get gay - married. It does not REQUIRE any chuch or other religious organization to host gay weddings. Making gay marriage legal means that a same - sex couple may enter into a legal contract - God does not have to accept that, only the United States government. Also, to be nitpicky, and disregard law and logic, outlawing gay marriage affects the every day life of gays, but making it legal does NOT affect the every day life of Christians.

cmv

I believe that Saudi Arabia has a just legal system. CMV

I don't think that what you mean is " just ". I think what you mean is that the Saudi legal system is self - consistent. And I agree that it is, for the most part, self - consistent. However, " just " appeals to greater moral principles which the Saudi legal system definitely does not fulfill. You could make a good case that any legal system founded on the Quran ( or at least, a Wahabist interpretation of the Quran ) would not be just. For example : a core principle of a just legal system is that all punishments must fit their crimes. A punishment for a crime that should not be illegal at all is abhorrent to the concept of justice, and Saudi Arabia has tons of those. And even in the cases where it does punish crimes that should actually be punished, it overreacts all the time. In contrast a just legal system does NOT need to be static. Indeed if a legal system was static it would tend to be unjust, because it could not be changed to be more just than it started as, and it would almost certainly start out less than perfectly just.

cmv

I believe that Saudi Arabia has a just legal system. CMV

One major area of concern is that the legal system is based not only on the Quran, but also on the hadith, which are collected sayings, traditions and stories about the prophet. They are much harder to trace to their point and time period of origin, and a lot of them were recorded after or much after the prophet's death. They are not self consistent - There's a list of contradictions here. So either the hadith are all true reflections of the prophet, and he contradicted himself, or some of them are falsified. Some of them are probably more suspect than others, but where do you draw the line? At some point, you're just arbitrarily choosing rules to follow.

cmv

I think life imprisonment is just as bad as capital punishment. CMV

I think the mind is a powerful place, and can find a home even in Hell. You seem to think prison is like animals pacing a cage, dead inside. And sure, sometimes it is. But. There's no room in your world for friendships. There's no room in your world to learn. There's not a single man or woman in your world who finds comfort in the structure prison provides. Your world isn't mine.

cmv

I believe that bar / restaurant owners have the right to allow / disallow smoking in their establishment, CMV

Regarding # 2, as a society we have chosen not to allow people to work in environments that are known to be harmful. Exposure to carcinogens is limited in all industries, and bars shouldn't be an exception. In the current economy there are plenty of workers who are desperate enough for work that they would take a job they know would give them cancer - - but as a society, we benefit from insisting on minimum standards for wages and safety. It is naive to think that if smoking was allowed in bars, the free market would lead to only people who wanted to be exposed to second hand smoke taking those jobs. History shows that many people can be pressured to take jobs they know will make them sick.

cmv

I think that saying " African - American " to universally describe black people is incorrect. CMV

Strictly speaking, yes it is incorrect to " universally describe black people ". Since there are black people that are not American, that is the only counterexample needed to invalidate the universal descriptor. For the question of is " black " racist, I would say, not necessarily. However, as a white person I try to follow the lead of the person or group and use the terminology they do, and I default to " African - American " whenever it is contextually appropriate and probably accurate. If it is not apparently accurate ( someone with a British accent, say ) then I might use " of African decent " or maybe " non - white ", but I'll be honest that it's rare for me personally to have been an issue.

cmv

I think that saying " African - American " to universally describe black people is incorrect. CMV

Well if they're not african and american, then it's incorrect. I think this one is pretty straightforward. I don't think calling someone black is any worse or better than calling someone white, some people just have the idea of'African American'deeply ingrained. You don't hear a lot of people saying'African - Canadian'or'African - Mexican ', at least I don't...

cmv

I think that saying " African - American " to universally describe black people is incorrect. CMV

are you only talking about america or not? because obviously it's ridiculous to call someone from europe " african - american ", but the text of your post only refers to america. in the context of america, why would it be incorrect? they're american and their ancestry traces to africa. same as irish - american, japanese - american, etc. do you object to those as well?

cmv

I think that saying " African - American " to universally describe black people is incorrect. CMV

Do you mean " incorrect " because the literal meaning is that they are part African? Can you imagine the sheer number of words I could list here that would be " incorrect " by that definition? African - American has become part of our lexicon and carries with it a meaning. That meaning today is synonymous with " black ". FWIW, most ( all? ) blacks can be traced to African roots ( even if more recently from the Carribean ) I believe... but then again, can't all humans? And in my opinion, no " black " is not racist.

cmv

I believe that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children should be fined. CMV

It's a parents decision how they wish their child to grow up. The reason vaccines are optional in the first place and they don't have a fine on them currently is because forcing vaccination would be alteration of a child without consent of the parents. It is the parents decision whether or not they want to put their child at risk. Herd immunity, however, gives them a better chance, and even if they catch the disease, why would that effect all the vaccinated people? It's the parents decision whether or not to protect their child from potential harm in the same way it is the parents decision to teach their child not to do dangerous things and to keep them out of harms way. Just because it is the most practical thing to choose does not mean you can fine people for not choosing it. Them not being vaccinated is arguably only a threat to those who aren't vaccinated, ergo, the fine for not getting your child vaccinated IS the risk...

cmv

I think affirmative action is racist / prejudice. CMV

Singular situations and circumstances don't have much of bearing on the efficacy of a policy as a whole unless you can show similar cases are widespread. For example, welfare will undoubtedly allow for certain to people to leech off the system, but that doesn't imply that everyone who receives welfare is a leech on the system. Coincidentally, that your particular situation is arguably discriminatory against you, it doesn't mean that the whole policy of AA is discriminatory. If the goal is to elevate a whole group of people to another you're now dealing with averages and medians and statistics and demographics, of which there will undeniably be outliers. Your situation just happens to be an outlier.

cmv

I think affirmative action is racist / prejudice. CMV

In short - because people are lazy and naturally inclined towards racism. Diversity is good for a number of reasons - the most important is that is brings together different points of view. Why is that important? Because looking at problems from different points of view can lead to solving the issue a lot more quickly than everyone thinking the same way. Believe it or not, most people feel the most comfortable when they are around others like them. People who are similar to us make us feel good about ourselves, because thy don't challenge our world view. Naturally, when given a choice, most people will choose the option of placing people around them who make them feel good. Once that practice makes its way into college admissions or hiring, it becomes a very bad thing. The person making those decisions might not be blatantly racist - hell, they may even have a few black friends - but " something " about the white candidate might make them feel more comfortable.

cmv

I think affirmative action is racist / prejudice. CMV

Affirmative action and scholarship trends are two different issues. I'll just tackle the first for now, although some of my reasoning may also apply to scholarships. To clear up some misconceptions about affirmative action... 1. When choosing applicants, affirmative action cannot ( legally ) trammel the rights of nonminorities. That is, if two applicants are equally qualified, a minority may be preferred if it helps the organization meet the requirements of point 2 below, but an unqualified minority may not be preferred over a qualified nonminority. 2. The purpose of affirmative action, in terms of preferential hiring in the workplace, is to match the organization's percentage of qualified minorities to the percentage of qualified minorities in that geographic area. If that org's percentage is low, and there's other minorities in the area that are qualified to work, then that workplace is likely discriminating. I can understand why you'd have that initial view of affirmative action, because on surface, sans details, it doesn't sound justified. I once had that view, too.

cmv

I think Reddit encourages polarization and groupthink. CMV

I'd say that's true of any community. Generally speaking, popular opinions get reinforced, and opinions that are unpopular get punished. Basic psychology here. That's why there's so much atheism, Nicholas Cage, & Cats. I seriously doubt most Redditors were pleased to happen on a community that mirrored their interests - it's more likely that they developed those interests as a result of seeing em all the damn time. Eventually, we all learned that posting about atheism gets you karma ( Positive reinforcement ) and thus we all post & comment about how great atheism is.

cmv

I don't believe that a married couple is any more legitimate, committed, or loving than any other long - term couple who doesn't want to get married, CMV.

Look, the legal commitment matters. It is harder for married people to separate than non - married people. A married couple that wants to separate needs to go through an expensive and time consuming legal process. This is an important part of a marriage contract. In economics, we call it a commitment device. Suppose that a couple wants to get married and have children. One of the two people needs to stay home and care for the children, say, and thus sacrifice a career. The difficulty of breaking the marriage contract ( think alimony ) is there to make sure the careered one continues to support the one that made the sacrifice. So in a very real way, married people are more committed, simply because it is harder for them to separate than it is for non - married people.

cmv

I don't believe that a married couple is any more legitimate, committed, or loving than any other long - term couple who doesn't want to get married, CMV.

There is a simple difference in between dating someone for a long time, and getting married to them. When you are dating them, you know you can leave. No one approved or saw over your relationship, it just was, and you have the power to unmake it. But when you get married, that freedom goes away. If you want to walk away you are doing so with full knowledge that your best friend, their best friend, and both of your families witnessed the marriage, approved of it. You can't just walk away when you are married, and if you do, its not that easy.

cmv

I don't believe that a married couple is any more legitimate, committed, or loving than any other long - term couple who doesn't want to get married, CMV.

You say that married couples are not necessarily any more committed than you and your SO, but I would ask you this : if you and your SO break up, do you lose half your stuff? Because that's clearly a commitment that non - married people don't make. Also, if you and your SO decide to have a kid or adopt, would you feel more or less comfortable doing so in a married relationship or as two people dating for a long time? I feel like being married is at least somewhat conducive in that it takes some of the anxiety out of starting a family because you have this serious moral and legal commitment between you and your SO.

cmv

I don't believe soldiers are heroes. CMV

Talk to any soldier, airman, marine, whatever they will say the same thing. We gripe about our boring - ass jobs, they do the same thing. One of my college buddies is a nav on a C - 130. Any time anyone mentions anything about his " amazing service " or " hero " anything he just retorts with : Ma'am, I fly in the porn and toilet paper, to some I am a hero, but not likely to you.

cmv

I don't believe soldiers are heroes. CMV

this all depends on whether or not you see the combat as useless. in WW2 when allied forces stormed the beaches at Normandy, they were facing machine guns, tanks, bombs, and almost certain death. hundreds of people died so that this invasion could be successful, and it was a key strategic point and the turning point of the war. whether or not you think Iraq and Afghanistan are justified, it still takes a lot of courage to risk your life so that others don't have to.

cmv

I don't believe soldiers are heroes. CMV

I believe soldiers should be regarded heroes because they volunteer for service and I protect our country in various ways. I don't think the legitimacy of the conflict has anything to do with the soldiers themselves. Soldiers don't decide which wars they wage, the politicians do. The soldiers bravely put their lives on the line in order to act out the decisions of higher leadership. Now a response to that could be that soldiers shouldn't just mindlessly follow all of these orders when the leadership makes bad decisions like this. That's not the soldiers'place to decide. If everyone started thinking for themselves only and not fighting in battle if they didn't agree with one thing or another, then our military would unravel and there would be no way to keep everyone in line. Soldiers are the ones brave enough to fight even though they may not agree with certain conflicts. The ones who actually go through conflict put themselves through incredible mental and physical stress and are willing to give the ultimate sacrifice. That I believe deserves the title of a hero.

cmv

I don't believe soldiers are heroes. CMV

I think anyone who genuinely believes that they are sacrificing their life to better life back in their home should be considered a hero. Whether or not what they do actually makes any difference at all, it's the principle that makes them a hero. If they're just out there to kill commies and terrorists, then no. They are not heroes.

cmv

I don't believe soldiers are heroes. CMV

I think we in the US see our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as " heroes ", because we have an all volunteer force. Many of our allied countries have mandated military service for males after finishing their high school level education. The US doesn't believe in doing that, so instead, they offer incentives like money for higher education so that everyone who joins does so on their own accord. Now if people stopped volunteering, and we couldn't get enough people to support a standing military, the US would be forced into mandating service, and maybe that would include YOU. Then YOU would be fighting these " bloody and useless " combats in the middle east, and YOUR life would be on the line. Because of this, even if our military men and women aren't seen as directly fighting for America's freedom, they're still saving you from having to do it. That seems pretty heroic to me.

cmv

I don't believe soldiers are heroes. CMV

I do agree that 99 % of soldiers are not heroes. They are people whi joined the military for one reason or another and they don't always like the attention they get. However, there are a special 1 % who do do something heroic. Even if you don't agree with the motives behind the fighting, there are still men and women out there who deserve to be called a hero.

cmv

I don't believe soldiers are heroes. CMV

I don't consider a soldier a " hero " right off the bat either. However, it should be noted that soldiers, ( as well as all members of the military, firefighters, ect ) do put forth their commitment to protect the country and it's inhabitants. Should war come, these are the people that have said " I will fight for my country! " And for that, I feel that soldiers do deserve recognition. The easiest word for us to use is hero. It may not be the best, but it's the word that sticks. So when you hear someone say " He's a hero, " you should take it with a grain of salt. Because the person is trying to acknowledge their bravery / patriotism, and not their personal efforts that would deem them fit to be a " hero " by the classic terms.

cmv

I don't believe soldiers are heroes. CMV

Neither do soldiers. My dad, great - grandfather and mother were all soldiers - - none of them considered themselves heroes, although my dad and great - grandfather all served with relative distinction. I've met Rangers, drone pilots, a colonel in the Air Force, a tank rat on an aircraft carrier, a few pilots, SEALs and Marines and none of them want to be worshiped as a hero. Just appreciated, like anyone else. To some of them, it was just a job. To others, it was a lifestyle, but they were all humble enough to know that they weren't the end - all - be - all of the world. I guess I'm not really challenging your view, but I feel that a lot of people think soldiers need to be venerated above everyone else - - some Vietnam vets I've talked to hate this. Some felt that they didn't earn it, and some of them just outright disagreed with the war on a whole and hated the fact that they were drafted into it.

cmv

I believe that the fact that Police are allowed to lie to suspects makes them inherently untrustworthy, CMV

I don't have a problem with the police being allowed to lie too you, what I do have a problem with is the hypocrisy. You can be brought up on charges for lying too them. In my humble opinion you shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. Either both parties should be allowed to lie to each other, or neither should.

cmv

I believe that the fact that Police are allowed to lie to suspects makes them inherently untrustworthy, CMV

OP, Do you have any statistics on police officer perjury? Although you state there are many cases where this occurs, how prevalent do you think it is? For example, one could use the same argument against claims of female rape victims. There are many cases where the truth is revealed, contradicting their claims. As well, females are better at keeping large lies, such as affairs, without their partner noticing. However, if we look at actual statistics, I'm quite sure you'd find that distrusting both the police officer and female rape victim relies on such a long shot that it isn't worth it for the amount of truth - tellers you ignore.

cmv

I believe that the fact that Police are allowed to lie to suspects makes them inherently untrustworthy, CMV

All things being equal defendant's have a much larger incentive to lie under oath than the police do. The police are risking their jobs if they lie while a defendant may be rewarded with getting out of trouble if they lie. Both obviously have perjury potential as well but again for police it means loss of a career while a much more minor penalty to defendant. It's hard for me to argue why you shouldn't automatically distrust a police officer as much as you do a defendant because I don't understand why you would. Partly because of above and partly because after being active in communities I see how careful most police are towards getting things done right. They will often go way out of their way to make sure they can prove things before they send them to trial. sure there are some bad ones like there are everywhere. As for allowing them to lie in interrogations to me that makes them more trustworthy. Since there are solid rules for when they can and cannot lie to people it makes them more likely to follow the rules and not to wade in some gray area. If there weren't lenience on lying to suspects then they would constantly be battling the gray areas between truth and lies in interrogations and I feel that battle would lead them to be less straightforward on the stand.

cmv

I don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with polygamy. CMV

Polyamory I can agree with but I don't think it should be a legally recognized marriage if it's between more than two people. Don't you get more tax breaks the more dependants you have? If that's the case then what's to stop large groups of people from marrying each other to exploit the tax benefits. ( the tax benefits thng is an assumption... correct me if I'm wrong ).

cmv

I don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with polygamy. CMV

Polygamy in practice is almost exclusively a powerful man with many satellite wives. While it is not impossible to have one woman with many men, examples of this are fairly rare. The more wealthy / powerful the man is, the more wives he will have. In cultures that sanction polygamy, we see hundreds of examples where the number of wives is synonymous with that person's wealth and power. King Solomon's wealth was measured by how many hundreds of wives and concubines he had ; same with king Daniel. Imagine how many wives Donald Trump this was the case today. The collection of wives has always been seen as a status symbol that the wealthy compete for, making a woman into an object like a Lamborghini you can have sex with. This also creating a serious deficit of potential mates for the men who are not rich and powerful. The probability that a man with no social status will find a mate is significantly less when women are concentrated around the powerful.

cmv

I don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with polygamy. CMV

On the level of individuals I agree there is nothing wrong with it, however on the societal level polygamy causes problems. A society that practices polygamy has historically meant that the elite males get a bunch of wives while the poor get none. So there is a social justice aspect to it that should be taken into account.

cmv

I agree with affirmative action at the college level, but disagree at the corporate level ( for post - undergraduate jobs ). CMV

There have been various studies in the past few years showing that diverse teams outperform homogenous teams. Also, as markets and industries continue to globalize, vendors and customers alike want to do business with diverse organizations. This is your answer. It's not " affirmative action " as such, it's about making smart business decisions that make the company money.

cmv

I think America should cut our military budget in half. CMV

There was a time in the British Empire called Pax Britannica, it was a time of relative world peace during which time the Royal Navy had unchallenged sea power. This was because the Royal Navy was more powerful than any other two navies combined. Its only conceivable rival was Germany. The supremacy of the sea ended with the start of World War One. I think you'll find parallels in this story with the current USA military spending.

cmv

I think America should cut our military budget in half. CMV

We spend so much because the UN and half of the world depends on us to protect them. When I see other countries put in a good light because they have socialized medicine or a basic salary without working, just look to see how much they spend on defense. Odds are they spend little if any on protection. So when you complain about healthcare here compared to other places, you'll know why we don't have it. ( On a side note, other countries who do have socialized medicine are going broke because of it and other " social " programs. That is without spending near as much of GDP as we do. ) Show me where I'm wrong...

cmv

I think socialism is the best form of government. CMV

Strictly speaking Socialism is an economic system rather than a form of government. Governments enact policies that shape the economic system. For instance North Korea may have a " socialist " economic system, but it is an authoritarian government. They could just as easily have had a pure democracy or a theocracy.

cmv

I think socialism is the best form of government. CMV

People work hard because they want something. If you take away the wants you take away their incentive to apply themselves. A socialist world without poverty is a world without Ferraris, yacht clubs, strippers and coke buffets. A world without things like that is a world without hustle. Socialism winds up relying on the people who are willing to hustle for the good of mankind to support the people who are happy to do the bare minimum, and that is an idealistic view of socialism. Realistically every human being is not going to act in perfect goodwill. A government large enough to do all the things you want requires lots and lots of people acting in perfect goodwill. When that doesn't happen you wind up with corruption. The hookers and blow still exist, but on the noses of the very people you're asking to take responsibility for you own well being.

cmv

I think socialism is the best form of government. CMV

Socialism relies heavily on central planning. If you've lost faith in your government as it is, I don't think you'd be too happy with the result of giving them absolute control of your paycheck. Central planning has and always will fail because it's fallible, despite its belief in the contrary. Even if you completely dodge these hurtles, you have to ask yourself the philosophical question of where government belongs in society. Does it exist to defend our individual liberties, or does it exist to control our wallets?

cmv

I believe that women should be able to get an abortion legally should they choose to. CMV.

A 30 year - old woman decides with her husband to have a child. She becomes pregnant. She is then offered a lucrative job opportunity that she would not be able to take up if she had her child. Should she be allowed to have an abortion?

cmv

I believe that women should be able to get an abortion legally should they choose to. CMV.

Where would you draw the line? Unconditionally allowing abortions is a slippery slope leading to the devaluation of human life. Should it be allowed to abort while the unborn isn't able to live on its own? If yes, why would it be illegal to kill people who can't live on their own? If you allow unconditional abortions, you are promoting irresponsibility. Your mistakes have created a new life and you are not prepared for it? Well, let's just terminate the new life, it's as easy as that. After all, it would be your convenience that would be impaired.

cmv

A cure for cancer would be utterly disastrous for human civilization. CMV

Well, it's not exactly a direct challenge, but what you're saing is inheretly flawed. Understandably so, because " cure for cancer " as you've said, is a key term for amazing things that would benefit mankind. Basically, cancer is a blanket term that encompasses a very wide range of diseases with diffent treatmentss, symptoms, and causes. Saying " cure for cancer " is like saying " cure for sick "... There will never be a miracle shot that clears up throat, breast, prostate cancer all in one go. I'm not saying that we won't have viable, working treatments for those one day, but they will come seperately, and slowly. More diseases and strains of existing diseases will roll in to replace them and kill off humans as that happens, though.

cmv

A cure for cancer would be utterly disastrous for human civilization. CMV

Am I correct in assuming that the core of your argument is that a cure for cancer would skew the population in the direction of the aged. A cure for Cancer would also mean that people would have a higher quality of life, less money would have to be spent on them, they would have to spend less money. Plus - it doesn't cure death. Also - you need to back this by statistics and cite some numbers. How much faster do you think population would rise if cancer was cured?

cmv

A cure for cancer would be utterly disastrous for human civilization. CMV

At the moment, cancer is mostly a large issue for very healthy society in developed nations, an elderly nation. Hans Rosling has shown that there's a strange effect once people grow older in that they often have fewer children. Desiring having lots of children is sort of an internal safety mechanism in which people fear that some of their children will inevitably die. When people stop fearing that they will die at an early age, they demonstrably have fewer children. Therefore, just because you save elderly or even young people suffering from cancer, you're not having a huge effect on population levels as most people who will be affected by cancer will statistically be middle - aged or older.

cmv

I think sterilization should be an optional punishment for those found guilty of child negligence / abuse. CMV

Well, at the point when someone already has a child, sterilization would don'thing to remedy the actual crime. It would only prevent future childbearing. It would also not prevent future crimes because the idea behind jail time is to remove them from society so they cannot harm others and hopefully at that time receive some sort of rehab to help prevent them from acting again. If I'm a 40 year old father of 3 and I hit my kids, you give me a vasectomy, what do I care really. I don't want more kids, I hate the ones I have.

cmv

I think sterilization should be an optional punishment for those found guilty of child negligence / abuse. CMV

In my opinion we should attempt to rehabilitate criminals instead of punishing them. When you look at what the penal system was like ( and is still like in many places ) when consequences were based on punishment it is not pretty and does little to benefit society. Also, others who have said that it could easily be abused are 100 % correct. In the United States sterilization was used on people who had mental issues as well as habitual criminals. The supreme court even ruled that it was constitutional. These eugenics based sterilization laws didn't fall out of favor until the scope of which Hitler was using the same ideas and laws became clear to the public. A final point is that if sterilization was decided as not being cruel and unusual punishment you would have to be OK with it being used as punishment for other crimes as well.

cmv

I think sterilization should be an optional punishment for those found guilty of child negligence / abuse. CMV

I understand how horrible child abuse is. There are many thing which are horrible. However, we should not permanently punish people for mistakes they made in the past. Maybe if we could sterilize them for ten years or so that I see works. Tails comes from a person who made a mistake or two and was busted, now I find it exteremly difficult to find work. I find it hard to find work at pizza hut, I just finished my chemistry degree and no one will take me do to two felonies...

cmv

I think sterilization should be an optional punishment for those found guilty of child negligence / abuse. CMV

The point of punishment is to make a person understand the wrong in his actions. Doing so is simply escaping from the problem rather than solving it. is ubiquitously available these days, removing the need for sterilization.

cmv

I think that Interest Groups are destroying American politics. CMV

Special interest groups have always existed. They care about a specific issue, become experts in it, and then apply that care and expertise to problems that they see relating to these things. Politicians are experts at politics, but might not have the experience to understand how the regulation of derivative bond markets will effect new companies creation. Someone needs to tell them, and anyone who knows cares and has an agenda of their own. It's better to have an organized method of picking advisors than ad hoc selection of people who may or may not be experts.

cmv

I think that Interest Groups are destroying American politics. CMV

You are over estimating the influence that these groups have. They are actually beneficial to the American law process. Lawmakers can use these groups to gain more knowledge about specific policies that a new law would affect / change etc. It is not possible for all the politicians to know everything, so they use them for gaining knowledge. However, they realize that the information that they gain from these group is going to be biased one way or another, but the facts and figures, the specifics about their home district will help them make decisions.

cmv

I don't think it is rape ( usually ) when one person is impaired ( drunk, drugs, etc )... CMV

The key defining factor of rape is that it is non - consensual sex. When a person is impaired, he / she is unable to give consent. Plain and simple. That is the American court system's view, and mine as well. Let me compare it to another form of rape : that between a severely mentally challenged person and a mentally healthy one. Now, I don't mean a mildly mentally challenged person - - I mean severely, as in the case of severe autism. The mentally challenged person cannot give consent because he / she does not understand the consequences of sex, and most likely does not understand what sex is. A person impaired through moderate or severe alcohol / drug / etc use also does not understand the consequences of sex. You're not " you " when you're impaired, you might make decisions that unimpaired " you " wouldn't make. Bottom line, if one party did not give explicit consent, or if he / she gave explicit consent while mentally unable to do so willingly, then it is rape. Period.

cmv

I don't think it is rape ( usually ) when one person is impaired ( drunk, drugs, etc )... CMV

A counter - example for this view is Rohypnol. Giving someone a roofie is something I would not immediately label as'violent ', but it will impair them to a point where they are not able to object to sexual advances. I would call it rape to sneak someone a roofie then have sex with them. Roofies are typically used on people would say no or fight back, and the purpose of a roofie is to remove the ability to do so. This special case demonstrates that there exists a state of mind where consent is not possible ; forcing someone into that state and then taking advantage of the situation is rape. Even if you give yourself a roofie too, or were drunk when you gave her the roofie, it would still be rape.

cmv

I don't think it is rape ( usually ) when one person is impaired ( drunk, drugs, etc )... CMV

It isn't about whether the victim is responsible for their actions, it's about whether the rapist's actions were predatory. Would you say that rape by deception shouldn't be rape because it is the victim's responsibility to verify the identity of the person they are having sex with before they consent? If a case like this is brought to trial the jury is not tasked with determining if the victim had passed a threshold where they are no longer responsible for their actions. Rather, the jury is tasked with determining if a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that the victim's consent was not genuine and that they therefore acted either recklessly or maliciously. The jury has to unanimously agree that the case is so clear cut that there is no way a reasonable person could have failed to correctly assess the situation. This is called the reasonable person standard and it is absolutely ubiquitous in law. You can argue that it's a bad standard and you don't agree with it, but that argument would encompass far more than just rape cases. Basically, the point is that the laws with regard to rape in this instance are just a straightforward application of general legal principles starting with the assumption that it is wrong to knowingly and maliciously take advantage of someone's impaired state to have sex with them.

cmv

I think private schools should be abolished. CMV.

Do you also believe that private microwaves, cell phones, food, cars should also be abolished, since they all cost money and richer people get better ones, thus increasing inequality? Private schools are actually different from the above because they have more financial aid that public schools, so they actually allow some really strong social mobility. Since when do children have to " deserve " something to be given it by their parents? Whenever you even say " inequality " its unclear if you want to improve conditions of poor people ( sounds good to me ) or just bring rich people down ( has never done any good in the history of the world ). Assuming you want to improve education of poor people : At the end of the day your narrative is that public schools don't improve or even change because somebody doesn't have incentives. False. Public schools don't improve just because they are public. If they educate people better, it's not like a teacher is going to get a bonus. If they educate people poorly, the teacher will not get fired. There are no processes for improvements and looking for scapegoats never fixed anything either.

cmv