summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I think Property Rights are the best way to ensure that pollution doesn't get out of hand. CMV. | The problem is also that it puts enormous time, energy, and knowledge burden on every citizen. What if you don't have time to sue someone? What if you don't have the money to sue someone? What if you don't know HOW to sue someone? Insider trading has an effect on you and everybody else. What if you had to sue those people on your own? What if you had to sue a company for monopoly? What if you had to sue for workplace harassment? | cmv |
I think shooting a trespasser / home invader for that action alone should be a crime CMV | Invading a person's home is a threatening action in and of itself, especially when the owner is in it ( which is generally not the case for most standard burglaries ). How exactly would you require the person assess the exact extent of this threat? If the invader is carrying a concealed weapon, it's not very feasible for the homeowner to announce himself and thereby give the invader a time in which he can draw his own weapon. | cmv |
I think shooting a trespasser / home invader for that action alone should be a crime CMV | Lets supose that you can't shoot anyone now. Trespasser knows that you are weaker than him, will do what he wants and will leave. Yes, shooting is bad, bow how else people are supposed to defend themselves? If you are at home and comes a indrude, you will be like " go away ", like you would scaring a dog. Not everyone have teasers, and when they are invading a house at is pretty much certain that have malevolent intentions, so people defend how they can. Also, your examples are kind strange. Is really a thing " teenager playing getting a thrill out of breaking into someone's house just for kicks "? Also, lets compare realities. One thing is a man shooting an adult intruder in a dangerous neighborhood, other seeing a well dressed kid on your house. | cmv |
I think shooting a trespasser / home invader for that action alone should be a crime CMV | There are actually three possibilities, and you're ignoring one : 1 ) You know the trespasser isn't a threat, either because they are unwilling or unable to hurt you. 2 ) You know the trespasser is a threat, because they are willing and able to hurt you. 3 ) You don't know the trespasser's intentions, strength, or whether they're armed. Most people agree blowing someone away in the case of 1 ) should be illegal. The problem is 1 ) is almost never the case when you have a trespasser. It's far more often 3 ), and in that case there's a chance they AREN'T just breaking in, and you often won't know for sure until they've already done something worse. | cmv |
I think shooting a trespasser / home invader for that action alone should be a crime CMV | Someone who has broken into your home is a threat by default. They're not in there to deliver cookies. And if they don't want to be shot without warning, the solution is easy : don't break into homes. | cmv |
I think shooting a trespasser / home invader for that action alone should be a crime CMV | I think your opinion is interesting. What do you think of people who premeditate and would like to shoot someone entering their home? This is a guy who was effectively hunting the people who stole from him. And yes, I did contact the police when i saw this. I looked at his posting history for like 20 seconds and he seems to be much better now. Hope the best for him. | cmv |
I think shooting a trespasser / home invader for that action alone should be a crime CMV | Being in your home IS demonstrating a threat. If you wait for the criminal to pull a gun then it's too late. Here're the legal rules for self - defense using lethal force. It goes through the example of a non - threatening home invader explicitly. | cmv |
I think shooting a trespasser / home invader for that action alone should be a crime CMV | You keep repeating " unless the show intent of mortal threat. " But you don't answer the obvious and glaring question. Why do you expect someone in an adrenaline filled situation, who is immediately the victim, who should assume they are at threat and there family is at threat, to have calm and rational take on the intrusion? I feel like you're being unrealistic, and placing far too much responsibility on an individual citizen. Why have a police force at all if a citizen is to be held to their standards when defending themselves? | cmv |
I think shooting a trespasser / home invader for that action alone should be a crime CMV | When you are the victim of a break in, the first thing you do is protect yourself and your family. The only thing of danger to you in your house is the robber, so you alleviate that threat with the weapon you have. Now obviously I'm not condoning to routing him or something like that, that is unnecessary, but killing him or shooting him are completely justified until he is no longer a threat to you or your family. | cmv |
We will never have gender equality and equal sex drafts are a bad idea. CMV | Gender equality isn't about males and females achieving biological equality, but equality of treatment and equal consideration. If a female wishes to try out for the marines, we should not lower the standards for her simply because she is female, but we should not also exclude her because she is female. As for a draft, why not include females. Lets keep your average that men are typically physically superior to women. There are lots of jobs for those who are physically less capable if war were to break out. Radar operators, truck drivers, pilots, logistic support various other non combat roles they could fill. This would free up more able bodied men to'man the front lines.'This would don'thing more than strengthen our fighting force. | cmv |
We will never have gender equality and equal sex drafts are a bad idea. CMV | I feel like you're missing the point of equality. It is to ensure equal opportunity when it can be provided - not uniform rewards incommensurate with ability. Consider war. For many years it was a very visceral experience. But future wars will likely not even have any ground troops. A rule which excludes women from drafts would be pointedly stupid. | cmv |
I don't believe the US should have stopped the spread of communism. CMV | The idea of nations transitioning to a government that's " best for them " is some right pious gobbledygook. The list of all countries that have elected a Communist government democratically : Chile I'm not going to sit here and try to justify US military imperialism, but that doesn't mean I have to like Soviet or Chinese military imperialism either. | cmv |
I don't believe the US should have stopped the spread of communism. CMV | Communism is a perfect idea for an imperfect society. You explained that we should respect their autonomy? The military runs on consequential, objective action, not human rights. Hell, we don't even have full autonomy in healthcare, let alone foreign affairs. | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | If a regime / government becomes fundamentally unjust through changes to the law, and yet it has a high capacity for surveillance and a monopoly on violence, then there will be no capacity for the population to revolt. They will be found out and violently suppressed before they can even instigate action. Our government ( USA ) was created out of action against an unjust government. Our theory of government says that it is a right and a duty to throw off a despotic government. If we give the government unlimited powers of surveillance, to go with their nearly unlimited powers to enact violence, then there is no capacity to overthrow them if it goes badly. | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | I'd like to introduce you to a concept known as " making your presence felt ". The way it works is that the authority makes it known that you are always being watched. This is done through cameras, yes, but also through random checkpoints and even random raids on the homes of people who are not even doing anything wrong. Those people are then let go because they didn't do anything wrong but the primary purpose has been accomplished, the presence of the army is felt. The overall impact of this is that people don't do things that are completely legal that might be misinterpreted as being in a legal gray area or even just as being " frowned upon " by the authority for fear that they will be " randomly " selected for a midnight raid. Constant surveillance creates a culture of fear that means that the citizenry in the area in question live in a constant state of fear. Even the innocent ones. So it's not about them not watching because we can't break laws when they do. It's about them not watching because being constantly watched has a negative impact on the quality of life of people who are innocent of any criminal wrongdoing. | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | I am going to take the example of the recent Boston Bombings case, see how the wrongly accused person's privacy was violated and his family was harassed? It's not just about doing something wrong, there are many more problems with the violation of my privacy, including threat to my life. It should be my choice what information i want to divulge | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | Government isn't magical or abstract. It's made of people. Do you really want a bunch of faceless people having full access to the details of your life? That sounds like the exact opposite of security. I would call anyone naive who thought otherwise. | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | The title statement assumes that the only reason anyone would want to hide something is because they are doing something wrong, thus if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide. This assumption excludes the possibility that someone isn't doing anything wrong, but they still don't want anyone else to see it or know about it. So unless you believe there's no reason anyone would want to hide something that isn't wrong, the title statement is false. | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | Long term, if you let the most powerful individuals decide what is wrong, largely unopposed through suppression, then you have a dictatorship. Privacy advocates do believe the risk of being easily identifiable to actions is an effect which is currently, or may easily become, undesired - since laws by nature are open to change away from current moral standpoints. Can you honestly say that you do, and will, morally agree with all laws... past, present and future? If you hold that to be false it's logical not to make it any easier to be discriminated against unless you find that risk acceptable for the outcome. Clearly you do, but then again what are your technical qualifications for assessment. The effective outcome of these laws are rarely discussed because people have to defend their moral standpoint that everyone is valuable first and foremost but then put a price on it being the long term benefit of everyone to come. The idea that " privacy revoking measures will stop heinous illegal behaviour " is easily broken with modern encryption. Yet the argument most often seen for these types of laws is focused solely on the defence of the intent and not the effectiveness of the law in the first place with a massive risk for misuse associated with it. | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | Why won't you accept " If you watch me I can't break the law when I want to. "? Are you saying what is moral and what is illegal are always aligned? In addition - you will also potentially be implicating other people because you are under surveillance. Additionally - you do have something to hide most of the time, and the law is ostensibly designed so that you do have a right to keep your shenanigans private unless there is reason enough to probe. This is an extension of " innocent until proven guilty ". Also - if you are doing something the government doesn't like, but it isn't wrong - you also have nothing to hide, but it does give the government a leg up against you. | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | So there are things that aren't wrong, but that we still want hidden. I don't want people watching me while I cry, or masturbate, or use the restroom, or propose to my fiance. These things aren't illegal, they're in fact very normal, but at the same time, they're intensely personal, and not for the purview of others. Conversations with attorneys, doctors and therapists are privileged, and with good reason. When others are privy to the intimate details of your life, these details can frequently be leveraged against you, even if they don't stem from a breach in ethical conduct. When we practice new skills, our early attempts are usually not successful. These mistakes are inevitable, and actually crucial to the growth of a new skillset, but we still don't want them shared with the world. There's actually more than a couple things in my life that I want to keep hidden, and almost none of them are illegal. | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | People treat you differently if you don't conform to societal norms. For example it's perfectly to have a polyamorous ( non - marriage ) relationship. But if that was made public, it could be disastrous if for example one's boss found out. They could discriminate against you on the basis that they don't like what I do with my private life. What about if I was a smoker or a meat eater? I do that privately at home but when it was made public, my boss didn't want a smoker on the payroll because he finds it morally wrong. | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | If you're not gay or atheist you have nothing to hide from the church. If you're not fighting for independence you have nothing to hide from the British. If you're not harboring escaped slaves you have nothing to hide from the lynch mob. There world need not agree with you about what's right and wrong, now or in the future. | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | Laws dont equal what is wrong. If youre doig nothing wrong, then you shouldnt have to worry. I do some drugs and jaywalk and speed and none of those things are wrong. | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | The tighter the surveillance, the greater the incentive to abuse it. If the government can see what's installed on your computers, then Microsoft can pass a law that makes it illegal to not buy Windows and it could be enforced. The present abuses of copyright law are fine examples of that - businesses have a tremendous incentive to destroy the public domain to make more money and they can use government as a tool to help them achieve that goal with laws like CISPA. " Then we should preserve the integrity of government, and prevent people from enacting laws like that! " - I agree. But until we do that, my argument will stand. | cmv |
If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. CMV | Doing something that is'wrong'is not always the same thing as breaking the law. Laws change slowly over time to reflect an upheld morality. At the moment this could apply to something like smoking some grass, but before civil rights, womens rights etc. Should every single person who slightly speeds in their car get a ticket? | cmv |
I am troubled by the prospect of China becoming the next superpower. I think this will be bad news for the whole world. CMV. | The reasons people think China will become the next superpower is because its economy is growing very quickly. But its quick growth stems from the fact that it's so far behind. Currently, China is a majority rural country, and engaging in subsistence farming is going to mean you are quite poor. Right now it is growing super fast as it urbanizes because fewer and fewer people are continuing to be poor subsistence farmers. There is an obvious endpoint to this though, and when it happens, growth will slow down precipitously. China as the one superpower isn't something that is imminent. A corollary is that by the time it is likely happen, the world will be a different place. Will China still have the same characteristics as a country that it does now? Will the US? It's quite hard to predict. | cmv |
I believe that, for those who have been previously incarcerated or punished by a legal system and then fulfilled the obligations of their sentence, it should be illegal to discriminate against them in matters of employment, housing, etc. CMV | That discrimination is incredibly justifiable, and it isn't a binary issue. There are several shades of gray. When you and I enter into a business relationship with an entity, we have some preconditions. If this is going to be a long - term relationship where we will be shouldering risk together, then it is in our best interests to screen out superfluous risk. Private individuals and groups of private individuals don't give up this legitimate expression of self - interest. | cmv |
I believe that, for those who have been previously incarcerated or punished by a legal system and then fulfilled the obligations of their sentence, it should be illegal to discriminate against them in matters of employment, housing, etc. CMV | I think a core element that should be part of this discussion is that United States Correctional Facilities are notorious for their failure to rehabilitate inmates. In fact, US recidivism rates are hovering right around 52 % and have been that high for a while. I DO think that it is important to address post - incarceration discrimination, but I think that that conversation won't be effective without considering the current system's rehabilitation practices. | cmv |
I believe that, for those who have been previously incarcerated or punished by a legal system and then fulfilled the obligations of their sentence, it should be illegal to discriminate against them in matters of employment, housing, etc. CMV | Would you hire a babysittier, who had a previous record of child abuse, for you kid? Even after she already fulfiled her sentence? That was an extreme example. But with the same logic, a grocery store would not hire a thief. | cmv |
I believe that, for those who have been previously incarcerated or punished by a legal system and then fulfilled the obligations of their sentence, it should be illegal to discriminate against them in matters of employment, housing, etc. CMV | In general, those protected classes fall under two categories : First, something that the person has no control over - age, gender, ethnicity, disability and so forth. It is clearly wrong to discriminate based on an inherent, immutable quality of someone. Second, something that does no harm to others - religion in particular. If someone's religion is not hurting anyone else, why should you be allowed to discriminate based on it? Being a convict falls under neither category. It is evidence of a personality type that is a choice. And not only is it a choice that can harm others, it has harmed others in the past. | cmv |
I believe that, for those who have been previously incarcerated or punished by a legal system and then fulfilled the obligations of their sentence, it should be illegal to discriminate against them in matters of employment, housing, etc. CMV | Our system of punishment doesn't rehabilitate. You're just punished. If our system rehabilitated criminals, or if that were the goal of prisons, it would be completely fine to treat them like normal members of society. But we live in a country ( most of us ) which thinks treating criminals like animals without rights is better than treating them like humans who have made serious mistakes in their lives. Just going through prison won't fix you, and I think the fact that there are legal discriminatory practices against ex - cons highlights this especially. It's an admission of failure - - our prison system won't fix a criminal, it'll just make him bitter and angry, take away years from his life and hopefully make him think twice about doing it again. But it doesn't rehabilitate them at all. | cmv |
If sex offenders have a registry, then murderers should too. CMV | The problem is that sexual crimes have a huge recidivism rate. If you are wired to be attracted to children, you will continue to be. For most violent criminals there is not the same internal urge. Murder is often based on circumstance, not a need to kill. The point of a jail sentence is that it is supposed to be your debt, branding them with a scarlet letter is essentially a second punishment. | cmv |
I think there should be stronger penalties for distribution of voyeuristic depictions of violence | Why? Who am I harming by browsing the morbid images found in / r / watchpeopledie? Intentionally harming people for the purpose of creating these images and videos is already illegal, though I would not be opposed to placing additional penalties on filming these acts. I would not support it, but I can also see an argument for making the distribution of these media illegal, since distributing them for entertainment is disrespectful to the victim, or in the case of murder, the victim's family. But possession? Why? | cmv |
I've never seen Communism as a bad thing. CMV | From someone who was born in the USSR.. and knows what my family has been through.. Lets just say.. your choices on anything on non - existent. You want to listen to particular music? Guess what you can't the govt will tell you what is acceptable.. You want a new couch? too bad, how long ago did u get the last one the govt gave it. Has it been at least 10 years? it's not as fun as it sounds... i type this as i sit with a cccp hoody on. ironing | cmv |
I've never seen Communism as a bad thing. CMV | A fundamental entity to human happiness is the spirit of personal contribution and competition. Competition - A poor person who is slightly wealthier than his peers is happier than a rich person who is slightly poorer than his peers. We compete everywhere, and within reason it is healthy and positive. Contribution - Having an achievement which has your name sealed on it provides meaning and purpose in work. Again, within reasonable limits, it provides incentive to people do " create something " that they can call " mine " or " my contribution " and be proud of it. Communism not only misses these 2 important driving factors of progress, but also thinks of human happiness in terms of material wealth, failing to see other aspects that have driven revolutions and wars around the world. Both extremes are bad, and communism is definitely one of them. | cmv |
I believe men and women, because of the gender roles society has adopted are inherently different and therefore can never be " equal " CMV | So in a society with different gender roles, they could be equal? That is what you are asserting. In that case, they are inherently equal, treated unequally because of our society. | cmv |
I believe men and women, because of the gender roles society has adopted are inherently different and therefore can never be " equal " CMV | It's a very basic discussion. Are women and men physically equal? No. Will they ever be? No. Can they be equal? Yes. Here's the problem with the example you provided. It's the preference of the men. Equality means men and women both being able to get hired at that bar, not only attractive women being hired as part of a business model that attracts men. Equality means men and women both have a chance to get the same pay, not them both getting the same pay. Equality means men and women both have an opportunity to play sports, not excel in them equally. We can't change physical differences, but as far as opportunity goes, we're slowly achieving equality. | cmv |
I believe WikiLeaks strengthens America's democracy and is a positive organization for America. CMV | This is a tricky one, but I think on balance that Wikileaks does not spread transparency. If you want genuine transparency you need buy - in from the people with the information in the first place. Wikileaks may lead to a cultural / generational change years from now in terms of what policymakers believe should be available, but it probably makes that buy - in more remote in the short term. Wikileaks'methods gets the same result as if there were greater transparency, but to equate one with the other obscures what's actually taking place. | cmv |
I believe WikiLeaks strengthens America's democracy and is a positive organization for America. CMV | What revelations from Wikileaks have helped " citizens get a better understanding of their government "? The diplomatic cables that were released had little bearing on what the US was doing, it had to do with agreements with other countries. Some of these agreements were deeply embarrassing to those other countries. It jeopardizes their willingness to talk to the US in the future. " The last time you said our talks would be secret, it was released by some Swedish guy. And the leak was from your side. Why should we trust you now? ". The leaks, therefore, materially harmed US diplomacy. And for what? What new information do we have about our government that will inform our votes? | cmv |
I believe WikiLeaks strengthens America's democracy and is a positive organization for America. CMV | Do you think that government secrets are just bad in general? What judgment would you make of, say, Chinese military intelligence invading US databases, finding these documents and then disseminating them on the web? Surely this is what any government would call a cyberattack, and not many would argue ; why is Wikileaks different? | cmv |
I believe WikiLeaks strengthens America's democracy and is a positive organization for America. CMV | One of the main problems with Wikileaks is they release huge amounts of information without thinking of the consequences. With such a large collection of documents there will be some important data, but also data that will harm us. Releasing documents that will stop talks between two countries working on an agreement is not good to sabotage. Wikileaks needs a vetting process so a few very selected people can read documents and discuss is it in the people's interest to release. | cmv |
I feel like there isn't sufficient discussion about sexual assault being a spectrum issue and how some crimes are worse than others. CMV. Read description for a more nuanced explanation about what CMV means in this case. | Obviously it's a spectrum - everything is a spectrum ( well, I guess the Lyman alpha line isn't, but you know what I'm saying - human behaviour is always along a spectrum ). All instances of rape and sexual assault differ in severity, in circumstances, in tons of things. The problem with saying it like that is it's often not clear whether a person who's saying this is being reasonable or using this as a springboard for some Todd Akin " legitimate rape " style comment. | cmv |
I think that libertarianism is a morally bankrupt ideology. CMV | Taxation is theft, but under certain circumstances they can be OK in my view. A hypothetical income tax of 59 % for rich people and a tax of 20 % on the poor man is theft. Taxes should be flat and charged on purchases of " new " goods as to avoid people not paying them. The imbalance of taxes in my view is what constitutes it as theft because when only 50 % of people follow the law and pay taxes there is a serious problem with the system. | cmv |
I think that libertarianism is a morally bankrupt ideology. CMV | What do you mean by " fiscal libertarianism "? Very few libertarians believe there should be zero taxation. Is it moral for me to, with a posse of armed men, go around my neighborhood mowing people's lawns without their consent and demanding money from them under threat of imprisonment? If the answer is no, how is it moral for government to do this? Because a majority voted that it is? If a majority voted to kill the minority does that make it moral? In regards to a " social contract : " isn't the entire premise of a contract that it is agreed upon by both sides? So, just because I was born in America I must agree to this contract under threat of violence? I would argue people have a right to be free from this coercion regardless of where they are born or where they live, and simply saying " well, you can move " is wrong. If my neighbor comes over once a year and forces me to give him money why should I have to move to avoid this? | cmv |
I believe that police dash cams should be streamed live on the internet CMV | So I'm a criminal who knows the cops are out to get me. I'm in an abandoned warehouse down by the docks. I pull out my phone, go online, and check the dash cams of cops in the city. I see six cops driving down the road towards the warehouse and I now I have advanced warning that the cops are outside my door. When I hear a car pull up outside, I point my gun at the door and open fire at the first thing I see, the cop I know will be coming through the door. This is a bad idea. It makes cops'jobs more dangerous and difficult, for no practical benefit ( compared to having the dash cams viewable at a later time. | cmv |
I believe that police dash cams should be streamed live on the internet CMV | This will violate the rights of a lot of people who are being arrested / charged with crimes. If a live stream of someone getting pulled over for suspicion of DUI goes viral for some reason, it will be very difficult to get an unbiased jury pool for that person's trial. I have no problem with dash cams, cops with recording devices, etc, nor would I have a problem with these recordings being subpoenable pursuant to trials related to those stops / arrests. Records will be public, but not constantly published. That should accomplish your above goals without violating anyone's right to a fair trial. | cmv |
I feel like the prejudice against cochlear implants in the deaf community is completely unfounded. CMV | Whether you like it or not, people who are likened by a defining characteristic form together and create a culture. This culture, in the case of the deaf community, sees deafness not as a problem, but a unique feature that makes them who they are. To them, telling them that they need to fix their hearing is a rough equivalent to telling a black man that he needs to fix his whole skin issue. It's viewed as a very anti - deaf stance, which the community sees as going after their values and everything that makes them who they are. As an aside, I don't think it's a good idea to press one's beliefs onto anyone else. If you think that they'd be better off, maybe that's the case. However, you can't just tell them that and expect them to just smack their own foreheads and remark on how dumb they've been all this time. It just doesn't work that way. | cmv |
I feel like the prejudice against cochlear implants in the deaf community is completely unfounded. CMV | The Deaf community doesn't see themselves at all the same way you do. They don't treat deafness as some objective imperfection that makes them a little more defective than anyone else. They consider deafness not to be an error but a culture. The Wikipedia article is a good place to start : Deaf culture Once you read that, you start to understand what cochlear implants represent to the Deaf community. They're a way of robbing someone of their culture for the sake of fixing something that's not even considered a problem in the first place. | cmv |
I feel like the prejudice against cochlear implants in the deaf community is completely unfounded. CMV | Cochlear implants don't give you very good hearing and deaf individuals learn a lot of skills from being deaf. They communicate with each other visually and become much more visually expressive and highly sensitive to body language and visual communication. When an individual gets a cochlear implant they don't learn the nuances of deaf communication and they can't hear the subtleties of spoken communication. They get caught between cultures - unable to fully appreciate, or communicate with, the languages of either. | cmv |
I feel like the prejudice against cochlear implants in the deaf community is completely unfounded. CMV | For a bit of background : I grew up for the first part of my life in Oklahoma, where my mom had some ties to the local deaf community. I think, perhaps, you could liken it to the resistance of traditional native American tribes to modernization. To an outside observer, having access to modern healthcare and conveniences and all this capitalism is an objective advantage compared to living simply off of the land. Yet, there is a huge difference in culture between casinoland and the original native tribes, and the complete loss of that culture in many places is why there is resistance. ASL is a language as much as any other, and it is lamentable when a language dies out. Communities are brought together because of a common trait, which would be rendered moot by those who can hear. And simple traditionalism is a factor as well. You could say that hearing is better than not hearing, but with being able to hear ( just as with becoming modernized ) comes a removal of the culture that is so important to its people. | cmv |
I'm a girl who is sexist against women. CMV | Not a response to your CMV, but let me ask you : Would you be less likely to vote for a female president / senator solely on the basis of their gender? Would you be less likely to follow orders from a female boss? If you were in a position to do so, would you be less likely to promote female subordinates to leadership positions? If your answer to all of the above was a confident " NO ", then I don't really care what you think tbh. In almost every aspect of human accomplishment, people have shown time and time again that any systematic difference that might exist between different genders / race / etc, is nothing compared to the statistical fluctuations between different individuals. It is not only immoral but almost always counterproductive to try to use systematic differences between the two genders to judge people, because almost everyone is a statistical anomaly in one way or another. So if you are ever in a position to decide whether to put a man or women " in charge ", please try to remove any prejudice you may have from the equation, and judge them based on their merit alone. | cmv |
I'm a girl who is sexist against women. CMV | When you were young, how did your parents interact? Was your father in charge, and did your mother stay at home and cook and clean and take care of the kids? Our expectations of gender roles are often influenced by how we see others interact when we are young, and usually we have the most contact with out parents. When I was growing up, my mother was usually the dominant one who controlled the household. It always seemed normal to me, and I now feel uncomfortable when I see men make decisions for women. I think women should be able to take care of themselves, and when I find women who are assertive and strong mentally much more attractive. I think your environment plays a big part in determining how we see gender, and biology plays less of a role. | cmv |
I'm a girl who is sexist against women. CMV | If they are biologically built to be in charge, then why are there many matriarchal societies found all over the world? Societies adapt to the social and gender roles that function in their societies the best at an individual period in time. It isn't practical in contemporary society to have one gender dominate the other. As for you wanting to get married, have kids, etc, that's the great thing about gender equality is that you have that choice. It's not a role that's thrust upon you, but these days you can choose whether to work whatever job you would like OR to stay at home with kids and a husband. | cmv |
I'm a girl who is sexist against women. CMV | I think what people are really fighting against is when the submission is institutionalized. Like, girls who aren't taken as seriously in STEM fields because of their sex. I think many people, perhaps even most, would agree with you in that men are hardwired to try to be dominant. What I question though is your use of " sexist " in your title. It implies that, if a man and a woman were to come into your office for a management position, and the woman was equally qualified, or even slightly more qualified, you would hire the man. THAT I don't agree with. If your use of sexist just means that you think women in general don't want to be in the positions, I don't think anyone will fight you too much over that. I also want to know what connotations come with your use of " natural. " Do you see unnatural things as a problem? | cmv |
I'm a girl who is sexist against women. CMV | Humans could not care less what nature intended us to be. The majority of us don't base our choices on what we feel is " divinely right " anymore. We find our limits and challenge them because it's an even stronger impulse in humans. The question is not " should women be considered equal to men in non - biological terms? " ; it's " why should they not? " I think you're confusing a personal preference for that type of lifestyle with the idea that all women do. | cmv |
I think rape exceptions for abortion are hypocritical and impractical. CMV | It depends on the rationale for pro - life. If one is pro - life for the reasons you state I think your conclusion is fairly accurate. If, however, one is pro - life because each potential person deserves a chance or because each person should follow through with the consequences of their actions then your conclusion fails to address these positions. For instance, if one argues pro - life because someone who acts to create life should then allow that life to exist, then rape is the exception because they did not act to create life. As far as practicality is concerned, then your doubts call into question any legal system which does not have access to full unadulterated truth, in other words, any legal system. | cmv |
I think rape exceptions for abortion are hypocritical and impractical. CMV | I'm not pro - life at all, so I can't speak for them, but I think one of the biggest justifications is the fact that a baby is now living inside that woman's body. They have to bare that responsibility and give up their bodily integrity without any choice or say in the matter. An analogy ( it's not perfect, by any means ) : You are walking down the street and suddenly you are knocked unconscious. You wake up and a man is attached to your body. He tells you that he needs to be attached to you from now on to survive, because his organs no longer work. Disconnecting the man from you would kill him. Even though that's the case, you can't be compelled to sacrifice your body to keep him alive. Most likely you could act under the law to get yourself separated, even if it kills him. | cmv |
I think rape exceptions for abortion are hypocritical and impractical. CMV | It isn't necessarily hypocritical to have an exception for rape if you place an incredibly high value on unborn life but don't view it as a moral absolute. I imagine carrying a pregnancy as a result of a rape is far more emotionally traumatic than an unintentional pregnancy. Most people who are pro - life undoubtedly believe that there is some degree of suffering that is too great to insist a woman endure for the sake of the fetus, and for some people that point is between the pain of unintentional pregnancy and involuntary pregnancy. It isn't at all impractical to have an exception for rape. For the reasons you mentioned, it is unrealistic to expect that the exception would be enforced perfectly, but it is only impractical if you believe that it is very problematic if whatever standard you set isn't enforced perfectly. | cmv |
I believe that the amount of money the U. S. spends on defense is way out of line. CMV | The argument of keeping soldiers safe is totally right. Only it is not much about some humanistic ideology, but large loss of american lifes lead to large loss of votes. So, politicians will always prefer guided missiles over soldiers. There is a scene in Generation Kill, where an iraqi city is attacked by guided missiles and marines are whatching it. One of them says something along the lines of : each of those missiles cost a million dollars, I would go into the city and blow up a building for half of it. That marine is thinking totally logically, but if he dies on that mission, the body count will be higher, and the presidents'approval will fall. So you could have a lot cheaper military, reaching the same goals, but it would cost a lot more lives. | cmv |
I believe that the amount of money the U. S. spends on defense is way out of line. CMV | Our military doesn't just keep our military strong, it guarantees protection for our allies. Like you mentioned, every other country doesn't come close to this kind of spending. This includes our allies and our enemies alike. Because of this, our allies can be subject to invasion because of their inability to fund their defenses. That's where we come in. We spend such a large amount of money to protect ourselves and all of our friends. On top of that, we have to be able to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously, and that too is very costly and requires a huge military presence. | cmv |
I have not a strong view about whether morally acceptable actions must be legal. Especially with regard to state actions. CMV. | Well if you apply the converse, If something is immoral than it should be illegal than you have a lot of issues. The first one that comes to my mind is taxes, I know a lot of libertarians who believe that taxes are immoral. It depends on who you are talking to, morals are subjective and vary greatly person to person, and can change throughout a lifetime. Laws need to be concrete and well defined so it's hard to make our laws reflect our morals. That is what they sort of do I suppose but they are the average of all our morals and match no one persons identically. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | I totally agree with your logic, though, it is to the motorcycle industries best interest to try to push for these laws, because they can and do lose customers at a fast rate. Though, I have to disagree on one thing. I honestly don't think the government is doing this to bring in money. The sales tax gained on helmets literally affect the national budget none either way. I do believe it was mainly due to people who lost children, spouses or loved ones trying to help keep others from experiening the same pain. The government should not legislate morality, period. If I want to be unsafe and not wear a helmet, that is none of the governments business, if my wife wants an abortion, that is between her and her doctor, if I want to gamble, hire prostitutes and drink on Sundays, none of their business. The United States touts to be a free nation, but look around and see how much freedom you actually have... just saying. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | You have to realize that not every preventible accident, that could have been prevented by wearing a seatbelt / helmet, would be fatal. Many of these injuries would result in serious or crippling conditions. And who would pay for these 100K + medical bills? In developed countries it would be the government. To save this money, the government decided to create laws to save money. The lives saved are just a bonus. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | I won't try to change your mind about helmets. Seatbelts are not just there for your safety. After about 35mph, when you get into an accident, you are no longer a thinking, decision making person. You have become a projectile. It is well within the purview of government to regulate what you do with regard to my safety. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | Regardless of how it is denied, people do live under the delusion that bad things will not happen to them. People value their immediate comfort from not wearing a seatbelt over the broad, intangible chance no matter how real that chance is, that they could somehow die. Laws that require seatbelt usage or bike helmets enforce a much more tangible factor into the equation that people understand, the possibility of being pulled over and being written a ticket. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | It's essentially for utilitarian purposes. Seatbelts will benefit the public as a whole because of the economic costs without seatbelts from various medical bills. So if you do happen to get into an accident and get injured because you didn't wear a seatbelt, it's not exactly just you that you are " harming. " Seatbelts also obviously benefit the individual because it reduces the chance of death or injury. Sure, maybe it's somewhat of an infringement of your civil liberty to choose whether or not you want to wear your seatbelt, but is it really worth protecting that " liberty " when you look at all the benefits? It's a win - win scenario for everyone to wear seatbelts, and it's a pretty minor inconvenience to have to wear one. It's not like it's really preventing you from doing anything ; if you want to purposefully harm yourself there are much better ways of going about doing that. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | Those laws aren't in place to protect you, but to protect everyone else around you. You're a danger to society if you're not wearing a seatbelt - - helmet laws are rarely abided by anyway. If you don't wear a seatbelt, you're a 180 lb wrecking ball moving at high velocity - - you have the potential to shatter a windshield, crush a skull, stove in a chest cavity... It's to protect the public, not you. Helmet laws don't have much opposition - - the vast majority of people in the U. S. don't ride horses, bikes or motorcycles, so laws like that can be passed without many qualms. Cyclists don't abide by them anyway, and you'd have to be a really idiotic motorcycle rider not to wear a helmet. In a way, they're there to protect you, but I think it's more so to promote public safety. If there is a possible threat that you will be fined for not wearing a helmet, there's a chance you're more likely to wear one, preventing an accidental death. It's to make common sense decisions applicable to everyone instead of the few who choose to adhere to them. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | As long as you can entirely pay for your potential increased medical care costs in the event of accidents, your view doesn't really need changing. However if you pay the same health / life insurance rates as people who DO wear safety equipment then what you are doing is averaging in your potentially higher cost of service to the larger pool. Your INTENTIONALLY higher potential cost. This is unfair to everyone else in the pool. Our society is not currently structured such that we can assign differential costs of service at the point of care, but I guess that would be another approach. And we need to solve for cases in which you assert that you wear seatbelts / helmets etc. and therefore get the lower rate, but don't actually comply. I bet you'll dislike spot checks. I know I would. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | Let's say you get in an accident. The person in the other car was not wearing a seatbelt and they died. Will that not affect you? Will you not feel guilt and shame ( even if you did nothing wrong ) for the simple fact that you were involved in another person's death? I know I would feel terrible, I would lose sleep, I would cry, I would be absolutely devastated. Requiring people to wear helmets and seatbelts helps protect others mental health as much as it protects the wearer's physical health. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | As a first responder, I feel your limited life - time on this planet hasn't yet prepared you for reality. I've seen bodies cause accidents that were tossed from vehicles. If you don't value your own, fine, but others value theirs. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | I agree w / OP, BUT ONLY w / these caveats : 1. Children under 18 must use seatbelts & helmets. 2. Any passenger in a vehicle carrying a minor must use seatbelts ( or helmets, for motorcycles ) ( These are both for the protection of the minor, as they are the ward of the adult, not their property. ) 3. Insurers have the right to deny you insurance if you will not agree to use seatbelts / wear helmets ( leaving the individual w / o insurance and forced to buy a bond, in lieu ). 4. Insurers have the right not to payout to the insured if the insured was not wearing seatbelt / wearing helmet ( despite agreeing to do so as part of terms of insurance ), including your medical costs and the medical costs of any passenger in any involved vehicle not wearing seatbelt / helmet. 5. All medical care facilities have the right to refuse unpaid treatment, including acute / emergency / trauma to drivers / occupants who are either uninsured, have exhaused their coverage limits, or who failed to comply with the terms of their insurance. I agree that the society and its government don't have the right to impose such constraints on individuals, but I believe the corollary must be that individuals don't have the right to impose such costs on society. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | At the very least, you should consider that if there are other people in the car then the seatbelt law has some purpose. Not wearing a seatbelt in an accident can cause damage to other people in the car. Your body and limbs become a ballistic force that can cause serious injury to other people that could be avoided with a seatbelt. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | It's simple. If I hit you and your not wearing a seat belt and you are then killed because of that - the emotional and legal stress is put on me due to your negligence. I have to live with the fact I killed someone and could possibly face man - slaughter charges. These laws are not rooted in your own safety, they are not to simply raise money, and they don't exist as an extension of the " benevolent state " that cares about you. It's for others, mainly those with whom you may have an accident with. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | A seatbelt saved my life when I was 16. If you don't want to use your seatbelt that's fine. But the law is there to encourage people to use them and save lives. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | I feel that your argument becomes weaker when you say that children are exempt, because there is no well - defined criterion of what separates adults from children. But this is a minor issue, I just wanted to point it out. I think that no rational person would choose to avoid safety at some inconvenience. People often regret making unsafe decisions in retrospect except for those who wish to engage in such life - threatening actions, in which case the cost of such a fine is least of his worries. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | You're operating a government - licenced vehicle, on government - owned and maintained roadways : the government has every right to tell you what you can drive, how fast you can drive it, and what types of safety precautions you should take. Somewhere, in their back - room number - crunching, they decided that there's a net benefit to society if you wear a seatbelt. And, since they're the ones who give you the right to drive in the first place, you have to follow their rules. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | Until I came here on some random spin off suggestion found buried under a mountain of comments, I thought I was the only one who thought like this. Yet, so many people find this kind of thinking evil, bad, or generally wrong. I always think, " My bad for wanting to take responsibility for my own actions. Sorry you like being told what to do and how to do it. " | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | Okay, let us consider the fact ( as some have mentioned ) that you are not contending the government's authority to enforce such laws, but that you are challenging the existence of the laws as they pertain to your personal decision making. 1. a 1979 study conducted found that about 1 % of people not wearing safety belts were ejected from the vehicle. 2. Since you're not worried about fatality to yourself, the second point is moot. 3. But what about your body being ejected into traffic ( low chance ) and causing more accidents and possibly more fatalities? As for the motorcycle helmet... I agree. The option should exist not to have to wear helmets. It's already a very risky endeavor. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | One of the major flaws in your argument is that you think not wearing your seatbelt only affects you in case of an accident. That's only true if you're alone in your car. Otherwise, without a seatbelt, you may crash against a passenger, killing or seriously injuring them. Another one is that you only think about death. If you're severely injured because you didn't have a seatbelt ( or a helmet ), you're not the one paying for it, society is. Not only through medical costs ; your employer will lose money if you don't show up to work tomorrow, especially if you can't be replaced easily. Since you not wearing a seatbelt is bad for society, society has a right to force you to wear one. | cmv |
I believe that laws intended to protect individuals ( helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically ) are idiotic and should not exist. CMV | Operating a motor vehicle isn't a basic human right. It is an earned privilege. Operating such a machine poses a great risk to yourself and others. The government requires safety standards surrounding vehicles ( both in operation of and creation of ) because the costs surrounding error with such machines are very expensive. To spread the cost out fairly among all users the system of insurance has been initiated. Laws requiring the use of safety features saves the all users of cars money ( by reducing medical claims to insurance companies ) as well as costs to the government as the government largely pays for the upkeep of the infrastructure. It is the same reason states require a 21 or older drinking age. There is no federal law expressly forbinding a lower age, but the fed government will cut off money used to up keep roads in a state with a lower age due to increased costs. | cmv |
I feel that offensive words are often funny, on the other hand, I think they cause real damage. CMV, NSFW | So, I'm not sure how you want me to change your view. Do you want me to convince you that they aren't funny or that they aren't sometimes hurtful. I believe those two things aren't mutually exclusive. We shouldn't legally stop people from using these words, but if you get " triggered " from hearing the word rape, then you're not obligated to hang around the people who use the word rape. It really is that simple. | cmv |
I feel that offensive words are often funny, on the other hand, I think they cause real damage. CMV, NSFW | Think about this : What makes a word offensive? Are there words that used to be offensive in the past but are not today? Are there words that used to be benign in the past but are now offensive? A word only has meaning because people assign it meaning, otherwise it is just a sequence of sounds or symbols. some people assign different meanings to different sequences, but it does not mean certain sequences are inherently offensive. To me, Bullcrap is not an offensive word ; Some would disagree. How do we decide who is right about its status and who is wrong? Context is important too : the'N - word'is not always offensive when discussed in a historical context, and ( while some think otherwise ) it's use in Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird is understandable given the setting and the narrative. | cmv |
I think we should encourage sex - selective abortions. CMV. | I'd like you to explain what you think discrimination means. To me, a lot of negative treatment towards females comes from guys who cannot get the females they want. These are the kind of men who act like it is a girls'obligation to be interested in them because they are interested in her. Creating more of these men seems to be a bad thing and I don't know how limiting women would improve this mentality. I guess there are the kind of guys who treat women badly because they can get a lot of them ( I've seen this in movies, never actually met a person like this ). I don't know if increasing competition would improve these people's behavior because I know next to nothing about this mentality. I know there is a strong preference for males in China and that they have quite a big imbalance compared to the so - called " natural rate " of male to female due to sex - selective abortions. I believe the treatment of women in China is still quite poor. Obviously, human rights in China is problematic enough but even in comparison. It also seems like increased competition between males would cause more aggression but I don't know. | cmv |
I think we should encourage sex - selective abortions. CMV. | What if the shortage of men just means that all the men take advantage of the women rather than all competing to be gentlemen towards the women? Seems to be a fairly big assumption in the matter. And also, im having trouble understanding your entire last sentence. If women stop aborting their female children, eventually there will be just as many females as before, and the cycle will have to start over again. | cmv |
I think we should encourage sex - selective abortions. CMV. | Actually I believe in this resolution myself, but I also acknowledge it has certain caveats, namely that in a society that doesn't guarantee individual consent, we may see polyandry, forced marriages and flesh - trade on the rise. Alternatively, allowing people to sell their children would rightfully take the children off the hands of those parents who couldn't care less. Of course, a necessary prerequisite is that such societies must have strong police protection of children. | cmv |
I think we should encourage sex - selective abortions. CMV. | You sort of changed my view, a little. This is very well thought out. The biggest counter argument I can think of off the top of my head though is that while the ultimate outcome will be good, there will be quite a long time of chaos and suffering before that final outcome. | cmv |
I think we should encourage sex - selective abortions. CMV. | By reducing the number of women on the planet, men might tend to see them as a depleting resource. This scarcity would increase their value but only in so far as they provide what that value is based on : namely sex and offspring. Their value as an object would increase rather than their value as a subject because this value would only be related to their relative use as sexual partners. Rape ( or in this objectified system, sex - theft ) would become more rampant as men competed for women. Such acts as lesbianism, contraception, and abortion would probably be met with social retribution or, potentially, legislated against as these acts reduce the number of available furtile women. That being said, if a woman wants an abortion, even for sex selection, let her have it. I just don't think an overabundance of males would in any way increase the standard of living for females. | cmv |
I think we should encourage sex - selective abortions. CMV. | You cannot determine the sex of a fetus with any accuracy in the first trimester, even sometime afterwards. I was supposed to be a girl, and my parents got a shock when I was born. Though this was 25 years ago. If you believe ( and I'm not sure you do ) that selective abortions based on the possibility of genetic disorders is wrong, then this is definitely wrong. This already happened in China, which isn't exactly a bastion for Gender equality. And has led to an increase in prostitution which led to an increase in STDs. Maybe other cultures would be different, but I really doubt it for cultures deeply entrenched in misogyny. This is a pretty crazy idea to increase equality, rather than education and awareness, you think decreasing the population of woman across all cultures will yield the same result for each one? I don't see how making women a minority and easier to ignore will give them more power. | cmv |
I think prostitution should be legal. CMV | Prostitution would require government regulation to ensure minors would not do it, or that women ( or men ) would not be manipulated into doing in. Furthermore, it would probably cause a lot of problems when a homeless girl could easily be manipulated by a prostitution " company " into selling her body. Then we'd have to redefine rape. Is giving a women $ 100 and then having sex with her rape or prostitution? You can't really prove that a women did / did not give consent, but you can prove that you gave her agent $ 100. | cmv |
I think prostitution should be legal. CMV | ( Devil's Advocating ) While an across - the - board legalization of prostitution might be okay, you don't want to be the leader in this regard. I used to live in Amsterdam and it seemed to me that having your city be a magnet for prostitution tourism is terrible. | cmv |
I believe that the concept of national identity is a divisive concept with no real benefit to the average citizen. CMV | I'm not going to try to change your view here, because ( for better or for worse ) I agree with you. His view is that belonging to one nation or another is largely arbitrary, a nationalism is a " granfalloon. " The connection between two people from the same nation is, though important, meaningless in what it says about any individual person. " If I'd been born in Germany, I suppose I would have been a Nazi, bopping Jews and gypsies and Poles around, leaving boots sticking out of snowbanks, warming myself with my secretly virtuous insides. " - KV, Mother Night | cmv |
I believe that the concept of national identity is a divisive concept with no real benefit to the average citizen. CMV | I'm not going to argue here, just wanted to say I share your view. I've been living on my own pretty much since I was 15, and I have traveled a lot and lived in various strikingly different countries for extended time. I feel like I'm the citizen of the world, and nothing infuriates me more than customs, visas and passport controls. Especially I become enraged when somebody starts goign along the lines of " they took our jobs ". Not only they are completely wrong from the scientific point of view ( I'm a finance sector professional with economics background ), but socially blaming people who work harder and better for your own troubles just because they are " them " is beyond stupidity imho. I'm curious what this thread will bring. | cmv |
I believe that the concept of national identity is a divisive concept with no real benefit to the average citizen. CMV | I disagree. The idea of a national identity is important. The United States for instance is built on immigration. Our original motto was E Pluribus Unum ( from many, one ) Creating a national identity is important when you are trying to create an environment where many different people from totally different backgrounds are all trying to live together as one people. You need to forge a national identity in order to get diverse groups working together. | cmv |
I believe that the concept of national identity is a divisive concept with no real benefit to the average citizen. CMV | I am curious what you would then say to someone who is actually appreciative and attached to his nationality. I have an acquaintance at my university who grew up his entire life in France before coming to America for collegiate his education. One of his parents, however, is American and as a consequence my friend has a perfectly American sounding English accent and almost no one is ever able to realize he is French before he informs them himself. This puts him in a rather interesting situation where basically everyone just assumes he is American despite the fact that he very passionately isn't and would rather everyone recognize him as French. Your argument, so far as I can tell, is that you can discern no value in a national identity to the individual. What then do you say to the counterexamples I meet in life who by all means seem to quite viscerally appreciate their cultural identities and find significant value in them? | cmv |
I believe that the concept of national identity is a divisive concept with no real benefit to the average citizen. CMV | People willingly form their national identities. If somebody believes that one country is better than another, they should be free to think that. If they think another country is better than the one they are a citizen of, well... that's cool, but its a problem. If we ever got into a war with that other country, they could have a plethora of people inside our country who are more dedicated to the other country than the one they live in. This produces problems from multiple perspectives. | cmv |
I think that skin colour is irrelevant and no quotas based on this should ever exist, CMV. | One argument I have heard in favor of affirmative action ( which I believe you are addressing with your scholarships point ) goes as follows : suppose two men run a race and they tie, except one man had a fifty pound weight tied to his back. Which one is the better athlete? Socio - economic status ( which is closely tied to race ) can provide severe difficulties for children's development. So, if we find a student who gets all 5's on their APs and a 1600 SAT despite this, should we not do all in our power to help this person succeed? To help their family pay for the best education? This is what " black " scholarships seek to achieve. To help those who need more than just acceptance into Harvard to succeed. | cmv |
I think that skin colour is irrelevant and no quotas based on this should ever exist, CMV. | Diversity is important. Not because the color of your skin is so important, but because the color of your skin in society as it currently exists often indicates different backgrounds, cultures and points of view. Particularly for a government institution, a government that is supposed to represent a minority heavy ( soon to be minority majority ) nation should probably reflect the nation it is representing to at least some degree. The article also repeats a rather tiring talking point that hasn't been true since the 70s. Schools don't have quotas, such things are unconstitutional and have been since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978. What schools are allowed to do is take race into consideration, but not to award a set " value " or quota. As the Supreme Court said in 2003 when they last ruled on the matter, schools have a " compelling interest in promoting class diversity. " | cmv |
I think large - scale egalitarian societies are an impossibility, and that economic oppression is a human constant. CMV | The only thing that holds such a system together is passive consent. If people genuinely believed that society could function through reciprocal, mutually beneficial action rather than subservant action, then there's nothing holding it back. Not to say that this is very likely to come about, but there's no practical impossibility attached to economic equality. | cmv |
I think large - scale egalitarian societies are an impossibility, and that economic oppression is a human constant. CMV | You are a realist, and probably unlikely to ever change your mind about this. However do know that we have the technology to make life very easy and sustainable for a great many people. Definitely not 7 billion, but still. | cmv |