summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe Prisoners should have the Right to Vote, CMV | I completely agree with the past comment. I live in a place where prisoners vote and it's pretty much popular knowledge that they vote according to what they're promised and bribed with. Gangs control prisons and they are not known to be the most socially conscious of organizations. Their motives are driven mostly by the potential of influence and power within the penal system. Not to be trusted by the general populace outside of prison. Prisoners are not your friends, especially those in long - term sentences... they could care less about you as a citizen, so their priorities when voting and yours are completely different. | cmv |
I believe Prisoners should have the Right to Vote, CMV | To play devil's advocate, prisoners would likely be the easiest population to " bribe " into voting one way or another. They don't have a life outside of the prison which makes them significantly more likely to be single issue voters and very easy to target, especially for those with longer sentences. Politicians looking to secure extra votes could make all sorts of elaborate promises that benefit those in prison, and prisoners would be unlikely to have the tools ( unrestricted internet access for example ) to research those promises, determine their validity and avoid being suckered into unrealistic offers. Not only that, but they're the population that would have the hardest time seeking redress if they elected a politician that went back on their promises. They can't take to the streets and protest, they can't get in the media's face about it, they probably can't even send emails or make phone calls without being monitored. Maybe they can resort to snail mail but their options are generally just very limited. This means that there's not really a consequence ( or as much of one at least ) to the politicians that make those unrealistic promises to the prisoners in exchange for votes. | cmv |
I don't believe nonviolent protest are morally superior to political violence and don't consider MLK and Gandhi to be good examples of nonviolent protest movements. CMV | Very, very interesting debate. Are you arguing that non - violet protests do have power only because they have the potential to become violent? Surely if a revolutionary leader were to build up enough support he / she would be able to use a non - violent protest as a bargaining chip, more than anything else, to get the government to listen and make certain reparations without the need for violence? It is obviously a very gray area of contention. But to use a simpler example, is blackmailing someone with the threat of violence morally superior than actually using violence to get the desired result? A utilitarian view might be that it is morally superior if the desired result is achieved without as many people ( in these cases quite possibly innocent people ) getting hurt. | cmv |
I don't believe nonviolent protest are morally superior to political violence and don't consider MLK and Gandhi to be good examples of nonviolent protest movements. CMV | As well as the problems others pointed out with the fact that you seem to be talking about utility rather than morality, I'm confused as to what you would consider a good example of a nonviolent protest movement? You criticize MLK and Ghandi, but that simply seems to be part and parcel with your criticism of the utility of nonviolence. What is a good nonviolent protest, if theirs were not? | cmv |
CMV : I think most people are vegans / vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View. | I can't speak to the majority - - to my mind, that requires a survey to address. But I can speak from my experience : 1 ) I went vegetarian when I was in high school because I missed some veg friends I'd met at a summer program and wanted to do something obviously liberal without letting anyone know I was gay. ( Like I said, high school. ) But I also thought killing something to eat it was wrong. 2 ) I went vegan at 28 after considering some of the details of how cows and chickens are treated in milk and egg production, and because I was trying to take control of my health. It's been almost four years, and I can't imagine going back. So... I guess I'm a data point in both directions for you. I don't think people ever have just one reason. | cmv |
CMV : I think most people are vegans / vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View. | I grew up in a remote village in the cascade mountains where there is very little media available ( no internet / tv ). At least 30 % of the 200 people who lived there were vegan or vegetarian. Only about 5 % - 10 % o the guests ( around 200 - 400 ) who had access to the media were vegan or vegetarian. The people I knew did it because : 1. Health 2. Environment ( it was kind of a hippie place ) or 3. Animal Rights. Hope this helps! | cmv |
CMV : I think most people are vegans / vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View. | If I may, I'd like to give some anecdotal evidence. If this isn't in line with the subs rules, I'll happily delete. Anyways, one of my parent's favourite stories to tell is the Thanksgiving of 1993. I was 3 years old, and I stuck my face up to the window of the oven. I asked my Dad what was in there and he told me it was a bird, and I told him that I did NOT want to eat a bird. I didn't eat meat for 7 years after that. My own decision, no outside influence, much to the chagrin of my meat eating family. So I would argue that the " animal right " - or just basic empathy for another living thing aspect of it - is absolutely there. | cmv |
CMV : I think most people are vegans / vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View. | While it's true that many people probably don't understand every aspect of veganism and why it's a good idea, I think that everyone has at least one tangible benefit that motivates them. Think about all the people who say " I could just never give up meat! " People like to eat animal products and I find it a little hard to believe that everyone is giving up this part of their lives just to be stylish. They do it because it's healthier, or because it's better for the environment, or because they're mistrustful of big food corps. | cmv |
CMV : I think most people are vegans / vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View. | I am a philosophy major, and ever since I chose this major, I have met more vegetarians / vegans than I ever had - - primarily because I never thought about asking, and who advocates for vegetarianism when they are teenagers anyways. However, those that I have met that advocates for vegetarianism have, allegedly, been doing it for majority of their life. However, even those that have not been doing it for the majority of their life do so for moral reasons, and not merely health, per se. So from my experience so far " majority of people who are vegans or vegetarians do do it for " animal rights " and not health, and none of them are doing it for pop culture. " However, I don't see any reason why your observation would be wrong ; I can imagine a lot of people who do do this for the'fad'or'what is popular'or the'trend '. I feel like this is the ONE thing that is actually positive for the environment, spirit and society ( unlike'basketball ','Bieber ', or any other'trend'that is out today... ) | cmv |
CMV : I think most people are vegans / vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View. | Your view is based on your experiences, and your experiences have a small sample size. I don't know how old you are, but if you're under 25, you likely have a peer group under 25, and I'd argue most of that demographic's decisions are based on pop culture regardless of topic. However, you didn't ask about veggisaurs under 25 you implied all veggisaurs, and that includes people with personalities, motives, and values that are completely foreign to " under 25ers ". Why people go veg 7 % list environment and 4 % list " other ". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and call environment and other as pop culture since it is not explicitly listed. That means 89 % of Veggisaurs in this poll are Veggisaurs because of reasons that are NOT pop culture. I dont know the sample size, but I presume the Vegetarian Society has more interactions with vegetarians than the typical American omnivore. | cmv |
CMV : I think most people are vegans / vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View. | The people you speak of are flexitarians. I went to dinner with a group of people that wanted to just order a bunch of stuff and share. Alarm bells went off in my head, so I pulled the " I'm a vegetarian so I'm just going to order my own thing " but all 13 faces turned to me and said " So are we!! " My meat - eating friend and I insisted on ordering our own stuff, and we turned out to be the only 2 who actually ordered vegetarian meals. The rest of them started ordering prawns, and then it all went downhill when 3 of them ordered the lamb. TL ; DR people being vegetarians for lame pretentious reasons have very little commitment to it and can easily be smoked out with some delicious bacon. | cmv |
CMV : I think most people are vegans / vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View. | Personally, I'm a vegetarian for a few months now and I would say I do it for the animals. Its not even that much the killing of them ( I'm totally okay with people eating meat ) but I think we kill too many of them and I'm not okay with factory farming. Honestly, I'd eat meat if I knew where it was from, but I personally dont trust the producers enough so I just stick to being a vegetarian. | cmv |
CMV : I think most people are vegans / vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View. | A couple of points : 1. As a vegetarian for 20ish years, I can confidently say that the difference between somebody who goes veg for the health / ethical / moral / environment reasons and somebody who goes veg because of influence from the media is the amount of time they've been veg. People who go veg because they think it's cool or " hip, " in my experience, never stick with it for more than a year. 2. Assuming you're American, you probably have some personal qualms about eating dog / cat / horse meat. Is it so hard to imagine that many people might extend this list to include cows / pigs / chickens etc? There are a lot of fad diets out there that are almost entirely perpetuated by media and pop culture ( i. e. gluten - free ), but vegetarianism / veganism has been around, according to wikipedia, for at least 2500 years. | cmv |
CMV : I think most people are vegans / vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View. | My mother ate meat for her entire life. She was in a car accident a few years ago and now goes to meditation seminars to help her cope with life after being badly injured. At the seminars they talk about how important life is, not so much focused on a'soul'or anything spiritual like that, just the sanctity of life. So every since she has been going to these seminars she has stopped eating meat. Not for any other reason that she can't stomach it. The thought of it being an animal which was once alive and is now dead and in front of her is sickening and she loses her appetite. I don't think this has anything to do with the media, it's mostly just her life view being changed from the seminars she went on. There aren't any underlying pressures from pop - culture or PETA or anything like that. She simply does not want to eat something that was once alive. It may not change your mind, but its one example of a vegetarian who is not based on any media or popculture | cmv |
CMV : I think most people are vegans / vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View. | OP, I'm a lifelong vegetarian as has my family, as have several generations back. I'm from US, but my parents are from India where there's a pretty large vegetarian population. In fact... Vegetarianism by country About 1 / 3 of the Indian population is a vegetarian, meaning 400 million people. If you're a vegetarian, chances are you're an Indian in which case it's based on culture and religion, rather than popular culture. | cmv |
In the United States, I think that the religious based marriage should be removed and replaced with secular based civil unions. CMV. | Every valid marriage is already civil marriage. Every valid marriage already requires some sort of " solemnization. " In many cases, the parties choose a religious solemnization ceremony, but a religious solemnization is not required for a valid marriage — a judge or JOP can solemnize just as well. The clergy who solemnizes a marriage is acting on behalf of the state, which is why s / he says, "... by the power vested in me by the state of | cmv |
I believe that people are mostly good. CMV. | People aren't mostly good. People aren't mostly bad. People are mostly people. Our actions, good, bad, or indifferent, are mostly just the result human nature. While I would hold that people when making the effort to step back and examine the context of their decisions do tend to choose to be more ethical than not. This situation is so comparatively rare and so much more likely to involve low - impact decisions as to be laughable as a general statement. The greatest ills and the greatest joys of your life are far more often attributable to sheer thoughtlessness than not. Replace " people " in your final quotations with " human nature " and those worldviews might make a bit more sense to you. In general terms people / human nature really do / does suck, which is why we have to work so damned hard rise above ourselves in attempting to act ethically. | cmv |
I believe that the people should vote on legislature as part of the process of it becoming a law. CMV. | There are some areas of the law that should be unassailable rights and not subject to the will of the majority. These include Freedom of Speech etc. If we were to open each law to this subject it would inevitably lead to the limitation of the liberties of the minority in favor of the majority. There is also the practical issue that calling a general election every time a new law needed to be passed would be incredibly time and cost consuming. That is why representatives who we must trust to represent our own views ( the will of their constituents ) exist. | cmv |
I believe that the people should vote on legislature as part of the process of it becoming a law. CMV. | Individuals will not always make the best choices for a group. Let's say a congressman proposes a bill that grants every US taxpayer a $ 50, 000 stimulus check. Congress, listening to reason for once, accepts advice from economists and votes against it. Now if you're a voter, are you going to go out and vote against giving yourself $ 50k? Well you might, and other informed voters might. But I imagine there would be a record high turnout of people looking to get paid. The bill passes, checks are mailed, and the economy collapses from the devaluing of the dollar. That's an extreme example of how uninformed voters can do damage when they can directly vote on things that benefit themselves and not the group. Many people feel this is a major reason California is in such bad financial shape. They often allow voters to have say on individual referendums, and it results in too many expensive government programs. | cmv |
I believe that some people are a burden to society, and should not be helped. CMV | Is the goal of humankind to have the most efficient society, or the most humane society? An efficient society might let lazy people starve - after all, they're a burden on society, and they chose to be that way! A humane society would say that everyone deserves to have a roof over their head and food to eat not because they work hard but because they are human. A first world country has enough resources to keep everyone warm and fed, even if some percentage does not work. Should we deny them their basic needs, which we could easily provide, just because they don't work? | cmv |
I believe that some people are a burden to society, and should not be helped. CMV | The behavior of people is a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Therefore, people who don'thing with their lifes are not doing it because of their own " will " so to say, but rather because of different environmental and genetic factors out of their control. Can you blame an individual for something that is out of that persons control? No, you can't. But what you can do is try to steer them on the right track or try to reverse the " damage " done by the environment. What you need to understand is that nothing is done " willingly ". Every human being is merely a reflection of the environment around him. What environment is forced upon that person is not voluntary. | cmv |
I believe that some people are a burden to society, and should not be helped. CMV | People are born into circumstances. We are pretty much just the byproduct of those circumstances. It is terribly unfair to punish people for those circumstances that society has put them in. Perhaps if we had an incredibly egalitarian society where everybody had complete social mobility this is a defensible position. The US is nowhere close to that and undeveloped nations are even further away. | cmv |
I believe that some people are a burden to society, and should not be helped. CMV | I have a question. Why must people who don't don't want to contribute be treated differently than people who cannot? Or more specifically - in what ways must they be treated differently? | cmv |
I believe that if a person says that they have tried to commit suicide and failed then their heart wasn't really in it to begin with. CMV | My friend got cut down from a tree because a passerby happened to find him after he passed out ( he was trying to hang himself ). Other people have survived attempts including, but not limited to, self - immolation, asphyxiation by car exhaust, taking pills, shooting themselves, etc, etc. Are they all lacking enthusiasm? | cmv |
I believe that if a person says that they have tried to commit suicide and failed then their heart wasn't really in it to begin with. CMV | I knew a man who was a student nurse, back in the day when student nurses lived in housing beside the hospital. He was relentlessly bullied for studying to be a nurse due to his gender, even by staff who were mentoring in the hospital. One day he waited until all the other students he lived with had left to start their shift in the hospital and he went down to an old storage room in the basement that was pretty much unused. He took an overdose of some sort and was pretty much going to die only a caretaker came into the room and found him, raised the alarm and saved the mans life. The chances of the caretaker finding him were extremely low as usually there's no reason for anyone to go into that room. The student obviously couldn't have been banking on anyone to find him. Since then he has successfully committed suicide though. | cmv |
I believe that if a person says that they have tried to commit suicide and failed then their heart wasn't really in it to begin with. CMV | I have had patients who put a gun to their head, pulled the trigger, and survived. To the best of their knowledge, they were doing their absolute best to off themselves. But, do to the neuroanatomy of the brain, there are many angles where a through - and - through shot won't kill you ( it will severely impair you, however ). | cmv |
I believe that if a person says that they have tried to commit suicide and failed then their heart wasn't really in it to begin with. CMV | I attempted to kill myself, once. I failed. I have only told a few of my closest friends, and random people on the Internet who can't ID me. Incompetence is not insincerity. Were it not for a timely couple of talks from some amazing people, I would have gone ahead with my Mark II plan, which was substantially more lethal, and I would not be here. | cmv |
I believe that if a person says that they have tried to commit suicide and failed then their heart wasn't really in it to begin with. CMV | OP, one of my friends made deep cuts in her wrists while she was in the bathroom. She sat on the floor and waited to bleed out. While it was happening, her roommate walked in and saw her while she was fading in and out of consciousness, and then proceeded to call an ambulance. If that hadn't happened, she wouldn't be alive. | cmv |
I shy away from right - wing people because I disagree heavily with them, though I don't even know what I disagree about. CMV | I think you may want to phrase this as " I don't think Stephen Harper has been good for Canada. CMV " I think one thing to say in Harper's favour is that he has presided over Canada handling the worldwide financial crisis relatively successfully. The Canadian unemployment rate has remained below the U. S. rate despite starting out higher pre - crisis and the Canadian economy being strongly U. S. - dependent. All the banks remained solvent ( though I don't think he personally deserves much credit for that ). And the Tories enacted what is widely seen as an effective stimulus, rather than huge service - cutting austerity measures as done by the Tories in the UK. Another thing to say for Harper, though perhaps this isn't something that stokes your right - wing friends, is that he has shied away from what a lot of people feared a socially conservative party freed from any strong opposition would do. The healthcare system has not strongly changed, neither abortion nor gay nor immigrant rights have been seriously rolled back, etc. In particular, the Tories have reached out to immigrants which is a welcome change from xenophobic right - wing politicians in the past. I'm not saying that this outweighs the negatives of his tenure, but it sounds like you are well aware of those. | cmv |
I believe Assault Weapons should be banned for civilian use, CMV. | Why " assault weapons " and not handguns? The reality is, " assault weapons " are a political device used to make people ( like you ) who don't like guns come to their side of the political spectrum. The people who will actually be affected by such a ban, are for the most part not going to vote for them anyway. As a thought experiment, should sports cars be banned? They drive too fast and don't serve the public good ; they are more likely to crash and hurt someone at a higher speed. But how do you define a sports car? It doesn't actually mean anything, and neither does " assault weapon " and both have legitimate recreational purposes, and are neither any more ( truly ) dangerous than their tamer seeming counterparts. So if your thesis was " I believe GUNS should be banned for civilian use " then that's a whole different set of arguments. | cmv |
I believe Assault Weapons should be banned for civilian use, CMV. | Assault weapons are already illegal in the US except for very rare and expensive pre - 1986 examples. ( $ 10, 000 + ) The'Assault style weapons'that the media likes to rag on are functionally the same as a nice friendly looking semi - automatic hunting rifle, just with scarier looking cosmetic features. All rifles amount to only 3 % of gun crime in the us, and'assault style'rifles are a small sub - set of this. Over 1. 5 million AR15s have been in civilian hands since introduced in 1963, and yet only a few have ever been used in a major event. Sounds like a damn good track record to me. | cmv |
I believe Assault Weapons should be banned for civilian use, CMV. | I think something you should ask yourself if you are anti - assault weapons or anti - gun. Because " 2. Why should countries allow a device which is designed with the sole purpose of causing destruction into the hands of civilians where it can and has been misused? " can apply to all sorts of weapons... practically all of the " effective " ones. However, you think assault weapons should be banned on the notion they were designed to be effective killing machines? What about pistols, knifes, axes, scissors, and so many other potential weapons have been abused more than assault weapons. The effectiveness of an assault weapon over a pistol is unquestionable, but the pistol is responsible for more civilian deaths than assault weapons ever have been. Assault weapons are used for the same functions as pistols, just more effective. While being more effective, they are not as widely used or accessible as pistols. | cmv |
I believe Assault Weapons should be banned for civilian use, CMV. | My question to you, OP, is do you think banning these guns will actually keep them out of civilian hands? Look at what's happened with the last two popular products we banned, alchohol and drugs. Now imagine those same criminal gangs, except instead of having access to massive amounts of booze and pot they have billions of dollars worth of guns. I'm pretty sure the occasional school shooting is better than the cartels switching from pot to bullets. | cmv |
I believe there is no moral difference between shooting a newborn in the face with a gun, and abortion. CMV | people are only what other people think of them. you only exist in the minds of those who know you. if somebody dies right now, but there is nobody to notice he died, who cares? An abortion is a choice between the life of somebody who doesn't fully exist and will not be missed, and the quality of life of a person who is connected to other people. | cmv |
I believe there is no moral difference between shooting a newborn in the face with a gun, and abortion. CMV | If you draw the line where life starts right at fertilization, the zygote, then it is worth considering that a large percentage of all zygotes are naturally rejected by the female body. It's sort of a natural abortion because it is a completely natural process. Abortion is just a medical replication of that process and to my knowledge not even as prevalent ( which speaks to the large number of zygotes that are naturally rejected. ) There are additional aspects of abortion worth considering that make it different from shooting a newborn baby in the face with a gun. Primarily, the fetus / embryo / zygote is still within the mother during abortion and so it has an impact on her health and her body. What is important to recognize here is that many of these women will get abortions whether or not it's legal, and getting an illegal abortion not only kills the child / zygote / embryo / fetus but can also harm / kill the mother. When you shoot a newborn infant in the face with a gun, you are killing a breathing, independent organism. When you provide a woman with an abortion, you are providing a means with which she can be safe and remain healthy. | cmv |
I believe there is no moral difference between shooting a newborn in the face with a gun, and abortion. CMV | This one is ridiculously easy. A person gets to choose what to do with their own body. The fetus is inside a person, so that person gets to choose whether to support it and give birth to it or not. Once the baby is outside the person, that concern goes away. ( protip to help understand this argument : women are people and get to decide what happens to their own bodies! I know, what a novel idea! P. S. - I'm a dude and still hold that view! Also novel! ) | cmv |
I believe there is no moral difference between shooting a newborn in the face with a gun, and abortion. CMV | Murder is the premeditated killing of a human being. Abortion as it is defined is an excision of a growth. The moral difference is in where you draw the line, and since you're not a Jainist and think its OK to swat a fly you probably don't think what you say you think about there not being a moral difference. | cmv |
I believe there is no moral difference between shooting a newborn in the face with a gun, and abortion. CMV | A fetus requires the use of another person's organs and metabolism to survive while a newborn does not. Furthermore, in using those organs, a fetus presents a serious and direct threat to a woman's health, whereas a newborn does not. Every pregnancy and birth constitutes a severe medical trauma, and some pregnancies will result in permanent complications for the woman, possibly including death. Be pro - life if you want but don't say that an abortion is morally equivalent to killing a newborn, because it is clearly not. Maybe you can claim that these considerations don't warrant ending a potential human life, but you shouldn't pretend that they don't exist. To do so is to completely trivialize the real medical risks women face in the course of a pregnancy. | cmv |
I believe there is no moral difference between shooting a newborn in the face with a gun, and abortion. CMV | Just because it's hard or impossible to draw a clear line of where we begin to grant rights to fetuses does not imply that there's no line whatsoever, or that two ends of the spectrum are completely separate from each other. We can, for instance, see categorical differences between a fertilized egg and a fetus at twelve months. We can also see a categorical difference between a fetus at twelve months and one at 20. It stands to reason that as we start to see more categories filled that we associate with full, rights bearing persons, that we offer that entity more moral consideration. Thus we can say that at 20 months we can offer fetuses, at the very least, limited rights, while we don't offer the same to the fertilized egg. | cmv |
I believe there is no moral difference between shooting a newborn in the face with a gun, and abortion. CMV | Do you believe there is a moral difference between a landlord kicking a renter out of a house, and blowing someone's house up? Women own the " means of production ". It doesn't matter if babies were made of pure sentientium, a rare metal I just now fabricated for this point, the baby does not own the womb it is growing in and has no legal right over it. Now, you could argue that the state could have sufficient grounds to claim a woman's womb through'eminent domain'; the practice of claiming property for the common good. But that requires the government fairly compensate a woman for the use of her body, and likely pay for raising the kid too because otherwise the costs will get shouldered on somebody unfairly. | cmv |
I believe there is no moral difference between shooting a newborn in the face with a gun, and abortion. CMV | I agree with you, however I would argue that neither action is morally reprehensible. From a biological perspective there is a difference between being iside the womb and being a newborn, but from a moral perspective this is not the case. Although your example is very sensationalist, you shouldn't shoot anything in the face, there's much more humane ways of killing things. But the main idea is that abortion and infanticide are morally the same thing. Sources : Peter Singer Michael Tooley Don Marquis - Marquis is pro - life but agrees there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. He and Tooley just disagree on the definition of a person. | cmv |
I think that the UN should be dissolved or heavily reformed. CMV | I don't see any reason to think that those powers wouldn't control world events just as much without the UN. They are great powers for a reason. The security council allows great powers to intervene or prevent intervention in regions they have an interest in. This, arguably, could be said to keep stability in the international system by preventin the great powers from going to war. Obviously this isn't perfect and proxy wars do break out but I don't think the world would be as stable without it. Additionally their has been talk of giving Japan and Germany permanent seats on the council considering their status and contributions to the UN. | cmv |
I think that the UN should be dissolved or heavily reformed. CMV | The UN should work like it does in videogames : " We voted and decided that building X is now illegal. " If you make an X, every other country in the UN instantly declares war on you. | cmv |
I believe East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent on average than Anglo whites, and whites on average are more intelligent than Africans. CMV. | It's the part where you base your world views on your own limited context and experiences that is fundamentally flawed. If you could arrive at the same conclusion using evidence of some kind I'd be more inclined to debate the merit of that evidence or your resulting conclusions, but as is you're essentially saying " it's this way because I've seen it this way ". The only thing close to this you bring up is the raw numbers for acknowledged accomplishments like Nobel winners, which clearly have to be put into historical and anthropological context first, as well as considered for their positive selection bias before any meaningful inference can be made. | cmv |
I believe East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent on average than Anglo whites, and whites on average are more intelligent than Africans. CMV. | Intelligence is such a poorly defined concept, and it's so hard to adequately test for that it becomes largely impossible to say who's more intelligent. Add to that that culture and society play a large role in how we become educated and it gets even more tricky. That's not, however, to say that there's no reason we can't openly talk about it, but I think that drawing conclusions is premature and problematic as there are too many loose definitions and variables to account for. That said, Steven Pinker makes the point that even if, for instance, men are more represented at the " genius level " than women, the distribution overlaps so often between the two groups that it's useless to be able make generalizations about people. This would mean that we couldn't really make any immigration policies that reflected a difference between ethnic groups as they would undoubtedly be insignificant to warrant any attention. | cmv |
I believe East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent on average than Anglo whites, and whites on average are more intelligent than Africans. CMV. | I'm afraid you're not conducting a representative sample here - you've identified that there are lots of famous Jewish scientists ; most likely a legacy of the large number of wealthy Jews who made their money as bankers or moneylenders. Far be it from me to subscribe to some conspiracy about Jews trying to run the world, but it's certainly a plausible explanation. As for your experience of Asian, white and black Americans, consider their pasts. Asians - broadly immigrants who chose ( or who's parents / grandparents ) chose to go through the strenuous immigration system in order to make a better life for themselves. This seems to predispose them to working harder. As for black people, they were hurled onto the very lowest rung of American society and left to languish in communities where such luxuries of self - improvement are often secondary to simply staying out of poverty. | cmv |
I believe East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent on average than Anglo whites, and whites on average are more intelligent than Africans. CMV. | If we're talking about these populations in the US, hardly anyone can disagree. The data is the data. What's more controversial is to claim these discrepancies are due to genetic differences, rather than socioeconomic and perhaps cultural differences. You don't seem to be making a claim in either direction, so what are we arguing? | cmv |
I believe that welfare is a drain on resources and should be abolished. CMV. | This is how riots, wars, plagues, crime and general civil unrest happens. You don't even have to look back into history, although there are many headless kings that could attest as much... Just look at some of the poorer third world countries where poor people are left to fend for themselves. People don't just disappear when you ignore them. | cmv |
I believe that welfare is a drain on resources and should be abolished. CMV. | I don't have a problem with any of these programs... however, if I were to have any sort of say, I would make it so that any person that used these benefits had to work on a public works project. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Our roads are old, bridges are crumbling, and there are more old buildings than I can count that need either restored or tore down and rebuilt. If we just merely paid people to do these kinds of jobs instead of giving people money for no reason at all, we would be 1. not enabling the poor, and 2. creating more wealth in our society. | cmv |
I believe that welfare is a drain on resources and should be abolished. CMV. | In the US, like many other first world nations, most people on welfare are " transitory. " Meaning that most people on welfare today were not on it two years ago and will not be on it two years form now. A job loss, a serious illness, a bad accident is all it takes to drag someone down from middle class to poor. Welfare provides a " floor. " It's there to make sure that when people fall they don't starve. It means they can focus their attention on getting a good job again without having to panic over the day to day food and shelter requirements. It means their kids will not suffer to badly, otherwise their future would be impacted as well. So I would argue that no it doesn't cost more than it makes. Without it people who fall into poverty fall into much worse poverty and it becomes exponentially harder to return to middle class. | cmv |
I believe that welfare is a drain on resources and should be abolished. CMV. | Texas recently defunded Planned Parenthood ( which provides free healthcare for women like screenings and birth control ) and found that they were paying far more without it than with it. This is not true with all welfare but it's true for some. Also, many extremely wealthy areas of the world are surrounded by poor areas. Poor people work in the restaurants, hotels and resorts of the world. In bad economic times, without any kind of safety net, you'd have millions of otherwise law abiding citizens left with no choice but to start stealing and robbing people. I can't imagine myself getting in the situation, but if I literally had no choice but to start stealing from stores and robbing people at knifepoint or letting me and my family starve - I'd choose the life of crime over death. | cmv |
I believe that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. CMV | What about a guy who jumps on a grenade to save his buddy? A firefighter who dies trying to save trapped children in a burning house? A mother who jumps in front of a bullet for her son, or a father who drowns trying to save his daughter? | cmv |
I believe that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. CMV | You could say a kid gave their candy to an elephant for whatever selfish reason, but in the end it may very well be the strong human trait of empathy that simply wants the elephant to enjoy. By analyzing any " selfless act " you could hypothetically always find something that benefits the one who acts, the examples you give show that. Aditionally, by analyzing any action you could say doing good could always result into being considered a hero, have you receive compliments, get friends, etc. Or you could disprove any selflessness by saying, the person who acts may think they deserve the above, and that this is enough incentive. My point is, there's no way around finding these things, they're always there. After all, actions are complex and consist of many causes and consequences. However, if a person were to neglect these rewards that are always there, and would focus solely on their empathy towards another human being, wouldn't this make it selfless? To me it doesn't seem unlikely this ever happened, although it's hard to prove, as you can't see what's going on in a person's mind. | cmv |
I believe that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. CMV | You want an example of a selfless act? Seizures. They're completely involuntary, yet you still do them. If the act is voluntary, it contains your personal choice, so in that sense everything that is chosen is a selfish act. The real question is whether certain definitions of " personal gain " are better than others and whether they are better in a cosmic sense or an individual sense. | cmv |
I believe that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. CMV | What about these guys Kumbh, who supposedly do it for the good of mankind believing that somehow they would bear the punishment of others. I don't see a personal gain for them. Except getting high ; ) ( although they can do that without going through such pain ) If you argue that they are here for fame, that wouldn't be so convincing because this festival comes once in 12 years and its pretty hard to find these guys as it is. Your turn OP. | cmv |
I believe that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. CMV | And I don't believe in absolution. While it is arguable that many of the things we do have an ulterior motive, it's just as absurd to deny this as it is to say that there are no truly selfless acts. There are always exceptions. As an offhand example, what if you help someone by accident? There was no ulterior motivation, you just happened to do something beneficial for them without even considering it. | cmv |
I believe that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. CMV | I have to say that it depends on the definition of being selfless but I pretty much agree. I also think that there are no good or evil people, everyone just has their reasons. Deeds can be more beneficial or harmful of course. We could argue that this is only pure semantics but it's not. I think it'd do more good than harm to realize this. | cmv |
I believe that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. CMV | Let's say that I give money to a homeless person. That act makes me feel better about myself, yes? So it seems as though psychological egoism is true. Except that when you go one level deeper it's not so clear cut. You have to ask yourself why you feel better when doing a good act? The catalyst to making the decision selfishly is dependent upon you wanting and recognizing that it's a good action in and of itself. You have to already want to help the homeless person in order to feel good about yourself. The other problem is that there's nothing mutually exclusive about doing good deeds for their own sake and deriving pleasure from them. That we feel good about doing an unselfish act doesn't mitigate the unselfishness of the act at all. It merely means that any pleasure we derive from that action is an added bonus. | cmv |
I believe that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. CMV | Have you heard the stories of soldiers jumping on a grenade because either one of them would die or all of them would die? That seems selfless to me. There's only an instant to react and they jumped on it. There's no time to weigh the pros and cons of possibly being awarded some sort of medal down the line ; only a fraction of whom were. Even then, I only remember the story and absolutely none of their names. | cmv |
I believe that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. CMV | Your read on the definition of " selflessness " only works if you are a stickler for the letter of the definition and not the spirit. But I can play that game. All involuntary actions are selfless, even if they are beneficial to the self, since the definition is based on concern for one's own interest. Thus, involuntary farting is selfless. As is sweating and slipping on banana peels. | cmv |
I believe that China deserves to use whatever means to achieve economic and military superiority. CMV. | Does " China " refer to a small group of people running the entire country or the population? As a global community, we all are really just humans. Everyone makes mistakes, America made a lot of mistakes. We should keep China from repeating our mistakes. Imperialism has a history of going awry. | cmv |
I don't believe North Korea would aggressively use nuclear weapons if they obtained them. CMV | Hmm, perhaps try thinking of the state as a collective instead of a single entity. What if a rebellious subset of the government decided to take control of the missile and launch it? Anything is possible, for all we know Un is just a figurehead. | cmv |
I don't believe that anyone should be drafted for war. CMV. | Democratically it might be an advantage to require drafting before any war starts. Because when everyone has something to lose it makes it necessary for the population to really think about if the conflict is worth it, and often, I suspect, it wouldn't be. I really believe their would be much more resistance to the current war in Afghanistan and the amount of US troops placed around the world had a draft system been in place. Nixon abolished the draft essentially for this reason, he was correct in thinking the protests against Vietnam would have far less numbers if people weren't worried about the possibility of having to go themselves and fight. | cmv |
I don't believe that anyone should be drafted for war. CMV. | The main rationale beind the draft is that you, as a citizen, have enjoyed many benefits as a direct result of living in your country. Now that your country is under attack your government is allowed to oblige you into protecting your country. Basically, you shouldn't reap the benefits of your homeland when you will refuse to protect it. | cmv |
I don't believe that anyone should be drafted for war. CMV. | The draft is necessary for emergency situations. The Vietnam war was an abuse of the draft system and should have never been used. I believe the draft should be in the same category as nuclear weapons. They are only to be used in the worst case scenario. The case for the draft being that in the event we are in a war where we have lost the majority of our military force that we would need to have citizens serve in order to protect the country. The draft is important in that sense. | cmv |
I believe transhumanism is a moral imperative. CMV | I think you've created a fundamental contradiction in your argument. I was going to ask you why promotion of happiness seems to be your moral'measure ', but then at point 5 you say that morality is simply an evolutionary psychological adaption, and that there is no objective morality. If that's true, how can transhumanism be a moral imperative since you've just eliminated objective morality? Surely subjective morality has no imperatival force? | cmv |
I believe transhumanism is a moral imperative. CMV | It's not a moral imperative because if one is going to use morality as an argument, then you have to accept that morally speaking free will and the decision to choose what you want to yourself is highly valued. " Imperative " means " something that demands attention or action ; an unavoidable obligation or requirement ; necessity. " To demand that it is necessary for others to change for " greater happiness " is by way of moral argument immoral in itself in the same way that commanding everyone to allow themselves to be constantly observed in order to eradicate crime - one right doesn't eliminate the wrong. / semantic argument | cmv |
I think that if Feminists are so much about equality, they should rename themselves to Equalists, and should encourage healthy discussions with men and include men in their groups as well. They should also stop trying to change every word in the dictionary that has " man " / " men " in it. CMV | Lots of men participate in lots of feminist groups. I, for instance, am a man, and have never felt unwelcome in any feminist discussion. Also, where do you get the idea that feminists want to change every word in the dictionary that has " man " or " men " in it? | cmv |
I think that if Feminists are so much about equality, they should rename themselves to Equalists, and should encourage healthy discussions with men and include men in their groups as well. They should also stop trying to change every word in the dictionary that has " man " / " men " in it. CMV | First of all, pretty much every single political movement could describe themselves as equalists to some extent or another, barring perhaps fascism and similar movements. There are plenty of feminist organizations that include men - the leader of one of the larger feminist organizations here in Denmark is a man, for instance. And plenty of men are feminists. The men's right movement is mostly anti - feminist, though, and their leading figures are fairly appalling, certainly the entirey of A Voice For Men and Warren Farell. I'm not sure why you would want a woman to be called a man, just because she has a job that has mostly been held by men. It might seem petty to you that we call people'chairperson ', for instance, instead of'chairman ', but wouldn't it be worse to keep calling women men if they didn't want it, not to mention more petty. | cmv |
I think that if Feminists are so much about equality, they should rename themselves to Equalists, and should encourage healthy discussions with men and include men in their groups as well. They should also stop trying to change every word in the dictionary that has " man " / " men " in it. CMV | They're not technically about " equality " but about fighting inequality, specifically in how women are treated ( as opposed to many other possible reasons for inequality ). Their perceived end goal might still be more equality since they believe that women are treated unfairly, currently, and any increased power would push society towards the center. Same is true for movements around race, sexual orientation, etc. There is just very, very little discrimination against white, heterosexual men so there is no reason to " fight against inequality " for them. I don't think it's hard to imagine how even suggesting so might be perceived as cynical or ignorant, even. | cmv |
I think that if Feminists are so much about equality, they should rename themselves to Equalists, and should encourage healthy discussions with men and include men in their groups as well. They should also stop trying to change every word in the dictionary that has " man " / " men " in it. CMV | Okay, we don't call the gay rights movement " Equalists " even though LGBT folk only want the same rights as everyone else. It's called that because LGBTs have been marginalized more than straight people. Same idea with feminism. Why, why is this so hard to understand? | cmv |
I think that if Feminists are so much about equality, they should rename themselves to Equalists, and should encourage healthy discussions with men and include men in their groups as well. They should also stop trying to change every word in the dictionary that has " man " / " men " in it. CMV | I find people complaining about feminists not fighting against all types of inequality similar to of people complained that a hiv charity wasn't supporting people with diabetes. Both are organisations set up to fight specific problems. They never claimed to be trying to solve all the problems and I'm called at why they should be expected to | cmv |
I think legalizing gay marriage changes the definition of marriage, leading to further changes in the definition. CMV | For most of human history, in all patriarchal societies, child - adult, ( read girl - man ) marriage was legal. The three big monotheistic faiths Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all kinds of silly proscriptions about what to eat, how to treat your slave, and how to mutilate your genitals but not one against pedophilia. But thankfully, most of our species doesn't do this any longer ; because the definition of marriage, who can marry whom, has always been changing, and will continue to change. | cmv |
I think legalizing gay marriage changes the definition of marriage, leading to further changes in the definition. CMV | CHanging a definition isn't bad. If in the future our entire society is in love with the idea of animal marriage, I'm sorry, but the definition will have to be updated. Personally I think slippery slope talk is nonsense, but its only going to change again if a lot of people agree it should be changed. And if so - well, great. Future societies will have different values from us, and things will change again, and you won't like it, and this means absolutely nothing. | cmv |
I think legalizing gay marriage changes the definition of marriage, leading to further changes in the definition. CMV | So - what's wrong with changing the definition. Maybe in the future the age of consent will be lowered and 13 will be the new 18. What's so special about 18? If for some reason the average age decreases significantly - this might even be necessary. You can't necessarily judge the future through the lens of the present. Also - you think a change in definition will necessarily take the law in a direction you don't like. That's not necessarily true either. | cmv |
I think legalizing gay marriage changes the definition of marriage, leading to further changes in the definition. CMV | Well, consenting participants will be important when aliens finally land here and we start inter - marrying. I for one am excited that I might one day be able to marry a Cardassian. If you're implying a consenting participant could be a child, car, dog, well, none of them can actually give true consent because none of them would really understand the full implications of what they are doing. If you're too young to decide whether you want to fight for your country or not you shouldn't be allowed to marry either. | cmv |
I think legalizing gay marriage changes the definition of marriage, leading to further changes in the definition. CMV | I don't foresee a time ( at least not in the next hundred years or so ) where child marriages will become legal, or more legal than the extent to which they already are. However, I admit that it is possible. I also think it's possible that polygamy will be legalized. Marriage is an institution that is constantly changing. So, in that sense, I think that you're completely right in saying that gay marriage changes the definition ( which we both seem to agree is always changing ) of marriage. Where I do disagree with you is in your implication that all future changes to the definition of marriage ( an institution that has always been changing ) will somehow be as a result of allowing gay marriage. If child marriage is legalized again, it won't be because gay marriage was legalized, it will be because our society changed in a way where we thought that child marriage should be legal for one reason or another unrelated to same - sex marriage. Now, you could argue that they're all related because of some sort of butterfly effect view of history, which might be true... but only in the same way that one could say gay marriage is about to be legalized as a result how economic marriages outweighed romantic marriages several centuries ago. | cmv |
I think legalizing gay marriage changes the definition of marriage, leading to further changes in the definition. CMV | The definition of marriage changes all the time. This isn't the first and it won't be the last. In fact, child marriage is something that used to be legal but we changed the definition of marriage to make it illegal. Juliet was 13 years old in the Bard's play while Romeo was probably in his 20's. Marrying tweens to older men was normal then. It isn't now. So the trend is in the opposite direction of what you fear. | cmv |
I think legalizing gay marriage changes the definition of marriage, leading to further changes in the definition. CMV | This isn't an argument ; it's a tautology. Yes, it would alter the concept of marriage, but your argument is " You can't change the definition of marriage, because that would be changing the definition of marriage. " Allowing child marriages wouldn't be changing a definition, btw, it would be changing the age of consent. I've heard these before, though, and they're asinine. " But then someone could marry his dog! " Well, I guess if you want to say you married a dog, no one can stop you, free speech and all, but it has no meaning or implications. A dog can't grasp the concept of marriage, much less say " I do ", so it's impossible for it to enter a marriage. | cmv |
I think legalizing gay marriage changes the definition of marriage, leading to further changes in the definition. CMV | A child cannot consent. This is true everywhere in the law for first world countries. You could argue the 15 + age range, but that would be it. Animals cannot consent. I refuse to even argue this idea. Maybe you could argue an adult an inanimate object... These ideas are slippery slope to an outrageous and laughable extent. The final definition would be : A union between consenting adults. | cmv |
I think solving education inequality will have close to no impact on social inequality. CMV. | Even though the idea that any degree guarantees you a job is now in the past education is still important. The median salary for those with a bachelor's degree working full time in 2008 was $ 55, 700. The median age for those without a bachelor's working full time was $ 21, 900 less than that. Sure, education is not some magic solution to social inequality. But making sure everyone has equal access to higher education sure does make a lot of a difference. Now those who previously could not attain those higher earning jobs have the same opportunities because of education. | cmv |
I think solving education inequality will have close to no impact on social inequality. CMV. | Education benefits other aspects of society because it allows people to make better decisions in all walks of life, it doesn't just affect monetary earnings. If everyone was educated to the same standard there wouldn't be such a disparity between the views of one political party and another, if one party preys on the uneducated and misinformed and the other to the opposite then both get the sharp end of the stick. Example : Imagine if everyone understood the basic science behind climate change, as a result there would be much more political movement on the subject. They don't so there isn't. Examples could be made for relations between crime rates and education rates also, amongst other things. | cmv |
There needs to be more diversity in the views presented by OPs on this subreddit. CMV | People leave and join. New people means new ideas. I don't think these common topics should be banned, but a limit to their frequency should occur. Maybe mods could post the common topics every couple of months for new discussion. | cmv |
I think eating meat purely for pleasure is inherently a cruel act. CMV | If eating meat for pleasure is considered " cruel, " I don't see how eating it for necessity is not also considered cruel. If being cruel is to consciously cause distress or pain, and assuming that killing animals is doing that, then it does not matter to the animal whether it is being eaten out of necessity or out of pleasure. If the act of killing an animal is cruel in one situation, it must also be cruel in the other. | cmv |
I think eating meat purely for pleasure is inherently a cruel act. CMV | I think you should focus more on protecting animals rights than simply not eating meat. The problems with farms and slaughterhouses is not the fact that animals are being killed for food, but how they are treated while they are alive and how they are killed. If we can ensure that these animals are treated humanely and killed in a quick and painless manner, where is the problem? Releasing them into the wild would ensure a harsher life and a slower and more painful death either by disease, predation, starvation, etc - much worse than a quick bullet to the head. To me, preserving life is not the issue, it is ensuring that the animals are treated properly. | cmv |
I think eating meat purely for pleasure is inherently a cruel act. CMV | Is it immoral when a bear eats a fish? He could survive on berries, but he likes the easy nutrition and satisfying taste of meat. Do fish have rights that supersede the bear's preferences? What about lions and zebras? Lions are carnivores, they need to eat zebras to survive. If the fish had rights, do the zebras? Are bears more moral than lions because of their dietary options? | cmv |
I believe DUI laws are quickly becoming unjust, CMV. | The government's job is to uphold the social contract. not killing people is part of the social contract. not killing people is harder to do while DUI. to protect people, the government should stop people from DUI | cmv |
I believe the US House, Senate, and President are fundamentally corrupt in their desire for money and power. CMV. | There once was a time when corporate corruption in politics could be somewhat justified. Before the recent globalization that has made most large companies into transnational corporations, there may have been a justification for influence peddling. A large American company would be contributing to political campaigns so as to safeguard their interests from legislation that might hurt them. In this way, jobs may have been protected, since the company wouldn't have to cut back on wages or layoff its workers. There once was a saying that'what is good for GM is good for America '. This implies that by helping American companies out, they would provide jobs for Americans and revenues for the government. Now, however, companies like GM have spread their operations globally. This diversification means that the health of companies may not benefit Americans, since the jobs are no longer being done by Americans exclusively. So although I agree with your premise, I think that you are forgetting that there was a time when " corruption'in politics may not have been a completely bad thing. | cmv |
I don't think voter ID laws are that big of a deal. CMV. | If a political candidate truely cared about Voter Id, and wanted to be sure that only eligible citizens voted, you would see them also passing measures to streamline the system of obtaining the required identification. In the current form, you only see measures proposed at making it more difficult to vote. The end result, will be that people who are 1. not able to get to a DMV ( but can walk to their local school / church / polling place ), 2. don't have time to get to the DMV due to their work / family schedule 3. can not afford to various fees / time off work to get to the DMV Will no longer be able to vote. Most states allow a bank statement, or a utility bill with your name on it as ID. When a candidate introduces a bil that makes it easier, affordable, and convenient to obtain a government ID, then you can trust they actually care about making sure only qualified persons vote ; and not just excluding people statistics suggest wouldn't vote for them. | cmv |
I don't think voter ID laws are that big of a deal. CMV. | Voter fraud is sporadic and not very frequent. If it happens, it would probably fall back to a statistical normal, meaning that the results would not be skewed. ( People on both sides would do it approximatively equally, so any negative effect is diminished ) Demanding ID makes it so that people who don't have identification cards can't vote. This is disproportionally a Democrat demographic. This means that by demanding IDs you are blocking more Democrats from voting than Republicans which skews the vote in favor of Republicans. | cmv |
I don't think voter ID laws are that big of a deal. CMV. | The question is not that it is " that big of a deal " it is that it is any deal at all. If there was a way to do it that was truly easier than what we have now, I'd be all for it. As it is, a change in our current situation that requires just one person to go slightly out of their way to get an ID to vote that didn't need one otherwise is an unnecessary hurdle to democracy. So, right it's not that big of a deal, but it is a small deal that stands in the way of a couple people it's going to stand in the way of a few hundred. And a few hundred people can sway local elections hard. | cmv |
I don't think voter ID laws are that big of a deal. CMV. | There are almost no cases of voter fraud by an individual voting multiple times, like seriously next to zero. The election fraud you see is stuffing ballot boxes, altering ballots or stealing them. This is addressed by having a better system of oversight. The Republican push for voter ID laws and similar things is a blatant attempt to prevent their opposition from voting, no more, no less. It isn't to solve a fraud problem, because that fraud problem simply doesn't exist. | cmv |
I think it should be illegal to spread 3D printer plans for guns. CMV | You said it should be illegal to spread plans. Think about this. Is it illegal to post a blog about how to make a bomb at home ( quite common )? No. a ) freedom of speech. b ) the offence is actually MAKING and USING the bomb. Is it illegal to teach someone how to start a fire? No but when they commit arson, it is their responsibility, not the responsibility of the person who taught them to make fire. Tldr : fine to spread plans, not fine to use plans, build guns, or illegally discharge weaponry | cmv |
I believe all drugs should be legalized. CMV! | It's the right of every human being to consume what they want up until they break into someones home to steal all of their electronics to fuel their meth addiction. If they are able to be thrown in jail for that, then they aren't out committing crimes anymore. How exactly would addicts be healthier? I don't think most hardcore addicts would change just because something became legal. | cmv |
I believe all drugs should be legalized. CMV! | The government's job is to uphold the social contract. Being a full out meth addict does not allow a person to uphold the social contract. The government needs to prevent people from becoming meth addicts. | cmv |
I believe in the absolute sanctity of human life. CMV | Do you ever eat unhealthy food ( which shortens your lifespan ) or take risks that slightly increase your chance of dying ( such as driving at night )? If life were truly sacred, you would choose to maximize the expected quantity of life. But presumably you don't. | cmv |
I believe in the absolute sanctity of human life. CMV | why should the sanctity of human life be the only thing that is protected? if you believe life is sacred why should humans be the only creature blessed with the'right to life '? What makes a human life sacred but not a dogs? Is poaching elephants wrong? Are you a vegetarian? How does a person justify protesting vehemently for the protection of an unborn human but not shed a single tear for the family of mice that died a gruesome death by poison, shattered bones and suffocation from the traps he set in his basement? | cmv |
I believe in the absolute sanctity of human life. CMV | Human morality can't be reduced to one concept. We're a bundle of different values and desires, and none seem to be absolute. Everytime a philosopher or thinker tries to come up with one or even a list, they've been rebuffed by counter - examples, as you already have. Here's one evolutionary explanation on why this might be. It boils down to desires being selected for, or the capacity for them being selected for, without thought over logical contradictions. Gradual adaptations can't have considered or even care that there would one day be an organism that tried to list them all. It's no so much wrong, but impossible to maximize one value over all others. | cmv |
I think it should be illegal for people to not to vote on council / government matters that concern them. CMV. | Forcing people to vote is undemocratic. It isn't a problem that people are not interested in politics, honestly I constantly question whether would be happier if i didn't. But if they don't keep themselves informed then they really shouldn't be voting. It would be wonderful if everyone intensely followed. Maybe all our problems would be solved. But you can force that and, as that's the case, it would be detrimental to the county to say an uninformed voter is just as valuable as an informed one. The only people this would benefit from this are the entrenched powers within the any given system. | cmv |
I think it should be illegal for people to not to vote on council / government matters that concern them. CMV. | It's been said before but I honestly feel that if you're not informed enough to vote, you shouldn't. I'm reminded of this every election cycle. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If people have zero idea of the issues and the candidates, voting at random because they have to doesn't help anyone | cmv |