summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I don't believe that the " T " in LGBT should be included. CMV. | LGBT ( or LGBTQ or LGBTQ + or " queer " when it's being used as a blanket term for all the letters out there ) is a term used to refer to a group of people who have many overlapping similarities socially, politically, emotionally, or otherwise. This group has many differences within it, but it's usually used to talk about things that affect the group as a whole. If people use the term in a context that does not at least somewhat include transgender people, then they are using it wrong. In those cases, that's why the terms homosexual and bisexual exist. | cmv |
I don't believe that the " T " in LGBT should be included. CMV. | Both groups face similar challenges socially ; they are ostracized and attacked and hated for who they are. The root cause of both groups discrimination stems from our society's view of gender roles. Both groups deviate from what is considered normal and are shamed for it. They both face their own unique sets of issues for sure, but their issues are related both in the way they are discriminated against and in the source of the attitudes that lead to that discrimination, and both groups stand to benefit from each others mutual support. | cmv |
I don't believe that the " T " in LGBT should be included. CMV. | Gender - sex variance is caused by the same epigenetic phenomena - anomalies in testosterone sensitivity. Although sex and gender identity are independent variables, they are still related. Gender is essentially sexuality related behavior. Trying to exclude transgender from queer liberation is futile because nobody in the movement is really interested in backstabbing others. We're all about love and ain't nobody got time for hating on trans people. ; ) | cmv |
I don't believe that the " T " in LGBT should be included. CMV. | LGBT folks have been allies since Stonewall or even earlier. And really, both groups are attacked based off the same preconceived notions - that men / women from birth are only allowed to do X. The attitudes that attack them are similar, their stances are similar and they've both been working together, so why split up now? | cmv |
I believe that there is no such thing as " the middle class. " | Actually I think there are many more classes then the typical three people talk about. Super poor - people living in third world countries making 10 cents a day. Poor - below the poverty line. Middle class - people who can pay all their debts, taxes etc without government support. Rich - Those with much more then the middle class. Super rich - those profound wealth, people who make more in a month than most people make in a lifetime. This is all relative to your area. 50k a year in india is way different than 50k a year in Manhattan. The haves vs have nots is a little simple because what defines someone as the haves? | cmv |
There is no good alternative to a democratic form of government. CMV | Are you talking about pure democracy? Not even America is a pure democracy. That would be too chaotic. Democratic republics are where it's at. The people, as a group, are too easily swayed and manipulated, and they are not experts on all the issues that must be voted on. With a democratic republic, we can elect people who represent their constituents and their values, and have their best interests in mind, and it is their job to be educated on the issues. So while I might not have the time in the day to learn about every piece of legislation that needs to be voted on, my representative does, and he can vote for it on my behalf. | cmv |
There is no good alternative to a democratic form of government. CMV | For your consideration, I suggest reading Hans Herman Hoppe's book Democracy : The God that Failed, for an excellent set of arguments why ( if given only the two choices ) monarchy is better than democracy. As simply as I can paraphrase, kings run a privatized government ( as opposed to today's publicly held government ). Kings have a vested interest in seeing the wealth of their estate grow, which means taxing the people minimally, rarely engaging in wars, passing down stable finances to his heirs, and saving for future prosperity for himself. Presidents don't actually own the public resources, so they have an interest in depleting them as quickly as possible to win the most popularity from the public. Presidents don't have to be accountable for massive taxation or inflation or wars or shortages or famines ; since We the PeopleTM appoint Presidents, our only recourse is to entrust another person to not screw things up. While Kings are held in check by revolutions, Presidents are held in check by re - elections. | cmv |
There is no good alternative to a democratic form of government. CMV | Why not see the functioning of'democratic'forms of government today. We see, in the Western Europe and USA a very odd type of system where the illusion of the people's choice is exploited to the maximum by lobbyists, banksters and powerful Presidents. How many times do the people actually win in the democracy of today? While, on the contrary, there have been many successful governments based on different forms of organisation. There have been kings who have fueled prosperity and virtue, while there have also been oligarchies, and societies which are not based on discrimination, like sanghas. They were all successful for their own period of time and most importantly satisfied the aspirations of the people. There will be a period of time in the future when the democratic system breaks down, and people ( and institutions ) will have to evolve with the times. This is because there is always an'anti - incumbency'factor when times get tough. It cannot be said that there is'no good alternative'to it. But it may be the best out of what choice we have today. | cmv |
I believe we should have a holocaust for registered sex offenders. CMV? | Other people have pointed out that the justice system is, obviously, not 100 % reliable. This fact in itself is one good reason why your absolute minded punishment is a bad idea from the get - go. I can understand why you'd propose an idea like this, but in my opinion I can't justify killing another human being for a crime they committed. I don't support the death penalty myself, as I see it hypocritical to amend the wrong doings of another human being by killing them. I just cannot possibly justify this. On death's row, people wait years and years before they are finally given the lethal injection ; in this time I believe every single one of them change, in a fundamental way, to some degree. Because of this change, they are in a way a different person and in some cases undeserving of death. However I am in no way excusing them of their actions. Whatever appropriate punishment one should receive for sexually offending, I cannot possibly justify death. | cmv |
I believe we should have a holocaust for registered sex offenders. CMV? | A society should be judged by how it treats its mentally ill and its poor, how do you think throwing the mentally ill into ovens and gas chambers reflects on us? Your idea is much like the death penalty, it may make sense in an ideal world but with our justice system it can't work. How many people are wrongly imprisoned every year in the US? Enough that you can't sue for damages any more, that's how many... it happens so much that they set a dollar value for every day you're wrongly incarcerated. | cmv |
I believe we should have a holocaust for registered sex offenders. CMV? | When the death penalty is considered as a punishment, it vastly increases the standard of proof at the trial. The lower the penalty, the less evidence is necessary to get a conviction. The state ( and society by extension ) does this because it considers it less repulsive for the guilty to go free than for the wrongly accused to die. The unintended consequence of your holocaust is that fewer sex offenders will be convicted because the prosecution will have a tougher job to prove their guilt. | cmv |
I believe we should have a holocaust for registered sex offenders. CMV? | While not particularly classy, I really can't hold anything against someone who is a registered sex offender merely because the spot they happened to engage in public urination happened to be a rather poorly - lit playground. As far as " obviously a rapist ", by what standard are you judging? The standard for calling rape has declined so far that a woman will claim rape just to avoid cab fare. What about the declaration of rape because the woman regretted the sex? Perhaps confronted by her friends, family, boyfriend, fiance, or husband? In a perfectly transparent world I would be inclined to agree with you. The man with a blackjack, chloroform, gags, chains, duct - tape, etc who seriously aims to destroy their target could be struck by lightning and I would be inclined to agree we are better off. As low as the bar is for these accusations, I almost instantly dismiss any story I hear as bullshit. | cmv |
I don't think males are more " privileged " than females, CMV. | I think the challenge to change your view amounts to finding a means to compare the relative advantages of being a man or woman in today's society. It's clear that there are advantages and disadvantages to both, and comparing the two is likely a game of apples and oranges if you don't already think that the more obvious burdens of being a woman outweigh those carried by men. I don't think that this is an effectively framed CMV topic because it is not yet precise - enough to generate standards against which its core claims can be measured. Other views, such as'the male concern about X should be considered equally important to the generally female concern about Y ', could be more effectively discussed. I think that re - framing the topic may also capture your real concerns more accurately. | cmv |
I think capital punishment is always wrong. CMV | People are placed into jail for their whole lives and end up dying in the jail anyways in some cases. I think for certain crimes that a person is placed in prison for such a long time anyways it is better for them to be killed. It's basically torture if not killed. | cmv |
I think capital punishment is always wrong. CMV | You mention murder, but what if the crime is so catastrophic that many people in society are affected? Take for instance a mass bombing or a mass shooting. Do the same rules for capital punishment still apply? | cmv |
I think capital punishment is always wrong. CMV | That's an interesting view. There are two common arguments for the death penalty. The retributive argument states that punishment should be more serious for more serious crimes because the criminal'deserves'the punishment, and that some crimes are serious enough to warrant the death penalty. You'd probably agree with this one, but you'd say that death is a lesser punishment than life in prison. I'd disagree with you there, but I also disagree with the retributive argument, as I believe the function of the criminal justice system is to prevent crime, not punish criminals. The second argument for the death penalty is the argument from deterrence. This argument is that the death penalty is good because potential criminals are more worried about it, and as such may not commit crimes - thus, the death penalty deters crimes. The problem with this argument is that no one really knows if a deterrence effect exists, and most criminal justice experts believe it does not. Ultimately, I agree with you that the death penalty should be abolished. But if you agree that death is a greater punishment or that the death penalty deters crime, you could say that it was morally valid. | cmv |
It is absolutely unreasonable for people to praise Pope Francis. | I was going to post a response to CYV but I felt that it would be useless on the count of the ignorance you have. 1 ) you are stating the immorality of the Catholic Church as fact ( which is clearly not a fact ) and won't let it w apart of anyone's argument. And 2 ) you are criticizing him for sticking to the beliefs of the bible i. e. abortion and gay marriage ( not saying these are right nor wrong ) | cmv |
It is absolutely unreasonable for people to praise Pope Francis. | I'm no fan of organized religion in general, nor the institution of the Catholic church in particular. But I submit that the Pope's actions can at least in a small way be judged in the context of past Popes. After all, the only way for him to satisfy someone such as you or I would be to disband the church entirely, or make such fundamental changes that it wouldn't be recognizable to its adherents. If you accept this premise, than his remarks from just today should earn at least a small amount of praise. | cmv |
I believe ALL drugs should be legalized. CMV. | People of sound mind should be allowed to make decisions about their own body. This is why we allow people to refuse medical procedures if they so choose, This is why we allow abortions, this is why we should allow suicide for terminally ill patients etc. The key here is that they must be of sound mind. If some kid is suicidal he or she is almost certainly not of sound mind - they may be suffering from depression or other ailment that impairs their brain's ability to function properly. By that same token, many drugs affect your brain chemistry. Allowing unrestricted access to drugs would allow people to take drugs that impair their own ability to make good, rational decisions about what is best for them. The drug alters their brain in a way that makes it unable to have free choice in the matter, they are a slave to the effects of the drug. Furthermore, unrestricted access to drugs would be dangerous. Even if we agree that I have a right to take whatever drugs I want, many drugs are difficult or impossible to detect and they could be misused. People could slip others drugs to affect their decision making or to inflict harm. | cmv |
I believe that the new form of Republicanism, is propagating lies and hindering progress in our country ( United States ). CMV | I wish the people doing the down voting would try and CMV Ten downvotes yet only one person trying to change my view...? Dont be scared to try an CMV | cmv |
Brass Knuckles should be legal, CMV. | The problem is that a Knife have multiple functions. You have a knife, but probably is not for stabbing someone. If you have a Brass Knuckles, its because you are planning to fight. | cmv |
Brass Knuckles should be legal, CMV. | No writing by the founding fathers or any supreme court case, to my knowledge, has ever held " arms " to mean anything other then firearms. Something that a militia would use to fight invasion, insurrection, or tyranny. Do you know of any case or writing that would dispute this view? | cmv |
I think having a minimum wage is bad. CMV. | I think it is bad for a few people who are so unskilled that they cannot create a minimum wage amount of value for an employer. However, there are enough jobs that require a minimally skilled person there that making a level " bottom " wage brings a lot of people up. If we have too many people making next to nothing, we either need to have a lot of poverty or the government has to fill in the gaps. And why should the government pay workers for employers? | cmv |
I think having a minimum wage is bad. CMV. | The pay off a job IS agreed by employer and worker. You can technically negotiate the pay you receive and get higher than minimum wage. Minimum wage exists in order to protect people from servitude and the people with money exploiting those without. A step down from any wage is no wage or a company'agreeing'with a person to give them coupons which can only be redeemed at establishments they own, basically creating a loop on money which never leaves them. You cannot argue people could just not work there. People get desperate when the only job left could theoretically force 16 hours, no wage but gives you a small shelter and enough food per day. | cmv |
I think having a minimum wage is bad. CMV. | But that's how the minimum wage was reached. The minimum wage came about as part of a compromise between organized labor and employers via the government. If you abolished the minimum wage, workers would just organize and push for it again like they had in the past. | cmv |
I don't believe a man / woman can really genuinely change their sex, and they should not be referred to as their changed sex. CMV. | You are confusing gender and sex. Not everyone who changes gender ( or attempts to according to you ) changes their sex also. Gender is a social construct which may or may not be based on biological differences between sexes. But in modern society, gender is your identity, not simply what sex organ is down there. Maybe a good way to start is for you to explain what you consider to be the distinguishing features between male and female. Is it simply genitalia? What is feminine and masculine characteristics? Are they all based on genitalia? | cmv |
I don't believe a man / woman can really genuinely change their sex, and they should not be referred to as their changed sex. CMV. | You can't change biology, and it's a damn shame. I can't imagine what it would be like to feel that I woke up in the wrong body every day for the rest of my life. The best I can think of is that feeling of " unwelcomeness " and unease when you are somewhere you don't want to be, and where nobody else wants you there either... only constantly, because the source of that sense of not - belonging stems from your own physical self. So we put band - aids on the problem, because there is no real, 100 % solution, but these band - aids help these afflicted people feel just a little bit better about their situation. Maybe they're never entirely happy and content with their bodies, but who is? We refer to them as their chosen gender because it's the kind thing to do. Because it costs us nothing, and to rub their hardship - - something we haven't experienced, in their faces by going out of our way to remind them that they're still " wrong " is cruel, and we don't want to be cruel. Does calling someone who was born male " ma'am " or " she " or " her " take away the sting of being in the wrong body entirely? Nah, but it's a really insignificant thing to do as a show of compassion for what these folks are going through. | cmv |
I don't believe a man / woman can really genuinely change their sex, and they should not be referred to as their changed sex. CMV. | I think you're conflating sex and gender here. Sex is biological, hardcoded into chromosomes. While you can have surgery to alter primary and secondary sex characteristics, you can't change your genes. So, fair point on that. Gender, however, is - - while this may not be correct term - - psychological, and sometimes has nothing to do with sex - assigned - at - birth. It's easy to do in a lot of cases, as the two terms are often thought of as being synonymous. As for referring to a transgendered person by their chosen pronouns, while it may not make sense to you, using the wrong pronoun ( especially doing so intentionally ) can be perceived as offensive - - - especially given the discrimination people outside the gender binary already face. Just some food for thought! | cmv |
I believe Presidents should be treated by respect regardless of if you agree with their policies or not. | Let's say that, hypothetically, a President - let's call him Smandrew Jackson - decides to commit genocide by forcibly evicting native americans from their land and then marching them - at gunpoint - without any kind of reasonable basic needs met to Oklahoma of all places. We don't show respect for murderers. It's not that he implemented bad policy - it's that he doesn't have basic respect for human life. | cmv |
I believe Presidents should be treated by respect regardless of if you agree with their policies or not. | I think that all HUMANS should be treated with respect. That will not happen. Presidents have no more right than everyone else. If people can be dickbags to other people, people should have the right to be dickbags to the president. | cmv |
I believe Presidents should be treated by respect regardless of if you agree with their policies or not. | Do you think presidents should have a lower standard for respect than the average person? I don't. If a President does something morally abhorrent ( and many of them have ) then I have every right to not respect them. | cmv |
I think the United States should maintain an isolationist foreign policy, CMV | I agree in that I think that would be ideal, but the world has changed, and it will never go back to the way it was. America has set a standard, and other nations have observed that our practice of placing standing military presences across the globe has been successful and has allowed us to secure many interests which we would not have been able to otherwise. We simply occupy a position that, if we were to leave, would be filled by another hoping to occupy the lucrative but arguably immoral role that we now fill. I think a different solution is called for, although I agree that it would require the US to relinquish it's role as the world police. We have certainly dug ourselves into a hole here. | cmv |
I am a Christian that knows homosexuality is a sin, but as in American I believe it should be allowed CMV? | This might be a violation of rule III but I'm just leaving this here for informations sake " Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived : neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality " 1 Corinthians 6 : 9 ESV | cmv |
I am a Christian that knows homosexuality is a sin, but as in American I believe it should be allowed CMV? | Full disclosure : I am a non - theist and don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality. I don't think it is morally or practically wrong in any sense. Your views actually are not conflicting for a couple of reasons! 1 : The United States constitution calls for a separation of church and state, which is why the " rules " for each are different. So the average American citizen, by the constitution upon which the nation was founded, isn't obliged to observe or follow rules established by the church. 2 : God gave us free will, knowing that we would sin. In fact we all sin constantly, because we are imperfect and human, and Jesus ( as I understand ) died so that we had the opportunity to be forgiven for our sins. That homosexuality happens is guaranteed by the above clauses... of course, by your religious beliefs, homosexuals should repent and atone for this sin in order to be forgiven, or there are consequences... just not legal ones, because the constitution precludes this. | cmv |
I am a Christian that knows homosexuality is a sin, but as in American I believe it should be allowed CMV? | Not sure if this is about approval of gay marriage or outlawing gays period, might want to rephrase your OP. Just because you believe " homosexuality is a sin and should not be allowed " doesn't give you any power or rights. As Americans you and I are both subject to the laws of our nation and those of the Constitution. The 1st Amendment clearly states that Congress ( and by extension any state or local government ) cannot make any laws regarding religion, so, therefore, your religious belief on homosexuality is invalid when discussing legislation. Ethically, not letting two people in a committed relationship marry is a travesty and is the real " sin. " As to America being " the land of the free, " I don't see how it applies to gays, unless you're advocating enslaving them. | cmv |
I don't think people are automatically entitled to free healthcare and education. CMV. | The most basic moral argument, in regard to free healthcare, might be human life is invaluable. Not wanting to help contribute to free healthcare is saying that your money is more valuable than another person. Would you be willing to list the price value you place on a fellow human? How would we determine what cost someone is worth and when to pull the plug ; is that one extra dollar not worth their life? | cmv |
I don't think people are automatically entitled to free healthcare and education. CMV. | By'free'healthcare and education, are you talking about people who have never worked but still take from the system? I can only assume that this is it - I'm from the UK and although we technically have'free'healthcare and education, we all pay tax on anything we earn over a certain amount, some of which goes towards maintaining schools and hospitals. I can understand why it would seem unfair that someone who has never paid into the system will still get something back from it, but the number of people that this will actually apply to are a minority. And in terms of education, it would be very difficult to determine whether someone is going to'pay back'the cost of their education once they're old enough to work, so it makes sense to educate everyone equally and accept that a small number will slip through the net. | cmv |
I don't think people are automatically entitled to free healthcare and education. CMV. | If the world wasn't swarming with people, access to open land, soil, and resources would be " free. " But we're born into a world where other people have " claimed " the whole earth already. That doesn't make it theirs, though. The very least that should be done for those of us who've had the earth itself " taken away from us before we were even born " should be the access to function in the society created by this human swarm. Health care and education do more to overturn this " preemptive exclusion from the earth " than almost anything else could. | cmv |
I think public service should be mandatory prior to full citizenship ( USA ) - CMV | Early in its history, Wisconsin used to have some of the worst roads imaginable. This was because they allowed citizens to choose between paying taxes that contributed to the roads, OR to volunteer to work on the roads. These work parties became little more than drunken roadside picnics in true Wisconsin fashion, and very little work was actually accomplished. And this was done voluntarily. Imagine the " quality " of work you would get from begrudging, unhappy workers. | cmv |
I think public service should be mandatory prior to full citizenship ( USA ) - CMV | I'm against this because it violates freedom to force people to work for the government. If the government wants people to work in education ( and they do ), they should pay people to do it ( and they do ). What's wrong with that system? | cmv |
I think public service should be mandatory prior to full citizenship ( USA ) - CMV | Do you believe everyone needs to be a citizen or are you referring to a scenario like Robert Heinlein's " Starship Troopers " in which a society has both citizens and residents? What exactly is public service and how do you measure it? Does serving a year as a cop in a quiet suburb count as much as a year overseas deployment to a combat zone? What about owning a business that creates jobs? Negotiating with a foreign business for a favorable deal? How favorable of a deal equals how much citizenship? | cmv |
I don't think the wearing of seat - belts or motorcycle / bicycle helmets should be compulsory. CMV | I agree mostly - however, there is a money issue involved. If people don't wear seatbelts or helmets, healthcare costs will skyrocket. Even if they have insurance. Premiums will go up, because no hospital is going to turn away a dying accident victim, even if they weren't wearing a helmet. Taking care of these people is really expensive. Someone has to pay for it and it's almost never them | cmv |
I don't think the wearing of seat - belts or motorcycle / bicycle helmets should be compulsory. CMV | That is a valid point for helmets but not for seatbelts. The government is concerned with public safety. If a crash, not wearing a seatbelt, you become a projectile and a danger to everyone around you. The law isn't to protect you from yourself but to protect others from you. | cmv |
I don't believe Marijuana is the miracle plant it is made out to be on reddit CMV. | The reason it's made out to be this miracle plant as you describe it, is because it's not yet legal. For the most part, marijuana does little to no damage to human health. Far less, for example, than tobacco and alcohol. People want marijuana to be legal and people to have more control over what drugs they put inside their own body. Raising the profile of it as much as possible is the only way they can let this happen. If the studies showing it's beneficial effects were ignored by those campaigning for the drug, they will definitely ignore it higher up the chain. Once legality is met people will more than likely shut up about it. They'll just carry on with their lives and not a lot will change. As for the addictive nature, people say it's not addictive and you can assume they're referring to the medical definition which is that your body becomes dependent on it. If people smoked it enough of course their body would become dependent on it, but as you said that's the case for most substances and you can safely express in a medical context that mango juice is not addictive, but try telling my sister that. | cmv |
I don't believe Marijuana is the miracle plant it is made out to be on reddit CMV. | Are you dubious of its utility as an anti - nausea medication? Or its efficacy at relieving glaucoma? Do you think it doesn't help prevent myelin sheaths from deteriorating? Do you doubt that it counteracts the negative effects of heavy alcohol drinking? Or is it that these aren't miraculous? Or that it also has negative effects? I would agree that it has negative effects too... There is a bias of tokers to support the plant they smoke, as a sports fan supports their team... what exactly is it you don't like about it? | cmv |
I believe that the U. S. Senate filibuster should be changed. CMV | Abolishing filibuster means either party can rule semi - absolutely with a simple 51 % majority. This is very, very risky. Filibustering renders a 60 % majority necessary for such control to take place. That's harder to attain ( and easier to overturn ) from a national standpoint. Filibustering also does not put a stop to all voting - - only to all voting on a particular matter. | cmv |
I believe that the U. S. Senate filibuster should be changed. CMV | Filibuster force a senate majority into gaining a broad coalition into voting fo their bill. Without it, each party would be able to repeal all the other party's bills every time the senate changed hands ( potentially every 2 years ). Also the filibuster protects the minority party. If you're in the minority in the senate you can't force the majority leader to hear even relatively non - partisan ones. The threat of a filibuster allows these amendments to come up on less contentious bills. | cmv |
Every aspect of technology in our lives is improving the way we live. CMV | We have more carcinogenic chemicals in our houses and our bodies. Technology increases demand for resources and hastens climate change and other environmental problems. People have easy access to instructions for making bombs. Photographs of stupid decisions can be widely distributed and last forever. | cmv |
Every aspect of technology in our lives is improving the way we live. CMV | Look at the way teenagers behave these days. All face down texting all day unable to deal with real world issues. There are already studies done that say teenagers would rather give up their car then their phone because they prefer to do things remotely ( no real world interaction ). I agree that technology is a good thing overall in many ways but the idea that it's all good is patently false. | cmv |
I believe that fast food and other unhealthy foods should be taxed extra CMV | If we are to be taxed, I don't think anything should be taxed at a different rate than anything else. The goal of taxation should be revenue collection, but taxing unequally is social engineering. Why should it be the government's job to encourage and discourage certain behaviours? Giving them this permission ( which they already have and use ) implies that the government knows what's best for us more than we do. It should be each person's responsibility to take care of their bodies. You want to get super fat? Cool, not my problem. Also, the government currently makes a lot of unhealthy food cheap through agriculture subsidies, the big one being corn. This makes high fructose corn syrup a cheap way to make food taste good, yet it is not very healthy. In my opinion, getting rid of these subsidies would go much further in preventing obesity, and taxing these foods that are already heavily subsidized would probably distort the market like crazy and just seems like a completely backwards and illogical way to fix the problem. | cmv |
I believe that fast food and other unhealthy foods should be taxed extra CMV | I think the biggest problem is relating'health'do different people's diets. To a 5ft girl, a bigmac meal is probably a significant part of their daily calorie intake. But for a 6ft body builder? It's just a snack. Sugar, fat, cholesterol - none of it is bad for you. In fact, you'd be really unhealthy without them. It's the quantities of them which are an issue. How do you determine an'unhealthy'limit, if everyone's daily requirements are drastically different? | cmv |
I believe that fast food and other unhealthy foods should be taxed extra CMV | Two obvious objections : - " Fast food " and " unhealthy food " are by no means identical. Why lump them together? Even chains like McDonald's and Wendy's now offer many dishes that are as " fast " as their more dubious options without being unhealthy in the slightest. - By what metric is the " unhealthiness " of a food determined? | cmv |
I believe that fast food and other unhealthy foods should be taxed extra CMV | Sorry, but you just mixed up healhty vs unhealthy with people that know what to eat to be healthy vs stupid people. There's no such a thing as something that's inherently healthy. ( Though there are things that are inherently unhealthy, like poisons. ) The problem isn't that people are eating at McDonalds, the problem is that they get 5 extra big hamburgers + super size coke. Anyone with half a brain knows that if they do that everyday, they will get fat - even the people that get fat knew they would. The problem was never the food, but the people eating too much. Take apples, for example. A 200g apple has something like 100 kcal. If someone eats 30 of said apples in a day, unless they are really big or have a really fast metabolism, they will store the extra calories as fat. That doesn't make the apples unhealthy, it makes the people eating them stupid, there is a big difference. | cmv |
The death penalty should be WIDELY implemented for repeat offenders - people who have demonstrated time and time again that they cannot operate within society. CMV. | " However, not all criminals are able to benefit from rehabilitation into society, as our prisons filled with repeat offenders demonstrate. " Criminal recidivism is highly correlated with psychopathy. I feel as if the process of rehabilitation has gone the way of psychotherapy, an inexact science, so it could GREATLY benefit itself by just having a look at how far that rabbit hole goes. " Humans who cannot exercise the ability to control themselves within a society should not be treated as humans, but as the lower functioning animals that they are. These are the cancers that eat away at the whole - unable to be cured, a burden to maintain, and of absolutely no utility to society " Unable to be cured? I'd say that's inconclusive at best. A burden to maintain? Believe it or not we do have folks who make a pretty decent wage tending to these " animals ", no different from a zookeeper. Are zoos of any real social or cultural significance? | cmv |
The death penalty should be WIDELY implemented for repeat offenders - people who have demonstrated time and time again that they cannot operate within society. CMV. | Alright, seeing that you are a utilitarian, I will try to approach changing your view in that regard. First, i would to propose that even being in prison, they could still contribute to society through labor and other skills they have. Admittedly, perhaps not in the United States, but in other countries, forced labor is common. In fact in the United States itself, incarnation facilities are privately owned and profit driven. Secondly, killing people would not grant the government any favor. For the victim families, the death of a loved one may adversely affect them mentally and physically thus reducing their contribution to society. Groups which are against the government could also use this to gain favor from the victim family and friends. Potential backlash and politically instability would also reduce utility. TL ; DR The opportunity cost may not be there to justify the capital punishment | cmv |
I believe that the Palestinian people are just as responsible for the segregation as the Israelis. CMV | There has been terrorism and intimidation and brutality on both sides of the conflict for the past 70 + years. Neither side has a monopoly on that, or even a preponderance of responsibility. Hamas doesn't lead " the Palestinians " as though they were some monolithic group. Hamas is the government that the people of Gaza elected. Hamas has no role or authority in the West Bank, which is run by Fatah and their anti - violence, pro - peace leader Mahmoud Abbas. The conflict isn't " Israel vs. Hamas ", you realize. How much would you say the average student in the West Bank is responsible for the occupation, when for many of them, it started over 20 years before they were even born? | cmv |
I believe that the Palestinian people are just as responsible for the segregation as the Israelis. CMV | Undoubtedly both populations are responsible for the violence taking place. Yet in your title you mention that both populations are responsible for " the segregation ". In this i disagree, since segregation only happened once Israelis / Zionists moved there. Palestine was home to myslims, jews, christians long before even the british settled there. Everyone was living in an heterogenous society, but no population was segregated. It all started when zionists came over. Finally the definition of terrorism is also something you must provide. Since by my definition the israeli state, and pretty much every country holding nukes is a mega terrorist. | cmv |
I believe that MSNBC is bad for American liberals, progressives, and the left. CMV. | MSNBC is not all the most thoughtful, nuanced political reasoning out there. And it is fawning, bordering on fanboyish, with notable Democratic figures. And if it were the only source out there for left - leaning news, we'd be in a sad state - Ed Schultz's Twitter questions make me nauseous and Chris Matthews'notion of " hardball " discussion comes off as more whiny than commanding. Watching two hours a night of the stuff will leave you unbalanced and misinformed. But it is important to have them out there for the " fifteen minutes of news a week " crowd. It's important to drive turnout in the less - informed sectors of the electorate, who won't vote unless someone is frothing at the mouth about involuntary transvaginal ultrasounds or poor kids losing their Medicaid coverage. It's important to drive donations and volunteer team spirit in the people who will never be cerebral about their politics, not matter what's on TV. It's important to show that Al Sharpton, for example, is a smart guy with a wicked sense of humor and some legitimate points, to put a likeable, human counterpoint to the Rush Limbaugh caricature of affirmative action politics on the air. And every once in a while, Maddow or Lawrence O'Donnell will use those fabulous NBC connections and budget to unearth some under - examined, deeply wonkish point, and we're all better for it. | cmv |
I think that juveniles who commit serious / violent crimes should be tried as adults in court. CMV | If juveniles are tried as adults in court, then what is the point of the juvenile justice system? I don't fully disagree. I think they should be taken on case - by - case basis in that some brutal and violent crimes, for example if some 14 year old admits to murdering his / her family and there is extensive evidence, they clearly show no signs of being able to rehabilitate therefore the adult system is more appropriate. But some kids honestly just make mistakes. That's what the juvenile system is for. | cmv |
I think that juveniles who commit serious / violent crimes should be tried as adults in court. CMV | all indications are that the juvenile brain in development isn't the same as an adult. In my opinion, greater consequences would have exactly no bearing on the situation, given the propensity for those involved to be unaware of the ramifications of their actions the way that an adult would. Just the same way as great consequences have no effect on crimes of passion, because the people involved in crimes of passion have no handle on the rationality of committing them. In other words, it's a great way for the victims and the families of these crimes to feel like punishment has been meted, but only makes them feel better for a time and doesn't address or mitigate why something happened. I agree that it would be a great palliative to the people who feel that they are victims, but it wouldn't solve the problem or acknowledge the particulars of why they are treated differently. revenge is always petty, no matter how you get it. | cmv |
I think that juveniles who commit serious / violent crimes should be tried as adults in court. CMV | what if we improved education? what if we added more classes to the curriculum, such as psychology or feelings or more'practical'studies, so people would be better? what if prison was almost as much about modifying behavior as it is about punishment? I truly don't think there are that many people who would commit serious crimes if we tried to improve our society through nurturing and caring ways. The problem is that we seem to already punish people very harshly in the usa even for minor things. So that's another reason why I don't think more punishment is the necessarily the answer. | cmv |
I think that juveniles who commit serious / violent crimes should be tried as adults in court. CMV | The juvenile brain is not as developed as an adult. Many times, depending on how old a child is, they may have just been taught right and wrong by their parent / guardian, and if their parent or guardian has a messed up world view, how is it fair to punish the child for the parent's neglect? Mens rea is viewed as a necessary element for crimes, and children just don't have the mens rea to be prosecuted as adults. | cmv |
I think most people who criticize the " American " education system have no idea of what they are talking about. CMV | People seem to be touching on the fact that the wealth of your area dictates your education even in the public school system. Which you countered saying that people should take issue with the individual state then and not the federal system. Surely it would require some sort federal mandate to provide equality between these areas? And if there is a huge disparity in standard then the government is at fault. You can blame the areas ( states ) but once somewhere is successful it enticed the best teachers and perpetuates the inequality, there is little chance for the lesser schools to get out of their rut. | cmv |
I think most people who criticize the " American " education system have no idea of what they are talking about. CMV | I think the level of the American education system is comparable to all other developed countries. But there are some blind patriots who claim that the American system is the best in the world. As a result, others feel provoked to make an equally exaggerated contradicting statement. | cmv |
I think most people who criticize the " American " education system have no idea of what they are talking about. CMV | I would generalize and say that most people who criticize any complex system have no idea of what they're talking about. Talking about gun control? You have no idea what you're talking about. Talking about health care? No idea. You have to have a lot of knowledge and experience to " know what you're talking about ". Most people don't have that. | cmv |
I don't believe that women should have to mandatory join the draft. CMV | It's not good to base selection of anything in society on gender because the differences within genders are bigger than differences between them. There are some women who are more suitable for battle than some men, both physically and mentally. As an example, it would be much better to draft a large female police officer than a skinny male cartoonist. About that hormone thing. Some ( not all ) women are noticeably affected by monthly hormonal cycles. Only in rare cases does this affect their ability to function normally. I've never even heard before that it would affect their ability to make decisions. Is this something you just made up? | cmv |
I don't believe that women should have to mandatory join the draft. CMV | Do you believe it should be mandatory for men to join the draft? I agree that men are better suited for military life, but I also believe any nation who's constituents wouldn't volunteer to defend it deserves the fate it gets. If given the chance, I would transition all military forces to a strictly volunteer force. | cmv |
I don't believe that women should have to mandatory join the draft. CMV | Think of it this way : that the US military opened up frontline combat positions to women shows that they clearly have the ability to perform satisfactorily in said positions - the US military knows far more about this than you or I. So assuming this is true, why should women not have to join the draft when men do? If they can fight just as well, which the US military has implied, then the only possible reason for allowing them the luxury of not joining is a belief that the lives of women are worth more than those of men. This is an unfair, misandric belief. | cmv |
I don't think that gay / lesbian individuals should be allowed to marry individuals of the same sex. CMV | In other words : You gays can already marry someone that we approve of! If the law only allows marriages that are meaningful to straight people, how is that not discrimination towards gay people? | cmv |
I don't think that gay / lesbian individuals should be allowed to marry individuals of the same sex. CMV | And what makes our beliefs more important than those who think differently, so much so that yours should be codified in law in opposition to ours? Is it particularly fair that I wouldn't be able to marry somebody based on my sex? Or is that sexism? And when it comes to my beliefs, is that discrimination that they're not respected by the government like yours are? | cmv |
I don't think that gay / lesbian individuals should be allowed to marry individuals of the same sex. CMV | Honestly, allowing couples of the same sex to marry would NOT change human rights in a negative way. " Gay marriage " would be a possibility, not an obligation. If you allow couples to marry, regardless of gender, you would only improove human rights, giving Everyone the right to marry who they love. | cmv |
I don't think that gay / lesbian individuals should be allowed to marry individuals of the same sex. CMV | How about leaving marriage as a sacrament for religious folks and simply changing the terms to " civil union " or something for a pair of people that love each other living together? In that thread, why not just give those folks living together the same legal status as a married couple? Why should they be excluded from the tax breaks and whatnot? The government giving one man - one woman marriages legal perks is a fair way to encourage procreation. The only problem with that is that there is no way to determine whether a couple is interested in each other like that without asking them, and they could simply lie if asked. The biggest tell - tale factor in " we aren't going to have children " is homosexuality. Therefore, I can understand the government not giving benefits to those couples, and, because those benefits are defined in terms of marriage, I can understand general opposition within the government to homosexual marriage. I've got nothing against living / loving together, I just sympathize with the lack of fitting and separate terms for the two cases ( creating new children / not ). Of course this gets into a grey area when you consider adoption, but procreative chances are zero with a gay couple, where they are most likely non - zero with a straight couple. | cmv |
I don't think that gay / lesbian individuals should be allowed to marry individuals of the same sex. CMV | At least in the United States, there are benefits that come with marriage, such as filing jointly, inheritance, etc., and if the government is forbidding these to anyone, then it is unconstitutional. Now, you can argue that men and women can marry someone of the opposite sex if they want the benefits, but part of the benefit of marriage is sharing these benefits with someone they love. Naturally, a gay person will probably not love someone of the opposite sex. Simply the fact that they are entitled to enter into a marriage is not enough for it to be " equal, " it has to be open to the person that they love, just as it is for straight couples. Also, as I understand it, in our society we do base our laws on why something should or should not be legal, we argue why something should or should not be illegal. It's an important distinction that places the burden of proof on those that wish to make or keep something illegal - - you need to prove that having something legal would come to tangible, negative consequences. Naturally, the marriage equality movement has very articulate about the reasons why gay marriage should be legal, not only fulfilling a burden of proof that does not apply to them, but also raised arguments that people against marriage equality must answer. So, along those lines, I ask you, why should marriage equality be illegal? | cmv |
I don't think that gay / lesbian individuals should be allowed to marry individuals of the same sex. CMV | I like how OP hasn't responded to any posts in more than three hours. I don't think you fully understand the term'marriage '. It is exclusively a LEGAL term, therefore, your RELIGIOUS beliefs don't impact it's legal implications in any way. | cmv |
I don't think that gay / lesbian individuals should be allowed to marry individuals of the same sex. CMV | Marriage is essentially a recognition of people voluntarily uniting as family. All other family relationships are blood - related. ( Adoption is legally similar to marriage, but involves a dependency relationship with adult ( s ) on one side and minor ( s ) on the other. ) When people who wish to live together, share lives, raise children, pool resources, etc - - more or less, live as family - - are legally recognized in this endeavor, life becomes far less difficult to navigate. Hospitals consider you family, for example, during " family - only hours. " You're automatically considered " next of kin. " Things like that. Even if the word " marriage " itself means a man and a woman, the tangible legal / economic implications for people are farther - reaching than any word. Just as a person's body is more important than the clothes they where, the " practical contents of a relationship " matter more than whatever the law calls it. In short, even if people don't believe a homosexual relationship can ever " count " as a marriage, we have to ask ourselves if using legal and economic " weaponry " to make their lives harder is an appropriate way for adults to treat people they disagree with. | cmv |
I believe that most of what is called " circle - jerking " in / r / atheism is pretty much justified. Atheists are a persecuted minority across most of the world, and discrimination against them is a huge problem. CMV | One of the issues I see with r / atheism is that some of the most upvoted posts are ones which seem like they are blatantly attacking religious peoples views, which makes them seem as intolerant as the ones they are trying to go against. People can believe that no god exists, but trying to press your views onto others isnt really going to go down well. Theres also the america - centric content, all the science content ( people can believe in god and science ), the self congratulatory stuff, etc. I just think that half the posts are as intolerant as the people who they seem to oppose. While your points are certainly valid, an " atheist " forum with zero moderation filled with people isnt a very effective place for real discussion etc. also r / trueatheism 40000 subs | cmv |
I think smoking in public ( on public property ) should be illegal : violators should be fined. CMV! | By your reasoning we should have to stop that delivery truck, public transit bus, cars and cabs from spewing known toxins in public. We should stop the power plants from spewing their toxins for everyone to breathe. Also by your reasoning those who choose to eat fast foods and become obese with all sorts of ailments should also be restricted because they, while not directly impacting others, cause health care costs to rise due to their lifestyle. For every thing someone wants to ban in public, you just open the door to more and more things people find offensive and want to ban too. | cmv |
I think r / politics should try a week of CMV's blank rating system, CMV | They already do that, just for a shorter time than us, because by the time the scores show up all the top comments have already been upvoted to the top and the rest of the comments are just going to get buried. Also nobody would stop downvoting. They'd continue to downvote, probably worse than before because if somebody already has 5 + downvotes and they can't see them, they'll just assume that they don't have that many downvotes and downvote them more, which is pretty unnecessary. | cmv |
I believe that the Unites States was justified in dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. CMV | Purposeful killing of civilians is a war crime. The same nations had previously punished and executed Germans for war crimes, then they go and slaughter 200. 000 civilians. I think that demonstrates that they didn't really give a crap about anyone except themselves. | cmv |
I believe that the Unites States was justified in dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. CMV | I think the issue is more than " if it was necessary ". The US was never held accountable for the crime. It's not as if a crime that is " necessary " isn't tried. If you steal a store to feed yourself - it is still likely that you will go to jail. This is completely different than whether it was necessary. If there was a bigger risk of the US being held accountable - history might have been much different. As it stands now - it has set a very bad precedent for the use of nuclear weapons and the accountability for their use. | cmv |
I believe that the Unites States was justified in dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. CMV | This is a common issue on / r / AskHistorians and I would suggest you to browse it if you are interested in a more detailed discussion ( or wikipedia ). Now, for a ( not so ) brief discussion. The atomic bombs were still not fully understood at the time, so it's real impact were unforeseeable. But most of it ( as we know now ) was done after the impact, by contamination. In the moment of surrender the firebombing were much more damaging than the atomic bombs. Also the japanese were afraid of the URSS entering the war. They had tried several times extending peace pacts with them, but in the end the soviets entered the war. The land invasion were not part of US plans, but were part of URSS plans. TLDR : For 2 reasons ( firebombing caused more death tools and soviet land invasion of Japan were imminent ) I believe the importance of the atomic bombings is overestimated. | cmv |
I believe that the Unites States was justified in dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. CMV | So there really isn't a way to know what would have happened without it happening, but your view is one shared by many. That said, the figures of " hundreds of thousands of American lives being saved " comes from a 1953 article published in Harper's by Stimson, and it was ex post facto rationale. It's not know what would have happened, and the Japanese people were already war weary. Also, we had sunk $ 2b into the bomb and many historians have argued that the sunk cost was a big part of the decision to use the bomb, rather than pragmatic views of future human cost. " Hiroshima in History and Memory " is a great collection of essays that argues different angles on this issue. | cmv |
I believe that the Unites States was justified in dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. CMV | Killing civilians is never justified, even if it would save more lives in the long run. Civilians are not involved in war and if they are killed in the course of the war, that is a war crime, and it it's on ethical par with murder. I bet that those who make this argument would be singing a different tune if civilian friends or family members had been murdered in the course of war. | cmv |
I believe that the Unites States was justified in dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. CMV | Have you considered that dropping atomic bombs on more militarily - relevant targets may have been better, rather than targeting civilian - dense cities? See, usually when civilians are deliberately targeted en masse, we call it " terrorism. " But targeting military infrastructures? We call those " acts of war. " To win a war, one must only destroy the enemy's ability to fight. There is never a good enough political reason to execute a huge number of civilians to prompt a surrender. | cmv |
Pedophiles are some of the most pitiable people in modern society. CMV | Thanks for your thoughtfulness on this issue. I am a non - child - abusing pedophile and, as you suspect, it really sucks. It is a burden at times almost too much to bear. I understand that it might be for the best to have a least some stigma, but I suspect the situation we have does more harm than good for society. It certainly makes life harder for people like me. It's not often that a normal person would think with sympathy of us, so I really appreciate that you do. | cmv |
I believe that both Feminists and MRAs have valid points, but neither side truly fights for equality.. CMV. | Depending on who you ask, that's by design. Some feminists say the fight for equality. Some feminists say they fight for women's rights. These two things are not necessarily the same. I don't generally hear that the MRM is a force for equality in general in the same way that Feminism claims to be - rather they have chosen to scope themselves to just Men's Rights issues. That is, they specifically target equal treatment in the areas where men are disadvantaged. It would be outside the scope of their movement to pursue equality in other areas. | cmv |
I believe that both Feminists and MRAs have valid points, but neither side truly fights for equality.. CMV. | I think there are elements of both sides that fight for equality, and elements of both sides that are just biased against the opposite side. But I think all of them are way too eager to blame every single little thing on the other side, and claim complete innocence for themselves. A better approach is to just acknowledge that gender stereotypes always end up hurting both genders, and that people are individuals, not averages. To that end, I think both labels are harmful. A philosophy that's fundamentally about equality shouldn't reference one side right in the name. | cmv |
I believe that both Feminists and MRAs have valid points, but neither side truly fights for equality.. CMV. | All of the MAJOR streams of feminist thought actually work to pursue equality as an end goal. There are some exceptions, extremists, to be sure, but the mainstream is an equality between the sexes. I'm not certain where you're looking, but most feminist thinkers either are for or against the draft in a universal sense - - I don't think you're going to find many that say it's okay to draft men but not women. | cmv |
I believe that both Feminists and MRAs have valid points, but neither side truly fights for equality.. CMV. | Agitation for political and social rights often comes with some suspicion of whom you believe are the stakeholders in power and whom you believe is holding equality back. Women not directly advocating for equal rights isn't self - evidently a slight to men's rights... like the difference in being pro - woman or anti - man are not the same. Feminism as a movement in the United States and elsewhere is not a monolithic, finished project but rather a set of achievements that is still progressing and getting more inclusive. First wave feminism didn't really include women of color at all, so it is not impossible that feminist and MRM movements might ally at some point. | cmv |
The Green and Libertarian Parties are a waste, and people who want to advance those causes should work within the Republican and Democratic parties instead. | I partially agree, but you have to look beyond the pragmatic point of view. If these folks never tried to break away and form a new party, it's a guarantee that it would never happen. You kind of have to put yourself in their shoes - - what if you really didn't jive with either party and you were tired of voting for the " lesser evil "? You might consider joining / making a new party. | cmv |
I believe that affirmative action is a great thing and should not be discontinued. CMV | I have a different question. I recognise that affirmative action is sometimes necessary - but my contention is this : What is the exit strategy? Do we intend to continue using affirmative action forever? Shouldn't we review it every year? Possibly have a solid criterion on which it is based? For example : A college shall accept n % more students of colour, where n is the % difference in the average wage between a person of colour and a white person. This is very simplistic - I just picked white and coloured, but the principle is that there should be some criterion that reflects a measurable social difference. In a different vein - I am not sure it is correct that I ( as a non racist employer ) have to make allowances for certain candidates because of other people. | cmv |
I believe that affirmative action is a great thing and should not be discontinued. CMV | At what point are the minorities no longer disadvantaged, i. e. no longer receive preferential treatment? Who gets to decide this point, and how is it implemented? As regards the resume problem : do you think that making college easier to complete for less qualified minority applicants will make it more likely that an employer will hire them, knowing that a non - minority with the same degree is explicitly more qualified ( since they had to be to gain admission )? | cmv |
I believe that affirmative action is a great thing and should not be discontinued. CMV | So you focus entirely on black people in your post. What is your opinion on Asian Americans who have, effectively, minus points given to them because of their race? Asian Americans require higher SAT scores than their peers in order to gain acceptance into universities, but don't have the benefits of white privilege. | cmv |
I believe that affirmative action is a great thing and should not be discontinued. CMV | Hey, I know that this is for people who already have information to argue with, but I'm just really curious because I want to properly understand what affirmative action is. What is a better example of it being implimented? I thought that it was something along the lines of'universities having to let in so many poc '. So if that's not true, then I don't really know what it is. Do you mind giving me some knowlege? | cmv |
I believe that Japan's war crimes were just as atrocious as Germany's in World War II. CMV | I think that what's really striking and atrocious is the motives of the German government during the holocaust. Its surprising that they were willing to try to kill off entire specific groups of people ( Jews, Gypsies, mentally I'll etc. ) who were members of their own population, not just their enemies ( Japan and China. ) Also, several countries committed war crimes of some level, such as the American firebombing of Japanese cities. I do agree with you that the Nanjing massacre and events like that ought to be taught as well. I think part of the significance is the motives that some Germans had during the Holocaust and WW2 as well as the massive death toll ( over hundreds of thousands, I believe, from the Holocaust alone. ) | cmv |
I believe that it is all but impossible to be 100 % homosexual or 100 % heterosexual in orientation. CMV | There are, as you said, 7 billion people in the world today. Doesn't that make statistically possible for at least one person to be 100 % either gay or straight? Take into account history and culture as well. In the history of the Earth, there have existed far more than the 7 billion people alive today. Cultures have varied widely throughout time and still, even with the growing extent of globalization, we can still see cultures present which are vastly different. Taking all of these variances into account, do you still believe that not a single person in the history of the Earth has managed to be 100 % homosexual or heterosexual? Do you still find it " impossible "? | cmv |
I believe that it is all but impossible to be 100 % homosexual or 100 % heterosexual in orientation. CMV | I have seen some penises in my day and it doesn't do a thing for me. I'm pretty damn sure I'm not even one percent gay although I could tell you if another dude would be considered attractive or not. I don't think that makes me gay though maybe just sexually aware or comfortable. | cmv |
I don't believe in " natural rights ". CMV | I think you are thinking about the whole situation backwards. Rights and morals are attributes of a society very similar to how different animals have different physical characteristics. The set of attributes a society has is constantly tested by internal pressure as well as external pressure from other societies. The societies with attributes that allows for them to continue to exist do so or they change their attributes. I've just described to you legal rights. I think when people describe natural rights they describe a protection where an extreme majority of humans would agree that such a protection should be given, even people from completely different societies. These believes therefore come from our nature hence natural rights. | cmv |
I believe countries should have the right to dictate whether another country can harbor nuclear weapons.. CMV | Is this right universal? If countries that don't have them can be told they can't develop them, then can these countries demand that the nuclear states " denuclearize "? When you consider that the likelihood of that is so small as to be essentially impossible, then doesn't it seem a bit unfair that the only countries that can have them are those that already do? Why does India, for example, deserve the right to nuclear weapons, but not Bangladesh? Why China, but not Mongolia? Why Israel, but not Turkey? Countries have had nuclear weapons for many decades now, and the number possessing them has grown overtime, yet it hasn't seemed to have had any negative effect on global stability. | cmv |
I believe countries should have the right to dictate whether another country can harbor nuclear weapons.. CMV | I don't think anyone should own nuclear weapons. They serve no defensive purpose and only create destruction. But at the same time, why should other countries be able to violate the sovereignty of others for any reason? What if America decided that no other country should own tanks but them? | cmv |