summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I don't think disabled / handicapped people deserve any more respect than the generally able. CMV | It's more then doing simple chores. Can you imagine how frustrating it would be to use a computer with one arm? Or how painful it must be to go out in public with people looking at you funny because you look different, nay dis - formed It doesn't make them more heroic having survived something. But being able to go through life literally handicapped ( meaning : having a disadvantage ) is a challenge and many people choose to respect that. You frustrate me honestly, I feel like you lack empathy, not sympathy mind you. I doubt you could go 3 days without using your primary arm. In fact if you do and show proof I will gift you gold | cmv |
I don't think disabled / handicapped people deserve any more respect than the generally able. CMV | You don't have any other example besides special parking sports? Because I literally can't find any. I can't argue much about the parking spots, but I believe that people with well chair need more space ( the regular spots are not enough ) to leave the car, so that is why they save special spots. Well, it just looks like that you are frustrated because you had a bad time finding parking spots. Please give another examples. | cmv |
I believe euthanasia is a justifiable way to end a loved ones suffering, change my view. | You haven't been specific enough describing your view for any of us to really try to change it. Euthanasia is philosophically difficult ground from the start, though it's pretty easy to reach the conclusion that in some cases it is not just acceptable, it is the right thing to do. The tricky part is determining the criteria for when it is right ; there are so many different ways it could be misapplied and abused that allowing it as a matter of policy is pretty treacherous. That said, I'm all for allowing people to set reasonable criteria for the humane ending of their own lives. | cmv |
I believe that America's two - party system ruins our democracy. CMV | I don't think anyone seriously disagrees with your main point. Having only two parties is similar to having a duopoly in a market, and is most definitely a bad thing for consumers ( in the case of politics, " consumers " means the entire population ). However, the main issue is, what is the alternative? Under your current voting system, there isn't an option to vote third party, it would be a wasted vote unless a majority could change in one cycle. Any third party would only take away votes from the party that is most similar ( i. e., another left - wing party would take votes from the Democrats, or a right - wing one from the Republicans ). This system is not the fault of these major parties, it's the fault of the people who initially set up your constitution. The only way to fix it would be by changing the system for voting from a first past the post to something like mixed - member proportional or instant runoff. My main point is, what is the point of your post, and what would you propose in order to change the situation? | cmv |
I believe that America's two - party system ruins our democracy. CMV | food for thought : if there were a large number of parties / candidates running, it is more likely that an extremist fringe party could be voted in during a down year or opportune time. e. g. the nazi party was voted in to power. this allows for the possibility of an extremist christian reactionary party to have political influence or maybe some reconquista party to take office | cmv |
A person in a committed monogamous relationship is obligated to fulfill their partners sexual needs. CMV | How strictly do you feel this view applies? Does it create issues any time there's so much as a single instance where one partner doesn't wanna have sex with the other? What about longer periods, say, a few months after the birth of a child, or in the throes of grief after a personal loss? What about after an injury or a bout of depression? What about if there are children involved? Are you entitled to break up a family in order to satisfy an obscure sexual kink, for example? What do you think is the cutoff point where one could or should say, " You're no longer satisfying me sexually, therefore you're breaching your obligation and this relationship is null and void "? I think I ( and most people ) would agree with you on some basic level, but these are interesting questions regardless. | cmv |
A person in a committed monogamous relationship is obligated to fulfill their partners sexual needs. CMV | One reason this is a bad idea is that for most people sex is an emotional experience just as much as a physical one. Feeling pressured to have sex or having sex when you are not aroused can lead to both physical and psychological problems. Worst case the partner who constantly feels pressured to have sex might develop feelings of resentment or disgust for their partner. The option to get sex elsewhere doesn't really help with that since many people are going to see it as a personal failure that they were not able to satisfy their partner. They are going to feel that either way, and having their partner go elsewhere is likely to make it worse. Now I'm not saying what you describe always has to be bad. If it's a mutual agreement and both partners think that sex outside of the relationship is ok, then it could possibly work. But as a general rule for all relationships it's not a great idea. | cmv |
A person in a committed monogamous relationship is obligated to fulfill their partners sexual needs. CMV | Here's a concern that I don't see raised in your original post : Your view likely creates an inequality between sexes in heterosexual relationships. My thinking is this : women go through more monthly changes to their sex drive than men. This means, generally, that men are more often compelled by their biological sex drive than women, all other things being equal. On your view, this means that women in heterosexual relationships are going to be more often obliged than their male partners to sexually gratify them when they otherwise wouldn't want to. Additionally, your view seems to paint all sexual urges with an unduly broad brush. I think that it's a reasonable standard that most people should be able to control themselves enough that their sexual interests are not very distracting. Given this, I don't see the impetus behind a standard which obliges people to have sex when they're not interested in it. If aroused partner X can't deal with his own erection, whether through masturbating or just ignoring it, then that seems to be his own failing rather than anyone else's. Your suggested normative standard places a strong obligation on people that just doesn't seem necessary for reasonable and practical people. | cmv |
CMV - International Law is meaningless. Powerful states do what they want. Weak states maneuver as well as they can around the powerful ones. But there is no law. | So there are two different types of law : hard law and soft law. Hard law is law that has definitive regulations and punishments. This is the type of law seen in the European Union, where states can be fined for breaching international law. What you're talking about is soft law, where sovereign nations sign treaties where they set up what their actions will be. There is no solid punishment for breaking these laws. However, a nation's track record on soft law can be used in future dealings. For example, if Russia has a habit of manipulating their currency, when the World Trade Organization decides to redraw trade agreements, this can be used in order to protect other nations from the Russian practices. An important distinction in your statement is that while the US is one of the five permanent seats on the UN Security Council. it cannot completely ignore the wishes of the UN. Part of the reason the US was able to invade without much resistance was that Britain and other members of the security council supported the invasion. | cmv |
This probably won't get any serious responses, but here goes : I am in favor of gay marriage being legal in the USA. CMV. | Their was an argument put forth in a previous thread that legalization of gay marriage would invariably lead to lower birth rates, creating a graying age structure in the US. Such graying comes with lots of problems faced by nations like Japan, such as an overburdened and high public healthcare costs. Thus, illegalizing gay marriage can be seen as sound social engineering. | cmv |
This probably won't get any serious responses, but here goes : I am in favor of gay marriage being legal in the USA. CMV. | Devil's Advocate : The best argument against gay marriage is actually just an argument against all marriage : there's no reason it should be a legal construct in the first place. If any combination of people want to get together and perform a religious rite that speaks to them, go for it - - that doesn't affect me in the slightest. Similarly, if any combination of people want to enter into a contractual agreement to share ownership of property and grant each other some combination of power of attorney privileges, have at it - - that doesn't affect me either. But why should we subsidize any of it, as we currently do with tax incentives? Every " marriage " as currently understood - - gay or straight - - that occurs removes tax revenue from the system as a whole, which does in fact cause harm : the country doesn't get cheaper to run just because some folks decided to spend their lives together. So same - sex couple should, of course, have all the same rights as opposite sex couples, but none of them should relate to a state endorsement of anything like " marriage ". | cmv |
I believe the harms of drone strikes outweigh the benefits. CMV | It seems like none of the problems you listed are inherant to drones, but how they have been utilized by the US government. A drone a simply a remotely controlled airplane - it offers very similar capabilities to a standard manned aircraft, with the benefit of keeping a pilot out of harm's way while the mission is underway. I have never seen any data that suggests that a drone " pilot " is any less informed or more likely to miss their shot - not to say that isn't the case, but I don't think the data is available. It seems like the problems you have are with the missions themselves, and not the drones. | cmv |
I believe things like the abuses of the Patriot act make today's DOJ and IRS scandal look insignificant by comparison. CMV. | Profiling of any sort by a government agency is wrong. This is not a new thing. The DHS was blasted for the racial profiling they did after 9 / 11 ( subjecting certain countries, mostly Muslim, to additional screening ), Alberto Gonzales was forced to resign after partisan firings of attorneys, among other things. Whether it's ethnicity, political affiliation, whatever, it calls into question the actions of all agencies ran by appointees of the president. How can you have faith in the democratic process when certain political organizations are held to more scrutiny than others? It's not just seeing if they followed the rules, it was specifically targeting one political movement over others. You can drape a veneer of " national security " over the wiretapping, the surveillance, the war efforts because those things affect us all mostly equally. You cannot use that same blanket to suppress the freedom of the press, the freedom of people to participate in the political process. | cmv |
I think voting is a waste of time. CMV | How do you define'waste'in'waste of time '? If voting is an expression of civic virtue, and it is immoral to demand virtue in others while not espousing it in oneself, then is acting in a morally good fashion a'waste of time '? I see no reason to count moral worth as being any less valuable than other kinds of worth. | cmv |
I think voting is a waste of time. CMV | There's an equation based on polling data which can determine a probability your vote would be the deciding one. That is the number you should be looking at when deciding whether or not you want to vote. I politically active and in a mail voting state so voting takes me 15 minutes and its worth that time to me. | cmv |
I think voting is a waste of time. CMV | Your vote individually isn't going to make a difference, but like other people have said, even a couple thousand people who decide to vote rather than abstain can change an election. Sure, you're not unique or powerful on your own, but that is the definition of a democracy, a rule by the people. Ideally, everybody has the same voting power. Everybody is just as powerless as you, but when groups of people act together, their combined votes can really make a change. Also, on a less important but more personal level, exercising your right to vote gives you responsibility for the outcomes. If you don't vote, it's my opinion that you honestly shouldn't complain about the outcome. Even if you feel that all of your choices were terrible, you should vote for the least of [ however many ] evils, because you have the power to say something, however small, about what direction you feel the government should take. If your candidate wins and does a decent job of not screwing up, well then, good for you, you and a bunch of other people made the right choice. If your candidate loses and the winner is a jerk, you know in your mind that you voted for someone who could've done better. ( If your candidate wins and makes a mess of everything, well, at least you tried. ) | cmv |
I think voting is a waste of time. CMV | By your logic, only one person's vote, state - wide, is not a waste of time. Do you really believe that? If that's the case, why does anyone vote? Why don't we just let the electoral college decide and have done with it? How about this, do you think you have any right to complain about the circumstances of the country, laws, economy, or presidency when you were given the opportunity to influence them all and you deliberately did nothing to get things the way you'd prefer? | cmv |
I think voting is a waste of time. CMV | Why are you singling yourself out as the voter who decides more than the other voters? If everyone had your attitude, then no one would vote and there would be no result. Your vote matters, it simply makes just as little a difference as the other 65, 370, 984 votes ( from your example ). It is true that the more voters there are, the smaller a difference is made by one vote. But that doesn't mean the vote matters less. Stop singling your own vote out as more / less important than other votes. | cmv |
I think voting is a waste of time. CMV | That mentality kills the point of an election. If everybody adopted that mentality, nobody would vote, because their vote " doesn't matter ". That's a little extreme, but if you everybody who had your opinion voted, you'd see more votes on election day and maybe influence the election. The thing is, it may seem like you have relatively no power, but everybody has the same power as you do. Everybody is equal, one vote. So on the larger scale, it may seem like you make no difference, but your one vote is actually really important to ensure that the democratic system works. | cmv |
I don't support suicide because I believe that everyone can be helped | I think all suicides are a tragedy as well, but I think it should be up to the person. Some people are beyond help, I never believed that before, but I do now. I just think they should be able to end their suffering if they want. | cmv |
I don't support suicide because I believe that everyone can be helped | My birth mother suicided a few days before I turned 7. For so long, I never understood why, I never knew the truth, and I was completely in the dark about her mental health. Many, many years later, after a lot of pushing on my part, I learned that she was an extreme sufferer of manic depressive disorder, bipolar, and was just totally at a loss as to how she could keep living this way, suffering inside to herself. I'm not going for the sob story to change your mind - I do agree with you, that every suicide is a tragedy - but I know from deep down in my heart, my own personal experience, not everybody can be helped. So many people used to say to me ( and I'm sure, behind my back ), " What a shame, how selfish of miffy303's mother to leave behind a husband and kids etc ". But you know what? Now that I am older, and far wiser, I am glad she did what she did. Sure, I missed out on getting to know my mother, but I would rather have her at peace and no longer here, than still on this earth and continuing to suffer every single day because other people think she should. In my mind, suicide isn't selfish at all. It was a selfless act to me. | cmv |
I don't support suicide because I believe that everyone can be helped | There are terminal illnesses that are pretty much guaranteed to be fatal and extremely painful with no hope of relief until death arrives. Your statement that " everyone can be helped " is simply inaccurate. Don't you find it cruel to make someone suffer unnecessary pain simply because you want to believe " everyone can be helped "? | cmv |
I believe that being Pro - Choice makes you Pro - Abortion. CMV | I figure people who claim to be " pro - choice " but not " pro - abortion " are the people who would say " abortions should be legal, safe, and rare. " I'm not trying to argue any side here, but I could see that if you're pro - choice you could also be against abortions in general. The key difference is you don't think they should be illegal. You could likely find people with similar opinions on any number of controversial subjects. For instance, a person could think that exotic dancing should be legal, and may even go to strip clubs themselves, but still look down on the decision of dancers and discourage their family and friends from taking up the profession. ( Not to say that people who are pro - choice but not pro - abortion look down on those who have them, of course ; it's just a possible example. ) | cmv |
I believe that being Pro - Choice makes you Pro - Abortion. CMV | What you describe is the ability to see past your own bias. To realize that making decisions for other people is generally a poor route. The pro - choicers you describe most likely see it as a personal choice to be made. Their decision is to not do that, but they see no reason why they should impose their choice onto others. To them it is not murder nor a danger to society. Most pro - lifers this is more akin to murder being outlawed because it hurts society. To these people it is a danger to society in some way, and thus it should be illegal. | cmv |
I believe that being Pro - Choice makes you Pro - Abortion. CMV | I think that it's sometimes a problem of people talking past one another, but it may be that you're working with terms rather than positions. People who advocate for a'pro - choice'position often take that line that women have a legal and moral right over their own bodies. This is not incompatible with the view that it's sometimes awful to abort a fetus, especially ( for example ) if it's a late - term abortion. So while someone may be pro - choice ('you have the right to an abortion') they may not be'pro - abortion'('you have the right to an abortion but I don't want you to do it'). Think of it in terms of free speech : I may agree that you have a right to freedom of speech, and that it's good to exercise your rights, but also find what you have to say repugnant and bad. | cmv |
I believe that being Pro - Choice makes you Pro - Abortion. CMV | " Pro - life " is just as absurd as " pro - choice ". It makes no sense to argue in favour of life, because no one is arguing against life. Similarly, no one who campaigns against abortions does so on the grounds that choice is bad. " Life " and " choice " are not really a part of the debate. The whole issue is : At what point should we consider a foetus to have a right to life? I don't think anyone argues that it should be later than birth. It makes no sense for it to be before fertilisation. But that leaves about nine months of middle ground to argue over. | cmv |
I believe that being Pro - Choice makes you Pro - Abortion. CMV | I personally would never have sex with someone I just met in a bar. I however would not condemn or try to outlaw those people who would choose to hook up with someone at a bar. You can have different views with someone but still be for having their views be considered valid. To paraphrase Voltaire " I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. " | cmv |
I believe that being Pro - Choice makes you Pro - Abortion. CMV | Strictly speaking that's not necessarily true. There are some people who are pro choice but who think that people should be well informed of all aspects, including moral issues, etc. There are some others who think abortion is bad but that by necessity it has to be allowed. So it's definitely not true that ALL of them are pro abortion ipso facto. There are a lot of combinations. A good PORTION of them are, but that is another matter. | cmv |
I believe that being Pro - Choice makes you Pro - Abortion. CMV | " Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. " - A certain pro - choice President. I want people to have access to sex education and contraceptive and be able to avoid unwanted pregnancy, but I want abortion to be available as a last option. | cmv |
I believe that Gorbachev was the main person who ended the cold war, and not Ronald Reagan CMV | Gorbachev didn't end the Cold War on purpose. The crippling debt of the Soviet Union forced Gorbachev to explore different solutions to alleviate the economic problems. His decision to stop following the Brezhnev Doctrine was purely economic rather than leniency. He wanted to allow the Soviet Union to pursue non - intervention so the Soviet Union didn't have to spend as much. One can also argue that Reagan's less bellicose stance towards Gorbachev during his second term was what led to the friendlier relations between the two superpowers. As many Cold War historians have quoted,'it takes two to tango'and this is especially true regarding the end of the Cold War. | cmv |
I believe that Gorbachev was the main person who ended the cold war, and not Ronald Reagan CMV | lol not one person answered the question ; instead they're all agreeing with you. The only reason Gorbachev was able to carry out his reforms was due to their failed talks at Reykjavik. Though Reagan and Gorby saw the talks fizzle when Regan would not agree to the USSR's request not to test nukes in space, Gorbachev left the meetings knowing that Reagan would not, under any circumstances, launch a nuclear first strike. It was this guarantee that allowed Gorbachev to initiate perestroika as he didnt have to worry about an unprovoked, external nuclear threat. | cmv |
I believe that Gorbachev was the main person who ended the cold war, and not Ronald Reagan CMV | If you read the works of prominent Soviet dissidents ( like Lech Walesa and Natan Sharansky ), they thought Reagan was a pivotal figure. Previously, American Presidents had treated the USSR as just another player who could be an ally or enemy depending on America's interests. Dissidents thought the US could be at best a temporary ally, who would use them as a tool against the USSR. Reagan was firm in his belief that the USSR was doing something morally wrong by restricting freedom. He called the USSR " An evil empire ", and word of it reached Sharansky in his prison cell and inspired him. He says that fact - that a spade was being called a spade - showed him that his struggle could succeed. When Reagan lit candles in support of Solidarity, members of the organization say it told them the US would stand with them rather than treating them as a tool, and that gave them strength they needed to resist the USSR. Gorbachev did amazing things, and I don't want to downplay his role in opening up the USSR. But his choices did not happen in a vaccum. His choices were based on the strength of the freedom movements ( like Solidarity ), and in turn the strength of those movements had something to do with their belief that the US would not betray them. | cmv |
I believe that Gorbachev was the main person who ended the cold war, and not Ronald Reagan CMV | I can see where your point may come from here, in that the soviet union has always been viewed as the main belligerent of the cold war, and as such, Gorbachev was in a prime position to mend relations due to his ongoing leniency. I also would not be quick to say that Reagan had the biggest influence especially as it was George H. W. Bush who finalized the act in the December of 1989. However, it's a little naive to posit that one individual alone can be responsible for ending as intricate and wide - spread problem as the cold war. Think of all the policies and treaties that had to be in place even before the US and USSR could even begin to talk candidly about issues like democratization and the reunification of Germany!! If you're interested, I advocate reading the wiki page | cmv |
I believe that Gorbachev was the main person who ended the cold war, and not Ronald Reagan CMV | I would argue that neither had too much to do with it. You are correct that Gorbachev had more to do with it than Reagan ( Glasnost and Perestroika where key in the downfall of the USSR ) however the people of eastern Europe deserve most of the credit. If you want to point to the important people in the fall of communism point to the average citizens. The East Germans that broke down the wall, the Czechs that showed up for the Velvet Revolution, or the dissenters that opposed state policies in the USSR proper ( due to the lack of basics and the issues with the Afghan war ). | cmv |
I believe that'anti - homphobia'movements largely serve to encourage further inequality in society. CMV | Their equality is in the sense of the law, not in the sense of the culture. As a bisexual, I understand that there are distinct cultures, one surrounding gays and one surrounding straights. Gay pride parades exist for the same reason black pride and various other pride movements exist. In society ( which was dominated by white heterosexuals ), homosexuals and minorities were often prompted to downplay who they were or to not show any pride for their sexuality or skin color. By having pride demonstrations, these groups are showing that they are no longer going to sacrifice their culture for the economic or social gain they would have once had in white heterosexual society. As white heterosexuals lose their vice grip on power, these minority groups are able to do what they would have at an earlier time forfeited great safety and security to do. So, I'm not sure how these serve to make further inequality in society. Pride demonstrations show that instead of having to buy in to the traditional pride movements of white, heterosexual society ( pride of Western civilization, patriotism, etc ), these groups are free to celebrate what makes them different. And in the end, doesn't that lead us to unity? When we can tolerate the many differences of people rather than forcing them to hide their different cultures, then aren't we truly equal? | cmv |
I believe that'anti - homphobia'movements largely serve to encourage further inequality in society. CMV | The only context I could see what you're saying as realistic from is the perspective of someone who doesn't want lgbt equality. The fact is, they deserve rights, and they deserve first amendment rights as well. Only people who are looking for things to reinforce their idea of denying lgbt rights will see someone practicing their first amendment rights and not see someone who is human just like them and capable of expressing that however they want whenever they want. | cmv |
I believe that'anti - homphobia'movements largely serve to encourage further inequality in society. CMV | Equality and normality don't mean the same thing as homogenity. Consider left - handed people. Are they " normal "? By what definition are they normal? If they took pride in using left - handed scissors, or had a day where they celebrated " Lefty pride " by shaking hands with their left hand, or some such thing, would that be problematic? | cmv |
I believe that'anti - homphobia'movements largely serve to encourage further inequality in society. CMV | Regarding the " Straight Rally " thing. It reminds me of " reverse racism. " Things like racism and oppression of alternative sexualities don't just " reverse " themselves. You can have black people who are prejudiced against white people, but that does not make it the inverse of white - dominated racism. There's still too much history, power, and economic / institutional momentum in favor of the historical oppressors. Gay people have been persecuted and still are. Other sexualities ( trans, poly, queer, etc., even kink ) are still marginalized. Marginalized people flaunting their culture is an act of resistance to their marginalization. Members of the dominant culture making a show of their dominance is quite different. | cmv |
I believe that'anti - homphobia'movements largely serve to encourage further inequality in society. CMV | I think that I can change your view on one point in there. You point to an inequality : that'straight parades'would be seen as somehow homophobic while gay pride parades are permissible. This is a historically rooted inequality. For centuries gay people have suffered because of intolerant attitudes towards homosexuality. Those who were gay were either shamed or vilified ( or both! ). Gay pride parades are a response to this historical and, sadly, still contemporary attitude. The parade celebrates homosexuality as a means of combatting shame culture, and gives people a place to come together free from such pernicious and pervasive attitudes.'Straight parades'would serve no such service, I don't think. Straight people don't have a long history of being shamed for being heterosexual, nor of being actively vilified for it. | cmv |
I believe that police shooting someone in self defence is the same as the courts applying the death penalty. | A cop who shoots someone is killing someone, not because they necessarily deserve to die, but because someone else would have been hurt. an execution is a calculated decision. It's a jury deciding'this person shouldn't be alive'To elaborate, if a cop kills someone is self defense, that same person may have not been executed had he not been shot. | cmv |
I believe that police shooting someone in self defence is the same as the courts applying the death penalty. | The difference is imminent threat. A cop who blows a guy away because he's opening fire on innocent people is doing so to end the threat. A guy in jail for life is no longer a threat to society. Its the same reason that self defence laws say that you cant leave the area and come back with a gun. The threat is no longer imminent. A man who gets the chair and a man who spends his life in a cell are going to kill the same amount of people, zero. An asshat with a handgun in a mall can continue to kill people. | cmv |
I believe that police shooting someone in self defence is the same as the courts applying the death penalty. | When the state executes someone, they are not doing it in self defense. They are not taking a guilty life in order to preserve an innocent one. They are simply taking a life. When the police take a life in self - defense, they are preventing the death of an innocent life by eliminating a guilty life. That's a profound difference from the death penalty. I have pointed out a distinct difference. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 5 / 21 / 13 | Someone I know once gave me their rationale for smoking, and how they cut down. They said " Clearly cigarettes are bad for me. But so is cake. I like cake, and I like cigarettes, but like cake - I treat cigarettes as an occasional indulgence. " So I guess I thought it was a good reason for smoking and a way to keep it under control, both of which I didn't really think existed. More so the latter. Enjoyment is a legitimate reason for the former. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 5 / 21 / 13 | I read a cracked article the other day that not necessarily changed my view but made me stop and realize that I do need to keep my mind open more, it said basically, " There is almost always a well thought out and logical response to all sides of a debate. " To me that kind of struck a cord because I'm so used to writing off people who i disagree with as unaware or ignorant of the facts but I suppose everyone does that. So that phrase reminded me of this sub and this sub has been helping me to make sure that I can converse with people without screaming and that everyone's view is worth at least considering. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 5 / 21 / 13 | In asksocialscience I discovered the work of Cordelia Fine who wrote Delusions of Gender. I haven't read the book yet but watching her various YouTube talks has changed my view on gender as it has pointed out how poor an unconvincing a lot of the research is that says " men are good at systems, women are good with people ". I'm still not convinced that gender is entirely a social construct. I found her answers to questions about the behaviour of very young children and people who undergo gender reassignment to be unconvincing. For now though, I definitely consider my view that men are naturally good at systems and women are naturally good at people skills and empathy to be changed. | cmv |
I think we should tax fast food. CMV | A lot of fast food is available for very cheap prices. It's not very wholesome, but it might be the only food some people are able to afford sometimes. If we tax it, then a lot of people who can't afford food would have to pay more for food. | cmv |
I believe it is in the best interest of the US to allow and even encourage the conflict in Syria to continue indefinitely. CMV. | I'm going to point out the obvious - no one is interested in other human beings dying when it isn't neccessary. Ignoring your pragmatic arguments, our interests are not just things that materially benefit us, they're also how we think the world should be, and how we feel. I would rather have world peace than an xbox game, even though world peace would have very little effect on me and my life. I think the same applies here, I, and I think most Americans, would rather 10 000s of Syrians would stop being slaughtered rather than have some kind of effect on extremism, even if extremism does pose a threat. | cmv |
I believe it is in the best interest of the US to allow and even encourage the conflict in Syria to continue indefinitely. CMV. | "... exterminate those that affiliate with terrorist groups like al Qaeda. " What about the innocent that are dying that aren't affiliated with terrorist groups? Are they innocent women and children just collateral damage? | cmv |
I believe gay marriage is wrong. CMV | Have you ever considered that marriage has different meanings to different people? For religious people like yourself, it is a holy union between a man and woman. Endorsed and witnessed by God. For other it is simply the deepest commitment to the one you love. If homosexuals can love, why can't they marry? In my opinion, the different churches and faiths should be free to choose if they want to consecrate people of an aberrant sexual orientation, but the right to marry should be extended to everyone, regardless of sexual preference. | cmv |
I believe gay marriage is wrong. CMV | So you feel strongly that marriage is for a man and a woman? Fine, just be sure not to marry someone of the same sex. But why impose that restriction on others who don't share your religious views? You probably live alongside people who have divorced and remarried - against Catholic beliefs but you don't have the right to keep your non Catholic neighbours married against their will. Marriage is not a right in the sense that we have to follow the conventions of society around us as to who we can marry. If you prefer to follow a narrower religious marriage definition that's fine for you but you cannot impose it on others who don't follow your belief. | cmv |
I believe gay marriage is wrong. CMV | Marriage is not a religious commitment, it is a social and legal commitment. It has been around since before recorded time in all shapes and forms, and quite simply means to be committed to one person only. So as a catholic you feel that only people that Christians say can get married should be able to? Through out history Marriage has been a right, until the relatively recent judeo - christian religions came along and made it a religious institution. But in the eyes of the law it is now and always have been a simple legal contract between 2 people. And anyone of sound mind and of mature age has the RIGHT to enter any contract they wish. | cmv |
I believe gay marriage is wrong. CMV | Your relatives shouldn't be able to say " you were supposed to marry a man " and stop your wife from seeing you in the hospital. The government is forbidden from deciding she can't get insurance because your relationship is insufficiently Protestant. It's not symbolic, it drives a huge body of law and contract that seriously affects your lives. | cmv |
I believe gay marriage is wrong. CMV | Marriage isn't religious though, it's a government contract for actual benefits. You can get married and not be legally married or you can get married without a religious - or any - ceremony. You can do both. In recent times, it hasn't been illegal to get a religious marriage - it's the government part that has been banned. Who is the church to decide on government matters? | cmv |
I believe gay marriage is wrong. CMV | Marriage is something which means different things to different people. YOUR definition of marriage is yours. If other people want to use that word, why the hell not? Doesnt make your marriage mean anything less unless you chose it to. | cmv |
I believe gay marriage is wrong. CMV | What marriage means has changed immensely over time. For much of history, fathers arranged marriages for financial gain. Kings and Queens came together for treaties, and not for love. Marriage was not a commitment, it was a duty. Men often took multiple wives and child brides. Marriage was not this pure and holy thing God designed between a man and a woman. Marriage existed long before Catholicism or modern religion. It is not a religious thing. It is a social construct. | cmv |
The Iraq War was both just and necessary. CMV. | I am disregarding the points you make on why Iraq should have been invaded. Why do you believe the US should have take it upon itself to invade Iraq? Why should it not have gone to the UN instead? My stance here is outcome dependent. Could the war have been better if it had started with peaceful negotiations on behalf of the UN? | cmv |
The Iraq War was both just and necessary. CMV. | Why some atrocities and not others? Why Iraq and not every other problem country in the world? What do you think made Iraq different or the Iraqi people more deserving of help than the suffering masses in other parts of the world? If you justify the Iraq invasion on the grounds you've listed, how do you justify not acting on the global tragedies that were even more profound, and that are still occurring to this very day? | cmv |
A lack of voter participation is not a problem to a functioning democracy. CMV. | I think the main issue is that nonvoters are not distributed evenly throughout the population. Nonvoters tend to be part of the less educated lower class, and the increased levels of voter non participation means that those groups have less representation. I don't think compulsory voting is the answer because then you'll have people voting for the guy whose name starts with the most A's, but I do think vote encouragement is beneficial to society. | cmv |
A lack of voter participation is not a problem to a functioning democracy. CMV. | If you mean this in the sense of a direct democracy, I would say you are wrong. If there is widespread voter apathy, a small but determined minority can ram through rather extreme policies. In this case, voter apathy can lead to very adverse effects on persecuted groups ( best example of this being Prop 8 in California ). If you mean this in the sense of a democratic republic, then I agree to a large extend, but you now have small but determined minorities ramming in extreme representatives. This is obviously less harmful than actively creating laws, but it is still problematic. | cmv |
A lack of voter participation is not a problem to a functioning democracy. CMV. | Compulsory voting is a good idea because it makes some people who otherwise would be apathetic and might not vote out of sheer laziness ( not active defiance ) to actually take some level of interest and attempt to make an informed choice. There will always be people who simply don't care, or people who don't want to vote as a form of protest or expression or what have you. But the solution for that is a simple option for abstention. If you don't want to be forced to care or have an opinion, you just abstain. Boom, some benefits gained with virtually no downside. | cmv |
I believe the Men's Rights Movement is driven by fear. CMV | To say that the Men's Rights Movement is driven by fear is similar to saying that feminism is driven by hatred of men. These movements are made up of individuals, each with their own motives. These means there are members driven by the worst motives, but others that really feel they are trying to correct inequalities. | cmv |
I believe the Men's Rights Movement is driven by fear. CMV | Speaking as someone who agrees with many MRA points, it's not because of fear that my superior status in society because of my gender will be revoked, I welcome that with open arms. I am a proud supporter of egalitarianism. The issue I have with feminism is that I feel feminists demonize men in many ways, incite hatred, and ignore men's issues. Ultimately, I don't think the correct way to make an egalitarian society is through discrimination ( what I feel feminists are doing ) but through inclusion and love. | cmv |
I believe the Men's Rights Movement is driven by fear. CMV | Apart from what other people have said, one major factor driving people to the MRM is probably the fact that organised feminism tends to treat all men as a single category ( or at least all straight white men ). They then see that that group is privileged, and demand policies to shift the balance so that " all men " and " all women " are equal. The problem arises from the fact that these policies almost always achieve that by creating disadvantages for young men which don't affect old men or rich men, leading to reversals in problems which largely go ignored. Examples of that are educational results : more women are getting tertiary education than men, but women apparently still need help going to university because more men have degrees. I am, of course, confident that all those activists will be campaigning for men in 30 - 40 years time when the old men have died off and women make up the majority of graduates, but that doesn't help the current generation of young men. | cmv |
I believe the Men's Rights Movement is driven by fear. CMV | Mens rights is motitvated to get better rights for men pretty much plain and simple, Everyone wants to improve their condition Mens rights wants things that will make men's life better. Men's rights is simply the opposite side of feminism. Feminism is their to improve the lives of women Men's rights improves the lives of men. Every issue has two sides. Men aren't about to blindly trust one side to make it equal as feminists are not here to make everones lives better just women's and their is nothing wrong with that. Just like their is nothing wrong with fighting for mens rights just to makes mens lives better. Issues are never black and white and are almost guaranteed to have multiple sides. | cmv |
I believe the Men's Rights Movement is driven by fear. CMV | Can you name a movement that is not driven by fear? Look at the widest scale imaginable. Can you even name any deliberate actions which are not driven by fear, save for neutral ones not cared about? | cmv |
I believe the Men's Rights Movement is driven by fear. CMV | I think that a few men who advocate for men's rights are driven by fear, but there are many who support the movement for valid reasons. Suicide rates are much higher for male teens compared to female teens. Many young men have become disenfranchised with our education system and have turned to crime and drug use. Divorce laws make it near impossible for single fathers to gain custody of their children. The most pervasive problem, in my opinion, is that boys are always taught to " be a man " and to " suck it up ". We are taught from a young age that being strong is equivalent to not letting our feelings show. This can lead to depression and confusion in teen years. I think the main message of men's rights advocates is " Prejudices exist everywhere, and wherever they exist they are serious. Don't forget about the problems that boys and men face " | cmv |
I believe the Men's Rights Movement is driven by fear. CMV | It may look that way if you lump everything together but I think there are certain, key issues in the MRA movement that are absolutely legitimate and have nothing to do with fear. There are real injustices that men are subject to all the time - and they're unjust independently of any other or oppositely directed injustices. We shouldn't judge the entire movement, but rather judge individual issues on their own. It's possible to be both pro - feminism and for men's rights at the same time. | cmv |
I think the voting age should be lowered. CMV | Sure, some young people could make a good contribution. But that is in no way worth the trade - off of letting the mass majority of teenagers screw up elections. I assume that many redditors thought they were perfectly capable of voting well as teenagers and felt like they personally were unfairly left out of the process. God knows I was smarter than most adults when I was 14. Teenagers who are that mature and smart are the exception, not the rule, and it's a worthwhile price to pay to make you wait until your 18 if it keeps the mass of teenagers from voting. Also, keep in mind that the only way to truly make this fair is to also give teenagers all of the responsibilities of someone who has reached the age of majority, if you're going to give them the right to vote. That means being tried as an adult, the possibility of being drafted into the military, paying taxes as an adult, etc. That would certainly be problematic in today's cultural environment. | cmv |
I think the voting age should be lowered. CMV | Minors have 0 experience with the real world. The entire perspective of a 13 year old is shaped by their school, peers, and family. 13 year olds don't pay taxes, don't fight in wars, can't be elected, can't drive, have 0 experience in the work force, ( hopefully ) no experience with drugs or abortions, can't get married, and a wide variety of other things. Since they have little to no direct experience with any of those topics, their entire viewpoint is filtered through other sources. | cmv |
I believe that immigrants are a threat to European citizens and culture. Please change my view. | Well, you can ease your mind with some statistics and whatnot but things change. They are changing, and that's undeniable. The difference of opinions that people and politicians have, are about why things are changing and on who's fault it is. And they can't find a consensus on what to do. But I don't think anyone denies the trends you are ( maybe crudely ) describing. | cmv |
I believe that immigrants are a threat to European citizens and culture. Please change my view. | They're either going to be a " threat " in Europe, or in relative isolation from you - - but complete isolation is not possible. No matter how far away from you they are, their influence on the planet you both share will be a factor. Their culture can either grow further apart from yours and react more harshly with yours in the future when for whatever reason your paths are forced to cross, however indirectly - - or you can practice the hard work of integration now. Either way, it's mandatory. As a species, we either integrate the cultural differences that physical distance has allowed to happen through perpetual compromise and learning from each other, or we war. | cmv |
I believe that immigrants are a threat to European citizens and culture. Please change my view. | Sweden built their success on immigrant work forces. Walloons in the 17th century, and Finnish in the 60's and 70's. My Finnish grandparents were two of those people. The largest immigrant group in Sweden is still to this day Finns. Obviously, these immigrant communities have helped Sweden tremendously economically. You can't rule these communities out and only focus on islamsits. Morally on the other hand, well, Finns gave us Koskenkorva. | cmv |
I believe that immigrants are a threat to European citizens and culture. Please change my view. | The threat to white - European culture is their own unwillingness to breed. Countries with high native birth - rates don't have problems with immigration. You might like to read America Alone by Mark Steyn. Cheers. | cmv |
I believe that immigrants are a threat to European citizens and culture. Please change my view. | How about " so what " as an answer? Suppose " European culture " will change, but so what? Why try to keep it the same? You can let it change in a harmonious way, or by being culturally conservative, you can change the culture with the addition of xenophobia instead, and possibly create adversaries. Here in Canada, the contributions of culture made by immigrants has had a rich positive effect ( after a century and a half of work to make people more accepting of alien cultures ). It only sours when cultures are legally or physically violently pushed away. So what if immigrants move to Europe, and the culture changes, and the citizens in Europe have to hustle more to compete in their economies? Sounds like what happens everywhere, and resisting it only makes it less desirable and more bitter for everyone. | cmv |
I believe that public suicide of any form, for any reason, is vulgar and deserving of condemnation. CMV | It is an attention grab. Some things just deserve every bit of attention a human life can give them. I don't think it's petty for a soldier to give their life for their country. So I don't think it's petty for a person to set themselves on fire for their country, or stand up to a tank in the face of certain death for their country. It is petty for someone to die for a petty reason, and gay marriage is such a reason for all but the most tradition - addled. But surely, not all reasons are like that. | cmv |
I believe perpetration of discrimination based on [ insert legally - protected class here ] is as deserving of punishment in the private sector as it is in the public sector. CMV | If the government employs sex - based discrimination, it is likely to create grave harms. Private individuals illegally discriminate based on sex when posting Roommate Wanted ads all the time, with no discernible negative effect. Frequently, men like to room with other men ( or women with other women ) because it reduces tension / friction, or for religious reasons. A quick check of Craigslist will show numerous discriminatory ads of this kind. Yet we don't crack down and nobody seems harmed. Why do you think these ads are a grave danger? What benefits do you see in cracking down and fining the posters? | cmv |
I believe perpetration of discrimination based on [ insert legally - protected class here ] is as deserving of punishment in the private sector as it is in the public sector. CMV | The public sector is a monopoly and could use this power to oppress certain groups. A market however can't really oppress a group : if some landlords would not rent to blacks for example then surely others would gladly jump into the niche and profit. So having a law that regulates something that the market could solve by itself is a waste of resources ( legal fees etc ) | cmv |
I am an atheist, however I agree with the Christian Church's decision to not allow same - sex marriage. CMV? | Even if you consider marriage itself as a religious institution, it is recognized by the government providing very real benefits, so denying that to people just because they don't fit the traditional role of it is the problem. If the government stopped recognizing marriage altogether and instead gave all the benefits of it to civil unions instead I would support the church's right to deny marriage. But because of the fact that there are federal benefits attached it is unconstitutional to deny those based solely upon gender. | cmv |
I am an atheist, however I agree with the Christian Church's decision to not allow same - sex marriage. CMV? | So legal definitions and benefits aside : I go to a Unitarian Universalist church, and the church's stance is completely accepting of gay marriage. Right now, my minister cannot perform a gay marriage because the legal definition of marriage is the christian one. Shouldn't my church be allowed to perform the marriages we see as just, just as the christian churches are allowed to? | cmv |
I am an atheist, however I agree with the Christian Church's decision to not allow same - sex marriage. CMV? | I don't think we should challenge the idea that a church shouldn't be legally required to do something that's against their religion. But on the other hand, shouldn't we challenge a religion if it has a position that's outdated and bigoted? The fact that we don't ( and shouldn't ) make someone do something that's right isn't the same as accepting that they should continue to do something that's wrong. | cmv |
I am an atheist, however I agree with the Christian Church's decision to not allow same - sex marriage. CMV? | Marriage is not a religious institution, it dates back to secular regulation as far as the Code of Hammurabi which " is a well - preserved Babylonian law code, dating back to about 1772 BC ". That said, if religious institutions don't want to perform them, fine, I might debate the reasons for that choice but I am not really debating whether or not they should be forced to perform marriages that don't fit with their religion. I don't think that impacts the same sex marriage debate though, equal access to the benefits of the law should apply to all. It in no way impacts religious institutions, as long as those institutions are not being forced to perform the marriages also. | cmv |
I am an atheist, however I agree with the Christian Church's decision to not allow same - sex marriage. CMV? | Because the church doesn't own the term marriage. Marriage was around before Christianity was and you don't need to be Christian, or even religious, to call yourself married. If the church doesn't want to perform a marriage ceremony between a gay couple, that is completely within their rights and should be decided on an individual church level or at a higher level in whatever way they decide. But marriage does not belong to Christianity. There are religions that will perform same sex marriages and those marriages are no less real than Christian marriages. | cmv |
I am an atheist, however I agree with the Christian Church's decision to not allow same - sex marriage. CMV? | The problem is, marriage isn't just a religious ceremony. There's a lot of legal issues that involve marriage as well. Sharing finances, insurance ( especially insurance ) and whatnot sometimes only becomes an option if you're married to someone. I agree, if it were purely religious, then I would say let the church do whatever they want. Sadly, marriage is just as much a non - religious matter as it is a religious matter. | cmv |
I am an atheist, however I agree with the Christian Church's decision to not allow same - sex marriage. CMV? | If subscribing as a member of the Christian Church were, in all instances, simply a matter of personal choice, then I would agree with you OP. The fact of the matter is that many homosexuals are born into a totally Christian society, know nothing else, and genuinely feel as if they are an " abomination. " People live total lies, sometimes for their whole lives, which is sad and unfair. Also, the whole " selective subscription within Leviticus " argument. | cmv |
I am an atheist, however I agree with the Christian Church's decision to not allow same - sex marriage. CMV? | Marriage is not a religious institution, at least the kind of marriage that Americans are trying to legalize for same - sex couples. Civil marriage ( marriage recognized by the state ) is secular, meaning you don't have to have any recognition from the Christian Church for your marriage to be legitimate ( the government recognizes it ). As such, there are legal benefits associated with civil marriage such as tax breaks and hospital visitation rights. Not allowing same sex couples those rights is unconstitutional - - it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I know you say that same sex couples should get the same rights - - but giving them a civil union just makes it " separate but equal ", which is unconstitutional by the precedent of Brown v. Board. I'm not saying that Christian churches should have to conduct gay marriages, and give the couples the religious benefits of marriage in their church. That would also be constitutional. But marriage is far more than religious in the United States - - there are secular, legal benefits associated with marriage, and to deny those rights to same sex couples is both unfair and unconstitutional. | cmv |
I am an atheist, however I agree with the Christian Church's decision to not allow same - sex marriage. CMV? | Well, what denomination are you referring to as " the church "? Christian denominations vary widely in what they will and will not do and what they do and don't accept. Unitarians will perform gay marriages, but Southern Baptists won't. Are you looking for the two theological arguments between whether or not to allow gay marriage in a Christian church? I'm sure you could look that up on your own. The Unitarians justify their practices in their own way, and the Southern Baptists do the same. That's what freedom of religion is all about. | cmv |
I am an atheist, however I agree with the Christian Church's decision to not allow same - sex marriage. CMV? | If all you're arguing is that churches shouldn't be forced to perform religious marriages for same - sex couples, then sure. They can practice their religious ceremonies however they like. As long as you're not conflating religious marriage like this to civil marriage, where there is no justification for discriminating on the basis of trivial genetic features like race or sex, then I don't disagree. It's worth pointing out though that it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to expect that the religious figures could lose their authority to perform civil marriages for this reason. They could still perform their religious ceremonies like always though. | cmv |
I believe the US. Electoral College should be abolished, CMV | The entire reason the electoral college came about was to stop people from populated states always winning. Think about it, people will always vote for the candidate most like them. This results in people voting for the candidate from my state. You would almost always vote for a Californian because he's from your state, and I'd always vote for a New Jerseyian. | cmv |
I believe that endangered species should be left to die. CMV | Have you heard about any of the cool research being done on the cool things animals can do that we don't yet understand? Or, perhaps less accurately but more accessibly, have you read any of those " pop sci " articles about how scientists " may have " found a gene in some spider that could help us cure cancer, or a chemical that some toad excretes that could help us develop stronger plastics? There are thousands of these sorts of stories ( and research projects ) every year. But what if one of those species were allowed ( and really, encouraged, due to human industrial practices, both habitat destruction and pollution ) to go extinct? We'd never have found that gene, or that chemical, that let us cure cancer, or develop new materials / technologies. Genetic diversity isn't just important in the crops we eat, but also in the world at large, as it opens up new avenues of exploration, learning, and discovery. | cmv |
Punishing bullies is a form of bullying, and isn't effective to combat the cycle of bullying. CMV. | OP, you're working under the assumption that bullies do what they do in order to punish their victims. I'm not sure if that's a plausible theory. It seems to be more about power and domination. | cmv |
Punishing bullies is a form of bullying, and isn't effective to combat the cycle of bullying. CMV. | I think the problem is that sometimes the bully feels like a victim anyhow. Children who are mistreated, for example, often interpret the actions of others as hostile, even an accidental bump, and will respond quickly with anger. They, meanwhile, feel the accidental bump was intentional and hostile. Empathy building and helping the child over come those issues is of course better than most punitive measures. Some over - extend the use of the word punishment. For example, if a child cannot handle certain triggers or antecedents they may feel they are being punished when a parent limits those things, but it is not really a punishment so much as a preventative situation. For example, if a child has a lot of trouble bullying in a particular group, removing them from that group, as well as working on empathy may be of benefit. Some might consider that punishment... if too much sugar causes more acting out fits and a shorter temper, less persistence on problems, more frustration etc, than restricting sugar in the diet may be seen as punitive to some, but preventative to others. Also, I am not sure how you can really argue that bullying is a socializing force while also arguing that it is wrong and bullying to punish bullies, with any form of consistency... one is socializing and the other is not? | cmv |
[ CMV ] Homosexuality is Bad / Fertility is Good | I'm just going to shortcut the bullshit outline format and mention that homosexuality is a result of fertility. Also, homosexuality is a physiological state, so you can't really talk about it in a moral sense, which you seem to be implying with your title. You can talk about it being conducive or inhibitory to this and that, but that's about it. The same is somewhat true of fertility. Nowadays, having a shit - ton of children isn't necessarily a good thing, though simply having the ability to have children may be good / useful. | cmv |
[ CMV ] Homosexuality is Bad / Fertility is Good | 1. 3 ) homosexuality inhibits fertility. Let's say I live in a community consisting of 4 people. Me, a gay guy, and two ladies. The two ladies find me very attractive, and I find them very attractive. I have sex with both of them so often that they pop babies out every nine months. Has homosexuality inhibited fertility here? Heck maybe I was shy and he introduced me to the girls... | cmv |
[ CMV ] Homosexuality is Bad / Fertility is Good | 1. 2 ) conditions that inhibit fertility are bad. Every night wild boars come to my village and if I didn't stop them, they would destroy it. Ladies are all over me like, " kelpbites you're so hot. Let's go behind the bushes and make whoopee " And I'm like, " sorry I'm busy, I gotta defend the village from these wild boars. " Is my behavior bad? I'm certainly contributing to the survival of my village... | cmv |
[ CMV ] Homosexuality is Bad / Fertility is Good | I haven't seen any of your other posts, so you may have seen these arguments before. 1. 1 ) You admitted this wasn't necessary, so I won't address it, other than this statement that addresses it. 1. 2 ) Unsubstantiated claim, unless your moral standards are derived from popular opinion. And whether infertility is good or bad depends on what the individual wants. For people who don't want any children, infertility is good. There are even procedures that can create infertility. 1. 3 ) Inaccurate claim. Fertility is the ability to produce offspring. Homosexuality does not inhibit that ability, anymore than condoms do. 1. 2 is unsubstantiated, and 1. 3 is inaccurate, thus 1. 4 has no rational basis. | cmv |
[ CMV ] Homosexuality is Bad / Fertility is Good | " Conditions That Inhibit Fertility Are Bad " so vasectomies, hysterectomies to avoid or treat cancer, etc are all'bad '? You are defining the badness of infertility only to include those instances where people don't want to be infertile, which may not apply at all to same sex couples, or hetero couples. | cmv |
The pope is unworthy of praise. CMV. | It doesn't really matter whether or not the Church is a force for good or not, what matters is if Pope Francis makes it better ( a force for not - quite - as - bad ), or worse ( a force for even - worse - than - now ). For example, most people wouldn't call Nelson Mandela a bad leader / person, despite ruling over the country with among the highest crime rates in the world ( about 10 - 15x the US rate ). For actual effects, I would be very surprised if anyone could get substantial change implemented in a large organisation in one year, never mind the 11 weeks that the Pope has had so far. I'm actually surprised at how much he has been able to do so far, symbolic or not. For the moral questions, those stances are consistent with the rest of the Church's views, and I find it difficult to fault someone too much for sticking to the status quo. So it's still bad, but not as bad as it could be. | cmv |
I believe that in Islam, violence is seen as an acceptable means of expression. CMV | I understand that there are many different types of Islam, and that the majority of Muslims don't condone violence. Keep in mind, however, that Islam has the same type of PR problem that American Protestant Christians have – they don't have a central figure, like the Pope, to speak on behalf of the majority of all Muslims. The only one that I can currently think of that might have a huge following is in Iran, and they are quite the fundamentalist sect. So while the majority of Muslims are quiet, peace - loving, nice people, you have these fringes that commit violence in the name of Islam, and because there is no real central authority figure, its hard to fight against that kind of negative PR. So even if a large number of peaceful Muslims come out and speak against it, that small vocal minority of violent fanatics will attract more attention unless you get a figure like the Pope to speak on behalf of a large group of Muslims. | cmv |
I believe that in Islam, violence is seen as an acceptable means of expression. CMV | There is no such thing as Islam as such, in the same way there is no such thing as Christianity as such. These are concepts that people can impose on billions of people that might identify according to a label, but how those individuals exist in the world is so varied that the categorization is itself a crude and flawed way of looking at people. Another way of looking at it is that there are as many religions as there are people. It isn't that a religion is violent. It is that violent people will use any sort of political or religious or ideological justification for their actions. Even the devil quotes scripture for his own purposes. | cmv |
I believe that laws in society aren't influenced by the religious views of the general populous within the society, CMV. | In America due to the establishment clause, laws cannot be made in respect to a religion or because of religious beliefs. However, religious beliefs can create viewpoints that drive people to lobby for, fight for, and be more ardent about pushing certain laws. Take abortion, for example. The Catholic Church condemns it and says that it is outright wrong. While this isn't a secular reason, this pushes Catholics, both voters and politicians, to find reasons to fight against abortions, and can both cause laws to be passed or prevent laws from being passed. The religion is the motive. If religion had no influence, people wouldn't have a strong motive such as " God's word " to be so fervently against abortion, and you lose a lot of the pro - life movement. Similarly, some people are motivated by religion to keep gay marriage illegal. This is done through both people in positions of power and voters ( who vote people who are religiously motivated into power ). Just because religious views don't create laws doesn't mean they don't motivate them and can be seen as the root cause. | cmv |