summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I think that not voting for either candidate in a presidential election simply because you disagree / dislike both of their views is absurd. CMV | What about a third party candidate? They won't get elected but when a third party gets a certain percentage of the popular vote, they get benefits in the next election. Also, what if you believe that there is not going to be a significant difference in the quality of either president. If I honestly don't care about the outcome it seems dishonest to choose one candidate over the other. | cmv |
I think that not voting for either candidate in a presidential election simply because you disagree / dislike both of their views is absurd. CMV | Are third party candidates wrong to vote for? I voted Jill Stein and I'd do it again if you gave me the chance. Why should someone have to vote for two of the corporate $ $ $ party figureheads? What good does that do? When you vote third party, you're letting people know that there is a group of people who aren't buying into the two - party system. And the more people that vote that way, the more politicians are going to take notice. If you vote within party lines, you won't change politics. It's action outside the system that changes the system ( in terms of voting, if you are actually a politician then this is definitely not the case ). | cmv |
I believe that we should reduce the sentencing of acquaintance rape in order to increase conviction rates. CMV | I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's the way the justice system works. IIRC, there is only a single standard of proof for criminal charges ( beyond a reasonable doubt ), and most ( all? ) of them share common elements ( like actual harm being done, intent, etc. ). Reducing the sentence based on whether the victim knew the perpetrator is also a bad idea, as it implies that that in itself makes it a less serious crime. I don't really have a problem with increased / reduced sentences for violent / non - violent rapes, or some other criteria, though. TL ; DR : it wouldn't make it easier to prosecute, and the shorter sentences are not for a good reason. | cmv |
I believe marijuana is a gateway drug CMV. | Two questions. First, do you have any data supporting your belief or is it just a hypothesis? Studies have been done on the subject, so you might want to look them up and find out what they discovered. You've even posited a mechanism by which your hypothesis might work - - the culture and nature of the drug. Can you elaborate on how the nature of the drug encourages more serious drug use, in your hypothesis? You mention that the culture is also responsible for this gateway effect, but the culture has changed significantly in recent times with the mounting legalization movement. How does this change your conclusion? Second, does it really matter whether it's a gateway drug? What about alcohol and tobacco ; how do their gateway effects compare with the gateway effects of marijuana? | cmv |
I believe marijuana is a gateway drug CMV. | Yeah, it likely is a gateway drug. The solution is to make it legal. The only thing that makes it a gateway drug is that it's illegal. If you use one illegal drug, why not another? If we made alcohol illegal, beer would quickly become as much of a gateway drug as marijuana is today. The problem isn't in marijuana, it's in our laws / culture. | cmv |
I believe marijuana is a gateway drug CMV. | There is this peculiar surrendering of responsibility when it comes to drugs. Many people are aware of wat drugs can do and the stigma attached to it. Yet they still go out of their way and willingly use it. We are entirely responsible for what we do or don't do ( in most cases at least ). With that said, and as a frequent flyer myself, I agree that marijuana is an easier platform from which one might become curious about other more severe drugs. But the responsibility to go on to other drugs is still in your power, and is still entirely your responsibility. We could either shield every person from ever participating in a gateway activity, for fear of progressing onto scarier more dangerous things, but then that would be devaluing our free will. | cmv |
I believe marijuana is a gateway drug CMV. | I think a better way to put it is Marijuana can be a gateway drug. If you live in a poor neighbor hood where drug dealers sell weed, as well as a plethora of other harder drugs, it makes sense that weed would be a gateway to harder drugs. But if you're a middle class high school kid living in a small village in rural ohio, not so much. I use this example because it's my situation. I occasionally buy pot from a guy at my high school, and even if I was interested in other drugs, I would have no idea where I would get them. I wouldn't even know where to look. Weed being a gateway drug is dependent on where the person in question lives | cmv |
I think that the South didn't attack Fort Sumter, I think the North did. CMV | The fort was held by men loyal to the Union and thus it had to be taken. Ft. Sumter guards the entrance to Charleston harbor, so if your enemy controls it, they can deny ships entrance to the harbor and thus deny the city trade and resupply. It wasn't the sort of thing that the new Confederacy could just ignore, even if they weren't particularly looking for a fight ( although odds are they were ). You're right that " history is written by the victor " is true to an extent, but think about taking this to its logical extreme. Do you believe all or the vast majority of our recollection of history is false because there is bound be some bias from all sides involved in any story? Do you think the Axis in WWII wasn't really aggressive and dangerous, and were just the hapless victims of the victorious allies who whitewashed the true story? Modern historians work very hard to try to sift through this sort of bias and give us an analysis of the past that is more than just, " We're awesome, our enemies were terrible monsters, we were always right and they were always wrong. " | cmv |
I think anyone who's view can be changed after reading a few sentences from a stranger on the internet does not think carefully enough about the views they hold. CMV | Much of what changes peoples'minds is giving a different point of view, or some new way to think about the topic. A lot of posts are also " I think this way, why does everyone else think differently? " type posts. People want to know what the other side is and why they may be misinformed about the topic. | cmv |
I think anyone who's view can be changed after reading a few sentences from a stranger on the internet does not think carefully enough about the views they hold. CMV | Well some of it has to do with a person's lack of expertise in a subject. Wherein you might believe something, but then somebody who is an expert in the field can change your view because they give you more information to base your own opinion off of. Some people already believe their views are not necessarily correct so these are easy to change. Some people can be made aware of an idea that they had not heard of or even thought of that can change your view on things. | cmv |
I think anyone who's view can be changed after reading a few sentences from a stranger on the internet does not think carefully enough about the views they hold. CMV | So obviously you're already not coming into this discussion with the CMV mindset, but your statement carries the brash assumption that all problems are simple, and that near - absolute certainty can be obtained by just thought with no outside viewpoints. Additionally, the length of an argument in no way correlates with the strength of an argument. In some matters, like the existence of human - created climate change, it's true that both sides would probably have to do a lot of analysis of the research available to make their claim. But in other cases, such as whether or not video games can ever be considered art, are often more about making your opponent look at things from another angle than they are providing tangible evidence. The fact is that humans are often bad at empathy. As much as we'd like to believe that we're able to consider things objectively, we're usually to some degree blinded by our own experiences and prejudices. Recognizing this common flaw allows us to overcome it, to accept the input of others and incorporate it into our own beliefs and values and get closer to the truth. | cmv |
I think anyone who's view can be changed after reading a few sentences from a stranger on the internet does not think carefully enough about the views they hold. CMV | I don't think people come here with firm, locked in beliefs. People post them when they're questioning their views, or when they feels they should have a different view. For instance, any of the people who are against gay marriage on here say they have nothing against gay people, which is probably why they're looking for someone to convince them gay marriage is okay. | cmv |
I believe the US should end military aid to foreign countries. CMV. | Certain countries, like Japan and South Korea desperately do need out protection from outside forces. China is the second most powerful nation on the planet and Japan would be unable to withstand any attack that China was to throw at them. If we pulled complete military support from Japan ( the only country that likes us more then we like us ) they wouldn't survive and many more people would die. | cmv |
Being willing to change your homophobic, sexist, or racist views doesn't make it right to broadcast those views CMV | I think you are wrong. You assume that you are right about homophobia and sexism being wrong views to broadcast. I think they are, you think they are - but you assume this is self evident. Maybe we are both wrong and they're right. Now I'm not making a claim on the propriety of this, but I am making a deeper knowledge claim. For you to continue to believe you are right - you must continue to be willing to have this view challenged. | cmv |
Being willing to change your homophobic, sexist, or racist views doesn't make it right to broadcast those views CMV | Lots of people have already noted the place such statements have in the CMV format, but I want to note a problem with how you've phrased your concern to begin with. It's all very well for you ( and the rest of us, when it comes to that ) to call these beliefs " vile, " but anyone holding them is unlikely to view them in that light and will consequently have no qualms with stating them in the first place. What you're saying, functionally, is : " unless you already hold our negative view of your own beliefs, you shouldn't be allowed to discuss them here. " That's not going to get many people involved, though. | cmv |
Being willing to change your homophobic, sexist, or racist views doesn't make it right to broadcast those views CMV | I don't think it's the case that everyone posting a view you consider " vile " is resolutely opposed to truly looking at it any other way. But even if it were true of a majority of them, I think there can be value in it regardless. A lot of the time, they don't bother to respond because they're miffed that people don't agree with them, or they know they can't offer a cogent response for their baseless ideas, which weakens their view from the start. And even when they do choose to respond, they often end up exposing how poorly thought - out the rationale behind many forms of prejudice, hatred, and judgment really are. There may be plenty of people reading who might not know exactly how they feel about various sensitive subjects at first, but when they see racism, sexism, or ignorance confronted with rational, substantive arguments, and nothing to challenge those, it may help to influence their views as well. | cmv |
I think that the U. S. is slowly becoming like Oceania from George Orwell's " 1984. " CMV | I think it's more appropriate to contrast the two great dystopias of the earlyish twentieth century, 1984 and Brave New World. The former is about fascism and Stalinism, and was a world of constant surveillance and fear. The latter is about the rise of propaganda and the " engineering of consent, " and was a world of shallow, controlled pleasures. In America, propaganda has always been a stronger force than surveillance or censorship, and likely always will be. In that sense, guns are a red herring and surveillance is hard to get people worked up about. | cmv |
I think that the U. S. is slowly becoming like Oceania from George Orwell's " 1984. " CMV | Here is a quick list of technologies that are poised to prevent a Orwellian future Money is bitcoin ( my favorite one - I believe it will trash our current financiao system soon. ) Secure e communication is PGP encryption A place to take the most damning evidenced for the world is wiki leaks | cmv |
I think that the U. S. is slowly becoming like Oceania from George Orwell's " 1984. " CMV | I don't remember Orwell arguing against gun control, and if that's the only reason you think we're moving towards a totalitarian state, I think you might have missed the point of the novel. Extrapolating a change in gun laws to complete governmental control is a slippery slope fallacy. Hell, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the war, and that was certainly more dictatorial than asking people who buy tools with the potential to kill other people to register their weapons, but it's not like that suddenly caused the nation to become a goose - stepping police state. | cmv |
I see no issue with aborting babies who will be born with a crippling disease, no matter what stage it is in. CMV. | There is a movie called Gattaca that you may or may not have seen, essentially it is about this argument. In the movie, doctors create the ability to remove diseases or ailments from unborn fetuses. In short, this leads to ultra - discrimination ; genetically altered individuals are termed " valid, " while natural - birth individuals are labeled " invalid. " The term affects the individual's ability to find jobs and participate normally in society despite the fact that they may not have much wrong with them. So, I believe that introducing this aborting standard to society would end in a scenario like in Gattaca, where babies with defects are further discriminated against ( more than they are now ). In addition, some " major health issues " are also major health solutions. Sickle cell anemia is a disease that causes the deformity of red blood cells. Many with the disease die, but in Africa it is highly selected for because the malaria virus cannot survive as well in the deformed cell. So, maintaining genetic diversity is also extremely important in the maintenance of our species as a whole. | cmv |
I see no issue with aborting babies who will be born with a crippling disease, no matter what stage it is in. CMV. | Who decides what defines a " crippling disease " and how to appoint these people? If we're going to vote them into the government, we run the risk of someone claiming that two people of different races can produce nothing but a " crippling disease ". And on to your opinion of encouragement : You're judging this solely off of your perspective of life. You have absolutely no idea how people with these diseases live ; their lives could the most blissful thing known to man. My life, which is one of a white, middle class, suburban male, could appear as a waste of resources to some rich oil tycoon who spends more money fueling his jet than I'll see in two years who supports the encouragement of aborting people like me. | cmv |
I see no issue with aborting babies who will be born with a crippling disease, no matter what stage it is in. CMV. | While I do think its important for people to know the facts about abortion ; I don't think you can claim to to be pro - choice and advocate doctors / society encouraging one option. No doubt people should have accurate information regarding their options readily available from their healthcare provider. But when you start distributing it with a slant one way or the other you start to compromise the accuracy and completeness of it, which would be pretty unethical. | cmv |
I believe that 9 / 11 was not a tragic event in U. S history CMV | Would 200, 000 Iraqis have died without 9 / 11? Would we be so willing to sacrifice our freedom, for the illusion of safety? Would we have been so willing to accept the torture of others? If you can't mourn the lives lost, can you at least mourn what we have become? | cmv |
I believe that 9 / 11 was not a tragic event in U. S history CMV | Why does the number of people that died in Iraq change the fact that 9 / 11 was tragic? Both are tragdies, differing only in degree. I concede that the loss of life in the middle east in general is greater, and thus a larger tragedy. As for innocent, can you really tell me that you believe the 2 year old that was killed in one of the planes on 9 / 11 had it coming? | cmv |
I believe that 9 / 11 was not a tragic event in U. S history CMV | Innocent people who were going about their day were murdered. Children lost parents and close family. Parents lost their son's and daughter's Firefighters, police officers, and EMTs who dedicated their lives to protecting the public were killed. You tell me how any of the 3, 000 people who died on 9 / 11 were in any way responsible for the actions of independent and top secret government agencies. How can a group of people who have done nothing but live their lives day to day have any responsibility for the crimes of the CIA or government administrations? | cmv |
I believe that 9 / 11 was not a tragic event in U. S history CMV | 9 / 11 was the most deadly terrorist attack in US history. How could you believe that it isn't tragic at all? Tragic is defined as, causing or characterized by extreme distress or sorrow. Those 3, 000 people had families, coworkers, and friends who all felt sorrow and distress. Do you think those families felt fine the next day? NYC alone was in a panic for a long while after. I didn't know a single person who died in that event, but I felt a loss. I'm confused how you don't find mass death and hysteria tragic. | cmv |
I believe that abortion or intentional premature birth should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy CMV | Why does a woman lose the right to control over her own body just because the fetus inside of her is viable? You're saying that you think people have the right to force someone to go through labor against their will, and that seems to be a rather invasive violation of someone's rights to autonomy to me. Also, why are you trying to draw some connection between viability and personhood? Those two things are generally considered to be completely separate attributes, so I'm not sure why you're lumping them together. People can lose the ability to survive on their own independently after birth as well, such as those who are kept alive by machines. Do you really think that these people become non - persons when this happens? | cmv |
I don't see the benefit of ID cards CMV | What country do you live in? I live in Canada and you don't need to carry anything with you. You need id for various purposes, obviously. Buying liquor, driving, health card etc. | cmv |
I don't see the benefit of ID cards CMV | The lack of a national ID has forced industries like banking and credit, equipment and apartment rental, wine and spirit vendors, etc. to use other, inferior forms of ID and proof of age. Social Security numbers and drivers licenses were not designed for these uses, but they've become the defacto " ID " cards and numbers anyway, leading to major problems such as identity theft. These industries really need a proper, well - designed form of identification that can make use of modern technologies such as smart - chips ( for challenge - response protocols ) that make it harder to steal an identity than merely copying a 9 - digit Social Security number or forging licenses that look different from State - to - State. | cmv |
I don't see the benefit of ID cards CMV | Well, it's a standard form of identification, less expensive and smaller than a passport. Better than a driving license because it is less easily counterfeit. Also, not everybody has a driving license. I don't understand why it has the smell of fascism. It seems legit to have a way for the government to identify you without relying on your family / friends. | cmv |
CMV - I believe that if gay marriage is legalized, there is no possible argument against incestuous marriage | Many ( not all ) human societies over much of recorded history have recognized homosexuality as a form of sexual expression. Incest taboos are found nearly all human societies ; they have been absent in very few well documented cases ( eg Egyptian and Hawaiian monarchies ). So I'm inclined to say that, as a species, we have accepted one and rejected the other. | cmv |
CMV - I believe that if gay marriage is legalized, there is no possible argument against incestuous marriage | You have listed many arguments against incestuous marriage. While they are not all 100 % convincing, most laws are not based on perfect, flawless arguments. As to why incest is different from gay marriage, " people who like incest " is not considered a protected minority of people. Some of my reasoning here comes from listening to the Supreme Court's oral arguments on gay marriage. The court acknowledged that laws are based on morality. We don't need to prove that our morality is logical or absolute. If we want to outlaw orange juice because we don't like it, we can. The difference between outlawing orange juice and outlawing gay marriage is that orange - juice - drinkers aren't a protected minority that has been subject to history discrimination and bigotry. | cmv |
CMV - I believe that if gay marriage is legalized, there is no possible argument against incestuous marriage | As someone else said, incest isn't a sexual preference. It cannot be compared to homosexuality. A sexual preference is a preference based on a person's sex. It's in the term itself. Other strong preferences which a person has that relate to sex are called fetishes, but I would argue that the vast majority of incest isn't based on a person's fetish per se, but rather a person's relationship with one's family member. In most cases, I would hazard that a person's biological relation to another is not the driving factor so much as it is the psychological relationship between the two and the romantic relationship that developed between them. | cmv |
CMV - I believe that if gay marriage is legalized, there is no possible argument against incestuous marriage | Gay couples are physically incapable of producing offspring. In order to reproduce they must find a surrogate mother and use in vitro or a similar process. Incestuous couples are capable of producing offspring, specifically offspring that have a very high chance of disability. Condoning that seems a bit immoral, don't you think? | cmv |
CMV - I believe that if gay marriage is legalized, there is no possible argument against incestuous marriage | Ok, so a bad thing with incest is inbreeding. The obvious counter argument to OPs belief is that marriage and having kids correlate, and more importantly, which signals it sends. Making marriage legal would send signals that having kids is ok, thus increasing the risk of inbred children. Saying that marriage is not legal sends signals that inbreeding is not ok, thus reducing the number of inbred children. How efficient is this signal of saying " you cannot marry " worth in terms of curbing the number of inbred children? We will probably never know. | cmv |
CMV - I believe that if gay marriage is legalized, there is no possible argument against incestuous marriage | The legalization of gay marriage has nothing to do with the legalization of incest. They are two completely different things. The only argument against homosexual marriage is religious, not grounded in fact but prejudice, but the reasons for not allowing incestuous marriage are rational. There are still children that are a result from incest but legalizing it because it happens is not a sound argument. | cmv |
CMV - I believe that if gay marriage is legalized, there is no possible argument against incestuous marriage | This is perhaps not enough to fully make the case, but there is one important point that certainly makes a difference. People broadly consider erotic love to be an essential part of marriage. Since gay people are incapable of having erotic connections with people of the opposite sex, they are effectively denied an essential aspect of marriage by the prohibition on same - sex marriage. That is the fundamental unfairness of not permitting same - sex marriages. In contrast, banning incest only excludes the possibility of marrying a small number of people, and thus neither discriminates broadly against a class of people, nor does it prevent people from experiencing any essential aspects of marriage. I don't think this argument suffices by itself, but the issues of power imbalance, already well - expressed in this thread, do in my opinion justify singling out incest for banning. | cmv |
CMV - I believe that if gay marriage is legalized, there is no possible argument against incestuous marriage | This probably wont get seen by many. However there maybe an end all argument here. The closer you are genetically to a relative or even an intimidate family member the higher the risk of complications. That aside I am going to go with the gene pool argument. If we as a society ( this is an extreme example but one none the less ) started to inbreed with only one or two degrees of genetic differentiation then out gene pool will start to shrink. With a smaller genetic pool to work with our chances of survival start getting smaller and smaller. With a larger gene pool to work with there is a greater chance of survival as a race. If some sort of virus breaks out and becomes a global pandemic the odds of the larger gene pool surviving are much larger than the smaller gene pool. With more genetic code to work with the more variable there are to counter act the virus. | cmv |
I don't believe corporations should pay taxes. CMV | " After much thought, I have come to believe there is another entity involved with corporations - suppliers to the corporation, however any effect of a tax increase will have much the same results as with employees. In fact, the brunt will likely be borne by the suppliers employees. Further, I have resolved that another effect that is not attributed to any particular entity is a decline of R & D spending by the corporation which likely will have a negative result for employees and, you could say, society as a whole. " It seems like the supplier and corporation could both just raise their prices, that would negate any Ill effects on employee wages and benefits. Would cut into R & D of new products, as less waste would have to come out of that department to make it more viable. | cmv |
I don't believe corporations should pay taxes. CMV | Don't corporations take advantage of working roads? A police force? The court system? Can they ship their products over defended seas? Don't they benefit from an educated public? Shouldn't they pay for these luxuries? | cmv |
I don't believe corporations should pay taxes. CMV | Corporate taxes are, in part, a way for the government to control and regulate businesses and promote good business habits that are good for everyone without actively outlawing things - which is much more difficult for both businesses and the government. Consider tax breaks for greener companies, and tax hikes for those who use environmentally unfriendly practices. This is at least one benefit of taxes. | cmv |
I don't believe corporations should pay taxes. CMV | Corporations are a form of protection offered by the state as a deal made with entrepreneurs. The state provides infrastructure, the protection of the law for property ( both physical & intellectual ), access to a market and an educated and healthy labour force. In return, the state demands mininum working conditions and taxes for the provision of those services before a profit is taken. Sounds fair enough to me. People tend to forget the " bargain " part ; If you listen to the randroids, they will tell you that the state just needs to get out of the way. Well, we tried that experiment and got Lehman brothers, sub - prime and the Libor scandal. Corporations have to act as responsible citizens just as regular citizens do. That means paying their taxes. | cmv |
I don't believe corporations should pay taxes. CMV | If corporate tax is a tax on profit, and if accounting costs imposed by the corporate tax are zero, then it's strictly a tax on shareholders. As others have noted, it is a fallacy to opine that management will increase prices if profits are taxed. If management could increase revenue by increasing prices, it would have already had the duty to do so, with or without tax. Likewise, a tax on profit will not cause management to reduce wages to employees. If management could decrease costs by decreasing wages, it would have already had the duty to its shareholders to do that. The biggest problem of corporation tax is elsewhere. It's that collection is centered around a huge pile of money, involving a small number of people, around which a deal can easily be made. It engenders corruption in ways taxation of individuals does not. A corporation has hundreds of millions of dollars to offer to a politician who would reduce its tax burden, and the politician has a tremendous amount of power to gain from carving a particular loophole. Corporation tax is counter productive because ( 1 ) the largest corporations will carve out ways to not pay it, ( 2 ) small businesses suffer from the intrusiveness of the tax, and the arcane complexity of the loophole - ridden tax code. | cmv |
I don't believe corporations should pay taxes. CMV | This line of reasoning holds true for individuals as well as corporations. If you reduce individuals taxes, they have more disposable income and will spend and or invest, spurring supply of goods and services, etc. But in order to maintain the government benefits ( transport, power, water, security, etc. ), we need new sources of revenue. My understanding is that in order to measure and tax each user of government supplied benefits, we tax both individuals and corporations. We could reduce corporate taxes to 0, but then we need to get that revenue somewhere else or cut benefits that everyone uses. Following this line, how do we increase these individual taxes? The additional profits are not going to be distributed equally across all employees and investors. So who gets what tax rate increase? This is difficult and complicated, so instead we tax both corporations and individuals to attempt to evenly and fairly tax all users of the government benefits according to their usage of the benefits. | cmv |
My desire for strong gun control and open access to 3D printers are in conflict CMV | What street cost for a gun do you regard as success? Is it possible the UK already has plenty of gun supply compared to its demand? If so ( and I suspect it does ) an increase in the supply via printer wouldn't change the equation much. | cmv |
My desire for strong gun control and open access to 3D printers are in conflict CMV | I don't think the two have to conflict. People can look up how to make homemade bombs on the internet freely. Bombs are illegal. The same concept can apply for guns. | cmv |
My desire for strong gun control and open access to 3D printers are in conflict CMV | Have you ever fired a gun made by a 3D printer? It explodes. In your hand. If it doesn't do that, then it will be rendered useless after a few shots because - surprise - explosions are hot and your gun is plastic. Not to mention that the rounds are small caliber and harmless unless you get a very lucky shot... which is damn near impossible because the barrels can't be rifled easily. Recap : May explode Useless after fired twice Barely lethal Inaccurate Not cost effective | cmv |
My desire for strong gun control and open access to 3D printers are in conflict CMV | Let's see how this goes. The justification of placing restrictions on 3D printer technology ( or any new technological tools ) is that they could potentially be used to manufacture " guns " ( or other relatively simple mechanical designed weapon ). The primary weakness of this argument is that the unrestricted technology to design and manufacture weapons, including guns, is already available, common and inexpensive with easy access to usable designs. To manufacture a " gun " that will fire manufactured cartridges would only require some simple metal parts and very common machine / hobby shop tools. A multi - shot gun would just take a little more effort to fabricate. Even with my limited skills, give me time with a decent machine shop and I can fabricate a functional ( though not as pretty ) replica of many hand guns and rifle designs. A hightech 3D printer is not needed. I concede that someone with no machining / tooling skills / knowledge and has some minimum downloading skills and access to a 3D printer, the mechanical equivalent of " script kiddies, " the potential is there for abuse. But if one were to restrict all tools that can be used to make a weapon / gun, one better get busy. TL ; DR Restricting new technology ( 3D printers ) to reduce / stop weapon / gun fabrication is too little too late. | cmv |
My desire for strong gun control and open access to 3D printers are in conflict CMV | I wouldn't say they were in any more conflict than the view that the public should have free access to hand tools is with the desire for stringent gun control. Give me a hacksaw, a few very basic hand tools, and access to a few plumbing parts, and I can build you a single - shot improvised shotgun in an afternoon. The ability to print a handgun on a 3 - D printer is really not much different - you have a tool that can be used to produce a firearm of very limited ability. There are other tools out there that are less expensive and less complicated to use that can do the same thing more quickly, simply, and with less material expense, and they have been available for ages. Just treat printed weapons the same as you would your standard zip - gun under the law, treat the files that allow you to print that handgun the same as you would instructions for building a zip - gun, and move on. | cmv |
My desire for strong gun control and open access to 3D printers are in conflict CMV | I'd say you should support a degree of censorship. I don't see what harm can be done by censoring the distribution of information that can pretty much only be used to make weapons and other harmful substances. It's not like censoring free speech or dissent ; I don't see how it violates anyone's rights, or is harmful to society, or leads to any meaningful consequence in modern society besides fewer people having dangerous items. The concern is that whatever process used for this can be used to restrict information in a way that is harmful, that stifles freedom of expression or leads to a lack of privacy. So whatever method used has to address these concerns ; but I don't think it's just wrong to say some types of information shouldn't be freely distributed. | cmv |
My desire for strong gun control and open access to 3D printers are in conflict CMV | While it's not the most factual source, this Cracked article points out how creating a printable gun is an extremely costly venture for a flimsy product. Even if technology advances to the point where 3D printers can use better materials than plastic, people who wish to make their own gun will look as suspicious to the government as any unauthorized person buying steel, gunpowder, and bullets. Point is, the government can certainly still have regulations over gun production and ownership while still keeping consumer use of 3D printing unregulated, because the difficulties of gun manufacturing via 3D printers don't make it a viable option. | cmv |
I believe that when handing out punishment in court, the narrowly legal should be followed and social aspects should not be taken into account - CMV | The ideal for all penal systems is reform, not just handing out punishments. With that in mind, if the judge feels that there is enough evidence that the offender has learned from the experience and will not commit the crime again, then a lesser punishment is warranted. They still need to be punished, because they did commit a crime, but it shouldn't be as long so that they can become a constructive contributing member of society earlier. Obviously mistakes are made, as in the case you mentioned, and sometimes those mistakes have deadly consequences, like with your uncle. It is sad when that happens. But, like I said before, the end goal is reform, and if the judge believes that that is already occurring, then lessen the time that they are in jail. Also, don't forget that prisoners are very expensive to take care of. While this should not be the justification for a shorter - than - necessary sentence, it should be considered when prescribing a longer - than - necessary one. | cmv |
World Peace is not and will never be an achievable goal CMV | World peace is easy to imagine in authoritarian dystopian societies in different forms. I would imagine that a mandatory worldwide drug system could chill the populations as well. A technological resource and energy singularity in combination with more advanced 3d printing technology could remove the basal needs for war. Then if we all just die in nuclear flames that would be a kind of peace. I have trouble seeing " good " scenarios for world peace though. | cmv |
World Peace is not and will never be an achievable goal CMV | World peace will occur on the day when every nation has at least one large corporation that is trading with some other large corporation in another country. " We can't bomb them! Our stocks would drop!! " | cmv |
Teachers and schools should not be allowed I take students'phones. | Schools are allowed to make policies for students, and those rules are published. You probably have a handbook that you haven't read, and there's probably a section about disruptive technology. When you are enrolled in school, you are consenting ( actually, your parents are consenting, because a minor cannot give consent ) to abide by those rules and policies. During school hours, you are not an independent adult - - the school has responsibility for you. The school can't KEEP your phone, but confiscating it is definitely within their legal bounds. | cmv |
Teachers and schools should not be allowed I take students'phones. | Phones are also tiny, easily concealed devices that could easily contain everything needed to cheat on almost every test you take! Test on " The Great Gatsby "? PDF viewer with search functionality. Math test? Calculator. History test? Wikipedia. Phones are also massive distractions from what your teacher is trying to teach you. Kids live in the now and think school is boring ( it often is ). If they are allowed to look at Twitter, Facebook, text, etc then they're not going to learn anything and as long as they're cheating on tests easily they won't be held back. | cmv |
Teachers and schools should not be allowed I take students'phones. | Are teachers forcibly wrestling phones away from students now? My understanding is that when phones are confiscated, the student always has the option to refuse and get detention / sent to the office / some other punishment instead. Schools are fully capable of giving out those punishments, so I don't see why offering an alternative punishment would be illegal. | cmv |
I think those convicted of drunk driving should be sent to prison on the first offense ; CMV | I would agree if we could adjust the standards of what is considered drunk driving. You see all these billboards with " buzzed driving is drunk driving " " one sip is one sip too many " etc etc. We all know that's bullshit. Me drinking three beers over two hours and leaving a party and driving home is not even remotely the same as me slamming back 12 beers and driving home, even though I might be " over the limit " in both cases if I were to be pulled over. | cmv |
I think those convicted of drunk driving should be sent to prison on the first offense ; CMV | Overall I agree with you but I'm annoyed at how alcohol gets singled out. What about other forms of impaired driving? Sleepy? Angry? Incompetent? Medication? Poorly maintained vehicle? Incompetence is the one that really kills me. I remember going for my driver's license when I was 16. I'm taking my written test in the DMV, go to turn it in and can't help but see this 40 - something woman complaining about how she just barely failed the test. You would think 20 some years of real life experience would make you highly competent at the subleties of your 3000 lb death machine. | cmv |
I don't think British soldiers should be consiered'heroes '. CMV | British soldiers go to Afghanistan to keep the Taliban at bay, i don't know how much you know about the Taliban - but they are nasty, very bloodthirsty. Not only were they violent and oppressive to non - muslims, but also muslims who are members of the " wrong " sect. While they were in power they planned terrorist attacks ( or allowed attacks to be planned ) within their borders, for example, they killed a bunch of Iranian diplomats and other unarmed civilians in an attack on an embassy. British soldiers risk their lives to stop these kinds of people from returning to power to continue their abuse, and while they are at it, prevent ( or at least make it harder ) for terrorist attacks to be planned. As for signing up for a job like the rest of us - there aren't many jobs which require you to be shot at, or even stabbed to death outside your home, to help protect people you've never met. | cmv |
I think that a charity that helped fund the lives of only children in poor parts of the world in exchange for the parents agreeing to sterilisation would benefit the world. CMV | In most poor areas of the world, the reason many parents have many children is due to the high infant and child mortality rate. It would be a huge gamble for them - aid for one child, but if it dies, you can never replace it. The cost for the charity to ensure the children they currently have live and are healthy would be enormous and ongoing throughout the child's life. Having many children is not so much a choice as it is a necessity if you want any children there. | cmv |
I think that a charity that helped fund the lives of only children in poor parts of the world in exchange for the parents agreeing to sterilisation would benefit the world. CMV | You're better off sterilizing the wealthy if population control is your goal. If we look at global GDP rates, we actually notice that the top 20 % of people ( adjusted for currency and location ) have an average childbirth rate of 2. 32 per person while the bottom 20 % has an average of 1. 89. This suggests that to control population, we should sterilize the wealthy. Their possessions can then be given to governments after death since there will be no inheritance and the resources can be utilized for the greater good. An additional perk is that this would also give poor areas more influence as the most influential people would cease to exist. | cmv |
I think that Americans are totally disillusioned about the importance of their individuality and the concept of " freedom ". CMV. | Well, the United States was founded on the beliefs of freedom and democracy when those ideas were not accepted. When The the colonies broke free from what they believed was an unfair and abusive ruling by England, the founding fathers wanted to make sure just in case our government fails, that we can defend ourselves. It's our constitutional right to overthrow our government if we find it corrupt. And while that idea may be a bit ridiculous right now as our government isn't going crazy, I wouldn't feel comfortable throwing away any of my constitutional rights no matter how extreme they may seem now. | cmv |
I think that Americans are totally disillusioned about the importance of their individuality and the concept of " freedom ". CMV. | To your point about gun control / violent crime / fighting the police : you miss the nuance of the rhetoric here. Those who oppose gun control, myself included, place the right to life at the highest priority and the right to bear arms is the highest protection of that right. In America, guns deter violent crime and provide the average citizen a tool to defend against criminals. The whole point about fighting the police isn't about shooting back at cops trying to arrest someone. The point is to resist tyrannical behavior by the government, including but not limited to active persecution of a select group of people. | cmv |
I think that Americans are totally disillusioned about the importance of their individuality and the concept of " freedom ". CMV. | Since other Redditors have touched on concepts and values, it would be more beneficial if I talked about your view on what Americans are. You are over - stretching the beliefs of a minority group of Americans to represent the whole American population here. Your interactions with few people, which is more likely to be with biased individuals who firmly believe in their values and political stance points enough to argue with you, don't accurately represent the 300 million Americans in United States. In such a large country, it is reasonable to meet the loudest people on the more extreme sides of the political spectrum, but most Americans float around center - left or center - right. In conclusion, you are generalizing Americans probably based on the limited experiences you have with the outspoken few. Here are some polls relevant to your view to back up my answer. A majority of Americans support gun control legislation. A majority of Americans have great confidence in the institutions of the police and the military. A majority of Americans believe their income taxes to be fair. | cmv |
I think that downloading and being in possession of child porn is a victimless crime CMV | I believe that it appears that way because the victimization is indirect and diffuse, but there is certainly a victim ( supposing, for argument's sake, that the viewing of this pornography does nothing to encourage the viewer to abuse a child in the future ). First of all, of course, it is true that whatever act was caught on film has already been performed, and there is certainly no way to undo that by refraining from viewing it. However, the victim continues to suffer shame and possible trauma afterwards, and this may certainly come in part from the awareness that complete strangers were viewing the material. Then there is the fact that a lot of people viewing child pornography is an incentive for the production of even more. This incentive may be monetary, or simply some sick titillation from its creator in knowing that it is being widely viewed. Again, this victimization is indirect and diffuse - - the equivalent, in that respect, of buying clothes made in a sweatshop - - but there is most certainly a victim. | cmv |
I think that downloading and being in possession of child porn is a victimless crime CMV | I read something a while ago written by a woman who had pornographic movies made of her as a child by a family friend. She learned later that these movies were widely distributed and even famous. As a child she didn't understand what was happening, but as an adult she was sickened to learn that people were still watching these movies and seeing her. By law, whenever someone was found with these videos of her, she received a letter in the mail as a victim of crime. Though one particular person downloading and watching these movies might not affect her, it does contribute to the fact that people have done this and are still doing it, and in that way it's not a victimless crime. | cmv |
I think that downloading and being in possession of child porn is a victimless crime CMV | I will try a very theoretical argument : I assume that uploading child pornography does increase your risk of getting arrested. Therefore an uploader must gain something out of uploading in exchange for which he is willing to take the risk. If nobody downloads his upload then the upload was pointless and I can't see anything he would gain from that. Therefore your download must increase his gain ( whatever that might be ). And the more gain he gets the more will he be willing to risk by producing new material. This argument makes only the assumption that people do stuff for a reason. If a download didn't give anything to the uploader, then why would he put himself at risk? Basically what I'm saying : a market follows market laws ( of supply and demand ) even if we don't know what the currency is. | cmv |
I think that downloading and being in possession of child porn is a victimless crime CMV | I think you overlook an important consequence. If a pedophile rapes a child, don't you think that could have been inspired by viewing child pornography for years before? I find it hard to believe that these to actions are completely independent from each other. When you see porn for the first time it is very exciting. Over the years you get used to it, but then the harder stuff is exciting. But nothing stays exciting forever, you always have to intensify it. Nothing good can come from allowing pedophiles to step up this ladder until they reach just the point below actually raping someone. | cmv |
I think that downloading and being in possession of child porn is a victimless crime CMV | Their action was downloading the porn, which creates a market place for it, which means further children will be sexually exploited. There absolutely is a consequence to watching kiddie porn. You're forgetting that market forces ARE consequences. If no one watched child porn, there would be no child porn, and as a result the number of sexually abused children would be much less. | cmv |
I believe that the amount of firearms in the US is too high, and that it contributes to gun violence. CMV | 99 % of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons. This graph plots the number of legally owned guns. Also America is a large country with very diverse areas and needs. Someone in Montana probably has a few guns, someone in Chicago doesn't ( legally of course ), yet you are more likely to be shot in Chicago than in Montana, or Iraq for that matter. Guns are just a means of Violence and where that violence comes from is a deeper problem. | cmv |
I don't think that dressing up as a rapper by painting your skin dark for Halloween is offensive. CMV | Like someone else said in this thread, " offensive " is kind of the key word here. If it offends someone for any reason whatsoever, it is " offensive ". There is no getting around that. Whether it is morally wrong and all that is a different argument. | cmv |
I believe that homosexuality isn't something people are born with. CMV | OP, if that was the case, we wouldn't see the same effects that we see from twin studies. If we have two identical twins and separate them at birth ( so environments are different ), then based on your theory, if one was a homosexual, the other should be no more likely to be a homosexual than anyone else. That isn't the case. It isn't 100 % either, but we do see a significantly higher chance of the second twin being homosexual than we would if we were to compare the twin to a random individual. | cmv |
I believe that homosexuality isn't something people are born with. CMV | When did you decide to develop your heterosexuality in that case? In adolescence? What did you identify as before you developed your heterosexuality? Saying that homosexuality develops in adolescence makes me think you haven't spent much time around LGT individuals. There are millions of parents who can tell from a very early age that their children aren't straight. Have you honestly never seen or heard of young boys that prefer playing with traditionally female oriented toys / play that end up identifying as gay later in life? Or vice versa for lesbians who reject girl activities for male play styles? | cmv |
I am a student opposed to all tuition fees for higher education. CMV | There is a middle ground that deals with enrolment discrimination and allows students to contribute ; the HECS system implemented in Australia. Students can enrol in university and pay NO up - front tuition fees. They get a loan for their tuition from the government with an interest rate tied to inflation. Once you start earning over a certain amount per year, you start automatically paying back your HECS debt ( it comes out of your pay incrementally on top of your tax ). If you never earn enough you never pay a cent. Why does this work well? Because while society does indeed benefit immensely from having tertiary - education citizens, the benefit is overwhelming felt by the graduates themselves ; in the form of increased job prospects and generally much greater earning capacity. Graduates are usually able to pay back their HECS very easily, but there is no pressure if you can't. | cmv |
I believe that the common strive for " equality " is flawed. CMV | Could you give proof or examples of the Gay Pride or Feminists wanting to get all the power? I would prefer mainstream examples of homosexual or feminist activists. I just can't understand how you can believe gay pride members want all the power, do they want to abolish straight marriage? Are they going to send straight people to concentration camps? Do they want the APA to declare heterosexuality a mental illness? Do they want to criminalize vaginal sex? Homosexuals have suffered all of these and more, they don't want this to happen to anyone at all, I fail to see how this is wanting all the power to themselves. | cmv |
I believe that the common strive for " equality " is flawed. CMV | Can you explain what, exactly, are the things that make you believe these groups want more than just equality? While there are certainly vocal minorities in any group, most of these people just want to be accepted. Also, why do you think acceptance is wrong? Even if you ascribe to the belief that it ( and total equality ) is unattainable, that isn't exactly argument for why it is wrong. | cmv |
I don't believe that blackmail ( extortion is different ) should be illegal. CMV | If I tell your wife that you cheated with a hooker, I'd argue that causes more harm than if I just punch you. How come I'm allowed to demand money for the first one but not for the second one? What's the difference you're drawing between extortion and blackmail? | cmv |
I believe that being a soldier doesn't make you a hero. CMV | You changed your own view. Your title and explanation are at odds. In the title you say'soldier'and in the explanation you say'inexperienced soldier in training or just out of training'and those are usually the definitions other people follow for heroic as well. Sometimes we may say they're committing a heroic act to make an action that may place them in harms way for another person, but the way you make it sound the people you were talking about don't fit the title you used. | cmv |
I think that many of the major pro - gun arguments are fallacious. CMV. | 1 ) I would argue it does apply to those things. Most people aren't murdering psychopaths only deterred by the law. 2 ) If you don't have a gun and someone is attacking you, what do you do? You just kind of stand there and hope he doesn't kill you. If you have a gun and someone is attacking you, what do you do? Well, you can take a little control back in the situation. It's no longer completely unequal. | cmv |
I think that many of the major pro - gun arguments are fallacious. CMV. | Concerning your first point : We wouldn't make laws against things if we didn't think people were going to try doing them. So we want to have a law established in advance of the crime so that when someone inevitably commits it, we have an agreed moral standard by which to consider the severity of their action and we're not just judging every action however we feel like judging it that day. The law might be a deterrent but we accept that it's not going to stop everyone. As for your second point, why are you assuming that anyone knows about anyone else's weapon? If we are allowed to carry and conceal, one might even expect crime rates to drop, because criminals will not know who can defend themselves and might not feel as much like trying their luck. | cmv |
I believe marijuana should be legalised. CMV | I wouldn't immediately dismiss its effects. The idea that Marijuana is not addictive is false. Steady use will mess with your brain's internal chemistry and draw the consequences of addiction. Continued Marijuana use has also been seen to cause a decrease in overall brain activity somewhere in the area of 20 - 25 % after 4 months of use. Source : My one introductory Neuroscience class last semester | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | I believe that life begins at conception, and really it doesn't matter when life begins for my view. Basically, there is something in your body using your nutrients that you did not give permission to do. That is assault. The only way to protect yourself from this assault, is to kill it. If there were a way to get the attacker out of your body without killing it, then abortion would definitely be wrong. But there isn't right now, so it's the only choice. | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | If human life begins at conception, then shouldn't most women who have had unprotected sex be charged with manslaughter? Many pregnancies are automatically aborted by the body before the pregnancy is even known. So the woman has killed the fetus involuntarily and now it's manslaugher. Life cannot be considered to begin at conception if only for that reason alone. | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | a pregnancy is a woman reproducing herself. it's nothing more complicated than that. if a woman realizes that she is reproducing and, using her uniquely - capable brain, decides that she is not ready to reproduce, she should have the choice to stop that process, b / c it belongs to her. ( not to say the father should have no say ) | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | To add onto what people are already saying - lets say someone gets in a horrible accident. They're on life support, and the machines are the only thing keeping them alive. They're brain dead. Now, in this scenario I think you'll find that most people won't object to pulling the plug in a hypothetical. This person is no longer a person, it's just a body. Sure, it's still technically alive, should we persecute doctors for murder when they pull the plug? The time period in which abortion is allowed the fetus is basically just some developing cells completely dependent on their host. There's no person there, no thought, not even a brain. | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | If a fetus cannot feel anything, cannot feel pain, then I don't see the problem with the mother choosing to abort it, for whatever reason. If I died in my sleep, I wouldn't care. I wouldn't feel it and then I'd be dead. The only downside would be the people left behind that would miss me or depend on me. A fetus would not be missed by anyone but the mother, and if the mother aborts it then no damage is done. | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | Let's say a couple and their two kids visit a Cryopreservation clinic, where the parents have had 20 eggs fertilized and put into a freezer. The clinic catches on fire, the mother carries one kid out, and the father has a choice between saving the other kid, or saving the freezer, which contains, according to you, 20 lives ( this isn't even counting all the other couple's cyropreservations ). Do you believe it would be the right thing for the father to save the freezer, because he is saving 20 human lives? Or should he save his conscious, feeling child? Most would answer that he should save the child, because most believe not all human life has equal value as a person. | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | You have this idea that when human life " really begins " is a question to be answered by science. There is nothing really left to discover that could help define this. It is up to those involved to determine what constitutes a human being. For most, that means fetus or later, which is about 8 weeks in through to the end of the pregnancy. For others, that means as soon as the protonuclei have combined and the zygote, or fertilized egg cell, has been formed in the fallopian tube, even before it has implanted in the uterine wall. Personally, I am of the former group, and feel that abortion becomes too immoral around 6 months into the pregnancy. Take from that what you will. | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | First, " when life begins " is in the " not even wrong " category ; life is a continuous process and there is no point at any time where the cells involved in reproduction are not alive and not human. The question you're after is " when can we consider that collection of cells an actual human being? " It would be entirely ridiculous to do so at any point during the first trimester when it doesn't even have more than the most rudimentary central nervous system. Second, even asking the right question, the answer is actually irrelevant to whether or not abortion should be legal ; the relevant question is " at what point does your right to control the uses of your own body end "? We as a society have agreed that I have no right whatsoever to the use of your body or any part thereof without your consent | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | I think we're working from the same moral intuitions ( ie, stuff in terms of consciousness / subjective experience ) so will go from there. Now, while we don't fully understand consciousness, it's probably safe to say that we've worked out enough that we can reliably say there's no ethical issue with stuff like morning after pills. A zygote is not a conscious being. So I'd disagree at the very least that we, right now, cannot at least feel safe in assuming that stuff like morning after pills are basically ethically fine. Also, are you vegetarian? ( for the record, I am ). Also, what about points in development where the fetus might have some measure of consciousness, but a " weaker " measure, more akin to, say, a cow rather than a full human mind? Should that be considered morally equivalent to a cow, more or less? | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | Aside from the " when life begins " argument that quickly turns into " wearing a condom is murder and masturbation is genocide ", you should look into Judith Thompson's violonist metaphor. In fact, if the subject is of any particular interest to you, I heavily suggest the first part of Singer, Kuhse et al.'s Bioethics - it's surprisingly balanced, easy to read and enlightening. If anything, it will make you more apt to defend the views you hold. ( Skip the parts by Michael Tooley however, they're ridiculously convoluted and achieve very little. ) | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | Here's what makes me pro - choice : people who are not ready to have a baby ( financially, emotionally, etc. ) will probably do a worse job of raising that child than someone who planned and prepared to have a baby. I know there are excellent parents who weren't planning on having their child. I'm not refuting this. All I'm saying is the mother and father should have a choice on if they want to bring another life into this world because they are responsible for it, and they are in the best position to decide for themselves if they're ready to be parents. A baby raised by wealthy and caring parents is better off and has more choices available than a baby raised by a 17 year old single mom. | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | Humans are distinguished from other animals by our highly developed Central Nervous System. Until that has sufficiently developed, I don't consider a fetus to approach being a full - blown human. It may be alive, but if it is not sentient or even conscious, then what difference does it make? Now I'm not saying let's all get abortions all willy - nilly, but up until the point where the brain is developed enough to be functional, I have no moral qualms whatsoever with abortion. I believe the brain starts to develop around 40 days, but I'd have to check. ( Starts being the key word, the brain still isn't functional at that point. ) | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | Abortion is in theory already treated like killing. The law just represents the parent having the right to under a complicated reasoning that vaguely resembles self defense. Realistically, if birth control gets made widely available, and free, opinions would begin to turn against abortion again anyways. Since from a historical context, its not that much different than infanticide, which until relatively recently was considered more or less socially acceptable. People did not like it, and they knew it was killing, but the amount it happened, and the lack of another plan for them made them think there was nothing they could do. Advancements in society which made people think they " needed " to " look the other way " less resulted in them coming to accept more that it should just be universally no longer allowed. | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | A ) As Electricmink stated, life doesn't begin. B ) We know that fetuses in the first trimester are further from human intelligence than adult rats. While rats are alive, we don't consider killing them to be murder ; because they're not people. First - trimester fetuses ( going on the scientific evidence ) are clearly not people either. | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | If abortion is murder, then how would you answer these questions? 1. In states where children must be in a car seat in the back seat before a certain age... where does the pregnant mother sit if she has to drive to work? 2. Can the mother claim the " person " as a dependent on her 2013 taxes if she becomes pregnant in, say, November? This may seem absurd to you, but the point I'm trying to make is that declaring " personhood " at conception has many, many more ramifications than just calling abortion " murder. " | cmv |
I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic - based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV. | The fetus is in a woman's body. A baby is not. That's the difference. I believe that women should get to choose what to do with their own bodies. I don't think the government should be allowed to force women to carry fetuses to term. I'm a baby - crazy dude and can't wait to have my own - but I'm also aware that fetuses are essentially dangerous parasites, and that giving birth both does irrevocable damage to the body and is dangerous ( 2 women die in childbirth per day in America ). So to me, the question of when life begins is moot. A woman should be able to get this invader out of her body if she wants to, but once it's outside her body it's unethical to kill it. | cmv |
I believe that there is no such thing as Objective Morality. CMV | Please use the search function for r / CMV to see what past topics have had to say on your view. Versions of your view have come up many times before. I've responded in a few of these threads, but this thread has my best general response to the issue you're thinking about. It deals more with how claims about an'objective morality'are about as reasonable as claiming that'a cat is in my room '. Here is a very informative entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that deals with'Moral Realism,'an ethical view which you may find identical to what you call'objective morality. ' | cmv |
I believe that there is no such thing as Objective Morality. CMV | How much pain something experiences is objective. The RULES might not be, since no set of rules humans could comprehend will maximize this. But that does not change absolute states which things can be judged relative to, at least in theory. In actuality, we cannot see everything. | cmv |