summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I don't think my High School Graduation should begin with Prayer. CMV | IIRC a case is currently being considered on this type of matter by the SCOTUS. If you request a separate religious prayer and are denied you may have a grounds to file a lawsuit. I believe prayers are allowed at public events provided anyone may provide their own. | cmv |
I don't think my High School Graduation should begin with Prayer. CMV | Is the school public or private? If it's public then they were absolutely in the wrong, a public school cannot under any circumstances, push a religion on students. A private school can do whatever they want. | cmv |
I believe that groups such as American Family Association and the Family Research Council are rightly listed as hate groups. CMV | I'm not wild about defending the AFA or FRC, but here goes. SLPC's definition of a hate group isn't just " says nasty stuff about a different group. " An organization's primary purpose must be hatred of that group. I'm not sure if the SLPC was entirely fair with AFA / FRC. The organizations primary purpose is the promotion of Christian values. This means a lot of protesting abortion, pornography, and other cultural elements that they don't like. Although I agree that what they are saying about gay people is completely wrong and frequently hateful, I don't think that's the sole purpose of them. | cmv |
I believe that groups such as American Family Association and the Family Research Council are rightly listed as hate groups. CMV | Hate isn't an abstract term that can mean anything you want it to. It has an actual meaning ; namely that they are actually trying to inspire hatred of certain people. Trying to inspire discrimination or pity, which to them is a necessary evil, but other people see as not so does not automatically make them hateful. And it sets a dangerous precedent to think anything which disagrees with public opinion should be labeled this way. Since in this case you might be right, but does anyone really casually ignore the extreme authoritarian anti free speech and thought ideas that certain places are adapting because of this? Gays being more accepted is effectively inevitable as long as our cultures are not totally replaced by new ones. So trying to make it go a little faster by sacrificing other freedoms is going to be very dubious generations in the future where you are going to wish you'd had not done so. | cmv |
I believe that groups such as American Family Association and the Family Research Council are rightly listed as hate groups. CMV | What do you mean by " hate group "? Are you talking about SPLC designations? Because those don't really mean anything... What is the practical difference between groups " listed as hate groups " and those that aren't? | cmv |
The ends justify the means. CMV. | Do you think your view still applies when you consider the measurement problem? For example, the Flynn effect, plus various critique, suggests that the concept and means of measuring IQ has some problems. If you select policies based on their effect on IQ then you'll be amplifying the effect of any discrepancy in the test or metric. This is the main ethically - agnostic problem with Ends - Justify - Means : the justification always boils down to some kind of measurement. The Trolly Problem measures the number of warm bodies, not by, say, if the 49 % you select to die are fertile and the 51 % you save are sterile. Ends - Justfy - Means assumes infinite predictive scope and accuracy, but it's the very fact that we cannot have such prescience that has lead to the development of moral and ethnical systems in the first place. | cmv |
The ends justify the means. CMV. | Nothing gives you the right to end my life to save the lives of two people I don't know or don't care about. Morality is subjective and different for different individuals and with your hypothetical scenarios, you impose your sense of morality upon me. What decides that your moral system is correct? | cmv |
The ends justify the means. CMV. | Here's another thought experiment, I'd be curious to know your answer to : There are five patients in a hospital, that each need an organ transplant to continue their lives : one needs new lungs, another a new heart, the third a new liver, etc. Would you kill a healthy person to harvest their organs, so that these five patients could live? Lets say they're all 25 years old. | cmv |
The ends justify the means. CMV. | So your argument is that if we knew the effects of all our actions, then taking the actions that lead to the most positive effects would be the actions that we should take. But if everybody had this same ability, then there would be no need to limit freedoms or impose a one child policy because people would self - regulate. In this hypothetical scenario, the ends do justify the means, but most of the examples you give would no longer be relevant. | cmv |
I don't believe in the typical notion of gender equality CMV! | I think we need to distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. It's important that we do everything possible to equalize the opportunities everyone gets, like access to education, medical facilities etc. And also to remove social stigmas or expectations e. g. strict gender roles. However, it is quite problematic to try to measure the success by looking at the outcomes and concluding that the initial opportunities must have been unequal. | cmv |
Guns don't provide self - defense, harm more lives than they save, and should be illegal for civilians. CMV. | Nukes have worked to prevent major wars, literally since WWII. If you have a gun to defend yourself, you might get into a gunfight, sure. But if you don't you're simply at someone else's mercy. So saying guns don't provide self - defense appears false on its face. Let's put it this way : what would convince you that you were wrong? | cmv |
Guns don't provide self - defense, harm more lives than they save, and should be illegal for civilians. CMV. | Imagine you are a mugger or an armed robber. Guns already exist in the black market. Making guns illegal for non - criminals doesn't solve that. So, you're a mugger about to do some mugging, what situation do you like better - no one you're going to be mugging could be carrying guns ( because it's illegal ) or you never know who's going to be carrying a gun. And if you go to rob that corner store in the ghetto, wouldn't it be nice to know that they can't legally have a gun? | cmv |
When applying for a job, if you are planning to have a child in the near future that information should be made transparent. CMV | There are a bunch of things which we have decided people should not be penalized for, by the government or by private business. Disability, for example. You are required to provide reasonable accommodations to enable wheelchair - bound people to work for you ; it does not matter that this costs you money, because the alternative is penalizing people for being disabled. Having children is another one of those things. Hiring someone who's going to have a child soon will cost a company money, sure. But we as a society have decided that this is better than penalizing people for having children. | cmv |
When applying for a job, if you are planning to have a child in the near future that information should be made transparent. CMV | There is nothing prohibiting companies from inquiring about pregnancy or plans to become pregnant. However, it is illegal for many employers to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy in their hiring, firing, or other job conditions. Asking a prospective employee questions about pregnancy or plans to become pregnant would make it easier for that employee to later establish a claim for pregnancy discrimination. Thus, most businesses will not ask about it simply as a way of limiting their liability. | cmv |
I believe that soldiers are partly to blame for the wars of their respective armed forces. CMV. | I'd say the main mission of our military is deterrence. Right now we have a very large proportion of our total forces stationed permanently in the Pacific. This costs a lot of money. The Pacific has myriad flashpoints ( The Spratly Islands, the Senkakus, etc. ) just waiting to boil over. The presence of a significant US force in the region is a major factor in preventing armed conflict over competing EEZ claims. Consider that a standing military likely prevents as many wars as it causes. Would that all people across the planet would decide that enough is enough, and war is unanimously declared to be the reprehensibly poor choice that it is. An individual soldier could never effect that change by deciding not to sign up. By doing so, he can do his part to deter what violence he can. | cmv |
I believe that soldiers are partly to blame for the wars of their respective armed forces. CMV. | Is the guitar responsible for the music, or the musician? Is the puppet responsible for the entertainment, or the puppeteer? Is the gun responsible for death, or the murderer? The soldier is merely a tool of the government for war. You think soldiers WANT war? Do you think they want to be out their, far from their families, risking death? They are not responsible ; the country needs protection and therefore needs soldiers, that very fact that a country ( especially one with power, like the US ) needs soldiers, and the conflicts between countries, is the reason war exists. | cmv |
I believe that soldiers are partly to blame for the wars of their respective armed forces. CMV. | To me, this argument seems like blaming a car for drunk driving, or blaming a gun for killing someone. Society has had armies for millennia, and it is unreasonable to think that we could stop an army from existing by not joining on large scales. An army will always exist, in one form or another, so it isn't useful to blame any individual cog in the machinery. ( keep in mind that the following is incredibly unrealistic, but just for argument's sake ) If enlistments reached 0, do you really think we wouldn't have an army? Or would our leaders start drafting, just so we have some sort of standing army? I think politicians would obviously start drafting, and we'd have and army and they'd be sent to war eventually, anyway. So if my voluntarily joining the army or being drafted makes no difference in how often politicians decide to go to war, how is it my fault? | cmv |
I believe that soldiers are partly to blame for the wars of their respective armed forces. CMV. | I agree with you 99 %. Where it gets tricky is if you're a determinist and consider that the people who become soldiers ( just like the rest of us ) were lead down that path by their genetics combined with their experiences. But, that only means that to some extent no one is to blame for their actions. Additionally, there are factors that make being a soldier the best choice for some people, such as lack of other options for jobs if they come from poverty. However, in the normal understanding of blame, I agree. | cmv |
I believe people should boycott all charities that don't directly deal with global warming until the issue is solved. CMV | Usually people donate money to charity hoping for a much shorter than 100 year window of effectiveness. What use is not having global warming in 100 years to people who are dying of famine right now? Short term disaster relief, cultural and arts programs, politics, treating the sick, supporting your religion, all of those are relevant whether or not we are all fighting over land in 100 years. | cmv |
I believe people should boycott all charities that don't directly deal with global warming until the issue is solved. CMV | Which do you think would be better? A perfectly environmentally healthy world where people are abusing each other and dying of terrible diseases. or A dirty, dying environment where many more people are safe from harm and we have significantly more diseases cured. Now, its a pretty good assumption that we're never going to completely solve the problems of environmental damage or poverty / disease / abuse. But if I had the choice to magically fix one of those two problems, I would choose the latter every time. I hold individual life in the highest respect, much more so than environmental health. I figure, I would rather humanity perish happily than live on in a violent and lawless world. Clearly, I'm making huge exaggerations here, so I suppose what I'm really trying to say is that I value current human life over future environmental problems. I don't see why you would want to punish charities that care more about people now than about the environment later. | cmv |
I believe people should boycott all charities that don't directly deal with global warming until the issue is solved. CMV | If there were a solution to global warming that simply required lots of money to be thrown at it, many governments would already be throwing that money. It's a hard problem, and it's not clear where we could usefully redirect all this charity money to fix it. I mean, think about it. Can you name a single area where we could be making progress against global warming, if people just threw more money at it? | cmv |
I hate when people refer to my " white privilege ", " straight privilege ", " male privilege ", or " cis privilege ". If I support equal rights, is what I am not my right? CMV | ' Privilege'does not mean your life is " easy ". It means your life is " fair ". It means your life is " neutral ". If you apply for a job interview, your chances of getting selected depend on your educational qualifications, your experience, how you present yourself, the state of the economy, and of course how much effort and diligence you offer. But for your friend, whose name is Syed Mohammed Rahim, his chances of getting the same job depend on another factor, which puts him significantly behind you. This means, that life being " fair " and you " earning what you have fair and square " itself is something that many people don't have access to. To repeat,'privilege'refers to a neutral point. It does NOT mean something " easy " or " special " or positive. Non - privilege refers to a negative point. | cmv |
I hate when people refer to my " white privilege ", " straight privilege ", " male privilege ", or " cis privilege ". If I support equal rights, is what I am not my right? CMV | no one says that because you're white, for example, your life must be easy. however, all other things being equal, it's easier than it would be if you were black. same applies to the others, and i say that as someone who is privileged in most ways. it doesn't mean that my life was easy, but it means that i had a kind of head start, or step up, that i wouldn't have as a woman, a black man, a gay man, a transgendered man, etc. this is a pretty good explanation. | cmv |
I hate when people refer to my " white privilege ", " straight privilege ", " male privilege ", or " cis privilege ". If I support equal rights, is what I am not my right? CMV | Saying you are for equality does not mean you live for equality. For instance, imagine a person making $ 200, 000 a year who says they are pro poor since they vote for more taxes and social benefits, but does not actually donate more of their own funds by their own hands? Clearly there is a discrepancy where they want to keep a privilege, but get to imagine themselves as being for equality. This is kind of what it's like. Note however that most people using the words in the way you imply them are somewhat extreme, and so they should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially when upper middle class white females think " male privilege " exists in a way whereby they can still feel collectively victimized, rather than accept that things are sometimes full of a lot of imbalances either way. Their experiences are nothing like that of a black person, or in the rare case they are, there is more at work. | cmv |
I think that offensive jokes ( Ie : Rape, racist, etc ) jokes are okay and people that are offended are uptight. CMV | There are a significant number of rape victims in the world. So there's a nontrivial chance that, when you do a comedy show, at least one person in your audience will have been raped recently. If you tell a rape joke, you will hurt that person a lot. There are also a smaller but still significant number of people who don't see a huge issue with ( certain forms of ) rape. So when you joke about taking someone home when they're passed out, most people will know you're not serious. But a few guys think they should have sex with people who are blackout drunk, and now they think that you agree with them. | cmv |
I think that offensive jokes ( Ie : Rape, racist, etc ) jokes are okay and people that are offended are uptight. CMV | The thing is it's not just'some things make people so sad you aren't allowed to talk about them.'The problem is that the wrong kind of rape joke contributes to rape culture. Some rape jokes don't contribute to rape culture! Some rape jokes even subvert rape culture. I encourage you to incorporate such jokes into your material. ( As usual ), Lindy West explains it better than I can. | cmv |
I feel children should be taken away from parents that are racist. CMV | If you can justify that, what happens when the tide turns? I don't know your background, but in some countries like France the immigrant Muslim population is increasing rapidly and France might quickly become a Muslim country. What if the law said that children shouldn't be allowed to grow up in a christian or atheist family? | cmv |
I feel children should be taken away from parents that are racist. CMV | Having a racist parent isn't a guarantee that the child will be a racist. Parents have a lot of influence on the lives of their children, but they're hardly the only ones. And parents aren't the only reason children go on to develop racist beliefs. Also, I say we should go one step further beyond making sure that racism shouldn't be spread to future generations and try and stamp it out in current ones. I'm South Asian, and hear a lot of racist stuff from some members of the immigrant generation here. The members that don't say anything are those who's kids got married to non - South Asians, and realized that their beliefs were wrong. Taking away their children denies parents the ability to grow beyond their beliefs. | cmv |
I feel children should be taken away from parents that are racist. CMV | We don't have enough money to take kids away from parents who can't even feed them. I would rather be raised by rich racists than in a crack den of equality. There are problems worse than racism, and we can't even rescue those kids. | cmv |
I think being vegan / vegetarian for a cause doesn't make sense. CMV | It's not exclusively about how they die, but rather how they live. In the wild, living a few years and then being eaten is natural for them. A little pain once when dying is not a big deal. But in western factory farms they are literally living in torture conditions for their entire life up until death. Which is far from a natural life for them. The amount of meat we eat in the west kind of necessitates things like this, and while it is not necessarily necessary for everyone to give it up altogether, reducing intake to a level where it is no longer torture is definitely an improvement. | cmv |
I think being vegan / vegetarian for a cause doesn't make sense. CMV | 1. Animals are capable of feeling pain, and raising them for food harms their well being ( if not inherently at least in practice ). 2. Healthy meat free diets are possible and more sustainable. 3. Therefore conciously eating meat gives more value to apreciation of taste than animals'well - being ; which is immoral. At least that's the formal version of my reason of being vegetarian. But I absolutely love meat, so if you can change my view, please do! | cmv |
I think being vegan / vegetarian for a cause doesn't make sense. CMV | The vegan / vegetarian diet is much less energy intensive than a meat - based diet, and much more land, fossil fuels and fresh water are used to produce meat than crops. Vegetarians are doing more to end your dependence on foreign oil than most people! ( assuming you're not from a net oil exporter ) Regardless of any other point, this shows that there are at least some valid reasons for being a vegetarian. | cmv |
I believe that the emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, "it's a girl. " CMV | Im not sure what to do with this post. You seem to be saying that people stereotype females, and that stereotyping starts when people think of a person as a female. So, you believe that people treat women poorly? I mean... yeah? I agree, but that isnt really a view. | cmv |
I believe that the emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, "it's a girl. " CMV | Can you please give examples? Not specific examples that happened once, really serious problems, since you are saying that the whole society puts so many pressure in women. I would agree with you 50 years ago. But now, while I would not say that sexism does not exists, it is not that bad that you make it sounds. So again, nice and solid examples would be a nice starting point. | cmv |
I think corporate taxes are pointless and they should be replaced by higher taxes on income, capital gains and dividends. CMV | " However, if you abolished corporate tax and raised capital gains and dividends taxes to the level of income tax instead, the burden of the tax would fall on the wealthier shareholders rather than on employees or customers. " The problem with this is that a corporation still uses some of the physical benefits or operating in a certain country wether it be roads, mass transit, aqueducts, police, law system. Taxing dividends ( which already happens to a lesser degree anyways ) does not ensure that the corporation will pay a " fair share " for using those services. For example : corporation ABC is operating in country X, but 95 % of shareholders are from outside the country. Also, let's not forget that dividends are less imposed because they are returns that are already generated " after tax " ie : they come from money generated that was already taxed. | cmv |
I think corporate taxes are pointless and they should be replaced by higher taxes on income, capital gains and dividends. CMV | There are allways ways to get the money away from the taxman. Unless you ban international trade people will be able to escape the tax. But this is true no matter if we have your system or todays. | cmv |
I think all people who want children should take a test to determine if they are fit to raise a child. CMV | I'm never going to convince you that your ideas are wrong, but I can provide a alternate view. I believe restricting people having kids is never a good thing, the chance that a kid will cause " trouble " costs less than the potential gain from having a lifetime taxpayer in the economy. First world birthrates are declining and it's becoming a serious problem. | cmv |
I think all people who want children should take a test to determine if they are fit to raise a child. CMV | How do you design a test in which everyone who is eligible to raise a child passes? False negatives are pretty unconscionable in any system like this and there really isn't such a test that can be made. Some people should not raise children, but not all children are a product of their upbringing. Does your test adjust to this? How? If not why not? Abortion sadly acts as a voluntary version of this test. Given that it in a sense exists, what makes you feel it's necessary ( beyond abortion ) to legislate and enforce such a system? | cmv |
Plea bargaining should be illegal. CMV | In the US, without plea bargaining, we would have ten times as many trials. There are certainly some issues with it, but they'd have to be very serious issues to justify doing that much extra work. And the issues probably aren't that serious anyway : Courts have significant judgement in sentencing people anyway ; it's reasonable to say that someone must be a better person if they plead guilty, and give them a slightly lesser sentence. Innocents can be pressured into admitting crimes they didn't commit, but that happens without plea bargains too. It's important to realize that prosecutors can only offer plea bargains if they're pretty sure you're guilty ; it's highly unethical for a prosecutor to bring a case they don't think they can win to trial, and they can get in serious trouble for that. | cmv |
Plea bargaining should be illegal. CMV | The us law code is so long that the us government can't keep track of how many laws there are. There are roughly 330, 1000 page tomes of legalese each one of those laws applies to each person every single day. Lawyers are too expensive and there are too many " crimes " ; the current system simply cannot be done without flee bargains. Now if you want to talk future systems ; I would agree ( and be many times more radical )... However seeing how you want to work within the current system you have to compromise otherwise you will do more harm than good. | cmv |
CMV that Gun Ownership is not a bulwark against tyranny and that tyranny is not much of a problem in the USA anyway. | Yes, tyranny is a pointless argument but for the opposite reason. America is a country run mostly by the citizens. The government serves, and is at the mercy of, the population. The president's authority is given to him by votes, chosen by the people therefore he is just an extension of the population's values. In the US there is no distinction the police, military, government or population. Therefore there is no threat of a tyrannical government overthrow, and the government is even less likely to win in a violent exchange. | cmv |
I think illegal immigrants should be deported to the countries from whence they came. CMV | Enjoy paying eight dollars for an avocado. The fact is, immigration laws are unevenly enforced because it serves our ( US citizens') economic interests for them to be, not because we lack the commitment to enforce them, or because wily immigrants keep evading us. Illegal immigrants are just a tremendously useful labor force. | cmv |
I believe that the American justice system is supremely flawed and unjust. CMV. | A jury of peers prevents the government from just declaring someone guilty and throwing them in jail. In order to secure a conviction the government must be able to convince a jury of fellow citizens that the defendant has actually done something wrong. It's a very real and very present safeguard against tyranny and oppression that one can see time and time again in the world. A look at Argentinas military regimes in the 70's can give you a period where a system without this safeguard existed against political prisoners. I don't what you propose to do about witness or expert testimony? Is it wrong to ask witnesses what happened? Is it wrong to bring experts on a subject in to inform the jury? Ill admit this can be abused but that certainly isn't the norm and without it you would see trials become deadlocked. I'm interested in what you would think would be a better system? | cmv |
I believe that the American justice system is supremely flawed and unjust. CMV. | Would you rather be judged by a man / woman who is elected to the position of judge with all of the political ramifications that entails? Can an elected official judge on the law as written, or would their party bias come through in their rulings? So if you appear before the court on a drug charge, would you rather be judged by your peers or a staunch, hard on crime conservative? Juries have their faults and biases, but I feel that they are better suited to come to a verdict because they could find themselves in your position. | cmv |
I believe that the American justice system is supremely flawed and unjust. CMV. | It's really weird that you have a problem with jury trials, which are commonly seen as advantageous for many defendants. However, you can waive your right to a jury trial and be tried by just a judge in a bench trial. Therefore, your objection to jury trials is not a legitimate problem with the US justice system, as it can be avoided by any defendant who wishes to avoid it. | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | You're focusing on the rights of the fetus, but ignoring the rights of the mother. Humans have authority over their own bodies. I might agree that the fetus has a right to live, but that right to live does not create an obligation on the mother to provide her body. If there were a way for the mother to deny the fetus access to her body without killing it, then I would agree that killing it is unethical, but presently there is no middle ground. There's an argument that consenting to sex constitutes an agreement to commit to providing one's body to a fetus, but I don't see any way you can justify that a woman who is raped has an obligation to provide her body for the survival of another person. The rights of the fetus don't trump the rights of the mother. | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | Murder has a very specific legal definition. It is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Abortion doesn't fit any of those qualifications. Abortion is legal ( in places of the world that are sane and actually value women as people. ) Abortion doesn't kill a human being ( fetuses are not babies and are about as human as tumors. ) And it does not qualify as malice aforethought, as it is an act of self - defense ( remember what I said earlier about women being people? Antis seem to ignore this fact. WOMEN ARE NOT ENVIRONMENTS! ) | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | Abortion is still wrong in rape because the child shouldn't pay for another person's crime?! What about the mother who now not only has to pay for someone else's crime, but also for it's consequences? And what if in the case of rape the mother would die in childbirth with a high chance of the baby surviving? You're placing a high value over something not guaranteed yet diminishing the value of a present life before your eyes that is clearly existing. | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | Is it okay to kill a fetus because it is smaller than you? No. Is it okay to kill a fetus because it has none of the mental capabilities that we can call upon to justify humanities importance and entitlement to individual rights, including life? Completely. I would argue that it is actually okay to kill a baby because I think of a baby as still being an animal. You can't and shouldn't be able to harm a baby because it would TRANSITION into harming a person later ( also it is still animal cruelty ). Same with a fetus. If someone developed some sort of operation in uetero that made the fetus never grow full arms, then that should be illegal, because you are potentially harming an actual person by knowledgeably forcing them to grow up and live without arms. But a dead fetus and a dead baby will never transition into a person - hood worthy of a right to life in a body whose health is properly being protected, because they are dead. | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | I at least have to ask why you wouldn't grand an abortion to a mother that would surely die in childbirth even if they could save the baby. Let's say that a woman is raped and will die in childbirth, but they could save the baby. In your own words, " Why should the [ mother ] pay for another person's crime? " In this case, she's paying with her life. So are you really pro - life? Because you're effectively sentencing the mother to death in that case. | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | You're giving something that is not a child more agency over a fully developed adult woman. A fetus is not a person. It's not a child. It's a mass of cells that, if given the chance, can develop into a baby. But it is not a baby. The woman in the scenario seems to be given no thought in your argument. Even when people are dead we respect what they wanted us to do with their body. If they aren't an organ donor, couldn't their kidney still save a life? But we respect their wishes about their body. Women should have at least as much bodily agency as a corpse, don't you think? | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | If abortion is akin murder does that make miscarriage akin to manslaughter? Do you know how many natural miscarriages occur? What makes a miscarriage and an abortion qualitatively different? Agency? Is that it? | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | I'm really late to this thread, but I read this terrific argument somewhere here on CMV that I promised to use if abortion ever came up. It goes like this : Say this professional basketball player gets damage to his kidneys. He needs someone to filter his blood for him for 9 months while his kidneys heal ( after that point, he'll be completely healthy again ). They test every human in the world and you're the ONLY human who's a match. While you're asleep, NBA fans knock you unconscious and hook your blood supplies up so he can live. You wake up to discover this basketball player is 100 % a human being. Nobody doubts he's a full human being with full rights. But you can still unhook yourself and let him die if you so choose, because nobody can demand you give up use of your body, no matter how temporary a time. And then in abortion, you throw in a really big question about " when does a fetus become a human, with human rights " which a lot of people have been focusing on, and it's a bit greyer of an area. | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | Well first of all the SLED argument is over simplifying and leaving things out. There are plenty of other differences, the most relevant being that it isn't self aware. Does life really have inherent value if it isn't self aware? If you're okay with killing plants and animals you should be okay with killing a fetus. | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | Seeing as you're agnostic there should be no problem of the soul I presume. IIRC, I agree with Penn and Teller on this one, abortion is in no case wrong if there was no intent to create a child. Whoops a condom broke, followed by abortion is no different than the cell that would have been that child ending up dying in a used condom in a trash can. If you believe this is wrong, then why isn't have as many children as possible wrong? The cells that would have been the child are still dying, being naturally replaced by the body. This is also ignoring the fact that 300 million possible babies ( individual sperm cells ) die during ejaculation. There is nothing special about a fetus, it isn't even technically alive yet if you compare it to normal humans. It has no consciousness. | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | If it's a medical emergency and the life of the mother is threatened, I don't feel that it's murder. If it's some girl that got knocked up and don't want a kid holding them back, it's absolutely murder. I could shoot someone in self defense and not be a murderer... Or, I could shoot someone coz I want to run away with his wife, and I am absolutely a murderer. The thing is, the'' pro choice'' crowd will NEVER admit to it being murder... ever. Regardless of the situation. | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | I think the problem with this debate is that there is no really satisfying way to define when a fetus is considered a human. Is it immediately at conception? Is it when the heartbeats or when it resembles a fully formed human? I would say it is acceptable and at times even best in certain scenarios. The rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the child I believe. Imagine a young single mother. It is more responsible and more humane to a child to have an abortion and maybe have a child later when they are more able to properly raise one. | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | I agree that at some point in the course of pregnancy, abortion essentially becomes homicide. But some kinds of homicides are considered justified in our society, so just characterizing it as such is not a valid argument against it. Calling it murder may be justified, but the nature of the act is sufficiently different from your normal murder to warrant more caution. In most cases, however, we are talking about abortions performed shortly after conception. The issue there is not as clear cut : certainly there must be a point when we have to start treating abortion as homicide, but why immediately after the conception? | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | Friends, follow this scenario. You and two of your friends discover time travel. You go back in time 25 years and friend 1 accidentally prevents the birth of friend 2. You return to the future where now friend 2 has never existed. Is friend 1 guilty of any wrong doing? | cmv |
I'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | I'm just going to repeat what I said on a recent 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'm pro - life, and I believe that abortion is essentially murder. | OP, I am dying. Your pinky finger will keep me alive. Do I have a right to your pinky finger? No. It sure would be swell for you to give it to me, but you certainly are not a murderer if you don't. Abortion is withholding resources needed to live. This changes at birth because others ( besides the mother ) can and are willing to provide these resources for the child. | cmv |
I curse openly on public property and largely ignore people who tell me to stop unless when there are small children present. Please CMV. | Do you agree with the government's restrictions on profanity ( / obscenity / indecency ) in public, most commonly seen on ( broadcast ) media and ( public ) advertisements? If so : If you agree that those rules are in place for a good reason, it would likely be hypocritical of you to think that those restrictions should apply to speech by businesses, but not speech by individuals. If not : If you disagree with those rules, keep in mind that most other people live with the expectation that they will be followed by others. You being inconsiderate ( note : being inconsiderate is not always bad ) is breaking the social contract that they believe in. As for conversations on politics / religion / etc, have you ever run into problems with it, or is it just hypothetical? I don't have any issue with conversations like that, but some people might. | cmv |
I curse openly on public property and largely ignore people who tell me to stop unless when there are small children present. Please CMV. | Although I agree with your point about it being public land, and having the same rights as anyone else, I think this boils down to common courtesy. It is generally common courtesy to refrain from profanity in public places. Now, common courtesy is a social construct, you may insult one person with your swears, and another person may just look the other way. I personally think there is a time and place for everything, and swearing in public does not seem appropriate to me. I'd like to think you have a right to say whatever you would like, but I also think, for the respect for others who may not approve of swearing, our behavior should be somewhat governed by the societal norms we have. You can still convey your point effectively without the use of swear words, so why not save them for when your chumming it up with friends, or when you stub your toe at home? | cmv |
I curse openly on public property and largely ignore people who tell me to stop unless when there are small children present. Please CMV. | The only reason not to do it in public is to affect other's opinion of you. People who curse loudly and frequently are considered less intelligent or lacking class. Whether or not those conclusions are accurate is irrelevant, it's still how people see it. If public opinion is not a concern, then don't worry about it. If you don't want strangers to think less of you, consider using less " taboo " language in favor of unusual words that are more descriptive. The most often use of swears are to put emphasis on a word, or to express anger / displeasure. If you expand your vocabulary you won't need to use swears to properly emphasize your emotion ( except anger maybe ), and the reflex to use them for everything will subside. It's your choice. You don't really need to change anything. | cmv |
I believe that we don't need laws that protect people from themselves or coerce them into socially positive behaviors. CMV | These safety laws actually protect others from your own stupidity. Protecting you from you is the ostensible reason. Drug addicts commit crimes to get money for more drugs. People without seat belts become projectiles during accidents. Helmet laws protect smart helmet - wearing cyclists from your dumb self suing them. Name a safety law and I can tell you why it's protecting other people from you. | cmv |
I believe communism as described by Karl Marx is a more democratic economic system than capitalism. CMV | On paper marxism is a " superdemocratic " system, which will never become reality for a number of reasons. The inherent problem of marxism is that " marxist order " has to be preserved somehow, meaning the introduction of marxist police, military, leaders, etc. And we're back at square one, we still live under oppressive leaders and a police state, only changed the persons at the top. The communist experiment proved this beyond any doubt. Since marxism is not " natural ", it has to be upheld by force because people will not follow it of their own accord. They will " deviate " and so they have to be ruled over by marxist leaders. Which undermines the whole concept totally. It is impossible for human populations to self - govern without hierarchies. ( I know many marxists defend their ideas by saying that communism has nothing to do with marxism, which is another pile of bullshit. Coming from a formerly communist country with'proper'marxist education I tend to think I know more about this stuff than your average misguided ideologue. ) | cmv |
I believe communism as described by Karl Marx is a more democratic economic system than capitalism. CMV | I thought Marx's main work was to analyze class struggle and critique capitalism. I was not aware that Marx actually described a communist society in any detail. The post - revolution world was beyond an epistemological black hole, since everything we've known thus far has been determined by material relationships that will fundamentally shift in the revoltion. If the above is true, then my response to your claim is : There is no such animal as " communism as described by Karl Marx, " ergo it is not the case that it is a more democratic system than capitalism. ( Perhaps OP can enlighten us on whether the present king of France is bald? ) | cmv |
I believe that the use of drones in warfare, even against humans is more ethical than deploying human soldiers CMV | Limiting the human cost of war for our own side is a bad thing for everyone else. It means that there is nothing stopping us from going to war. For the same reason, a " Star Wars " style missile defense system is actually seen as offensive because it nullifies the threat of mutual assured destruction, allowing us to fire at will. Our heavy reliance on aerial strikes have already been a way of removing all the negative consequences of boots on the ground solutions - especially domestic distaste for seeing heavy soldier casualties. But it's been heavily criticized for producing civilian casualties on the other side and in some conflicts, such as ones involving potential genocide, you really need the boots on the ground. On the other hand, if it were less costly for us to go to war then maybe we'd be less hesitant to intervene in cases such as Syria where there are egregious human rights violations yet the threat of a " messy " war prevents us from acting. | cmv |
I think that the government should tax churches and other " non - profit " organizations. CMV. | Your title is inconsistent with your explanation. " Non - profit " organizations can be secular. Isn't having an agenda the point of an organization? All charity work is done with an agenda, albeit what is probably a good one to a standard perspective. Secondly, what is the difference between a charity that states " donate to help cure cancer in the name of God " and " lets cure cancer everybody! " They both accomplish the same thing, one appeals to a deeper part of some people. The problem with churches is that they are largely donation based, like most charities, it would be difficult to write tax laws based on such an inconsistent operating revenue. I think the reason these tax laws are like this is not because of some bias towards churches and religious folk on moral grounds, but because a donation based service is much more like a charity than a corporation tax wise. Mega churches that offer a subscription to their TV show or stadium seat are a different story though, I'm only talking about your small town church. | cmv |
I think that the government should tax churches and other " non - profit " organizations. CMV. | While I agree with the notion, your suggestion goes too far. Why not just tax any money spent on non - charitable ( an non - community ) activities? Let them open their books and justify, which parts of their donations / income deserve tax - free status because they are used in ways that benefit society in a tangible way, just like any other non - profit organization? I'm talking about running soup kitchens, foreign aid etc. But if it turns out they're building up wealth in the form of money and real estate etc., there is no reason not to tax that. | cmv |
I believe that hardline Marxism is obsolete in modern politics. CMV. | I agree with you but I think there is a difference between what your friend is and Marx's actual writings and beliefs. Marx has a model of class that is overly simplistic and, more importantly, irrelevant in the modern world, where according to Marx's class model the wealthiest people are actually lumpenproletariat and the bourgeoisie largely don't exist anymore, with most capital being held by the people ( either directly or indirectly ). There is a huge and varied body of literature surrounding Marx that embodies his ideas in spirit, however, and that is very much alive ( although not the same extent as it was in the 1970's ) | cmv |
CMV : I think Universal Human Rights and right - wing ideology are incompatible. | The best metaphor I can think of is ( I think ) a Teddy Roosevelt quote about how it isn't the government's job to make sure that everyone is dealt a pair of aces, it's the government's job to make sure that there is no crookedness in the dealing. Right wing ideology involves mainly the restraint of intervention - allowing everyone to get a chance. The issue with human rights is that people aren't dealt a fair amount of cards, they aren't given the opportunity to play the game. | cmv |
CMV : I think Universal Human Rights and right - wing ideology are incompatible. | I'm just going to say, if you believe that anything other than 100 % unregulated free market isn't capitalism then I won't argue against your position. Most people agree in some form of government regulation, and most discussions are about how much it should be regulated to achieve the best human welfare. Having said that, I think you are having an extremely selective reading of western scholarship. Check this list of things economists agree and you'll see many of them are ( relatively ) right wing ideas. For instance, 93 % of economists believe that free trade improves welfare, so you can't claim " they all seem to agree that human rights is incompatible with free trade ". Besides this, most economists that study political institutions ( North, Acemoglu, etc ) agree that the respect of property rights is necesary for a country to become developed, so they believe that capitalism, in a way, is necesary for eliminating poverty. | cmv |
CMV : I think Universal Human Rights and right - wing ideology are incompatible. | This depends on whether we're talking about positive or negative rights. You can be all the way on the right and advocate the absolute protection of negative rights, which are rights against force ( rights not to be stopped from having or doing something ). If you're talking about positive rights ( rights to have or do something ) then yes, the right typically doesn't focus on those. That's a left issue, but people tend to conflate positive rights with rights as a whole, which is a mistake. A right libertarian would, for example, agree that you have the right to travel unimpeded, but would not guarantee you unimpeded travel, as that would requiring stealing from someone else to provide you with a car. | cmv |
CMV : I think Universal Human Rights and right - wing ideology are incompatible. | First world problems? Seriously : Do you think that the average Indian national was better off 400 years ago than today? Or that there was even in existence, some sort of middle - class? Surely, there is a lot of poverty in India. But hasn't capitalism, on average, over time done a lot to benefit a lot of people? I'm from " the West ", but I am glad I don't live 400 years ago. I would have been born at the bottom, and been stuck at the bottom, so that I could be feudal labor for some land - owner's benefit. | cmv |
CMV : I think Universal Human Rights and right - wing ideology are incompatible. | Capitalism created the middle class. In almost every country where capitalism and free trade were adopted, a middle class emerged. Quality of life has improved. No other system has created such shared wealth. Communism failed, feudalism failed, mercantilism failed. | cmv |
I think that Rob Ford is doing a good job as the mayor of Toronto. CMV. | I will admit that he hasn't been too harmful to the city ( other than for our image ). He basically hasn't accomplished anything. The city seems to be run by the council, despite Rob Ford's " leadership ". | cmv |
I believe drug use and possession are extensions of the natural rights to liberty and property and should not be violated. CMV | Sure, lots of drugs are relatively benign. What about drugs that arent? What about PCP, where, users will for lack of better words go crazy temporarily - - often causing destruction to other's health and / or property? | cmv |
I believe it's foolish to have intense opinions about types of government. CMV | I understand and empathize with your ideas having held them at one time as well. " it is impossible to empirically prove a particular form of government superior to any other. " - I think that we can start by taking a relatively easy example to disprove this statement. Obviously dictatorships are an inferior form of government to just about anything else. Now that I have ( technically ) debunked you claim I will try to steer you on the right course. If you only look at government in terms of consequences and not morals then it is a bit harder ( though not impossible ) to " strongly advocate one over others ". For example if you accept that the Non - Aggression Principle is valid then that would be a justification for a libertarian / capitalist society. On the other hand if you accept that profiting from other people's labor is immoral then you would advocate for some form of marxist society. I think that if you try to look at the world, history, economics, and politics in terms of principles rather than hard ( though not impossible ) to quantify consequences then you may have a bit less frustration regarding politics. | cmv |
I believe it's foolish to have intense opinions about types of government. CMV | All the forms of governments that have been tried and examined are crap. They are also all quite old. The pricniples and institutions fo the governments we have today have been conceived about 300 years ago. In the time since our lives and the world have changed more than in the 3000 or even 30, 000 years before that. There is serious need of an overhaul, and a serious lack of exploration. With all what we have learned since about nature and human nature, it is very much possible to construct better governance and better governance principles. But trying to change the status quo will of course always pit you against those who benefit the most from it, the rich and powerful, the establishment, the conservatives who want to conserve it, who want more of the same. That necessarily is always an uphill battle. Since they also have lerned better how to go about keeping their status. | cmv |
I believe it's foolish to have intense opinions about types of government. CMV | People with vehement opinions are important exactly because we don't know which system works the best. Not only is setting up an Earth - wide experiment with multiple different government unfeasible, but it would also require agreeing on the experiment's structure. And this is just as hard a problem as deciding on a government. Those vehement opinions help us to find a better solution. | cmv |
I believe that the US education system is doomed because of teachers CMV | Your claim seems a bit vague. I don't think it has to do solely with the teachers. The insistence on standardized testing has bound their hands largely when it comes to how they teach. The fact that they are barely paid a living wage likely doesn't help their motivations. Even further, the fact that students who don't want to be there, and who harass, disrupt, and drag the class down, are nevertheless forced to be there, likely does not help either. | cmv |
I believe that the US education system is doomed because of teachers CMV | That's not indicative of teachers at all. They all have criteria they shoot for like passing graduation tests and standardized tests which take away from the education kids would otherwise get since those tests are how we've decided to negotiate budgets. Teachers often spend most of their time trying to reach a few students and make lesson plans that cover all the kids they actually have, so the issues are there to be improved but revoking tenure as a practice won't do it, and neither will targeting teachers at all. | cmv |
I believe industry driven gun control is the best approach CMV | Introducing background checks and Screening and all these other regulations does nothing to change the fact that once you sell a gun to a'sane'person you have still introduced another firearm into circulation. And chances are that the person who bought the firearm won't be the one to pick it up and go on a spree. It could be their cousin, their kid or even a neighbor who knows X owns Y guns. This line of reasoning never really makes sense to me. | cmv |
I believe that elderly people being defended for being racist because they were raised in different times is total bs. CMV | Starting at around middle age, our brains become wired to seek familiarity in an attempt make us more likely to provide for our children steadily. After all, if we're still experimenting with risky behavior in our 40s and 50s, we're less likely to be alive as our offspring need our contributions the most. This familiarity manifests itself in sticking to opinions we're accustomed to and being less willing to accept new things ( thus also explaining the elderly's aversion to technology ). It's not that old people are bigoted by choice. Their brains have made them become that way out of necessity. | cmv |
I believe the death penalty should be abolished in the US. CMV | I agree with the first point. But why is money even an issue in a debate about the ethics of killing? Even if death row was cheaper than life in prison, is it then justified? I don't think that saving money on prisoners is an argument when human life is at stake. Yes, the death penalty is revenge, but so is life in prison to a lesser extent. Isn't that the point of the justice system : making people accountable for their deeds? Also, do you believe that there atrocities which deserve death? If Hitler was captured, don't you think he would deserve to die? | cmv |
I believe the death penalty should be abolished in the US. CMV | Some people are deemed a threat to society and simply cannot be allowed to re - integrate. You could say that killing them is more humane than keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives to sit and stare at the walls of their cage. A lot of people in such situations probably wish they could die, so the death " penalty " may be something more than petty revenge. | cmv |
I believe the killing of Osama bin Laden by Seal Team 6 was fully justifiable and legal. CMV. | In order to ensure we actually had found Bin Laden instead of some other tall, rich, reclusive Arab living with a false identity on dialysis in Pakistan, the CIA organized a gimmicked Hepatitis B vaccination program throughout Abbottabad. They hoped to extract blood from Osama or one of his children to compare with his dead sister's DNA to assist in identification prior to the assassination. Using a medical mission as a cover story for military action is a war crime, and this one is particularly egregious. It threatens the success of vaccination programs throughout the Muslim world as word of this CIA plot adds credence to conspiracy theories and Islamist opponents of vaccination. Polio was nearly eradicated ( remaining endemic only in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nigeria ), but now vaccination workers are being shot. So this portion of the assassination attempt was a war crime that may potentially result in the deaths or paralysis of millions of children. It is unjustifiable. | cmv |
I believe the killing of Osama bin Laden by Seal Team 6 was fully justifiable and legal. CMV. | From the US perspective, sure. For a moment, think about it from a Pakistani perspective. A foreign nation basically invaded your country, stormed a compound, killed a bunch of people, stole a corpse, and then left. Now consider that it happened during a several - year campaign of drone strikes in that country. From a Pakistani perspective, I'm pretty sure it was a completely illegal infraction of their sovereignty. | cmv |
Justice through punishment is unequivocally barbaric and evil. CMV | There's actually a sound policy behind the vengeance / retribution aspect of the justice system as well that I think often goes overlooked. Imagine you're the parent of one of those children that this man killed. Reasonably, I think you, or any of the other parents, would be unsatisfied with the idea that this man gets to live out his days in relative comfort in his little castle. At the very least this man should have stood trial and been labeled a murderer. Therefore under your scenario those parents may choose to take matters into their own hands and try to breach this building, possibly harming themselves or others in the process. Maybe they determine they can't get to the killer, and instead go after the killer's family instead in blind rage. Or maybe they get to him and now he's subject to their wrath, lacking any kind of due process or constitutional protections. Instead our justice system punishes killers and criminals sometimes for no other reason for retribution in hopes of curbing vigilantism and revenge killing. By putting this man on trial the families who have suffered get some closure at least. | cmv |
Self - ownership doesn't exist. CMV. | Governments that oppress their people discover that certain lines ( taking away what you call privileges ) can be crossed with impunity while others ( taking away what you also call privileges ) lead to resistance and even revolt. Anyone who is interested in becoming a dictator or preventing others from becoming dictators will want to look at which lines generate serious resistance. Those " red lines " might look something like what ordinary people call rights. | cmv |
Self - ownership doesn't exist. CMV. | Ownership is normative statement of who should be allowed and not be allowed to exclude people from what. It is independent of who actually has the power to exclude. In the same way as a thief may posses an object that they don't own, a collective may take rights away from individuals, though it does not make it right. Should self - ownership be the convention? To make this decision you must consider the alternatives. | cmv |
Self - ownership doesn't exist. CMV. | I agree, but I also think this is a necessary evil, whereas I think you don't like it? I don't believe the masses will do what's right as a whole unless they are motivated to do so more than basic human desires motivate them to do things that are harmful to other human beings. Punishment, though, does seem to be a failed attempt to do so, at least here in America where I live. Rehabilitation seems like a much better option in comparison with locking up criminals in a criminal society and expecting them to act less criminal. | cmv |
Self - ownership doesn't exist. CMV. | Your problem begins when you assume you have a monopoly on force, gained through sheer force alone. Good luck with that. Even from the most cynical perspective, " Rights " such as self - ownership are more akin to " things that benefit those who have power. " They gain more safety for themselves, their cultural influence brings their country job opportunities ( which create more jobs, and bring more money into the country ) and innovation... And it limits institutional rot, as you're not just limited to finding assistance from your starting collective, which may age badly... | cmv |
Self - ownership doesn't exist. CMV. | Everybody has the right to do anything, it's just that excersising certain rights will get you ostracized by the social group. People can only prevent / try to prevent you from excersising these rights. In country X, the majority of people are against murder. Does this mean murder cannot happen? No, one can not simply will away all murderous thoughts from people or actively make people incapable of murder. So, murders will still happen, because people have the right to murder, no matter how severe the punishment for doing it, nor how detestable it is by the majority. If you mean legal rights, then a CMV is pointless, as it all depends on the legal documents, definitions, and systems. You can never not own yourself while you are yourself. You can think, say, and do as you please, it's just some people will punish you for certain actions. | cmv |
I believe that parents should be allowed a 30 day period to choose whether they want a newborn to be kept or euthanised after birth. CMV. | " I have seen in my own life the suffering inflicted on people with birth defects. People with visible birth defects are isolated from their peers for their entire life, and suffer from pervasive feelings of inadequacy. The vast majority never enter relationships or have children. " This is not the fault of people with defects, and they should therefore not be punished. Instead, change the context to which the babies are born. | cmv |
I believe that parents should be allowed a 30 day period to choose whether they want a newborn to be kept or euthanised after birth. CMV. | Do you think this should be the case for all newborns, or simply those with birth defects? If so, how severe do you think the defects have to be? ( I'm opposed in any case, but I have to figure out what you're actually arguing to formulate an argument against it. ) | cmv |
I believe that parents should be allowed a 30 day period to choose whether they want a newborn to be kept or euthanised after birth. CMV. | And yet many people with birth defects live relatively happy lives. Why exactly does the parents'choice outweigh the newborn's at this point, and how / why would that be limited to 30 days? Is somehow 30 days after birth a more meaningful point morally - speaking for deciding on the termination? I disagree with Singer's ethics on a much more fundamental level, but even on this level you have to give an account of why such a 30 - day period post - birth would be morally significant. | cmv |
I believe that parents should be allowed a 30 day period to choose whether they want a newborn to be kept or euthanised after birth. CMV. | I think my biggest point against this idea would be that parents should first and foremost plan ahead. If you don't want to keep a baby then have an abortion early on. I believe medical advances do allow us to test for certain birth defects and this information should be used to again decide if an abortion is the right choice. I think euthanasia 30 days after birth shows a lack of foresight on the parents part if you know you cannot or are not willing to take care of a child don't bring one into this world, instead have an abortion. | cmv |
I believe that parents should be allowed a 30 day period to choose whether they want a newborn to be kept or euthanised after birth. CMV. | Deaf parents are known to prefer deaf babies. ( I'm not judging this, it's just a fact! ) You'd be ok if those deaf parents euthanized a baby who was physically healthy, but had the " birth defect " of being able to hear? Also, it would be ok with you if they euthanized babies with the wrong color eyes, or an unattractive ear shape, etc? | cmv |