summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
Continued U. S. Presence Abroad is Necessary Towards Maintaining Asian - Pacific Security CMV | " The United States, as well as her allies, act as counterweights to nations like China or North Korea that seek to expand influence or fulfill territorial interests regionally " Two problems with this. China's policy has always favored multipolar relations, as economic development of the region is and has been their main concern. A more diversified, multicultural approach leads to better trade relations and subsequently increased security. Number two, I get the feeling that China actually regards the U. S. as an equal in Asian - Pacific power, not because of strict defense practices, but because of our continued involvement in stability issues that diverge from Chinese interests and prosperity throughout history. | cmv |
Available - and - looking heterosexual men really shouldn't attend SlutWalk. CMV. | I disagree ; the SlutWalk is about protesting notions of the purported connection between'slutiness'and rape ( a significant part of rape culture ). The entire purpose of the counter - rape culture movement is to ultimately create a society which values consensual sex. With that in mind, SlutWalks should be a celebration, not demonization, of sex between two willing individuals. Therefore, men ( and women ) who are seeking to'get laid'should be encouraged to attend. | cmv |
Available - and - looking heterosexual men really shouldn't attend SlutWalk. CMV. | That seems to me to be buying into the assumptions that Slutwalk is designed to combat. The idea that a single straight man is somehow obligated or forced to hit on every woman he sees is a pretty straightforward rape culture myth. Full disclosure : I'm a dude. I participated in my local Slutwalk last year, while single, with a bunch of friends of various genders and sexualities. Oh, and guess what, I did not hit on anyone! Imagine that. : P | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday 6 / 4 / 2013 | As a kid, until around high school, I was an incredibly picky eater and would not even try new foods, even in social situations. Would never eat sushi, Chinese food, Mexican food, Indian food, salads, and I would never order any toppings for my ketchup - only burgers and cheese pizzas. High school. Got a girlfriend. She tells me to shut up and eat new things. I do. It's awesome. I just had leftover curry for dinner, even though I would never have touched it before. I still suck at cooking, but I'm really glad I'm no longer " that guy " when eating with friends. Also, burritos are amazing. | cmv |
I believe that allowing large amounts of assets to be inherited / gifted to one's children ends up in neo - feudalism and is grossly unfair to the rest of society. CMV | Most inheritance money is either spent or invested which helps drive the economy. In the case of trust funds most of the money are in long term bonds and stocks which create vital capital for entrepreneurs and business's not to mention government projects. The only way to remove this advantage is to get rid of private ownership and replace it with government or communal ownership, which has shown to be ineffective at driving economic growth. The soviet Union and China have both tried it this way and failed which eventually evolved back into private ownership. If private ownership still exists under a new system the wealthiest individuals will find ways to circumvent any laws to ensure it ends up staying within the family. Its unfortunate but there hasn't been a better system invented yet. Upward mobility it capitalist countries are significantly higher then it was under any other system. The lower and middle class can use inheritance as an advantage to future generations by building up net assets and planning carefully. I am not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination but I believe I have the fundamental right to distribute my assets as I see fit and bequeath anything to anybody i want when i die. I firmly believe the three right that each human has been endowed with are life, liberty, and property. | cmv |
I believe that allowing large amounts of assets to be inherited / gifted to one's children ends up in neo - feudalism and is grossly unfair to the rest of society. CMV | Do you own your body? If so, do you own the work your body produces? Before you answer, understand this : If you own the manner in which a thing may be used, then functionally it is identical to you owning that thing. At that point you are arguing semantics and not ideology. If you give the government control over the things you own when you die, then you have given the government control over the things you own as you live, only on the terms of a lease agreement. If you give the government control over the things you own as you live, then you have given the government control over the work required to create those things, as they are controlling how that work will be used. If you give the government control over the work you produce, then you have given the government control over... you. You can replace'government'with'society'or any other abstract you come up with, but the functioning relationship remains the same. ( I'm not great at logic, reasoning, or deduction, but this seems to be the simplest explanation. ) | cmv |
I believe that allowing large amounts of assets to be inherited / gifted to one's children ends up in neo - feudalism and is grossly unfair to the rest of society. CMV | Who other than me has the right to allocate that which I own? If you ask me breaking down the idea of inheritance is a direct infringement on the idea of private property. I see this as you knowing how better to spend someone else's money than that person. That person might want to work hard and amass a fortune to secure his family going forward, and you might want to do something else, but, no matter how noble your goals are, it is his money, and he has the legitimate claim to it. | cmv |
I believe that allowing large amounts of assets to be inherited / gifted to one's children ends up in neo - feudalism and is grossly unfair to the rest of society. CMV | Leaving wealth to your children is the reason people work once they've earned enough to retire. Without this incentive, successful businessmen will just retire early. Without incentive, people won't innovate very well. Look at the Soviet Union for an example of economics without incentives. Not to worry though, the third generation usually blows the fortune. | cmv |
I believe that allowing large amounts of assets to be inherited / gifted to one's children ends up in neo - feudalism and is grossly unfair to the rest of society. CMV | Generally speaking someone who accumulates a large amount of capital over their lifetime has done this with prudent management, and hiring of the right people. They are considered the best person to manage the assets ( by right of capital growth ), so who else is best to choose who should continue to manage the assets when they die / retire? Nobody is forced to leave their fortune to their child. I feel that there is not much difference between taking these assets back ( essentially I guess it would be redistributed " for the people " ) at death, or at any other arbitrary time. We could also consider it unfair that people hold too many assets in general, and apply a 1 % tax for over $ 100M of capital, for example. Trust their judgement in managing the assest ; trust their judgement on who to manage it next. | cmv |
I think there should be a flat income tax rate in the US, CMV | First, make sure that you understand marginal tax rates. Your tax doesn't magically jump to a higher percentage when you go over a threshold ; it's only the part above that threshold that's taxed at the higher rate. This was one of the frustrating things in the Bush tax cut debate : cutting taxes for under $ 250k is a tax cut for everyone, because it also lowers rates for the first $ 250k that rich people make. Second, look up diminishing returns. The first $ 50k is way, way more important than the entire second million. Income tax brackets are meant to be calibrated so that the loss is approximately the same for everyone, once adjusted for the value of that marginal dollar. The fact is that the country can't function if everyone pays a tax rate that someone making $ 30k can survive, and people making $ 300k can spare a lot more before it hurts. | cmv |
I think there should be a flat income tax rate in the US, CMV | A flat tax just doesn't make sense. You're penalizing the poor and middle class in a sense because as others have pointed out, they're using that money for necessities and to survive. You'd be taxing the poor and middle class'living money spent on necessities, and it wouldn't be making even a dent in the wealthy's luxury funds. People making minimum wage are likely on government support of some kind anyway, so to tax them at the same rate millionaires are seems a bit redundant when they're getting food stamps, govt housing, etc. People on the lower end and middle need more of their money to simply survive. A flat tax sounds awesome in theory but it would don'thing to level the playing field and make things more equal. | cmv |
I support LGBT rights, but I think people are getting carried away with the acronyms. CMV | I think the whole thing is getting bogged down. I don't care about LGBT rights or LGBTTQ2SIA, and neither should any of you. The fight is for HUMAN rights. Anything less than everyone being equal is not enough. | cmv |
I support LGBT rights, but I think people are getting carried away with the acronyms. CMV | I've seen the LGBTTQQSIA shortened to LGBT + in the past. The problem with this is that LGBT + doesn't give any sort of visibility to questioning, intersex, asexual, etc. communities. Thus gaining a letter in the acronym is a way of gaining limelight in the community which is obviously culturally and politically important. While other recommendations, such as GSM, have been given here I would like to throw my hat in for simply use the term Queer Community. The advantages of Queer Community are many but I'll list the three I see as strongest : It uses the the historically disempowering word Queer and reclaims it as a beacon for the community. The use of Queer also causes those unfamiliar with the community to question why they would use Queer in such a fashion. This questioning is a great way to begin an educational conversation. Queer is an all encompassing term and thus solidifies the community in ways the inherently polarizing acronym cannot. | cmv |
I believe mandatory minimum laws have no place in society CMV | What if a judge disagrees with a law? They could effectively nullify the law by not giving any punishment for it. It is not the role of the judicial branch to repeal laws unilaterally with no oversight. | cmv |
I believe mandatory minimum laws have no place in society CMV | I think your actual complaint is that the minimum sentences are disproportionate to the crimes, not that there are minimum sentences at all. I think there's a good reason to argue that minimum sentences will always ratchet upwards until they are disproportionate, because of the way politics works in a democracy, but that's a problem with democracy rather than with minimum sentences. The entire principle of common law is that judges follow the precedents set by previous decisions about the constitutionality or interpretation of the law so that everyone can expect to be treated equally. If any judge can effectively nullify a law by not handing out fair sentences, that principle would effectively mean nothing. Another point : your concept would also effectively apply to maximum sentences if your reasons were actually valid. | cmv |
I believe mandatory minimum laws have no place in society CMV | I largely agree with you, but I think mandatory minimums would work very well in a few specific cases. I've always thought political corruption should be attached with a large minimum prison sentence. People in places of power may have friends on court benches or governor's houses that can get them off the hook. | cmv |
I believe mandatory minimum laws have no place in society CMV | The role of a legislature is to create law, and the role of a judge is to apply it. So long as the legislature acts within their power, they can create any law they wish, and this includes sentencing guidelines. Judges don't have discretion as a definitional principle - - the lawmaking body of the jurisdiction has maximum discretion to act or not and judges only have residual discretion to use their judgment when the law is unclear, contradictory, or nonexistent. Without any legislative input at all, a judge would have maximum discretion to apply a sentence he or she felt was " just " ( whatever that means ). But it's the legislature's prerogative to create necessary laws, and this includes the definition of mandatory minimums, mandatory maximums, and pegging the range between the two however it wishes. While this system has its downsides, it tends to result in procedural fairness. ( substantive fairness, however, may suffer, as has been pointed out elsewhere ). And if you live in a society where unfairness is likely to be found on lines of race / income / etc, procedural fairness is better equipped to smooth out those ruffles than a system focused on substantive fairness. | cmv |
Further than an earlier post today, I believe that anything beyond " LGBT " doesn't exist at all. CMV. | For the asexual bit, I think you're confusing it with " demisexual ", which is a totally different concept. An aromantic asexual means that I am not attracted to anyone at all, whether from a romantic ( I want to be in a monogamous relationship with you in a very intimate way ) or sexual ( I want to have sex with you ) standpoint. What you are describing is a homo / hetero / bi - romantic ( attracted to opposite / same / both genders in a romantic, intimate way ) demisexual ( if I connect with you long enough / pass a certain threshold, I will want to have sex with you ). That's low libido. Asexuals don't want to have sex at all, period. We don't really feel sexual attraction to anyone or anything. Sexual frustration becomes nothing more than the feeling you get when you pee or do any other bodily function – completely unattached to emotions. Nothing more, nothing less. Libido suggests that something externally can get you aroused, which is not the case for asexuals. I can't really speak for the rest, though, because I don't know much about them ( though I do know that they exist ). | cmv |
I believe current benefits to US military veterans should be just converted into larger pay. CMV. | If the benefits were easy to identify and easy to obtain would your view change? I'm in IT and I find it infuriating that the Department of Veteran Affairs is so inept. I could put together a database no problem and all they have to do is hire people to input data. Grab a ton of people and have them input forms with smaller groups doing verification work. Not hard. Once everything is electronic it's just running queries. If a particular person comes knocking for benefits you look up that person ( all their info is right there ) and then you can determine eligibility quickly ( if not automatically ) and payments using direct deposit setup from a web form. None of this is difficult or even that expensive in comparison to what they're currently doing. | cmv |
I don't think the government should be even 1 / 10th the size it is in any major country CMV | The shortest answer to all your arguments is simple : the smaller government theory has been tried, and we can empirically point to data that shows it's weaknesses, and how the market doesn't take care of problems. Government didn't always have minimum wage laws, standing armies, fiat currencies, or health insurance mandates. In fact, it started without them. But it was also seen that the deleterious effects of leaving things unregulated was worse than implementing a law. Far worse, in fact, as it had to be to motivate a law. To use your example of health care pricing : the countries that did not have skyrocketing health care costs like the US from 2000 - 2010 ( in other words, the period that led to the affordable care act ) all had universal health care and price control schemes. To go to an analogy - before you start ripping the cabling out of the wall, you should figure out what it does and why someone put it there. It might be for a good reason. What your original post here shows is that you haven't really understood the reasons, and what ( usually substantially worse ) problem was solved by the law you are criticizing. I would suggest that you would probably like to keep the primary effect of the law and try to focus on the side effects more often than you really want to scrap the whole thing. | cmv |
I don't think the government should be even 1 / 10th the size it is in any major country CMV | The problem I see with your health care thoughts is that for profit health care is a normal good - as in, the more money you have, the more money you are willing ( or able ) to spend on health care. What this means is that institutions trying to make a profit off of people's illnesses will consider supply ( essentially, competition ) and demand ( essentially, how much people can and will pay ). Profit, then, is treated as a limit of the function of how much you charge versus how many people can afford the care. In other other words, for - profit health care is, necessarily, founded on principles of inequity. Opening it up to more competition won't make it more accessible to everyone because it's not like " Kraft Dinner " ( demand increases as income decreases ). There will be more profit to be made by charging more than poor people can afford, and finding that LIMIT which maximizes profit, instead of maximizing equal access to quality of life. | cmv |
Bicycle Helmet laws should only apply to minors as it causes no harm to others. CMV | This may get buried, but helmet laws are as much for the people interacting with bikers, as well as the bikers themselves. If you get into an unavoidable accident, and the biker was not wearing a helmet and dies, you might face manslaughter in cases where fault is not necessarily easily determined. Helmet laws COULD help one way or the other in these cases. I can't really give you a solid example at the moment, so I hope my thought can at least be followed. When you are operating ANY type of vehicle, you are not only responsible for your safety and well being, but also for keeping other people safe. | cmv |
I believe if there is a minimum wage, unpaid internships should be illegal. CMV | Any legal unpaid internship can't be called a job because it cannot benefit the company in any way. So if the company isn't benefitting from your work, why should you be paid? 1. The training, even though it includes actual operations of the facilities of the employers, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school. 2. The training is for the benefit of the student. 3. The student does not displace a regular employee, but works under the close observation of a regular employee or supervisor. 4. The employer provides the training and derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the student ; and on occasion, the operations may actually be impeded by the training. 5. The student is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period. 6. The employer and the student understand that the student is not entitled to wages for the time spent training. | cmv |
I believe if there is a minimum wage, unpaid internships should be illegal. CMV | unpaid internships are intended to be a way to gain exposure, training, and some level experience. it was a trade off, the employer invests significant resources in the intern in exchange for no wages, but they would typically receive college credit instead. but like everything else, abuse flourishes, and many corporations have figured out they can milk a once fair system for free labor | cmv |
I believe if there is a minimum wage, unpaid internships should be illegal. CMV | What if you get school credit for your internship? That's what I'm doing. It is more worth my time and money than taking a regular class. Unpaid are basically meant to be hands on education, it's not a job. At my internship, I am developing real world skills and gaining contacts and have something to put on my resume. My provider is getting extra help. It's a mutually beneficial transaction, who are you to decide that it's wrong? | cmv |
I believe if there is a minimum wage, unpaid internships should be illegal. CMV | As someone that just started an internship as a web developer, I completely disagree. I'm not a master of the programming languages used in web development and have no experience of doing it professionally, by doing my internship I am : a ) Learning new things from industry experts and learning practical ways to apply skills in an actual work environment. b ) Getting a reference and making friends from industry leaders which will help me a lot in future. c ) Creating content and being able to add this content to any future portfolio I will use to impress and grab future work, free lance or full time. d ) Finding out what the job I'd like to do is REALLY like with first hand experience. e ) Potential to go into paid work with the internship employers after they have gotten to know me and possibly appreciate and value what I have shown I can bring to their business. I do agree with you when it comes to jobs such as mindlessly stacking shelves in a supermarket though, disgraceful abuse of the entire system. | cmv |
People who hunt for fun lack empathy CMV | Do patriots lack empathy for the people of their own nation, because they lack empathy for the people of others? Humans are a tribal species - we're structured so as to be able to selectively include and exclude people from the pool of individuals that we're empathic towards. With non - humans, this process is even easier. | cmv |
People who hunt for fun lack empathy CMV | In addition to hunting being " greener " than factory meat, hunting is also necessary for wildlife management, to keep populations of white tailed deer and pests like feral hogs or nutria in check. Every conservationist I've known ( and my wife went to grad school in wildlife ecology ) had a hunting license and went out occasionally. Granted, I live in Louisiana, not California ( though the way I hear it told, CA has an unusually obstinate " hands off " policy when it comes to managing land ). In particular, invasive species like feral hogs and nutria deal untold damage to the wetland ecosystem, and hunters are encouraged by environmentalists and landowners alike to kill them wholesale, whether they keep the meat or not. The state even has a bounty on nutria, there's a monetary reward for every one you kill. Hunting is a vital part of many wildlife management strategies, whether it's done for fun or not. I would go so far as to say every competent environmentalist should support managed hunting. | cmv |
I believe all lobbying and political advertisement should be illegal. CMV | The biggest argument for lobbying is that you cannot expect every congressperson or senator to be experts in every field they are voting in. And in many cases there are no black and white right or wrong opinions. There are often 10 or 20 differing views. The point of lobbyists is to provide the view that they support but any good lobbyist will also inform the congressperson or senator of other views that are out there. Lobbying is seen by a lot as bribery but it is the farthest thing from it. The point is to educate and yes of course promote their company's viewpoint but it shouldn't be illegal. As for political platforms held by candidates. That information is out there is you choose to look for it. But yes a better way to educate the general public would help. | cmv |
Arguments phrased in such a way that a speaker is thrown under the bus, but thean the main thrust of their argument is salvaged, are completely short - sighted and water down discussions. CMV. | You're pushing the problem on the wrong people. In many circles, thinking Anita Sarkeesian is crazy is a prerequisite for discussion. If I go to the average gaming community and start talking about how her ideas are right, nobody will even begin to listen to me. So I have to start off with " I know she's crazy but... " if I want to say anything. You definitely hear this from the right. Lots of people say " well, Glenn Beck is kinda ridiculous most of the time, but he has a point ". And it's for the same reason ; if you start talking about how awesome Glenn Beck is, nobody on the left will listen to you. | cmv |
Arguments phrased in such a way that a speaker is thrown under the bus, but thean the main thrust of their argument is salvaged, are completely short - sighted and water down discussions. CMV. | If people are using a well - known personality's statements as an illustration for their point, they don't necessarily want to accept all the baggage that goes with the person. That's why they qualify the example they use to that example, and not the extraneous views or lifestyle of that person. Whether or not they agree with other views of that person is irrelevant to the point they are making in the discussion at hand. To rephrase, they are not being short - sighted, or if they are, that is a different topic of argument. It can be very annoying to say, " well Michael Moore made this excellent point in Bowling for Columbine " to have the other person in the argument bring up something not relevant about Michael Moore, like the fact that he's anti - government and saying that Michael Moore's views are therefore invalid. | cmv |
Arguments phrased in such a way that a speaker is thrown under the bus, but thean the main thrust of their argument is salvaged, are completely short - sighted and water down discussions. CMV. | Everybody says good things and bad things. Experts will likely be more correct in their area, which is why we are more likely to trust them. This level of trust is a simple way of asserting the potential quality of an idea, so you might bring up a good point someone made but assert that you don't trust them in general. Another factor is that some people have the idea that a group of Others has to prove itself constantly. This means purifying the group through active control ( banning, rules ), else all people get an automatic sanction. The issue is, it doesn't work for groups you don't choose to join ( gender, nationality, being victim of, getting sick, faith or not, passion ). These groups are loosely constituted and impossible to neatly control and polish. | cmv |
I am a firm believer in the death penalty. CMV | Haven't dug up the source, would have to go looking for it, but I think there's also data that show that minorities are disproportionately likely to get the death penalty as opposed to just strict prison sentences for non - minorities. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, so I don't believe in the death penalty really anymore. I still think that some people deserve to be killed for their crimes, but not for " eye for an eye " or revenge reasons, but that there is no hope for them to be rehabilitated, but I think the system is broken. | cmv |
I am a firm believer in the death penalty. CMV | Even if we accept that death is a perfectly reasonable response to some crimes, the risk of executing innocent people ( which has happened ) is too high for the death penalty to be a reasonable position. When I say'too high'I mean'it happens '. If one innocent person is executed, that is one too many. It's easier not to take issue with if you don't know that person. But what if it was you, or someone you love? | cmv |
I am a firm believer in the death penalty. CMV | To quote Gandalf : " Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then don't be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. " | cmv |
I am a firm believer in the death penalty. CMV | A successful way to deal with criminals should not involve punishment. Deterrent and rehabilitation. You rehabilitate the criminals in a very unpleasurable and forced manner so that those that go do crime will be rehabilitated, and those thinking of crime will be put off by the unpleasant consequences should they be caught. The threat of death is unnecessary as a deterrent and obviously doesn't help rehabilitate. " Justice " or " Revenge " is just sensationalism and does not improve anything so should NOT be the focus of any system. In my eyes, the only time the death penalty is useful is if a criminal is beyond rehabilitation and can only cause harm and cost resources. But in the current system it costs so much to put someone to death due to ridiculous capitalism / law reasons, it's actually cheaper to put them into prison for life ( how ridiculous is that? ) | cmv |
I am a firm believer in the death penalty. CMV | In jurisdictions with the death penalty, innocent people get executed. This is unavoidable. You can't say " no death penalty without a confession ", because innocent people confess sometimes. You can't say " no death penalty without hard physical evidence ", because evidence is fuzzed or misinterpreted or just straight out fabricated sometimes. So if you support the death penalty, you're accepting the fact that innocent people will sometimes be executed. Are you really okay with that? | cmv |
I am a firm believer in the death penalty. CMV | You say that people who cannot made responsable for their crimes ( mentally ill people ) should also be excecuted. That makes me belive that you see in the punishment some kind of revenge for the victim, rather than a punishment for the criminal. I think the punishment should rather be an attempt to guide the criminal back into society. Or, for serious crimes, give them a lifelong chance to feel repentance. I also think murder is one of the worst crimes known and neither should a state sink at such a low level that they have to commit it, nor should it have the right to do so. If I couldn't change your few, maybe this TED talk can. Feel free to correct my bad english. | cmv |
I am a firm believer in the death penalty. CMV | I object to the death penalty for practical reasons, not moral reasons. People's morals are all different, so I find that arguing the whole " eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth " thing only polarizes the actual issue. Before I begin, I have to ask this OP : Do you believe that the criminal - justice system and our courts are effective in fairly prosecuting people for their alleged crimes? In other words, how perfect do you think our courts are? | cmv |
I believe a country which has a compulsary military service should also draft women. CMV | The average woman is quite considerably weaker than the average man, whenever physical feats are requires, like marching and carrying heavy things, a woman could slow down the troops. This is why professions such as firefighters don't hire women or have strict physical tests that most women can't pass. I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here because there is plenty to do that doesn't involve physical strength a female should really be capable of doing too, and I also don't support the draft system in the first place. | cmv |
I believe a country which has a compulsary military service should also draft women. CMV | I think the main reason is, like most things in Switzerland, money. Effectively doubling the number of recruit, needlessly so, would be a huge burden on the confederation. We already have a needlessly large military ( personal opinion ) so I see no point in adding even more to it. Disclaimer : I believe women to be just as capable as men, even physically so, and welcome them in any office. | cmv |
I believe a country which has a compulsary military service should also draft women. CMV | Warning, generalizations ahead! The physical requirements for a combatant are high. More men than women can meet this standard. Mixing men and women in combat causes problems. There was a discussion on this before, the tl ; dr being that men will act irrationally around women, particularly if they are injured. This is clearly the fault of men. If men and women can't easily be mixed, then you either have to go for single gender combatants. A force made up of men will be stronger - which is the only real metric in war. Still, I see no reason why women should be excluded from being drafted into support roles, or I assume having to pay the not - fighting tax. | cmv |
I believe a country which has a compulsary military service should also draft women. CMV | What about the home front? When it came to WWII, a huge amount of men in the UK were sent off to war. What was left was essentially a lot of jobs left vacant and a huge need for a workforce to continue production. Women picked up the responsibility, filling in for men when it came to farming, weapons making, clothes making, and general jobs throughout the country. They, essentially, kept the country running. Yes, it may be discriminatory to exclude an entire gender and yes, modes of production have changed over the past 80 years, but by excluding women from national service the country is guaranteed a huge able - bodied workforce to run the country in the time of war. | cmv |
I believe a country which has a compulsary military service should also draft women. CMV | Why should there be any compulsory military service? The definition of slavery isn't necessarily having to do a job with no pay, but rather, being forced to do a job that you don't voluntarily agree to. Any draft is involuntarily forcing you into a job, and is this a form of slavery. If, going by this definition, men are already enslaved, should we also enslave women in the name of equality? Or should we free everyone? | cmv |
I believe a country which has a compulsary military service should also draft women. CMV | My layers of philosophy are as follows : 1 : War is stupid, but protecting oneself from war is intelligent. 2 : In the interest of feminism, both sexes have a stake in survival. 3 : In ancient times the men were slaughtered and the rest were enslaved. Personal conclusion : I agree with you. Yes, we all have different strengths. And it is folly to discount half of the population. But, from a historical perspective it's easier to send young men to die than to send young women which would no doubt cause anger / unrest in the populace. | cmv |
I believe a country which has a compulsary military service should also draft women. CMV | Fertility. Say we are at war, draft goes into place for all able men and women 18 - 35. A huge amount of your nation who can carry a healthy child is in danger. If all men 18 - 35 die, the smaller population of men 35 and up are still able to help continue the population. However, if all women 18 - 35 die there is a minuscule amount of women who can actually get pregnant, let alone all of the possible complications of carrying a child after 35. TLDR ; One man can impregnate many, while one woman can only carry one child every 2 years for a limited period of time. We need a larger population of healthy women to continue our national population, while men are not so detrimental. | cmv |
I believe a country which has a compulsary military service should also draft women. CMV | Well, I'm not exactly decided on the issue, but there are good reasons why they shouldn't be anything more than a small minority. In any combat situations, women might cause more problems than help. Logistically, it's going to be quite a hassle sending feminine products to the front - lines, and you are more likely to have either too many or too little, due to the fact that it's almost impossible to cater to the needs of every single woman. There is also the argument that many women can't take what they need to for war, due to their upbringings. The others in the squad would probably constantly try to protect her, again due to upbringings, making them an unnecessary burden on everyone else. Furthermore, they are more likely to be specifically targeted by many extremists. If no combat is involved, someone still has to take care of the families at home, and due to the above reasons, if there is any instance where combat is necessary, it wouldn't be wise to take both sexes. Secondly, crime is perhaps the more prominent factor. Thousands of men are lustful due to their loneliness, lack or companionship, and tedium, so it wouldn't be too uncommon for sexual assault and rape to happen, and if that happens, you might end up with two dysfunctional soldiers who might need to be sent back. Why take the risk? | cmv |
I believe a country which has a compulsary military service should also draft women. CMV | Women have a much different physical outlook on their life than men. Your evidence that another country is doing it is weak. Yeah, so? Female genital mutilation is common in other countries. Having that as your sole argument is weak. Discrimination is not disgression. They are two very different concepts. Having disgression between genders in the military is vital, because women have lower bone density and body mass. One more thing to consider is that culture would disapprove on this mandate as well. Plus, there's plenty of data to show that females enlist in the military often without compulsion. | cmv |
I believe Obama, like Bill Clinton, is a centrist republican in a liberal Democrat disguise. CMV | Nearly all the politicians in Washington sit pretty close to each other in the authoritarian right on a scale that includes all political persuasions. The false American political dichotomy is a tiny bubble out of every ideology you could choose. TL ; DR They're mostly all center - right and authoritarian with varying degrees of both. | cmv |
I believe that guns should be registered and transactions recorded ( much like cars ). | If you mean a registry in addition to the measures in place now, one that tracks the end user, that's terrible for everyone that owns one. People already want to take other people's guns. With a registry they'll know where the guns are and be better able to take them. The anti - gun lobby is prepared to use violence on millions of people to take their armaments that each have a < 1 % chance of being used in a violent confrontation. The last thing you should do if you want to keep your armaments is tell those people you have them. Unless, of course, you're one of those that wants guns confiscated, in which case, ask yourself why your violent theft of millions of them is okay while mere ownership is not. | cmv |
I don't think Verizon's NSA surveillance is that big a deal. CMV | Here's the problem with government intrusions into citizens'private lives : once government organizations have easy access to private information, it's much simpler for them to use that information for shady or illegal purposes. So to give an example, maybe we're all okay with the NSA monitoring our phone calls to find terrorists... but what's to stop an NSA official from using that system to have his team try to find and persecute political dissidents or rights activists? If you think my example is bizarre and would never happen, think again. Hoover's FBI basically did this in the 1950's ( of course a lot more was based on manpower since the current technology didn't exist ). Many authoritarian governments worldwide do this kind of monitoring today ( China, Iran, etc ). And the recent IRS scandal demonstrates to us that these kind of misguided managers who wield authority illegally, do exist. This is a very real threat to worldwide freedom, and " it could never happen here " is not a preventative measure. The best and only way to prevent governments from misusing information is to not let them have it in the first place. | cmv |
I think that possession and making ( copying not producing ) of child porn should not be a criminal offence as CMV | Statistically you could expect far more viewers and a larger target market for child porn if people could view it without fear of breaking the law. This encourages people to produce more. The arguable positive of dissuading would be pedophiles from actually committing the act themselves ( I can't possibly say if that's accurate or not ) would not be worth the negative of more CP being produced and more people viewing it out of curiosity and possibly gaining an interest in it. To step away from the sensationalism and moral aspects of it, a child can not give consent for their image to be used. Even if you wanted it to be less harshly enforced, it could never be " legal ". | cmv |
I think that possession and making ( copying not producing ) of child porn should not be a criminal offence as CMV | For the sake of this argument I will say that possession of / copying CP is a victimless act. Even granting that I still think Possession should be illegal because it allows for easier prosecution of child molestation. Children are terrible witnesses as most lawyers will tell you. They are easy to manipulate and can appear to constantly change their minds, making their testimony unreliable. For this reason child molestation charges are hard to prosecute if the only evidence is a child's testimony. Possession of CP is much more cut and dry. If CP was legal many child molesters would not have been prosecuted, | cmv |
I believe that there is a difference between a woman, and a transexual woman. CMV | This really, REALLY depends on what we're classifying as a difference. We have to be specific when discussing the purposes for separation. In some events, it makes sense to class transgenders with their " original " sex. In others it makes sense to do the exact opposite. In the case of Fallon Fox, I would have to say that she should be fighting with the women. A man's advantage over women in MMA comes down to muscularity, testosterone, and power. Women ACTUALLY have an advantage when it comes to enduring nagging pain without significantly impacting athletic performance. If Fallon Fox were to join the military, or participate in distance running ( not short track ) it would make sense to class her with men. That's because the differences in these arenas are largely due to bone structure of the lower limbs, specifically hip width and the knee joint. While we're on the topic of gender differences, it's important to note that in sports like ultra - distance running, women eventually eclipse men as distance increases. | cmv |
Calling someone a bigot ( or calling something bigoted ) is not an argument, CMV. | Let's just say, the act of calling someone a bigot is a conclusion that the other person isn't drawing their argument from effective sources. Anyone can say that the laws of physics are wrong because they feel like it and not from credible sources. My opinion on your view on the word bigot is because it's just another form of name calling or ad hominem. I will argue, if you belief that, people generally use the term'bigot'as a conclusion, not an assertion. My suggestion is that you could probably explain yourself a little bit more before saying some provocative statements. | cmv |
Calling someone a bigot ( or calling something bigoted ) is not an argument, CMV. | Identifying bigotry, or racism, or other prejudice is a shorthand for an argument ; specifically, it's an inversion of argument from authority intended to undermine the credibility of the speaker by demonstrating that the process by which they form opinions is flawed. If the speaker believes the ridiculous [ Opinion X ] based upon the application of their faculties of reason, it is likely that their [ Opinion Y ] - - which was formed by those same thinking abilities - - is likewise flawed and should be scrutinized accordingly. To use your example, no, looking at someones'posting history does not reflect upon the truth value of a factual claim they make ( a racist's " 2 + 2 =? " gets the same answer as mine ), but it certainly does weigh upon the subjective value of any conclusions they derive or opinions they offer. Calling that out, even in shorthand, is a totally valid argument. | cmv |
Calling someone a bigot ( or calling something bigoted ) is not an argument, CMV. | I do think this can be a legitimate argument when the person's character is in question. For example - their views on something might make them ineligible for a position because of a fear of conflict of interest. For example - a known bigot might be ineligible to serve on a jury where the fate of someone they are bigoted against is in question. | cmv |
Calling someone a bigot ( or calling something bigoted ) is not an argument, CMV. | a ) Not all insults are ad hominem, and yelling " ad hominem " every time you're insulted is just trying to legitimize your anger over being disregarded. b ) Also, you're fundamentally misunderstanding people's intent. When someone posts " you're racist " that's not a continuation of the argument, it's the textual equivalent of an eye roll and walking away. It's perfectly fine to dismiss yourself from an argument after the other party has shown themselves a dogmatic ideologue, no one stands to gain anything from the discussion except the bigot, who will feel intellectually validated if taken seriously. c ) A secondary purpose might be to educate others ( ex : letting other men know such and such is misogynistic ) or stigmatization ( making it not socially acceptable to be racist leads the next generation to be less racist ). | cmv |
Calling someone a bigot ( or calling something bigoted ) is not an argument, CMV. | Where's that handy pyramid of argument effectiveness? Oh yeah, here it is. As you can see, an " ad hominem " argument is both an argument and not an argument, in that it's not inherently relevant. | cmv |
I believe it's far easier for straight women to get sex than straight men. CMV | " It is far easier for women to be promiscuous than it is for men " Ever met a fat girl? On a more serious note, I think men's romantic failures being dramatized is the catalyst for this perception, rather than the " gatekeeper " theory. I see an equal number of men and women everyday use sex as leverage, it boils down to projecting insecurities more than a disparity in sexual discretion. | cmv |
I think that charging different demographics different rates on car insurance is unjust. CMV. | Young people get charged based on how long they have been driving, ultimately. I can quote a 35 - year - old man a great premium if I assume he got his license at 16 like most people in the states do. However, if he were to disclose that he didn't receive his drivers license until just a few months ago, his rate will now look much more like the quote I would give a teenager. Young people will have higher insurance for a while, but many companies offer discounts that significantly help your rates and award you for your good driving. As other people have said, its about numbers. Race has nothing to do with rates. Your insurance will be more expensive in areas with high crime and terrible traffic. Crime = vandalism / theft = comprehensive claims to pay out. I write insurance for areas that have terrible crime rates and it seems the first thing people assume when I give them a high rate is that it's because of their race. If you live in a bad area, your insurance rates are going to reflect that, generally speaking. | cmv |
I think that charging different demographics different rates on car insurance is unjust. CMV. | So ignoring the difference in gender, why shouldn't you need to prove to the insurance company that you're a good driver? Why shouldn't they charge young people more because they don't know if you're likely to get into an accident. As you get older, if you don't get into an accident your insurance will go down because you've proven you're not a risk for them. | cmv |
Large companies and corporations are largely'evil'and deceitful CMV. | I contest the view that they're " evil " on the grounds that a corporation is, on its most basic level, a business, and a business'one and only purpose is to make money. As such, I believe that corporations are amoral ; they ( not the people in them or the people leading them ) are neither good nor evil. Their workers, board members, and presidents can be good or evil though because they have free will and have a sense of right and wrong. | cmv |
I think the federal government should privatize the US Postal Service. CMV | The biggest thing that makes the US Postal Service necessary is that it provides mail service to places where companies would otherwise lose money. This is a good example. If you privatize the Postal Service, removing the mandate for universal service, service won't be universal. Similar to lamp posts and roads : if you want them available for all, you have to provide it outside of the market. | cmv |
I think the federal government should privatize the US Postal Service. CMV | There are also a few ideals the Post Office subscribes to that the others don't. The PO must deliver to anyone with an address. If you build a house in the middle of nowhere the post office will still get mail to you, while that wouldn't necessarily be true of the private companies. The USPS also subscribes to the idea everyone should have access to information and knowledge, which is why they charge less to ship books and other media. You won't get that from private companies. | cmv |
I think the federal government should privatize the US Postal Service. CMV | The main cause of the Postal Service's losses are not because they aren't competing with private carriers, but because Congress has mandated that they pre - pay retirement benefits up to 75 years in advance. If you changed that requirement to match what private companies are expected to pay, then the USPS swings to profitability again. FedEx and UPS also have the luxury of dealing mostly with businesses, which is part of the reason why they seem " more pleasant " to deal with. To get an idea of how bad a private company can be when it services low - end consumers, visit a Wal Mart or McDonalds. The typical USPS branch is often much nicer in comparison. Privatizing a carrier doesn't necessarily mean it will get better or even continue to service the same customers it does now. As an example, take DHL, who completely exited the pick - up business in the United States in the late 2000s because they couldn't compete. Even though email has become the dominant means of sending correspondence, it cannot offer important social functions such as registered and return - receipt mail. As a private company, they would have the right to cut off service to unprofitable areas. | cmv |
CMV : Being spied upon does not take away your freedoms. | Freedom isn't an abstract concept that is granted or taken away solely by the letter of law ; it has a practical component. You are free to drive over the speed limit, and you probably do, despite the fact that you are explicitly prohibited from doing so by motor vehicle law. This is because there is an understanding that the speed limit is not to be rigorously enforced, only when a police officer feels that there is an unsafe driving condition. Practically, there is no reason to inflexibility force everyone to drive exactly at the speed limit all the time. The easiest way to prevent unjust limitations on personal freedoms due to unfair laws or enforcement is to maintain privacy - if someone does something behind closed doors that doesn't affect the rest of the world in a capacity that allows detection, they should be able to. | cmv |
CMV : Being spied upon does not take away your freedoms. | Consider that not all illegal acts are immoral. So spying takes away your freedom to do moral, illegal things. For example - marijuana smoking now, and gay sex a few decades prior. Consider also that the government can use information against you even when you did nothing illegal. For example - it can launch a smear campaign against you for holding views opposing the government. How is this not taking away of freedoms? | cmv |
CMV : Being spied upon does not take away your freedoms. | Something doesn't have to be wrong for you to not want to be seen while doing it. If I am in the bathroom, there are very few people I want to be watching me. ( Even then it sounded weird. ) It could be a very intimate sexual moment or it could be the last dying seconds of a loved one that anyone would want to remain private. This could simply be preference, or it could be deeply held spiritual reasons. If I belonged to some religion that required no images to be taken of a dying person for them to move on to another life ( purely hypothetical ), I would be infuriated if I found that there was some hidden camera or another method of spying that wasn't immediately noticeable. This would mean my loved one is now perhaps stuck in limbo or some other terrible place. Some people might even draw an analogy to someone peeking through your window while you masturbate. Even if you didn't actually know they were there at the time, would you still feel so blase about it? | cmv |
I believe that a government that spies on its people and can detain them indefinitely is good. CMV | To put it as eloquently as it can be put : " Who watches the watcher? " With the value of information for capitalism and other shady areas, you can't allow it to flow so freely to those in capitalism's back pocket. There's also the precautions being worse than the danger fallacy. Imagine 100 + people drown in the deep ocean every year worldwide. Now think about how many of them would be saved if we placed lift rafts all over the ocean every 10 square metres. We could save literally 100's of lives, and sure they're inconvenient to boats but the life rafts won't KILL any of the 10s of millions of people traveling through the ocean. We'd be crazy not to install them immediately. Wouldn't we? | cmv |
I believe that a government that spies on its people and can detain them indefinitely is good. CMV | But what about all of the people who end up being wrongfully detained because information was misinterpreted or misrepresented to law enforcement? Beliefs like this assume a uniformity of enforcement and understanding throughout several layers of government. On top of that, we've still had acts of terrorism committed despite broad and unconstitutional surveillance. What's even worse, many of the people who have committed acts of terrorism were already known to law enforcement to have been potential suspects in future acts and little or nothing was done about it. So what you have is a system where more innocent people have been wrongfully detained than legitimate terrorists have been stopped. Finally, the vast majority of the " foiled " terror plots that have been revealed by law enforcement since PRISM was enacted have actually bordered on entrapment. ( Federal agents approach a potential terror sympathizer, nurture that sympathy, then set them up in a sting operation. Had those agents not nurtured those sympathies and facilitating the planning of their actions, how can we say with any certainty they'd actually do it? ) | cmv |
I believe that a government that spies on its people and can detain them indefinitely is good. CMV | By that logic, the government should repossess all cars, firearms, and prescription painkillers. Then they should probably get some bulldozers and fill in the swimming pool of anyone that has one. When they finish with that, they can impose martial law and arrest anyone who leaves the house, because they might cause some trouble or get hurt somewhere. But domestic violence is a pretty big deal, so maybe they should also forcibly separate anyone who's living with their girlfriend, fiance, or wife. There's a bit more to it than just saving lives. | cmv |
I believe that a government that spies on its people and can detain them indefinitely is good. CMV | I find it adorable that almost everyone for this has an argument of " it stops terrorist attacks, so your privacy doesnt matter ". Tell that to the people of boston, the government has been watching them anddddddd didnt stop them and let several people die. Its despicable. It does NOT protect us, because it has NOT stopped terrorist attacks. I think many people would be ok with this premise though. Except they have been doing this behind closed doors. I dont understand how anyone who claims to be an American citizen is ok with this blatant government overreach | cmv |
I believe that a government that spies on its people and can detain them indefinitely is good. CMV | I'm going to present a different perspective, lets look at it in terms of cost. Lets say it costs the government $ 1 billion to maintain enough surveillence to prevent 100 deaths in terrorist attacks ( my numbers are of course completely fabricated ). Thats all well and dandy, but heres the thing, if the government had instead invested that $ 1 billion in health care then they would have prevented many more deaths from illness and accident. Clearly if saving life is your criteria for justifying government actions then surveillance ( past a certain point ) is not justified because the money could be spent more efficiently elsewhere. | cmv |
I believe that a government that spies on its people and can detain them indefinitely is good. CMV | Ignoring the privacy issue for the moment, you haven't explained why you think the ability to detain citizens indefinitely is good. Or even what you mean by that. Surely that ability to do this with no reason, for example, would be bad. This position almost seems like a parody of a fascist state. I admit to skepticism that you actually hold this position. | cmv |
I believe that a government that spies on its people and can detain them indefinitely is good. CMV | OP clearly doesn't believe his own premise, he's standing on a soapbox and masquerading as asking a question. How about we throw you in jail indefinitely, along with your family, and friends to stop just one terrorist? Idiotic premise. This sub should be better moderated against people looking for confirmation bias. | cmv |
I believe that a government that spies on its people and can detain them indefinitely is good. CMV | We've ( the USA ) got a country that was founded by overthrowing an unjust, corrupt, and autocratic government. As our government now creeps toward being itself more unjust, corrupt and autocratic, it is simultaneously assembling all the tools it needs to insure that citizens would have no chance of successfully organizing to overthrow it ( violently or not ). It's worth remembering that the Sons of Liberty would most certainly be terrorists in today's vernacular, and they would have likely been snuffed out long before the Boston Tea Party if the British Empire had the tools that the US Government has now. | cmv |
I think it is morally appropriate / not homophobic to be uncomfortable in a locker room setting with a homosexual person of the same gender. | I'd say it's morally neutral to feel uncomfortable, rather than morally appropriate. I have to wonder though : what is the intention behind making a statement about it in public? It implies that gay people are unable to separate their sex lives from other areas of their live, which is exactly the kind of attitude that makes it more difficult for gay men especially, to come out or even to join sports teams. I think therefore, that publicly stating discomfort around gay people is morally inappropriate. Other than that, I can only say : you'll get used to it. | cmv |
I think it is morally appropriate / not homophobic to be uncomfortable in a locker room setting with a homosexual person of the same gender. | But why do you care if someone might or might not be attracted? They are not making a pass, or leering, or waving their engorged and throbbing penis at you, or doing anything that they might not do anyway while you are fully clothed. They, like you, are going about their daily business. Also, unlike you, they are used to seeing a locker room full of people to whom they may or may not be sexually attracted. Its not some exciting porn movie moment for them, it's this thing that happens probably a few times a week if they work out regularly. Not to mention, you've probably been in any number of locker rooms with homosexuals, because many of them are closeted and those that aren't generally don't go so far as to tell random people at the gym about their sexual orientation. So really, the horse probably left that particular barn sometime back when you were in jr high. | cmv |
I think it is morally appropriate / not homophobic to be uncomfortable in a locker room setting with a homosexual person of the same gender. | I'm gay and I change clothes with other guys in my swimming club. It simply isn't an issue. A locker room is not a sexual environment. The gay person's thoughts will not be on sex. I've seen so many penises in my life, a bunch of guys changing their clothes does absolutely nothing to arouse me. You know how in some cultures women walk around with naked breasts? Do you think the men are constantly aroused by it? Of course not, because it's normal for them. | cmv |
I think it is morally appropriate / not homophobic to be uncomfortable in a locker room setting with a homosexual person of the same gender. | Everyone else is making the point that we gays aren't going to stare at you in the locker room, and this is completely true. But going off on a hypothetical, what exactly are you uncomfortable with? Say I do see you in the changing room, find you hot, and think of you later when I'm fapping? How are you hurt? Have you ever fapped thinking about any woman you weren't dating? Is the difference that it's okay for you but not for me? I see no real argument here other than the fact that you seem not like the idea of gay people liking men. | cmv |
I think it is morally appropriate / not homophobic to be uncomfortable in a locker room setting with a homosexual person of the same gender. | Here's a tip. Want to figure out which guys at your school are gay? Look for the ones that are deliberately avoiding looking at anyone in the locker room. The ones who change as fast as they can while keeping their eyes on the floor. The ones who don't snap towels at other guys or pat other guys on the ass, ever. That's what gay people do in locker rooms : try like hell not to offend anyone or creep out anyone or worry anyone. | cmv |
I believe Tupac Shakur is alive. CMV. | People have faked their deaths before. Never with a body. At that point, far too many people have to be complicit in the plan to have any hope of success. Usually, faked drowning is how it's done, because it's believable. Faked multiple gunshot wounds received in public, of a person who was known to the police and had been probably dna swabbed? Faked autopsy photos and coroners reports? Dozens of people in on the cover - up? Honestly, think of how many chances for failure such a plan would have, at each stage. Not even a remote possibility. | cmv |
I believe Tupac Shakur is alive. CMV. | I agree to the general idea that Tupac either wanted to remove himself from the situation or that a specific controlling entity needed his social presence to be extinguished. Someone with his level of social influence AND historical knowledge of his country could have completely remolded an entire population of our country which has been largely forgotten by the law makers of this country. But i don't believe he disappeared willingly. I personally believe he was removed from the picture because of this social impact. | cmv |
I think people with a need to be dominant have flawed personalities, CMV | There is no such thing as flawless personality. So you are right. We are all flawed. Sometimes our strengths are our flaws, sometimes our weaknesses. But dominant personalities are not more flawed than submissive ones. | cmv |
I think people with a need to be dominant have flawed personalities, CMV | You should really define more of what you are talking about. What it sounds like is that you think it is a bad personality trait when someone tries to be dominant, but is not actually dominant. Someone who has a dominant personality would not throw a tantrum, yell at people, hit objects or any of that. They would keep their composure and guide the interaction in the way of their choosing. Throwing a fit is actually a huge sign that they are unable to be dominant at all and feel like the interaction is out of their control, so they try to overcompensate and make you feel bad. | cmv |
I think people with a need to be dominant have flawed personalities, CMV | I think the word you're looking for here is'arrogance ', not'dominance '. Do you look down on athletes who wish to'dominate'the Olympics or businessmen / women who wish to be CEO? What about simply those who like'dominating'in video games? I don't think there is inherently anything wrong feeling upset when you lose power / control / high rank - - you are, however, unreasonably attributing an immature response to those who lose power. To me, there is nothing wrong with being competitive and wanting to be in charge in general, but 1 ) too much of anything is bad 2 ) what you are being'dominant'about and if that is reasonable matters, 3 ) how you go about acting on that need is also imperative | cmv |
I think people with a need to be dominant have flawed personalities, CMV | It's a personality trait. It adds to the diversity of personalities that exist, and diverse ways of thinking are not usually a bad thing. There are benefits to having a dominant person around. In a split second decision, these type of people tend to take charge, which can lead to lives saved. Obviously there are extremes that are no longer beneficial, especially in certain societal situtions, and those need to be guarded against just like any other extreme personality trait. So my beef with your thesis assertion is the word " flawed ". I believe its too strong in this context in the same way that intelligence leads to higher levels of depression. You take the good with the bad, and guard against the negatives outweighing the positives. | cmv |
I think people with a need to be dominant have flawed personalities, CMV | Being the best is one hell of a motivator. You just have to learn to focus on the positive aspect of this and make YOURSELF better than you were, and of course you will be comparing yourself to others. This by no means is the same as belittling anyone else. Also, compare similars with similars. | cmv |
I think people with a need to be dominant have flawed personalities, CMV | Domination does not necessarily mean unequal. A doctor is dominant in giving medical advice. Are they neurotic? Domination is the action of authority. I do think men have a general need to be dominant, and that they lash out how you describe when that need is not met. They are committing an exercise in powerlessness. Similarly, ultimatums are an admission of powerlessness. The doctor does not so much give you an ultimatum in his diagnosis, he gives you one in your choice of following the recommendation based on his prognosis or not. Abusers don't abuse because hey have a need to be dominant, hey abuse because they are incapable of getting that need met functionally. They are effectively powerless. | cmv |
I think people with a need to be dominant have flawed personalities, CMV | I think you need to specify what you mean by " need to be dominant ", because I myself am someone who flourishes and does well in leadership positions. Leading is a great joy of mine and I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about how to improve and be a better leader. I consider this a real need for living a fulfilled life. I feel empty, dejected, an without purpose in a subordinate role. I have no problem taking orders or having a superior, but I would always prefer to have people under my authority ( instead of, or in addition to having a boss ). So yes, I have an inherent need to be dominant. I don't go around abusing people, though. Especially people under my authority. A leader is serving the people in his stead. I try to be firm and resolute, but I am always extremely aware of where the boundaries lie and take great care not to overstep them. | cmv |
I think people with a need to be dominant have flawed personalities, CMV | I think you're essentially right about those people but I may have something for you that may help you look inward. I have a friend who once told me to stop viewing the world through the dominate / be dominated paradigm. That really threw me for a loop but years later I came around. We're not dogs and there is no alpha. If somebody punches you, you're a person who has been punched. It hasn't spent some portion of your ability to self - determine that is getting used up... Putting it like that, is obviously nonsense but I think it accurately describes people's behavior with respect to domination. The dominator doesn't own you now, even if he thinks so, and the fact that anybody thinks so is not an insult to you, it's just long - standing cultural construct of craziness. Disengaging the sense of rights or privileges, and self worth from previous interactions of persuasion, violence, or coercion really frees a person's mind, IMHO. It lets me look at the people you describe not with anger but pity. Short of actual torture and captive brain - washing, these things are not even real unless we choose to participate. | cmv |
I think people with a need to be dominant have flawed personalities, CMV | I think there are different variances of " dominant. " Example : Last summer I worked at an arts camp. One of the classes was me with 3 other counselors, and 6 campers, it was a music class. The other counselors were pretty passive and just really didn't know what they were doing, and well, campers aren't going to run the class. I had to give direction and lead what needed to happen. If everything was passive then honestly nothing would have gotten done and the campers wouldn't have played the awesome song we all wrote together for the final performance. Even though it was co - written, there still needed to be a ring leader to progress and stay on track. I understand where you're coming from. Being a mostly passive individual, it feels weird to " lead " in such a way or put your foot down, but it just needs to happen. The blind just end up leading the blind. | cmv |
I believe the government should be allowed to view my e - mails, tap my phone calls, and view my web history for national security concerns. CMV | Nobody claims otherwise. If there is legitimate reason to believe that terrorists will blow up a building in downtown Chicago, and that reading your emails will prevent this attack, almost everyone would support it. That's not the question, because the fact is, your emails will not actually help the government stop this attack. The question is whether it's still okay for them to do this because, if they constantly do it as a matter of policy, eventually it will help them catch someone who would be a terrorist. | cmv |
I believe the government should be allowed to view my e - mails, tap my phone calls, and view my web history for national security concerns. CMV | You don't need to have anything to hide to be a target of a surveillance state - you just need to hold a political position that the people in power don't like. This is not a paranoid " what - if " postulating an oppressive cyberpunk future. This is, right now, if you express certain political positions the FBI starts planning to assassinate you. For your safety, and for the safety of others who wish to meaningfully contribute to our democracy, you don't want the government able to read your emails. | cmv |
I believe the government should be allowed to view my e - mails, tap my phone calls, and view my web history for national security concerns. CMV | In the Soviet Union, economic crimes were considered very dire offences. Messing with economic conditions would set off the state economic plan and potentially throw the entire economy into disarray. This is why there were so many informants and why the NKVD was so comprehensive in its monitoring of society. We in the West have different priorities than they did in the Soviet Union, and therefore find that kind of economic model to be distasteful and the accompanying government oversight to be tyrannical. If the government defines national security along different lines than you do, would you still be so willing to air your laundry to them? | cmv |
I believe the government should be allowed to view my e - mails, tap my phone calls, and view my web history for national security concerns. CMV | The government makes mistakes, they are corrupt, and above all they don't desire to change the way they do things. I was in a Online Criminal Criminal psychology class in my highschool me and a fellow student sent emails about the material. The school board went batshit crazy and reported it to the police who in turn did a background check they came to the school to talk to me but I was out that day due to being sick. They did have a talk with the Councilor and Principle though both knew me on a personal level due to being an Office aid. When I got back to school they talked to me about it. Turns out I am now a suspected terrorist FML right. Needless to say after this incident i know question my government more than most. Now thats the mistake part of it what about the corruption? I can easily see them using emails to make a profit stealing information / selling interests to add companies / even blackmailing you with information is likely. Sure not the government as a whole but the little guy who sits behind a keyboard and gets paid to read all your emails he might very well want to get a little extra cash on the side. | cmv |
I believe the government should be allowed to view my e - mails, tap my phone calls, and view my web history for national security concerns. CMV | bad guys will have no problems bypassing these measures : encryption, TOR, strongly encrypted steganography.. this is not against organised crime, this is not against terrorism, this is against you, me, us. this is a way to control the masses. this is against arab spring, turkish revolution.. this is against people taking the power back. not against the few really dangerous people around. they dont use google calendar to schedule bombings. | cmv |
I believe the government should be allowed to view my e - mails, tap my phone calls, and view my web history for national security concerns. CMV | You are comfortable giving the current government, playing by the rules you deem fair, very powerful tools to monitor and hunt down individuals which you believe to be a threat to your society / culture. There is one massive and inherent danger in this plan. Governments change, monsters come to power, and it's quite possible the tools and permission to wield them we give the government today can be used against us tomorrow. You say... I'm a good person, there are bad people, I have nothing to hide so go ahead and virtually pat me down, dig through my communications, pick apart my purchases and financial transactions because I'm a good guy and this will help the catch the bad guys. What you don't realize is that you're giving the government a very powerful tool which one day may be turned against groups you don't consider the " bad guys " and you may very well be in one of those groups. This is the fundamental reason for a population to be extremely judicious in the power it hands over to its governing body. Just because the King is just today does not mean his replacement will be. Do not give the rulers of today the power the rulers of tomorrow can use to destroy you or those you love. | cmv |
I believe the government should be allowed to view my e - mails, tap my phone calls, and view my web history for national security concerns. CMV | What about people who don't agree with US foreign policy? If I say online in my personal e mails that I am very unhappy with the way we are handling some sort of military operation etc., the government could easily deem me a national security threat. Also, it doesn't help that I'm of Arabic descent. Clearly, this just has way too much potential to be abused, especially troubling is the fact taht the government was developing this behind closed doors. If they really were so kind hearted as you feel taht they are, why keep it such a secret? | cmv |