summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
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 | If you believe that, then you and others like you can get together, call a constitutional convention, and get rid of the 4th amendment. As it is, the result of the opinion that you hold is infringing on my right to be free from unreasonable, unwarranted search and seizure. Just because you think it is a good idea doesn't mean you can do it. If you decided that for national security concerns you thought it was okay for no one to be able to criticize the government, you would not be able to do that. Why? Because I have a first amendment. The whole point of the contract between government and the people is to stop people like you from leveraging your stupid ideas over people like me. So again, make any argument you want. The constitution is set up so that with a 2 / 3 majority of states, you can repeal any amendment you want. Until then, those are my inalienable rights. That means that even I can't give them away if I wanted to. | 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 might not do anything illegal but I do - for example, I smoke pot. Sometimes, I even jaywalk. Relatively harmless. Also, let's say for example, being gay was illegal - how would I ever be able to change anyone's view point if I wasn't able to discuss it in private some where, build some allies? Basically Marxism, and the working class divide : How workers are not allowed to talk to eachother at work creates a divide and makes it so they can't work together to form a union or any such thing. | 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 simplest argument I can give is that privacy is at the root of free expression. Giving up privacy means giving up some of your right to free speech. Knowing that you might be listened in on may change what you say and how you say it. A second argument is, the government isn't an omnipotent infallible entity, it's a group of people. Those people can ( and do ) abuse their power and authority. Even if someone is doing nothing illegal, doesn't mean they aren't doing anything interesting or exploitable. At what point do we put an end to privacy? Emails and phone calls, why not cameras in your home? You're not doing anything illegal right, so who cares? | cmv |
I believe that people with severe mental disabilities or illness shouldn't be allowed to vote in public polls, CMV. | Your entire argument focuses on the assumption that everyone who votes does so rationally, and while well - informed. The fact of the matter is, people vote based on how they feel about a candidate, not the actual facts, or they just vote because they can without any prior knowledge. The democratic system is less than perfect, and while the " cognizant " majority still votes irrationally, there is no sense in further marginalizing a minority that already experiences fewer rights than the layman. Besides, the way the American democratic system is set up gives overwhelming power to majorities, making it very difficult for minorities to be heard ( see " runoff voting " ). As such, these few outliers from the bipartisan " reasonable " ( as I suppose you would call it ) norm have next to no effect on final outcomes. | cmv |
I believe that people with severe mental disabilities or illness shouldn't be allowed to vote in public polls, CMV. | The mentally ill / disabled can be disenfranchised under the law as it stands now. It's called an adjudication of incompetency where I come from and it's a legal determination, although supported by medical testimony. In my state at least, a judge must affirmatively and specifically determine that a person is incompetent to vote due to their mental illness or disability before the right to vote is removed. At that hearing, the person is represented by legal counsel ( typically guardian ad litem ) and medical evidence is presented that establishes the incompetency. Once the hearing is concluded, if the person has been adjudicated incompetent to vote, the state elections office is notified and the person is removed from the rolls ( if registered to vote ) and placed on a special list to ensure they don't subsequently try to re - register to vote. If at some point their condition improves, they can go back to court and seek a new competency evaluation to have their rights restored. Source : I'm a state elections official. | cmv |
I believe that people with severe mental disabilities or illness shouldn't be allowed to vote in public polls, CMV. | This would be counter productive. EVEN IF you could prove somewhat of a correlation between mental illness and patterns of voting, the government is created to promote the best interests of society. One of the most important aspects that the government focuses on is mental health and the well - being of the community as a whole. If you turn this into law, people will stop going in for treatment. That would have devastating effects on society, from increased homelessness to more suicides. Even if you were able to prove a causative link between mental illnesses and voting patterns, the general negatives vastly outweigh whatever positives you could think of. | cmv |
I believe that people with severe mental disabilities or illness shouldn't be allowed to vote in public polls, CMV. | Although I agree with you in theory, that people who cannot come to reasonable conclusions should not be allowed to vote. The problem is as you mentioned the slippery slope. Deeming someone unfit to vote is a power too great for a group of people to have. | cmv |
I believe that people with severe mental disabilities or illness shouldn't be allowed to vote in public polls, CMV. | I believe if you tried you would have trouble finding out where to draw the line. Extremely strict control is nice in words how would you do it? Multiple doctors? I think at some point you would start running up a big tab. | cmv |
I believe women should not hold positions of power because of their emotion. CMV. | Imagine we could measure how emotional people are numerically. If we graphed how many people are at various levels'emotional - ness ', we might expect it to form a bell curve, where most people are in the middle, there are a few people who are not very emotional at all, and there are some people who are extremely emotional. If we graphed men and women independently of each other, I imagine you would expect women to be, on the whole, more emotional and so they'd be further to the right on our hypothetical graph. ( I don't agree with this, but I'm going to run with this assumption for now anyway ). We don't want people who are on either extreme of the graph - people with a complete lack of emotion may lack empathy which is important to good decision making and people who are too emotional might be too unstable to be effective leaders. However, even with all of these assumptions, what matters is not the gender of the politician, but how much they let their emotions influence their judgement. If we make the assumption that women are more emotional on the whole, it doesn't mean that a specific woman candidate would be worse than a male candidate. It just means there may be fewer'eligible'women candidates. ( I'd like to reiterate, I don't agree with a lot of the assumptions I'm making in this post, I'm just trying to show that the OP's position isn't sound ) | cmv |
[ USA ] I believe convicted felons should still have the right to vote, CMV | I'm only obligated to challenge at least one aspect of your view ; the aspect at issue is people convicted of felonies related to the democratic process. While I agree most felons ought to be enfranchised, election fraud and political corruption are crimes in which the felon's participation in the democratic process is a defining feature. Those people abuse the democratic system and can't be allowed to participate in it. | cmv |
[ USA ] I believe convicted felons should still have the right to vote, CMV | I don't believe you have a very strong case for allowing felons to vote. Inequality isn't an issue, because the whole point of violating a law is that you have your rights taken away, so you'd be indicting the entire basis of tort law by giving felons the same rights as citizens. The idea of depriving a felon of rights is a very strong case in and of itself. If you choose to become a criminal you're saying you don't have the best interests of the progress of government in mind. You are still allowed to interact with society, and you can show you have the best interests of society in mind but society and government are not the same, and violations to both are not handled the same for a reason. | cmv |
[ USA ] I believe convicted felons should still have the right to vote, CMV | Prisoners are technically slaves : they are forced to work with no pay. The point is that prisoners don't actually have the same rights as everyone else - they give up that right when they commit a crime. So it is constitutional, the question is whether or not it is moral. While I agree that taking away people's rights is immoral, so is committing crimes. It's a punishment. You're not supposed to like it. | cmv |
CMV : The United States is a police state | Our high incarceration is largely due to aggressive state and local laws, not federal laws. Our militarized police are largely local. Local and state governments are, believe it or not, even more corporation - beholden than the federal government is. So I'd like to propose a tweak to your original position : America is not a police state, it is the aggregate of tens to hundreds of partially - autonomous police states, who mildly influence each other. | cmv |
CMV : The United States is a police state | Define police state. It's not perfect, but its better than many. democratic government, while flawed, is still democratic ( yes, i know it's a republic, but everyone still gets a state. And most incarcerations are due to crime against citizens, not political | cmv |
CMV : The United States is a police state | The very fact that you are able to make the statement that you just did above without fear of being dragged from your home into some faceless gulag means that you are not in a " Police State. " In a " Police State " such blatant observation and obvious disagreement with the State would make you and enemy of the State. So, the fact that you are able to express your displeasure at the current state of affairs in the land you call home means that you are not living in a Police State. | cmv |
I don't believe that I, along with the vast majority of others are educated enough to understand what economic ( and maybe some social ) policies make sense, and therefore a large part of what makes democracy great loses meaning. CMV | There is a good reason that you are ignorant about the effects of minimum wage - everyone else is ignorant about the effects of minimum wage too, including those who are supposedly experts. Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman are both Nobel prize winning economists, but will give you polar opposite views about how minimum wage affects the economy and employment. How can both of these men be experts on the same topic but " know " completely different things about it? Simple : they actually don't know anything. Economics is a mish - mash of data where single factors are virtually impossible to isolate. Economic knowledge is very hard to come by, but claiming expertise is easy. You, on the other hand, at least understand your ignorance. As Socrates would say, the wisest of all is the one who understands how little he knows. Since you at least understand what you don't know, you should decide economic policy. | cmv |
I don't believe that I, along with the vast majority of others are educated enough to understand what economic ( and maybe some social ) policies make sense, and therefore a large part of what makes democracy great loses meaning. CMV | the reason your uneducated vote should still count is that it forces governments to consider your situation as a voter when making policy. Countries such as Australia with 100 % enrolled voter participation are far more equitable over all and I believe it's primarily because governments must consider votes from all socio - economic segments of the economy. It might be true that a minimum wage limits small business growth and reduces jobs ; but if the unemployed are just as likely to vote and that vote counts the same as a millionaires than government must consider the impact on the poor when drafting the rules. In a world where only those educated enough to understand policy can vote you would quickly see policy protect those people only. It's human nature to support ideas that help you, even if you know they are not the best solution for others. So democracy's meaning is that everyone's vote is equally important regardless of background, education etc and that governments must consider what is good for wider society as a result. | cmv |
I don't believe that I, along with the vast majority of others are educated enough to understand what economic ( and maybe some social ) policies make sense, and therefore a large part of what makes democracy great loses meaning. CMV | Don't feel bad. I've seen incredibly intelligent people ( some of them teach economics ) who argue that increasing the minimum wage will drive the price of everything up to balance everything out. They forget that increasing demand often has the opposite effect - there's more competition for limited space on store shelves as competitors move into the market, which leads to more jobs, which leads to more demand, which leads to more manufacturing... and scarcity also determines price. ( which is a whole other discussion... this gets complicated, fast. ) But, the young and the poor tend to spend more than save. It's a genuine trickle up effect. Besides, it's not as if minimum wage workers drive the pricing of things to begin with, or cars and housing wouldn't be as expensive as they are... So what does this have to do with you? In trying to figure out how to change your mind, I realized that you were completely right. | cmv |
I don't believe that I, along with the vast majority of others are educated enough to understand what economic ( and maybe some social ) policies make sense, and therefore a large part of what makes democracy great loses meaning. CMV | Having studied some economics ( minor in undergrad ), I am in a position where I can understand some technical stuff, but I definitely am not in position to develop theory. I use that limited knowledge to look at various theories and try and parse through them. Also I aggregate data. The IGM Economic Experts Panel takes polling data of accomplished economists on their opinions. As for your question on democracy, your problem is the reason why we are a republic and elect officials instead of having a country governed by referendums. | cmv |
I don't believe that I, along with the vast majority of others are educated enough to understand what economic ( and maybe some social ) policies make sense, and therefore a large part of what makes democracy great loses meaning. CMV | As voters our job is not to set policy. For one that would be impossible given the complexity of the decisions ( as you have stated ) and for two then you would not have a need for elected leaders. What we do is hold the government accountable and give signals to our leaders regarding the direction that we want to go. These signals will then be ( hopefully ) taken into account. Think about how the democrats lost the house shortly after passing health care reform. That was by no means a coherent, peer edited critique of the health care bill, but it showed that many parts of the country felt we were moving too far left too fast. This in turn had an effect on how the supreme court and chief justice rogers in particular finally arrived at the decisions they did, to only partially uphold the law. So we collectively do have an impact regarding overall direction of the country ( or in a healthy democracy the electorate does ), even if we don't understand the nuances of all the policy that a government has to set. | cmv |
I don't believe that I, along with the vast majority of others are educated enough to understand what economic ( and maybe some social ) policies make sense, and therefore a large part of what makes democracy great loses meaning. CMV | The founders agreed with you, it would seem. For this purpose the US was founded as a republic, not a democracy. In a democracy, 51 % of the population gets to determine the lives of all 100 % Using your example of minimum wage, what gives you the right to tell a business owner he has to pay x, or a person he's not allowed to make less than x? This is how small government minded people, or even anarchists view these issues. No voter is sufficiently intelligent enough to effect every aspect of every persons life, nor do they have a moral right to. Therefore most things should be left up to individuals and not governments. You may want to look into the various subsets Libertarianism / Classical Liberalism. | cmv |
I don't believe that I, along with the vast majority of others are educated enough to understand what economic ( and maybe some social ) policies make sense, and therefore a large part of what makes democracy great loses meaning. CMV | It's well known that "... democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all of the others that have been tried from time to time. " - - Winston Churchill. The point is, what better system would you propose? | cmv |
I believe in the USA all crimes committed by persons should be expugnable after finishing the sentence. CMV | Hmm, if this was most often the case there should be many employers who understand that many felons are good people, as I'm sure there are ( Men's Wearhouse fore example ). What do you think about having repeat offenders with multiple felonies having no record of the crimes? If a business owner hired a burglar without knowing it could cost them millions. Your argument is an appeal to pity. | cmv |
I believe in the USA all crimes committed by persons should be expugnable after finishing the sentence. CMV | When you're an adult you've typically come to the point where you can process consequences of your actions and develop your own morals. Crimes committed as a child are easily expunged, and that's due to the fact they really don't know better. Felony and misdemeanor are two different things. Felonies are pretty serious, and involve some sort of thought process before committing... It's not like, hey, I got into a small fight when this guy shoved me. Now, should the age where you're a legal adult go up so you don't get held liable for your actions before your brain develops is something else to ponder | cmv |
I believe in the USA all crimes committed by persons should be expugnable after finishing the sentence. CMV | The problem with this is repeat offenders. The kind of criminal that finishes time, then goes back to their previous ways. An employer may not mind hiring a person who had a momentary lapse in judgement, but would probably be more wary about someone with a long rap sheet. A cop is more likely to let a speeder off with a warning if it's their first time getting pulled over than if they have a history of being a reckless driver. What would be better is if the record were to be removed after some amount of time with no subsequent offenses, depending on the circumstances and type of crime committed. The system is like it is because not everyone learns their lesson after doing their time. | cmv |
I believe in the USA all crimes committed by persons should be expugnable after finishing the sentence. CMV | In your title you state that all crimes should be expungnable after completion of sentence. Then you state that murder or rape crimes should not apply to that change. Which is it? Who is exactly going to change this? State? Federal? | cmv |
I believe that if you collect welfare the government should be able to monitor and control all of your spending. CMV | The American federal government is horribly inefficient with welfare spending as it is. It would have to open up entirely new agencies and invest significantly to be able to track all its recipients, and that would compound the monetary issues most people have with the welfare system. Aside from the obvious breach in privacy this would bring about, my biggest issue with this is trying to stop the wasteful spending of money by spending more money. | cmv |
I believe that if you collect welfare the government should be able to monitor and control all of your spending. CMV | You are using anecdotal evidence to inform your opinion. The research suggests that not that many people exploit the system. Plus why is the world does helping people give the government totalitarian rights over peoples lives? | cmv |
I believe that if you collect welfare the government should be able to monitor and control all of your spending. CMV | Welfare fraud rates are extremely low. Like 2 - 3 % across all legtimate studies. Focusing on bigger ticket items, like tax evasion, is a much better use of government resources. While I understand the desire to police what people do with government gifts, in a sense, the false profits from tax evasion are also gifts from the government. | cmv |
I don't believe a revolution by the people of the United States of America would be successful. CMV | Depends on the kind of revolution. Just look at the fall of the Soviet Union. You have to remember that the guys flying the drones or driving the tanks are Americans too and if your cause is just, then there's a good chance that they'll refuse to fight. | cmv |
I don't believe a revolution by the people of the United States of America would be successful. CMV | Whether the military would fight its own countrymen has been discussed, so I'll skip it. 1. The Taliban has severely impeded the American military in a country with less than 5 guns per 100 people. That number in the US is almost 90. 2. Most of the countries where we see revolutions occur with a few educated leaders commanding the peasantry. The US is substantially better educated and can organize more quickly and effectively. | cmv |
I don't believe a revolution by the people of the United States of America would be successful. CMV | You have to keep in mind, if a revolution started it wouldn't be one military vs another, it would be a military against their own people. The military tanks and bombers and such are great when fighting other government, but they're not so great for controlling people. To control people, you need police, and police are susceptible to bullets, and that's the important bit. If smaller local governments or state governments start disobeying the federal government, how much control does the federal government really have? It's power exists only because people recognize that it's power exists. If the government started turning troops against its own people there would be a feedback loop of more dissent, and a larger rebellion. Furthermore, armies are made of people, and not all those people are going be okay killing people they signed up to protect. And if the rebellion got big enough and the rest of the world saw it as a legitimate cause, other countries might intervene too, as they did during the original American Revolution. | cmv |
I don't believe a revolution by the people of the United States of America would be successful. CMV | I think there are significant differences between the US and many other countries that would make an " uprising " unlikely ( and unnecessary ), but I actually think such a coup would be quite successful. For the most part, the uprisings you see in other countries are against dictatorships and the successful coups are done by a huge majority of the population. To translate that to the US, you'd have to ask yourself a few questions : 1 ) If a large majority of people are against something in the US, who are they rising against? Their elected leaders? What happened that was so awful that it couldn't wait until the next election? 2 ) If a large majority of people want to rise up, why would the military oppose them? The military in the US is a bunch of volunteer citizens. Why would they side against the people - their families, friends, neighbors? I'd say that if something so awful happened that the majority of people in the US were angry enough to rise up and overthrow the government immediately ( rather than wait until the next election ), there would be very little opposition from the military or police forces. | cmv |
The " gay accent " is wrong. CMV | Assuming you are correct about everything else, it seems that people who affect the gay lisp would disagree with you about what is fundamental. It seems that what is, in fact, fundamental, is their identity as gay, and they change something which is in fact more superficial than that, the way they talk. And to be sure, we ( humans ) do this all the time. Speech, like clothing, is a way to reflect your identity, as well as the presentation of your identity when you're with different people. Anecdotally, I speak in very different ways when I'm talking, respectively, to my students, my parents, and my close male friends. Much of this is about word choice, but it also includes inflections, volume, and several other aspects of my speech that convey emotion and attitude. I put to you that the gay lisp is analogous to how other people use their voice to express identity and attitude. | cmv |
The " gay accent " is wrong. CMV | Not everyone changes their voice or whatever. Also, if you frame it as a social construct / part of a culture, how does that make it different than literally any other accent? Lot's of people pick up / lose inflections when they move to other regions. I don't think that makes their accents " wrong. " | cmv |
The " gay accent " is wrong. CMV | It's just an accent, lots of people have slightly camp inflection, they don't pick it up on purpose, like any accent, my Scottish mum has lived in England for years and has largely lost her accent, just as I have gained a ( slight ) plymothian accent from my time here. Also a change in vocabulary is common when joining any group, be it social, business whatever. In short all people change their accent and idiolect over time and it is a perfectly normal thing. | cmv |
The " gay accent " is wrong. CMV | Your diction and tone are not fundamental to who you are, they are fundamental to where you are, and who you are with. Do you sound the same when you're talking with your parents, with your friends, when helping kids, on a job interview, etc? Our speech not only conveys factual information, but also conveys information about who we are, who we identify with, and how we relate to those around us. If a person decides to come out as gay, and suddenly their speech changes, they are not conforming to anything, they are identifying with something new, in particular something that they feel is who they are. So, you are correct it's a social construct, but that doesn't make it fake, or conformist. | cmv |
The " gay accent " is wrong. CMV | If a woman changes her appearance with makeup, shapes her eyebrows, shaves her legs and alters her stride by wearing high heels, is that wrong because she is purposely changing something fundamental about herself in order to conform to hetero - normative social constructs? I can't tell you the number of days I just haven't felt like bothering, but changed these physical aspects of myself in order to fit the expectations that others had for me in my gender role. Point being, most of us do something like this every day, whether or not we are doing it consciously. The majority of my friends are on the lgbt spectrum : of the men I know who happen to have lisps, none consciously made an effort to have one. For some it developed over time, for others I can't imagine them without it. I do think it has something to do with identity within the gay community, but I'm not them, so I can't answer for sure. I challenge your idea that this is wrong though : to me it seems to be something that happens within every social construct. | cmv |
The " gay accent " is wrong. CMV | Are you saying that if I decide to change something about myself, you are qualified to tell me whether it is right or wrong? What makes you so special that you can dictate the rights and wrongs of stuff that is none of your business? A person's voice is their own to use in whatever way they see fit, there's no rights or wrongs about it. | cmv |
The " gay accent " is wrong. CMV | I think you are falling into the stereotype of the gay community. There are, I agree, those who have an obvious speech pattern. But you have to remember, humans are an adaptive species. In my experience, the gay people I have come across who have said speech patterns are those with a lot of female friends, and almost exclusively spend time with those friends. You adapt to it, like anyone adapts to any social atmosphere to fit in. Work in a steel shop, you'll adapt some of those " macho " qualities as well. In fact, I've worked with gay steel workers and they are some of the manliest men I know. I think it boils down to the social environment you are in, I don't think the way they act is faked, just evolved. | cmv |
The " gay accent " is wrong. CMV | Why do you think it is wrong to change something fundamental to who you are? For example, I used to be really shy. That seems like a pretty fundamental part of who I was, and definitely a more fundamental part of who I was than an accent. But I worked hard to make myself more confident and I am so glad I did, yet you are saying that this is wrong? Or another example, imagine someone who has almost no sense of empathy, but then through hard work attempt to change that. Are they wrong? | cmv |
I am pro - Capital Punishment. CMV | Well for one I'd argue that we have the opportunity to be better men and show mercy. Human history is filled with atrocities and the victims of said atrocities either responding in kind or showing restraint, we tend to favor the later. If we were to follow your way, we could justify torture, rape, slavery, etc. All as valid punishments for any capital crimes. I for one feel that times for such barbaricness is over. Also, on a purely practical note I'd argue that capital punishment has historically been used dispordisproportionately on certain groups of people, has a high error rate ( where we killed the wrong guy ), and is more expensive than LWOP. | cmv |
True privacy has always been imagined. Our only concern should be right to due process ; everyting else is a distraction. CMV | The main problem with your statement is that a trial isn't necessary to ruin someone's reputation or even their life. There are many things that aren't illegal that people would prefer to be kept secret for exactly that reason. With surveillance information being so easily available it's possible to threaten or blackmail people who haven't done anything wrong. | cmv |
True privacy has always been imagined. Our only concern should be right to due process ; everyting else is a distraction. CMV | Violation of privacy IS violation of due process. Due process requires that you be served a warrant in order for evidence to be used in court. If a cop has to have a warrant to collect photos or your diary for use in court, why doesn't your wife have to in a divorce? It is a violation unless you have given permission for her to see AND use it. | cmv |
I don't believe that marijuana has any medicinal value. CMV. | I have had asthma my entire life. I've been on any and every asthma medication and inhaler you can think of. Now that I'm living on my own without health insurance, I can't obtain rescue inhalers as easily. I was at a friend's house one day when I had an attack. He ( also asthmatic ) recommended I try MM to help with my attacks. All skeptics aside, I've never had a rescue inhaler work as well and quick at opening and relaxing my lungs. | cmv |
I don't believe that marijuana has any medicinal value. CMV. | I'm only going to address cancer because that's the easiest thing to argue. Medical marijuana helps people in chemo, who generally lack an appetite and often endanger themselves by not eating enough, develop a more regular sense of hunger. Medical marijuana can help with pain and insomnia. Medical marijuana actually suppresses ( imperfectly, but far better than nothing ) the growth of cancerous tissue. | cmv |
I believe, in the US, there should be no party systems in politics. Everyone should be neutral and just bring forth their ideas / opinions / way to run the country. CMV. | Well first off, how would you even enforce this view? What happens when Candidate Bob says the phrase, I'm a liberal? Second, I just don't see this functioning in a large society with a winner take all system for elections. Parties help to do a lot of the grunt work and streamline a lot of politics. Third, can you name a single instance of this actually working at a national level. | cmv |
I believe that people who believe in cultural appropriation stand for little more than " separate but equal. " CMV | You and your friends at school had your in jokes, yeah? Mine used to shout'tundra'thanks to an incident that was utterly hilarious. If someone else joined in... well, why would they? Even if we explained it to them they weren't there so it wouldn't be funny to them. Trying to fit in to our group by adopting our mannerisms is just weird if you lack the experiences that created them. Now imagine my group and I are at the leavers formal. We might not have been there when Steve got shouted at by the crazy PE teacher but we know that teacher and we know Steve, the anecdotes passes in to our collective consciousness. We can laugh at it because it is a shared experience. | cmv |
I don't think USA is a democracy | Well I don't know how they calculate it or anything, but the economist does a report called the democracy index where its most recent edition had the US as the 21st most democratic country out of 167 studied. Also the US was placed under the " full democracy " category. Maybe you could look into their explanation. | cmv |
I don't think USA is a democracy | Democracy simply means the people vote. The fact that they vote for landed elites or choose not to vote or choose not to back 3rd party candidates is their decision. You haven't demonstrated any actual corruption within the system, just that people don't engage in the democracy the way you'd prefer. That being said we are more of a Republic than a Democracy, but that really is a different topic. | cmv |
I think death penalty should be reserved for serial killers, mass murderers, extrimists and rapists. | I notice that you include mass murderers and rapist but not regular murderers, why? What kind of rapists should get the death penalty? Should the 19 year old who had sex with a 16 year old and was convicted of statutory rape be executed? What is your definition of extremists? Do these extremists have to have commited a crime other than being extreme to be murdered by the state? Serial killers, mass murderers, and perhaps extremists if by that word you mean those who have committed acts of terror all seem to have committed homicide or homicides why are rapists included in this category? If rapists whos sentencing is on average 11. 8 years are deemed worthy of execution are other criminals whos sentences exceed 11. 8 years also to be executed? why or why not? | cmv |
I think death penalty should be reserved for serial killers, mass murderers, extrimists and rapists. | Whose 100 % facts? Not everyone would be able to witness or attest to every aspect of the case so you would be forced to trust some individual's statements. You don't have to look very far in order to find proof that any form of power can and will be abused. It is arguably a harsher punishment to force a criminal to adhere to the same routine, knowing nothing will ever really change, than it is to preemptively terminate their existence. No one thrives inside never ending concrete walls. Fiscally speaking it is cheaper to incarcerate someone for life than it is to enforce capital punishment. Once a guilty verdict is handed down to even the most vile of people, it takes years and many more hearings before the plunger is pushed or the lever pulled. | cmv |
I think death penalty should be reserved for serial killers, mass murderers, extrimists and rapists. | There is no way there can be absolute 100 % burden of proof. This has been proven in cases where the court had belived there to be 100 % burden of proof and which were later found to be false. There will always be false convictions and people prosecuted when they are innocent. People will die who are innocent due to simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are many many cases of people wrongly convicted of crimes and then later found to be innocent. If they had received the death sentence there is no chance to correct it. | cmv |
I think death penalty should be reserved for serial killers, mass murderers, extrimists and rapists. | There are a bunch of things wrong with this. First, extremist is extremely vague, which counts you as an extremist, so maybe you should qualify that. Rape, by itself does not deprive anyone of life, aside from which it is also an increasingly vague term, so does not justify depriving the perpetrator of life. Killing someone in a " crime of passion " is horrible, but possibly excusable, though they should still be punished, whereas premeditated murder certainly qualifies for a death penalty, but the problem is determining it. Mass Murder and Serial Murder seem generally to denote premeditation and could thus be more provable, though our justices system ( s ) is ( are ) far from perfect. Let's say, hypothetically, you were falsely convicted of one of those crimes just after this was approved. Would you still hold this opinion? If so, you are an idiot, if not, you are a hypocrite, because it is certain there are people right now that are falsely convicted. | cmv |
I think death penalty should be reserved for serial killers, mass murderers, extrimists and rapists. | They answer is always the same. There will be mistakes, there will be intentional wrongdoings. While it is horrible when individuals commit heinous crime, it is to a whole new level when the state itself commits them. | cmv |
I think death penalty should be reserved for serial killers, mass murderers, extrimists and rapists. | What do you get from other people suffering? Should we just say " you life was terrible and you made a terrible decision so rot for 40 years or die now ". What if we taught them how to be normal human beings, instead of making them sit for 20 years so they can Kill or rape again once they get out. We are not In 1400s, Death and suffering isn't the answer to everything. | cmv |
I think death penalty should be reserved for serial killers, mass murderers, extrimists and rapists. | It's one thing to read about how innocent people convicted of crimes are exonerated after serving time on death row, then become wealthy after receiving a large settlement. It's something altogether different to read about someone on death row, who was executed. Here is that story. It is believed by many that Cameron Todd Willingham was an innocent man, who was convicted of setting fire to his house, killing his 2 - year old daughter and 1 - year old twin daughters. He always maintained his innocence and refused the opportunity to plead guilty in exchange for life sentence. He was executed in Texas. Here is the article from the New Yorker that explains his case and the reason that many think he was totally innocent when executed. This article started me down the path of believing that the state should not be executing anyone because of the potential for injustice. The Innocence Project has currently got 307 people exonerated from substantial life - destroying sentences. | cmv |
I am pro - gun rights because I think people who can't defend themselves against most attackers ( me, for example ) need to level the playing field. CMV. | why does it have to be a gun? a tazer gun can bring down a brick wall of a person, and is more effective at stopping an attacker than a gun because it hijacks the nervous system check out a 250lb navy seal drop like a rock when hit with a tazer here | cmv |
I believe man has the right to kill animals for food. CMV | Why are you against cruelty? Man is an apex predator, we can do whatever we want. Either animals are worthy of ethical concern, in which case what is your ethical basis for " we can kill and eat them, therefore we should "? or they aren't, in which case what's your basis for being against cruelty? | cmv |
Presupposing that human overpopulation is the root cause of a number of our problems, it is immoral not to mandate human procreation restrictions. CMV | The world is naturally progressing toward a stagnating population right now. Most developed nations'birthrates are currently decreasing. Continents like Asia and Africa are still growing very fast, but they will follow the trend that the rest of the developed world has. Link TL ; DR As the world becomes more educated and developed we should see the world stop growing / decrease in population. | cmv |
Presupposing that human overpopulation is the root cause of a number of our problems, it is immoral not to mandate human procreation restrictions. CMV | Depends how restrictive you're talking. I'm all for reducing the number of families who have more than, say, two children and I think that having seven or eight kids in a very highly populated place, or having more children than you can support, is not good. However I think you would have to be careful as to how you went about implementing this and how you changed the rules depending on environment. For example, if you restricted births to two per household in a highly populated area but allowed four per household in an area of low population, perhaps you'd encourage migration and ease the strain on overcrowded areas. Essentially we would need to look at what is right for individual populations and areas if something like this was ever implemented. | cmv |
I believe that population decline will be a larger problem than overpopulation in the near future. | Increases in automation mean that a lot of the work that is currently being done by humans can be instead done by machinery, supervised by a smaller pool of humans. For most of human history, a small number of people have been supported in relative luxury by a much larger population of effective slaves. By replacing this slave labor with technological solutions, we make much of our population redundant. One naive idea that technological utopianists will throw around is that we should then turn and elevate that redundant population to the same level of luxury as the ruling class - the problem with this idea is that you need more than technological force - multipliers ; you also need raw material resources. And while we definitely have the technology to give everyone a life of luxury, we do NOT have the raw material resources to do so if " everybody " is several billion people. Luckily, as fertility rates drop, we slowly approach a population that can be stably provided for with our technology, without overburdening the environment. At around 1. 5 billion people, we should reach a level of luxury where no one fundamentally has to perform labor unless they want to, and where people can turn entirely to creative, innovative or hedonistic pursuits. | cmv |
Because they study only one book, Muslims are intellectually immature. CMV. | As a rule of thumb, Muslims tend to study as many texts as anyone else. Math, science, music, medicine, science fiction, fantasy, comic books, gay love poetry, if you can name a genre, there are Muslims who read and write it. It's not like the Koran is the only media Muslims are allowed to consume. And while the Koran itself is treated as a single, vital text, that does not mean that everyone just reads it and declares that they have a full understanding of Islam and the world. Early Muslims didn't write the Prophet's words and call it a day, and Muslims today don't just skim the book and declare themselves fully educated ( at least, most don't. You get idiots in every group ). The Koran is a key text in Islam. The hadiths are also important. Texts, speeches, and even blogs by Islamic scholars analyze and comment on the Koran and the hadiths, and are in turn analyzed themselves. | cmv |
I Believe saving highly - premature babies is a waste of money CMV | I was born three months premature and am starting my sophomore year of college in the fall. I have been by no means the epitome of health throughout my life, but I'm a fully functioning adult. In fact, I'm starting my first internship in a week. However, I'll go tell my parents that I've just been a burden amd a waste of money. | cmv |
I Believe saving highly - premature babies is a waste of money CMV | Nature isn't a person. Nature cannot have intents. It makes no sense to say that nature didn't " intend " for that baby to live. Additionally, why is it that the fact that a baby cannot survive without elaborate health measures imply that the baby doesn't deserve to live? So basically, nature doesn't intend anything, it's not a conscious being. Even if it could, why is it true that what nature " intends " is a moral imperative? | cmv |
Large scale atheism could only do good. CMV | Who cares about taxing churches. This is a red herring in your argument and irrelevant to the main point. If you want to have viewpoint changed about taxation, make a separate posting about taxation. | cmv |
Large scale atheism could only do good. CMV | " could only do good ", this is where your argument must fail, because most significant attempts at society - wide atheism are not overwhelmingly positive. Speaking about the historical situation in Mongolia, which was officially a communist and atheist state from 1924 - 1990. Despite having relatively low massacres and abuses compared to some other states during that period ( say USSR, China, Vietnam, Albania, etc.. ), almost nobody here considers it a time of enlightened atheism. Almost nobody considers it a generally'good'period in Mongolia's history. To return to your exact statement, why do you think that, when every large - scale country - wide atheist state has had significant problems with totalitarianism and human rights abuses, that world - scale massive atheism would inevitably result in'good '? | cmv |
Large scale atheism could only do good. CMV | As an atheist, I highly, highly disagree. There are a tremendous amount of people in the world who literally only act morally because of the threat of an eternity of suffering following their death if they don't act morally. We're REALLY not ready as a society for that to be taken away yet. | cmv |
Large scale atheism could only do good. CMV | I don't agree. I think that no matter what belief system forms the basis of a society, human beings will still act in certain ways. Call it pessimistic, but I think that shifts in what people believe about the nature of reality don't necessarily affect human behavior. The issue is equating atheism with truth and science. There are plenty of atheists with silly beliefs about the world not linked to a deity. Atheism is not equivalent to everyone agreeing that science is truth and science can do no wrong. Thus, there will still be ideological conflicts. Then there is the question of whether or not any conflicts are actually ideological or not. You can explain most wars through other means ( though I'm playing Devil's Advocate a bit on this one ). Perhaps wars are caused by more concrete things than ideological differences? | cmv |
Large scale atheism could only do good. CMV | This claim can be and has been made for every religion in the world. No matter what religion, if most people belonged to one religion there world be less religious wars and extremism. If you are suggesting atheism would promote more tolerance, you would also be wrong. People don't get intolerance from religions. Religions are sadly, just convenient sources to back up their beliefs. Also we still couldn't tax churches because of the separation of church and state. | cmv |
I believe when marijuana is legalized new punishments for crimes should prohibit ones marijuana use CMV | Why not also punish people by not allowing them sweets? Caught jaywalking? No cake for the rest of the week. Or over the counter painkillers? They aren't " necessary " ( not in the sense that prescription painkillers are ), so how about if you get caught speeding, you aren't allowed ibuprofen ( save from a prescription ) for the next two days. Essentially, punishment should fit the crime, and if said crime had nothing to do with marijuana, neither should the punishment. ( Alcohol has far stronger effects than marijuana, and yet we don't punish criminals by taking away their right to drink ; we punish them however would be suited by the crime itself ). | cmv |
I believe when marijuana is legalized new punishments for crimes should prohibit ones marijuana use CMV | Well now that you've added the rights issue to the OP, then I'll address it here. Using marijuana is apart of the fundamental right to liberty. I should be allowed to use whatever substances I want provided there's not a pressing state interest. You haven't made an argument for a pressing state interest to take away my right, so I should still have it. | cmv |
I Believe All Major World powers are currently in Decline and Humanity is about to be Drastically reduced in population and Technology in the near future CMV | The fact that the world is so interconnected is precisely why a major collapse will never happen. A country would have to distance itself very far from the global economic community for it to really and truly fall, with no safety net of foreign investors, trade partners, and finance managers to catch it. That is why the Soviet Union and its satellite states fell so hard in the late 20th century, and it is also the reason why its fall did not cause a global economic collapse : it was simply too cut off. | cmv |
I believe that the government should treat drug use as a disease, not a crime. CMV | I don't believe that drug use should be illegal unless it presents a clear danger to people other than the user. If all drugs were legal, the tax dollars from the legal purchase of those drugs could be used for rehabilitation services. But many people use drugs responsibly and they should have the right to do so. | cmv |
I don't believe that " terrorists " are a threat to the US, and shouldn't be taken seriously at all. CMV | There so weak cause for 12 years now we have been busy tearing their organizations to bits. We have seen what happens when we ignore them. They blow our stuff and people up. I guess the argument I have is if we stop pressuring them. Then how do we know they won't figure out another way to attack? | cmv |
I don't believe that " terrorists " are a threat to the US, and shouldn't be taken seriously at all. CMV | Your question is double - barreled as it states two questions : 1 ) I don't think terrorists are a threat 2 ) I don't think terrorists should be taken seriously I agree with the former and disagree with the latter. Terrorists are incompetent, but sympathy towards their cause in combination with their knowledge powers lone wolves. In effect, Al Qaeda's main function is inspiring hatred towards " the West " and spreading instructions on how to make bombs. Considering this point of view, any occupation or attack by the US or its allies will generate a sense of hostility towards the West and increase both the spread and the effectiveness of their spread knowledge. This way, they effectively besiege the US by generating a security - threat from the inside, while making retreat an impopular choice. Their goal is to bring down the US by overstretching their army and expenditure, by clogging the country with security - measures, and by increasing anti - american sentiment. As far as I can judge, this plan has worked out very well so far, and the terrorists in their own country are incompetent and not a direct threat, but should be taken seriously | cmv |
I don't believe that " terrorists " are a threat to the US, and shouldn't be taken seriously at all. CMV | You're mostly right, but the big exception is nuclear weapons. If terrorists actually did manage to procure a nuclear bomb and detonate it in a city, it would be utterly devestating - - the kind of thing you can't afford to have happen even once. This is a significant challenge for them to pull off, but there are enough loosely secured weapons from the old Soviet Union that plenty of reasonable people are concerned about the possibility. Even less serious options, like a dirty bomb, could potentially do a lot of damage economically. | cmv |
I don't believe that " terrorists " are a threat to the US, and shouldn't be taken seriously at all. CMV | This'll probably be buried and a lot has most likely been mentioned, but what makes terrorism unique is that it has limited direct effects on nations. No terrorists have the capacity to physically cripple states or pose large - scale threats, such as nuclear weapons. They can, however, maintain a stranglehold on a nation with fear. Targeted populations are fearful because they feel unsafe within their own borders, threatened by cells operating within. This is exacerbated by the so - called " terrorism industry ", which exists rather exclusively in democracies. The " terrorism industry " are non - terrorist actors who perpetuate the fear terrorism generates in order to benefit themselves. This includes politicians, media groups, corporations, and charities. So the real threat of terrorism isn't the act, but the response by the targeted nation. If they react by propagating fear and anxiety, the terrorist cell wins, because the country will begin taking away the freedoms that distinguished them. | cmv |
I am a fascist, CMV! | Honestly, I agree with a lot of the points you've mentioned. What do you hope to achieve with this system, though? Typically, fascists tend to be concerned with strength above all else. I don't find strength to be a particularly compelling value compared to freedom or happiness. I don't know what your religious views are, but I believe that this is the only life we get, so we should make the most of it. That requires freedom, by which I mean the ability to do the things we want to do. You don't get a prize at the end for sacrificing your happiness in the name of strength. | cmv |
I am a fascist, CMV! | a few disjointed responses here, first and foremost, without allowing for a democratic elections process within the upper tiers of government, what makes these educated elite actually mandate legislation that benefits the citizenry? if they don't need to be elected or reelected every so often whats to stop them from becoming tyrannical and oppressing the people, rather than improving their collective quality of life? secondly, much of what you would like to see achieved through fascism ( e. g. workers rights, government ownership of industry ) comes across to me as highly socialistic, what is it specifically about fascism you would like to see implemented that would make it preferable to socialism? | cmv |
I am a fascist, CMV! | Do you believe these controlling entities of fascism will play their roll with honor respect for the people? To truly uphold their position with honest work? There seems to be a ubiquitous idea that any governing body, given the chance to be put in place, will be trustworthy and do their job with diligence and respect for the well being of everyone involved. I don't direct this to fascism alone, I direct this to ANY government body of ANY persuasion. The one thing that history has been very clear on, power corrupts, even menial power. When power is placed into a governing body, even menial power, it is abused. I believe on principle ANY ideology of governing the masses that exist today can in fact work with a large amount of success. Where I feel the problems begin is the mis use and abuse of these systems. I simply don't trust any government organization to act accordingly, and I am curious as to why you believe a new fascist state would. EDIT | cmv |
I am a fascist, CMV! | Fascism, like communism, basically puts all the power - - political and economic - - in one place. Concentrations of power rarely go well, and depend entirely on the whims of the powerful. If you have nice, smart powerful people, okay, all good. But the odds of only having nice powerful people year in, year out, generation after generation seem vanishingly small. Democracy is relatively stable because power is diffuse. | cmv |
I am a fascist, CMV! | Why was there a huge economic meltdown in the 30's if not for gov't control? You mention " believing " in state corporatism. I believe it exists, sure. I also believe the evidence has shown government regulation just impedes the market which slowly works around it. Coase won the Nobel in economics for demonstrating that. Do you believe state corporatism is efficient or more productive of something valuable? Because that proposition has little to no evidence in support of which I am aware. | cmv |
I am a fascist, CMV! | How do you prevent corruption within the council, especially after a few generations? How could you fix it? There's no checks and balances except within the council, which seems incredibly sketchy to me. | cmv |
I am a fascist, CMV! | Who chooses the " expert elite " that you will have rule the nation? How can you be so sure that they will chose correctly? ( You say you'd model it off of academia, but in academia you don't get to rule the lower tiers. ) | cmv |
I am a fascist, CMV! | And how will the citizens ensure that the government is doing their job properly? Even experts could be moved by political forces and personal desires, knowing that these elite has the power to control the most vital industries of the state, how will the fascist state deal with corruption? These elite would have an unchecked almost limitless power that would make it highly probable to become authoritarianism. | cmv |
I am a fascist, CMV! | How would the state'control'industry, specifically? Would it be a regulatory structure, or would the state be the majority shareholder or what? A lot of what I want to say depends on your specific vision of state - controlled industry. | cmv |
I think there is such a thing as child pornography which does not involve child abuse or exploitation. CMV | In large part, the ban on illustrated or CGI child pornography is a preventative measure. It's a sort of " gateway " legal drug, so to speak. When someone gains an interest in and begins fetishizing children through these victimless pornographies, it won't simply slake them and leave them totally satisfied. Many will continue to seek out porn that is more real, or possibly bring these desires into the real world and take advantage of a young child themselves. | cmv |
I believe the drinking age of 21 has to be changed. CMV | The problem imo isn't the drinking age. It's the American attitude towards drinking. America has a much larger'drink to get drunk'attitude than Europe does. In Europe it's completely normal to have a beer or a glass of wine when you out for lunch. In the US, even if you're clearly over 21 and not drinking, you will get looks from people if you do that. The attitude needs to change before the drinking age can change. Also, 16 is only in some countries and the countries where it is 16 it's only wine and beer. Hard liquor is still 18 and wine and beer in some countries. And in the US it is legal in many states to drink in a private residence with parental permission. | cmv |
I think politically inspired violence ('terrorism') is a price we should pay for a free society. CMV | You are making the assumption that we live in a " free society ", although we have more freedom than people in other countries we are still not free, we only have the illusion of freedom. Next you think that terrorism is the price we " should " have to pay, there is no reason as to why we should have to pay. You also state that " A society in which there is politically inspired violence is a free society. ", it cannot be a free society because they wouldn't have the freedom from the politically inspired violence. | cmv |
I think politically inspired violence ('terrorism') is a price we should pay for a free society. CMV | In a more general sense, we need to establish what our collective objectives are, and try to understand how one set of actions impacts another set of goals. You're right that if we want a free society we have to accept that we can't have freedom without a risk that those freedoms can be exploited to execute a terrorist attack. We need to decide how we prioritize safety and freedom, rather than reactively taking security measures that compromise freedom without evaluating whether that compromise is acceptable. We should also take our other actions into account. Trying to be involved in foreign affairs is likely to create enemies who will want to attack us. We might decide that supporting Israel is worth the risk of creating angry Muslims, but we shouldn't pretend we can be involved in Israel without consequences. Politically inspired violence can't necessarily be stopped in a free society, but I believe we can avoid much of the violence by not doing things that make enemies. Further, we should evaluate the actions we take in terms of balancing our goals, not just achieving the goal an action is intended to address. | cmv |
I believe that the media has a liberal bias CMV | All major cable companies are part of a fake left - right hissyfit, part of corporate interest government propaganda. Many stories are left - out, and certain ideals are demonized or considered insignificant to the public as a result. You should never follow or take cable news seriously. | cmv |
I believe that the media has a liberal bias CMV | Did you ever consider that the news is biased but not in a left / right way? There's a " sensationalism bias " where news outlets try to find news that is exciting while ignoring important, yet mundane or complex stories. There's a " pander to your audience " bias, where news organizations try to please their audience rather than educate them. There's a " pre existing narrative " bias where news organizations alter stories to fit what most people believe or want to believe. There's a " don't upset our sponsor " bias where news organizations will ignore or downplay stories which cast their advertisers in a bad light. Sure some outlets are explicitly liberal or conservative but IMO these are the bigger forms of media bias. | cmv |
I believe that the media has a liberal bias CMV | Your source doesn't exactly seem that neutral on this subject, and I'm having a hard time finding numbers on this that aren't from a conservative / Republican source. But I also have a question : what differences are there in the way a liberal bias manifests versus a conservative one? I ask because other than MSNBC and the much larger FOX, I don't see that many that aren't a blog or somesuch, where the bias is blatant. How many are simply a more - or - less neutral outlet that one might read a scattered article and detect some kind of bias one way or the other? by what metric do you decide an entire outlet or journalist to be biased as opposed to the assemblage of facts on a single article? | cmv |
I believe animals have the same rights to life as humans and it is morally right to violently free them from farms. CMV | Do you also agree that this applies to animals in the wild? A tiger or some other carnivorous animal will eat another animal for food, thus violating its right to life. However, if it didn't get to eat animals, it would probably die, which could also be infringing on its right to life. The way I see it, if animals in the wild are allowed to hunt each other down, why shouldn't we, as humans, enjoy that same right, as we are on the top of the food chain. Also, animals are delicious and provide some nutrition. | cmv |
I believe animals have the same rights to life as humans and it is morally right to violently free them from farms. CMV | Rights usually don't change based on who the perpetrator is. We protect humans from psychopaths, even from those who don't know what they're doing or that they're doing something wrong etc., for the only reason that consider the human victims'right to life. That means if we say that animals also have the same right to life or a right to no suffering, it logically follows that we should also act to keep predator animals from hurting or killing prey animals, even if those predators don't know any better ( just like psychopaths ). If we suddenly were to allow animal suffering or death based on who the perpetrator is ( another animal ), we can't really claim that we recognize that animals have the same rights to life as humans do. | cmv |
I believe animals have the same rights to life as humans and it is morally right to violently free them from farms. CMV | I'm not very well versed in argument rhetoric, so forgive me if some of this doesn't make sense... Could you be more specific about what qualifies something ( animal or other biological form ) to a " right to life? " Do you see it as a spectrum, or is there a cut off? Also, to what quality of life are they entitled to? If freeing them were to lower some aspects of their quality of life, would you still liberate them? Is it the fact that some of the animals on a farm are killed for food that is the problem, or merely that they are captive? I'm not sure if this thought will further any discussion, but I'd appreciate some input : Are " necessary for life " and " morally right " linked, or are they mutually exclusive? Can something be necessary for life and morally wrong? | cmv |
I don't believe that we should " support our troops " or treat them as heroes when they are involved in a conflict / war we don't agree with | There definitely are soldiers who should have no support and respect from us, but that is a small fraction. It is not their fault that they're fighting a rich man's war. For instance, you can't blame every American G. I. involved in the Vietnam war for atrocities like this. | cmv |
I don't believe that we should " support our troops " or treat them as heroes when they are involved in a conflict / war we don't agree with | There is no reason that you should not respect them as any other human being on this planet. These men and women have joined the service for different reasons, but it a belief in a cause or for a better opportunity ( such as training and college or other benefits ). They serve at the discretion of their commanders, including the top of the food chain, the commander in chief. They don't question those decisions, but carry them out honorably or are punished ( more severely than a citizen mind you ). To suggest that you don't owe them respect because they carry out the orders of the commander in chief is absurd. They may not agree with the decisions themselves, but they carry those out because it is their duty. I find it a bit disgusting to say you refuse them any respect for the job they do, even just as a person. | cmv |
I don't believe that we should " support our troops " or treat them as heroes when they are involved in a conflict / war we don't agree with | Just because you may not respect the war they're being deployed for, you have to have sympathy for them and their families, the ones who actually suffer the human costs of war. soldiers don't join the army for bad reasons. in their minds, its for very good reasons, and they sacrifice a lot. for what? well, the answer may be sad or infuriating, but im not going to take my anger out on the soldiers. its the Executive and military leadership that put those soldiers out there in the first place | cmv |