summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
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 | I think that they should be treated with a certain degree of respect, kneeling before them is not good but spitting in their face isn't either. But you need to know firstly where and for what cause they served and how they felt about it. Knowing that, you can agree or disagree with what they've done. Aggravation is not recommended though. Being against what they've done is fine, but acknowledging how they feel about it is very important. These servicemen and women go out to work for what they believe in, but in the end of the day, they come back feeling good or bad about what they've done and it is up to you to interpret such. There should be a basic level of respect as they went out and sacrificed what they had, it be years, limbs, lives, for doing what they believed right at the time. We should respect the sacrifice. | 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 | " Troops " are not just in the Middle East invading countries. In fact, that only accounts for a very small percentage of the U. S. Military. They serve all over the world including protecting innocent South Koreans on the SK / NK border, deterring pirate activity off the coast of Somalia to save thousands of ship's crews every day, and helping keep the world's economy going by allowing free ship transit through the Straits of Hormuz. It is very easy for a civilian to become ignorant and take for granted the assortment of things that the U. S. Military does for our country as well as the world. However, there is much more that the U. S. military does than shooting Arabs in the Middle East. | 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 | While I agree that the amount of automatic ( and often insincere ) hero worship of the U. S. military has gotten out of hand, it is not fair to swing to the other extreme, and blame individual soldiers for policies they cannot change. The armed forces are full of men and women who go to work, and have relationships, just like anyone else. They are not a homogeneous group, either. Some of them probably have the same political beliefs you do. And, from what I understand, it doesn't make much difference to most of them whether you put " Support Our Troops " bumper stickers on your car. They just want to do what they do and go home to their families. | 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 | Supporting our troops does NOT mean the same as supporting the war or the cause that they're fighting for. While I do NOT agree with the conflicts we are currently involved in, I hope that every soldier has what he or she needs to come home safely. Most troops enlisted to be ready to fight for OUR freedom - Sometimes war IS necessary - But once they're in the military, they don't get to choose where they're sent. Just because they're fighting doesn't mean that they completely support the cause that they're fighting for. They don't all like everything they're asked to do. They're doing their job. | 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 | People in the military don't always agree with what they're told to do. To some it's a job, to others it's a lifestyle. Eitherway, just because they're involved with something you don't agree with doesn't mean you shouldn't respect what they do. You don't know which soldier is getting shot at to provide for his family or which is there for idealistic reasons but either way it shouldn't matter. They're still risking their lives. In further defense of the ones doing it for idealist reasons, try to remember that just because you disagree with the war, they still feel like they're doing it to either protect you in some way or at the least providing their service so you don't have to be drafted. Anyway you look at it, they're usually doing it for bennevolent reasons and should be respected for that. Hate the conflict all you want, please don't hate the people suffering through it. | 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 | I think people should " support our troops. " Ultimately, military personnel work toward the goal of perserving the ideals and philosophies that our country was founded on. Serving the country, not the politicians if you will. In other words, people join the military to serve their country and the people dwelling within it. It's a notion to protect those you love and care for, to serve the greater good. They serve so that you may be able to continue disagreeing with the government's decisions. Support the people protecting the country, don't support ( vote for ) the people who make decisions you disagree with. | 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 | In my personal, humble opinion, I see military service as simply a job, and those that are a part of the military as its workers. I respect them as people performing a very strenuous job, and one that needs to be done, and as such disagree with you on not supporting them. I support them in the same manner as I support our construction workers, teachers, police officers, firefighters, etc. and postulate that we ought to all do our part in supporting our fellow countrymen in their professions. The whole instance of spitting on returning troops during Vietnam was absolutely appalling. We wouldn't ( and shouldn't ) spit on construction personnel for paving over a park we liked. However, I do agree with you in that they should not be seen as heroes by default. The military, just as any other organization, is composed of people ; some are good, some are bad, some are heroic, some cowardly, some dumb, some smart, all different. I respect their profession, but I believe it is actually 1 ) patronizing and 2 ) foolish to elevate them above the rest of the people in our society. | cmv |
CMV - Human progress is being held back by the capitalist nature of society | On the topic of redistribution of wealth. Saying that it is unfair that a person's idea, or product made them a lot of money is ridiculous to me. It is more unfair to me to punish success than it is for some people to have more than others. A side effect of capitalism is that sometimes people get lucky and make a lot of money. Steve Jobs and Wozniak did not start Apple to become billionaires. But is the world a better place because they made all that money to invest in new innovations that many people enjoy today? Absolutely. | cmv |
CMV - Human progress is being held back by the capitalist nature of society | Copyright law : The possiblity of profit is a driving force behind innovation. Copyright law exists to protect that possibility. Attitudes : GDP is not a fantastic measure of the well - being of a society, but at least it's objective and directly comparable between countries. How would you quantify " quality of life ", a concept that varies widely across the world? You can't. It's a purely qualitative concept. Economic measures are not perfect, but they are the best of the methods we have. | cmv |
I believe that the use of capital punishment is a viable punishment for heinous crimes. CMV | For a last incentive, capital punishment is a bad one. Research to date appears to be inconclusive on whether it actually deters any crime. As to cruel and unusual : punishment is inherently cruel ( as authorized retribution ), however in the United States capital punishment is not unusual. | cmv |
I believe that the use of capital punishment is a viable punishment for heinous crimes. CMV | It really depends upon what you mean by " viable punishment " and " ultimate incentive. " Would you be convinced otherwise if you saw credible data that... Indicated that capital punishment is a much greater tax burden than life imprisonment? Indicated that capital punishment required costly courts, judges, departments of review and appeal that wouldn't be needed if capital punishment were not permitted? Indicated that capital punishment appears to have no measurable deterrent effect on the rates of commission of capital crimes? Indicated that multiple prisoners have been wrongfully executed, that is executed as a punishment for crimes they did not commit? Indicated that the countries with the lowest violent crime rates are those that don't have capital punishment? Because I can do any of those ( and there are more options ), but each is a long ride. Take your pick. | cmv |
I believe that the use of capital punishment is a viable punishment for heinous crimes. CMV | I think my issue with capital punishment is the system towards it rather than the execution itself. It's a viable punishment but the system isn't reliable enough to be viable. There's too much of a chance that someone innocent can be executed. | cmv |
I believe that the use of capital punishment is a viable punishment for heinous crimes. CMV | Everyone seems to be bringing up the important point, which is that the data shows that capital punishment doesn't have any deterring factor. So I'll bring up another. The State should never have the ability to execute it's civilians. It's something they learned the hard way in Europe, and that's why they don't have capital punishment. | cmv |
I believe that the use of capital punishment is a viable punishment for heinous crimes. CMV | You cannot conclusively prove that somebody is guilty, innocent people will always be convicted. If you're given life in prison you at least can be taken out of your sentence early if proven innocent. With capital punishment... not so much. The FUNDMENTAL flaw in capital punishment is it's irreversibility. And if you have any insight to what the life sentence is like there's really no reason to go beyond it. I see capital punishment as an emotional fit of revenge rather than justice. | cmv |
I believe that the use of capital punishment is a viable punishment for heinous crimes. CMV | I've seen people mention that it does not deter crime, but no one had really started why. The reason is that a lot of the criminals in death row committed " crimes of passion, " meaning they were of the moment and unplanned. There is absolutely no punishment that will prevent a crime of passion because the criminal does not think about any possible repercussions, they are only thinking about " now. " | cmv |
I believe that the use of capital punishment is a viable punishment for heinous crimes. CMV | Even if you agree with capital punishment, you must agree that the appeals process which is necessary whenever someone is punished with death is extremely expensive to the tax payer. I also have no moral qualms with eliminating someone who has done something awful, but it costs, A LOT. Tbh the whole prison system needs serious reforms, starting there would help. Further more, I really believe that people who comment this horrible crimes don't really think about the consequences. In fact, I'm fairly certain there is a lot of research that indicate that it isn't a deterrent at all. They're typically sociopaths and psychopaths and usually don't believe they will actually get caught. ( Jodi Arias is a good, recent example. ) To sum it up : Death sentences are way more expensive so I don't get why anyone would support them. It's not logical. | cmv |
I believe that the use of capital punishment is a viable punishment for heinous crimes. CMV | The question is if the goal is to punish, or rehabilitate. Why kill someone who can be helped, and will not commit further atrocities? If it's to stop further atrocities ( i. e. kill a psycho that cannot be rehabilitated, so that they cannot go on a murderous rampage once more ), we can discuss that separately. On the other hand, if the goal is to punish and deter, wouldn't horrible, toe - curling torture be much more effective? | cmv |
I believe that the use of capital punishment is a viable punishment for heinous crimes. CMV | For me it is simpler. You just have to ask the question is it ok to kill or not? If it is then the killer shouldn't be punished. If it isn't then the default position should be you don't kill anyone. ( Considering euthanasia and self defence separately ) The message should be clear ; any unavoidable killing is unnecessarily cruel. | cmv |
In today's first - world society, I don't believe unions should exist. CMV | The poverty level for an individual in the US is making less than 18, 000 a year, I believe. Minimum wage gives you 14, 000 a year ; that is, if you're working 40 hour work weeks. Most people in minimum wage jobs are not. So most people working'regular'jobs are actually under the poverty line in this country, and that's a - okay with employers and our government. Just keep that in mind throughout this discussion. | cmv |
I believe that gun ownership in the USA should require licensing / testing, and guns should be registered, as is done with cars. CMV | I believe you misunderstand what auto registration / drivers licenses are, at least in the US, and that is causing you to draw a false analogy. You don't need any sort of license or registration to own or buy a car. You need them to operate the car you own on public roads. If you have no intention of taking your car off your private property you have no need to interact with the DMV or other government organizations at all. Therefore if you wish the federal and state governments to treat guns as they do cars then private citizens would have no restrictions on what guns they could buy / own, so long as they keep them on private property. But that's not the conclusion you have, is it? | cmv |
I don't believe in evil. CMV. | What would you describe extreme racism or homophobia as? When physically attack someone in a group they hate, when they have nothing to gain from it, that's not done out of selfishness. There's nothing to be gained, it's done just to cause pain. Is that not evil? | cmv |
I don't believe in evil. CMV. | Every thing is relative. In a nice affluent part of a city a cannibal may be considered " evil " but on a desert island where the only food is your dead mate, totally justified. But no there is no " force " that makes people do bad things, just their cirumstance. | cmv |
In light of recent events in the US Federal Government, I now believe the only way things can change is state secession. CMV? | Yes, you're wrong. You can also choose to stop financing the state by engaging in / r / agorism. You can also fight the State by engaging in political activism and civil disobedience. You can organize a protest in your area to raise awareness. | cmv |
I believe that prostitution in all " First World " countries should be fully legalised and regulated. CMV. | I agree on your points. I feel like a lot of countries haven't legalize it because of a perceived morality issue and the tabooness of sex and the stigmatization of people in the sex industry. I also think that the legalization and regulation would lead to safer sex because people working in brothels and such would have regular testing as well as those who pay for sex can have a safer environment with less worry of unsanitary conditions. As per the rules i need to present some sort of challenge. Very well. What happens to people in the sex industry who leave it. I would think the stigmatization of their former job would put them at a disadvantage when looking for different jobs after. Also wouldn't this industry encourage girls to join because A. It seems easy and B. it may appeal to women who have lower levels of education and wouldn't encourage them to further education because of it being in a sense " easy money ". | cmv |
I believe that prostitution in all " First World " countries should be fully legalised and regulated. CMV. | Human Trafficking : Many immigrants are trapped in sex worker positions being promised a job when they immigrate to " x " country ( Germany, USA, Russia ). Upon arrival their passports will be confiscated and they are forced into sex slavery. Making prostitution legal only allows the people controlling underground brothels to import foreign prostitutes easier. While this does not always happen we should plan for the majority. As far as I'm concerned, 1 more person in sex slavery is unacceptable. | cmv |
I believe that prostitution in all " First World " countries should be fully legalised and regulated. CMV. | With all due respect, I just think that it would be a better place if women can contribute more to society than allowing them to grow an industry based on lust. IMHO it would be a waste of potential. Especially in first world countries where they are definitely better educated. | cmv |
I believe that prostitution in all " First World " countries should be fully legalised and regulated. CMV. | Just so you know, the first world / third world system is not accepted anymore. The new and more appropriate system is " Developed, Developing, and Undeveloped nations. The previous system is ambiguous and misleading. | cmv |
I believe that prostitution in all " First World " countries should be fully legalised and regulated. CMV. | If prostitution becomes legal, it will most likely become a very large and lucrative industry, even moreso than it is now. Millions of women needing a couple extra dollars to make ends meet will begin selling their bodies to strangers, even if it is something they really don't want to do or it goes against their personal morals. Consider the mental health of those women, and think about a society like that, where women feel that the only way to support themselves or even their families is to whore themselves out for money. It's not a society I would want to live in. | cmv |
I believe that prostitution in all " First World " countries should be fully legalised and regulated. CMV. | I'm not against this. However. First world countries are against prostitution and all things alike because they are first world. The term'first world'defines us by our economy, and'first world'society evolves from that, and that is what is important. The image our society maintains in the eyes of the inferior world. Prostitution is frowned upon because it is viewed as amoral in most places and first world countries'statuses would plummet if they allowed such acts to go on. Just like the legalization of marijuana, the government can't regulate it. At least if they keep it illegal, it isn't their fault if it goes on. It will go on with gov't officials'notice but they look the other way and pretend not to see it, and they can't be blamed. You see, it would never work is prostitution was legal. | cmv |
I believe that prostitution in all " First World " countries should be fully legalised and regulated. CMV. | I might be willing to make prostitution legal, so long as pimping was illegal. individual entrepreneurs only. I don't know how that would work out. Something like they had in Rhode Island up until a few years ago might also work. Prostitution is legal only if it happens within the prostitutes place of residence. ( personal house or apartment ). EDIT : might want to make it citizens only as well, just to be safe. | cmv |
I think that there should be a World ( or United Nations ) Court of Human Rights like the European Court of Human Rights. CMV | Having a world court would eliminate all sovereignty of nations around the world. Not all countries are willing to live under someone else's laws. Who would decide what laws are just and which ones aren't? It would also open doors for petty bickering which would bog such a court down. I think you are looking for a one world government to rule over every aspect of our lives. Such a thing can't, and won't, exist in todays world. | cmv |
I believe we make our laws backwards | Your viewpoint by definition assets that all innovation is illegal until the government says it's ok. That is worrisome from a political, technological, legal, constitutional, personal and economical standpoint. It's actually impressive that you've managed to offend so many of my sensibilities at once... | cmv |
I believe that corporations like WalMart are an important and contribute positively to the US. CMV. | From my understanding the issue with wal - mart is with taxation, When wal - mart buys and sells products it shelters the tax costs By having the company split into three portions. West owns east and the east owns west but all there bills are paid by a third company ( also owned by wal - mart ) that receives all the income from the two companies to pay the bills. Saving them billions a year in taxation since neither east or west ever officially turns a profit... This means the perceived benefits of Wal - mart are allot less then with other retailers already present in the markets that they will force out. | cmv |
I believe that corporations like WalMart are an important and contribute positively to the US. CMV. | Now take all those bad things you acknowledge Wal - Mart doing, and imagine lobbying groups trying to make all those things illegal. Now, imagine a Wal - Mart sized lobbying group paid for by Wal - Mart coming in and out lobbying all the small lobbying groups trying to get the perverse laws changed and loosen Wal - Mart's grip on the national economy. It's important to understand that Wal - Mart was not always what it is today. They searched out loopholes, moved in all they could into those loopholes, and then cried bloody murder when anyone tried to close those loopholes. The real detriment of Wal - Mart is that their existence negates the possibility of their unfair business practices being made illegal. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I believe Basic Income Guarantee is the solution to most, if not all of America's societal woes. | This system would simply not be functional. You can't have large groups of people who chose not to work. Lowered production would cause a dramatic decrease in tax revenue. We couldn't pay for the program you are suggesting with GDP at it's current level, much less in the new economy you are proposing. A more reasonable solution to explore would be engineering a sector of the economy that requires low skill and offer accessible jobs at a living wage ( lets say 10 - 20 % above poverty ) to anyone who wants one who can meet basic requirements ( will actually show up and work ). As long as the enterprise did not loose money, it should not harm the economy too much and achieve the minimum wage effect, while not enforcing an actual minimum wage. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I believe Basic Income Guarantee is the solution to most, if not all of America's societal woes. | I think this would essentially create the largest criminal class ever. The amount of people who wouldn't work and would just wonder the streets causing societal problems would be overwhelming. Nothing good can come out of millions of unemployed young men who don't need to work to survive. I think things like drug addiction, alcoholism, riots, terrorism and crime in general would increase. Finally, I think there is something ethically wrong with forcing the productive members of society to have to shoulder an incredibly large tax burden to support the unproductive. Even if the result is a net positive ( which I'm not giving you ) the ends don't justify the means. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I believe Basic Income Guarantee is the solution to most, if not all of America's societal woes. | I think it would work better without giving actual money. Housing food water and clothing could be given, but once money is given people would start abusing the program itself. Or at least that's how I see it. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I believe Basic Income Guarantee is the solution to most, if not all of America's societal woes. | The theory only lightly touches on the supply side of our economy, as you mention an increase in innovation and freedom to explore areas of higher productivity ; someone with a certain talent being forced into menial labor. But at the same time, it could be argued that removing people from the labor force would out weigh these productivity gain ; as folks leave, our supply decreases. I don't see the supply side effects leading to enough growth to afford everyone the luxuries you seem to think the BIG would provide, or at least not in a timely enough manner to prevent those now carrying a larger tax burden from voicing their displeasure. A part of my above point, is that I feel you're underestimating the taxation needed to make this possible, particularly when you consider the amount of people who will no longer choose to work ( this actual amount is up for debate, but is definitely a portion of the population ). As fewer work, the taxation on the remaining grows, causing even more to drop out. The BIG just won't be sustainable at the level at which you see it and will ultimately turn into nothing more than a stipend that still requires everyone to work. And speaking to the American opinion and view at large, my perception is that too many would be too upset at the idea of funding folks with no expectation that they work, or attempt to work. The uproar would be overwhelming, particularly as those with the influence, money, would be those most affected. Not that a more efficient set of safety nets is terribly needed, but I don't believe the BIG approach, at least in the context outlined above, is a huge improvement over our current system, due to the lack of supply side improvements. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I believe Basic Income Guarantee is the solution to most, if not all of America's societal woes. | I know this is late but I don't think anyone touched on this problem. What about areas such as Arlington, Long Island or Beverly Hills? These areas are currently populated by the rich and are quite luxurious. The most basic cost of living there is radically higher than the average ( easily in the hundreds of thousands of dollars ). But that buys you a luxurious life. The two are inseparable in such areas : you either live it up or you leave the area. With the basic income changing according to the cost of living in the area you choose to live in, the taxpayers would be picking up a tab equivalent to several times the average annual income for everyone who lives in a wealthy neighborhood. Then you actually lose social mobility : your basic quality of life depends almost entirely on where your house is and this will often be inherited. You would end up with a hereditary aristocracy funded by whoever chooses to continue working. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I believe Basic Income Guarantee is the solution to most, if not all of America's societal woes. | Because inflation isn't about printing money but supply and demand. We'll assume that BIG is 10 $ / month, a Baker earns 30 $ / month ( 10 + 20 ). In a city, there is 10 bakers selling bread for around 0. 01 $ / u. Now, BIG is set up, 8 out of 10 will stop working because baking is a hard job for only 20 $ and live with 10 $. What will happen to the price of the bread? It'll increase due to the lake of competition between bakers. 10 $ won't be enough to survive. And even if the state adjust it, it'll increase even more. I'm probably missing something but that the first thing that came to my mind. | cmv |
I believe that the surveilience state would be morally OK if the NSA could prove their effectiveness. CMV, please. | Who watches the watchers? How can you believe what the NSA is saying? In other words, the NSA could say : " We thwarted 100 terrorist attacks, yay! " and then someone skeptical comes along : " well, do you have any proof? " NSA : " Yes, but we can't tell you, that's sensitive info and a threat to national security. " | cmv |
I believe that the surveilience state would be morally OK if the NSA could prove their effectiveness. CMV, please. | There's data showing that video surveillance has no effect preventing crime. A german government representative once said something like " we can't stop the suicide bomber, but we can identify and catch him so he won't do that again ". The same was proven for digital data collection in Germany when it was running before deemed illegal by the constitutional court. The crime prevention rate did not change. Not the slightest bit. It was no help at all. If you want to read something about the NSU case in Germany, you'll also see that the real problem is that the authorities fail to do their work because they're caught up in a net of crossing interests and actions of the abundant number of secret agencies doing secret stuff. | cmv |
I believe most modern democracies today are a sham. CMV. | I think it is important to get two things clear : First, what would a proper democracy look like, and second, the difference between first past the post and proportional voting systems. I don't think a democracy can ever represent some will of the people ( see specifically the condorcet voting paradox ), but rather that some forms ( mostly those with proportional voting systems ) are really good at getting the voices of the repressed or mistreated heard. You could of course say that the sham is that democracies pretend to represent the voice or interest of the general populace ( which i think is non - existant ). | cmv |
I think welfare and state aid applicants should be drug tested. CMV | Because study after study has shown that it costs more to drug test all the applicants than is saved by denying welfare to those who come up positive. Your hard earned tax dollars - even more of your hard earned tax dollars - then go to a bunch of government contractors instead of to a small handful of druggies. I'd be happy to track down some of the studies if you'd like. | cmv |
I think welfare and state aid applicants should be drug tested. CMV | Great, waste even more money. Create a few thousand government jobs, purchase a few hundred thousand drug tests. Mandate, regulate, put a law into place. Several million dollars later you can be damn sure none of your precious tax dollars support any crack heads. But you would have to drug test them at least every 72 hours to be sure they weren't using cocaine. Cocaine only stays detectable for 36 hours. After that you can pass a $ 20 drug test. No, this is an over reach of gov't, we should be spending less and looking for ways to cut our welfare state not enlarge it. | cmv |
I think welfare and state aid applicants should be drug tested. CMV | Besides the fast that it costs even more money to test people on welfare, let's say someone does test positive and they have children, why let the children suffer without insurance and food because their parent / s have issues? Are we going to end up calling CPS to take those children away? I may not agree with drug use, but I know a few well respected people who have jobs and smoke weed at times. That doesn't make that person a bad person or parent. | cmv |
I think welfare and state aid applicants should be drug tested. CMV | Your hard earned tax dollars pay for the roads that trucks use to deliver the drugs, they educate the dealers, street signs point people to the right corner to meet a dealer, there are a lot of indirect ways tax money goes to support drug habits. But all of those ( roads, education, street signs ) are mostly used for legal activities, as is welfare. Only a very very small percentage of people on welfare are also on drugs. So the question is, why should someone sacrifice their 4th amendment rights when taking welfare? Where does it end, should all 11 million local, state and federal employees no longer have 4th amendment rights because " we pay their salary? " Particularly because when drug testing welfare recipients has been tried in Florida, the cost of the screenings was higher than the money saved from the small small number that tested positive. | cmv |
Prisoners should not be able to vote. CMV. | Yeah, but then you'd just criminalize an activity that black people do more of than white people, and take a whole bunch of liberal leaning voters out of the voting pools. Or vice - versa. Hint : this already happens, think crack vs. powdered cocaine. | cmv |
Prisoners should not be able to vote. CMV. | One of the main goals of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate criminals so that they can re - enter society. Voting is more than simply marking an X on a slip of paper ; it is a major form of one's inclusion in society, and represents a civilians contribution / say in how their society functions. Many criminals are not cold and calculating, but rather act out of desperation and a sense of exclusion ; they either feel there is no other way to gain a livelihood, or are operating on feelings of anger. Further alienating those criminals by taking away their vote could further these feelings of anger and exclusion, and thus jeopardize the goal of rehabilitation for those criminals. By allowing prisoners to vote, we affirm that we still consider them to be members of our society, and we still want them to participate in that society in constructive, legal ways. | cmv |
I don't believe that terrorism is an existential threat to the United States. CMV | Well, one, no terrorist could kill the US people off but a well - organized and very lucky group of terrorists could destroy the US government, which is quite significant. Japan's still got a constitution that was written by Americans after the occupation. Two, I think you're massively underestimating how much damage Japan and Germany took during WWII. Yes, eventually they recovered, but millions of people died in that war. If you seriously think terrorists could do damage on the scale of WWII ( and for the record, I don't ) that's BY NO MEANS something to ignore. ( And three, the government has successfully prevented terrorist plots several times in the past, usually through pretty standard FBI stuff. It's totally not true to say it's going to happen regardless. ) | cmv |
I don't believe that terrorism is an existential threat to the United States. CMV | It is an existential threat to the US government and it is in the best interest of the state ( not necessarily the people... ) to be overzealous with possible highly publicized events that points flaws into the security of the country. Yes, the events are unlikely but when they do occur the effect on politics is felt - - through media. Especially during election periods a terrorist attack may hinder the current administration's or current party's reelection chances. We live in a highly enriched media environment today and so any mistake by the gov't is an existential threat in that regard. | cmv |
I think every single aspect of gun control currently being presented is stupid and useless. CMV | There is no evidence that a civilian with a gun stands a better chance, ceteris paribus, than a civilian without a gun. There is evidence that criminals with a gun cause more harm than criminals without guns. Having a registry and outright banning as many of them as possible is the logical end result of the question " How do we minimise social issues, including murder and robbery, caused or prevented by guns " | cmv |
I believe that hard work will pull people out of poverty and view those who don't take advantage of these opportunities are lazy. CMV | Note : on phone, will expand later. Even if you are " poor " and provided with an opportunity not taking it doesn't necessarly mean you are lazy or don't want it. In many cases people will be mentally unable to use such chances ( heavy depressions, psychotic breakdowns, etc ). There is also the situation where there are physical limitations. | cmv |
I think that a " Terrorist " is simply a word used by governments to dehumanize their enemies and thereby justify their own atrocities. CMV | It is true that labeling a human being as a terrorist certainly dehumanizes them and allows people to treat them worse. It is also true that the difference between what one determines to be a " terrorist " and what one determines to be a " soldier " may depend on the perspective of the watcher. Also true is the fact that countries would find it aversive calling their own people terrorists. However, all of this doesn't mean that the term " terrorist " is a meaningless term. Terrorists are unique in that their primary objective includes targeting civilians : mass casualties. Also, while this is not in the definition, the word terrorist has certain connotations that are important to the meaning of the word. Most words have connotations that are unwritten in most definitions, but that doesn't mean that they don't carry meaning. Finally, it might not be true that the word'terrorism'was created or is used to dehumanize the people doing the actions. While it certainly does have that effect, it is used for a specific reason : to signify those people that target civilians for the use of terror. What we project onto those people, however, is another thing altogether. | cmv |
I think that a " Terrorist " is simply a word used by governments to dehumanize their enemies and thereby justify their own atrocities. CMV | Their really isn't a universally recognized definition for " terrorist ", because the idea of terrorism changes all of the time. In the 1980's the Mujahadeen were considered freedom fighters in Afghanistan as they were fighting the Soviets, and just 15 - 20 years later they are now terrorists. Before WWII violent underground Jews in Palestine were considered terrorists and many of the first leaders on Israel were once wanted criminals with bounties on their heads exceeding 1 million dollars. Today they are seen as liberators of the Jewish people. You can also look at the Contra militants in Nicaragua during the 1980's. We ( the U. S. ) didn't recognize them as terrorists even though they were killing thousands on innocent people and would certainly fall under the category of'terrorist'by our standards today. And finally, a poll done in Pakistan showed that the people there see the U. S. military as being as much of a'terrorist'as Al - Qaeda, and when you think about all of the drone strikes and innocent people being killed from those, it's not hard to understand why. If you'd like more info, I'd suggest a great book ( and a very quick read, it's less than 100 pages ), called " Terrorism ; Theirs and Ours " by Eqbal Ahmad. | cmv |
Edward Snowden does NOT deserve to be imprisoned. CMV. | PRISM is legal under United States law. If it were a military researcher who decided to blow the whistle on a plan of a top secret orbital platform for nuclear weapons or something like that, I would expect him to also be prosecuted. The U. S. building the nuclear platform would be immoral, but the researcher still broke the law. The point being if people kept exposing secrets of the government without fear of punishment, it could possibly put the nation at risk. Justice can be harsh, but the whole point of justice is that you can't make exceptions, even if what he did might have been morally right. If a murderer kills a rapist, he's still a murderer. If someone breaks the national secrecy, he still broke the law. | cmv |
I believe once you are convicted of a felony, or are sentenced to life in prison, you should be forced to work without pay until the end of your sentence or until you are physically unable to work. CMV | If you do that then it will increase competition in whatever market you have your prisoners work, forcing free labourers out of those markets, and thereby punishing innocent people. By depriving those people of jobs you will increase the amount of poverty, and seeing as poverty causes crime, increase crime rates. And theres also the little moral issue posed by slavery, and it gets even worse when you consider the government would be pushing free private citizens out of the market and replacing them with government slaves. The easiest way to reduce the amount of money spent on prisons would be to reduce Americas absurdly high incarceration rate. | cmv |
I believe once you are convicted of a felony, or are sentenced to life in prison, you should be forced to work without pay until the end of your sentence or until you are physically unable to work. CMV | My dad has a life sentence in prison, which equates to a minimum of 15 years served in our state. He has done many jobs for free while in prison. Some of them are considered a privilege because you get rewarded with extra food, time, and social interactions with the nicer guards. He has never been paid for his work. His experiences were good, but it would have really helped our family if he made a few dollars a day. When he gets out I will be paying for everything until he can secure a job. This is a heavy burden for families to carry. I do believe that prisoners should have some duties, but I think that the incentive to make even a little money would make them perform better and help them financially when they get out. | cmv |
I believe once you are convicted of a felony, or are sentenced to life in prison, you should be forced to work without pay until the end of your sentence or until you are physically unable to work. CMV | I actually think having a job as a prisoner is a sought after privilge. Working is just much more fun than just sleeping, reading or doing push - ups. However, as many have said, that would be bad for the working class outside of prison. Also, it would be bad if there were incentives to have a higher prison population. Speaking of high prison populations. I was taking a quick look at Wikipedia. I've the following question : WTF America? WTF? " Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U. S. —more than were in Stalin's gulags. " Anyway, more on - toppic : UNICOR. | cmv |
I think people who sleep with cheaters are bad people. CMV. | The issue is that " cheating " ( as opposed to simple promiscuity ) is that it's a violation of a promise ( whether it's marriage or exclusive dating ). The promise only exists between the two people who made it to each other... you can't reasonably expect third parties to be bound by promises that they never made. So if A is married to B, and A has an affair with C, the fault lies with A alone : C never made any promises, and so hasn't broken any. | cmv |
I think people who sleep with cheaters are bad people. CMV. | I work with the Tarot ( divination using 78 cards ). I had someone ask if I would do a relationship reading for them, which involved the person and another person in a marriage and cheating. I was offered money for my time. I refused the reading. | cmv |
I believe it is morally wrong to smoke cannabis solely because it is against the law. CMV. | Yep, just like it was morally wrong to treat a black man as your equal before anti - slavery laws were implemented. It is technically wrong as it is deemed against the law. But it does not hurt anyone or have any negative impact to society so it should not be viewed as immoral by any free thinker that wants change, morals change from person to person. People smoke cannabis, this is illegal, but it is not immoral in their eyes. ( With the support for legalization, it seems not to be immoral in most peoples eyes ). Pointing out how ridiculous the law is and how happy you are to ignore it is the best way that it will ever change. It is certainly not immoral to support modern change and abolish ignorant traditions of the past based on sensationalized fear mongering and lies. ( Because that is exactly what anit - cannabis law is. Cannabis is actually not very bad at all for you, no worse that fast food, alcohol or tobacco. ) | cmv |
I believe it is morally wrong to smoke cannabis solely because it is against the law. CMV. | The question should be : " what moral right does the government have to prohibit victimless activities "? I would answer " none whatsoever ". Respect for the law assumes that the law is respectable. In countries or situations where the law is disrepectful of the people, the people have no moral obligation to follow it. It doesn't matter if the law in question is regarding a matter of life and death, or a trivial matter that has little effect. If the law is immoral, then practically by definition it can't be immoral to violate it, only illegal. | cmv |
I believe it is morally wrong to smoke cannabis solely because it is against the law. CMV. | Do you believe morality is universal, or does it vary by location. In places where marijuana is legal, is it still morally wrong. Do you believe that it is morally wrong for women to drive cars? Probably not, but if you were visiting Saudi Arabia where it is illegal, would you suddenly find it morally wrong? If you time traveled to the south in the 18th century, would you find slavery not conflicting with your morality anymore? | cmv |
I believe it is morally wrong to smoke cannabis solely because it is against the law. CMV. | Government laws are not made to be moral, as morality is subjective, they are made to protect its citizens. If there is nothing inherently wrong with the action, it shouldn't be illegal in a government that values freedom. Cannabis brings almost no danger with it so people argue that it should be legal. If you let the government decide all of your morals for you, you will end up with a totalitarian state and no personal rights. | cmv |
I believe it is morally wrong to smoke cannabis solely because it is against the law. CMV. | I dont think you understand the point of laws and punishments. You are 100 % allowed to break any law you want as long as you are okay with the punishment. If you want to rob a store and do some jail time that is your choice. Laws are a deterrent, they are NOT there to tell you what you cannot do. It is not a moral issue in any way to break a law, its a logical decision on whether the benefits outweigh the costs. | cmv |
I believe it is morally wrong to smoke cannabis solely because it is against the law. CMV. | Why are your morals so linked to the laws? Do you believe it's immoral to be gay in Uganda but not in the west? Do you believe it's immoral for a woman to drive a car in some countries but not in others? | cmv |
I believe it is morally wrong to smoke cannabis solely because it is against the law. CMV. | I lost my respect for the government a long time ago. Saying that smoking weed is immoral because it's illegal is like saying gay marriage is immoral because it's still illegal in some places. It isn't clear cut or set in stone, it's completely a matter of opinion, and in my opinion both are perfectly fine. | cmv |
I believe it is morally wrong to smoke cannabis solely because it is against the law. CMV. | So you agree that there are at least some instances in which breaking the law would be morally permissible, if not an obligation - such as speeding in order to get an injured or sick person to a hospital quicker? Or your example of sheltering Jews in Nazi Germany? Where, then, do you draw the line, and why is it arbitrarily placed between the different infractions? If there are certain circumstances under which you can morally break a law, why does any law have any moral value in and of itself? | cmv |
I think psychedelic drugs like LSD and psilocybin should be legal - - if not, at least more socially accepted. CMV. | Psychedelic drugs in general suffer from a'catch - 22'of sorts : without further research into their effects, you can't objectively say that they should be made more accessible ( in whatever context ; research, medical, recreational ) and without that access, it is difficult to study them. The fact is, that for many of the medical uses you cite, there are equally effective drugs that have no recreational value. Migraines can be treated with triptans, alcoholism and drug addiction are best treated with counselling and group therapy ( which might be aided with psychedelics, but do you want to be giving drugs to users? ). Realistically, non psychedelic derivatives of psychedelics are far more useful in a clinical setting ( in most cases ). When you look at the potentially negative effects of the abuse of psychedelics, their legal status starts to look much more reasonable. These are synthetic compounds ( bar a few exceptions - mescaline, psylocibin, DMT and some others ) that have had very little research done into their effects and side effects. They are unpredictable and dangerous even in supervised circumstances - I don't see how there is a strong argument for their legalisation ( CMV? ). | cmv |
Gentrification is a good thing that should be encouraged. CMV | Where there are drug users, there are drug dealers. Displacing the market base does not eliminate the market. Conversely, it can actually make the problem worse as the drug trade spills over into towns that are ill - equipped to combat them. Drug use aside, gentrification is unpopular because it is quite literally the act of sweeping aside existing landowners / tenants. Have you considered what happens when you are forced to leave because you can no longer afford to live in such an area? Worst of all, what is erected in its place is often the very worst of urban planning - high income property owners that are supported by low income commuting support workers who must spend an increasing amount of their income simply to get to work. It's an antiquated and unsustainable model. A much more desirable alternative is maintaining a healthy mix of classes in conjunction with improving the cityscape. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | I just wanted to dispel the thought of " nationalistic motivation. " Granted, I don't have any real statistics on this, but from personal interactions I can tell you many of those who enlist in the armed forces don't really have patriotism in mind when joining. Many simply want to have a better chance at schooling and career paths. I think it was Moore's Bowling for Columbine where he compares middle class enlistees with poverty level enlistees and proves that more often than not, military recruiters target poorer neighborhoods. Basically, many men and women join up for the sake of providing for their family. Obviously, the threat of combat, injury, and death lie heavily on their minds, but it is out of motivation to keep their family's heads above water despite any sense of patriotism they do or don't feel. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | I hate war and I hate the current US military as an institution. It's wasted life, wasted resources, and imposed control over other countries. I don't think I need to elaborate on the details. But the ground soldiers I have a lot of respect for. I mean, a military is necessary for self defense. Even Ganhi, with his non - violent philosphy, said that self - defense was acceptable because it's a matter of self - respect. Look at the Swiss. They are completely non - violent and neutral, but their country is actually armed to the teeth. Swizterland has the type of military policy I think other nations ought to model. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | Here's my take, coming from a pretty libertarian perspective. I am extremely glad that there are people willing to fight and die in order to protect me, and the few freedoms I have left. Without them, our world would not be the same, most likely dominated by other countries who developed larger military's. At the same time, I am disgraced that the country and politicians choose to use these brave men the way they do, fighting pointless, endless and expensive wars that serve no purpose other than to posture the country and serve the interests of politicians and special interests. Soldiers ready to fight, ready to defend are what we need, and they truly do protect our freedoms and should be honored for that. At the same time, it is important that we denounce the meaningless and reckless wars that we have gotten ourselves into, and those shouldn't earn soldiers any more respect than they should get during peacetime. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | I can't directly challenge your view, I can only challenge your reason for the view. Patriotism, heroism, bravery, etc. etc. aren't the driving influence for becoming a member of the armed services. I only have anecdotal experience but knowing why I joined and reading through the facade of why others served during my time I can say that any implied sense of those characteristics were ingrained well after initiation. Of all the ditty's I was exposed to in the Marines there was one I particularly enjoyed : " Don't thank me, the Marine Corps thanks me twice a month on the 1st and the 15th. " ( Payday's ). I know that I personally never understood the hero worship either. All the talk of service and sacrifice and yet I could never put my finger on what exactly all these people were sacrificing, to where they would otherwise be. And in most cases, I thought it could only be an improvement for their life situation - at least it was for me. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | I tend to look at soldiers as victims of state violence and war as much as any of the other victims. Many that are recruited into armed forces are the poor and those without much of a choice. They are then brainwashed ( yes, army training techniques constitute brainwashing in every sense of the word ) into blindly obeying the authority of their superiors. Then they are forced to do something so utterly inhuman as to kill another human being, and often this experience leaves them with PTSD or at the least, emotional and mental scars. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | Everyone I've ever met who has joined the military ( about 8 people ) joined because they didn't have any other option. College was either too expensive or they didn't make the grades in high school. They just want to go to college without owing an arm and a leg in tuition. Its just that simple. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | While I absolutely agree with you that the way we think of the military itself is tremendously wrong and anachronistic... you are placing the problem in very much the wrong location. Soldiers join up to serve their country... they probably also have other motivations, but... what they are signing up to do is to serve their country, to defend it against all enemies. How those soliders then go about doing so is NOT THEIR CHOICE. They have to do whatever they are told to do by those above them. Those above them have to do whatever they're told, all the way up to the generals in charge... who are told what to do by the civilian government. The way the civilian government interfaces and uses the military as where we get into the illogical, warp perpetuation. The individual military servicemember is doing what they have to do, because they placed themself into indentured servitude to serve and protect their country. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | It's a pretty well supported belief in political science that for a democracy to succeed, the citizens must have a common bond. This bond used to be religion, but in the past 100 years or so, this bond has shifted towards nationalism. Nationalism, in this case, is the shared political systems and institutions of a country, not language, race, ethnicity, or any other characteristic we can't choose to change. Supporting our troops doesn't mean supporting individual soldiers, but rather supporting an abstract notion of liberty and freedom. Supporting our troops is supporting our political institutions, which essentially creates a belief in and a legitimization of these institutions. This makes democracy more stable and more likely to succeed. Basically, as much as we would all like to have world peace, it is simply not possible at this point in time. What we need to do is support those institutions which are most likely to lead to long - lasting peace - - such as democracy and the military which ensures it - - and give them our support. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | First of all not all soldiers are front line soldiers so not all of them are killing. Your countries military was sent to where ever they are fighting by your democratically elected government. what ever they are doing was done for the benefit of you. effectively you sent them there as part of the electorate ( even if you didn't vote ). I think the reason for this respect that is given to soldiers is because they are effectively a last line of defense. this sort of respect is traditional and to a certain degree works ( i. e. it gets young men to join up ) and in reality soldiering has not changed that much get a group of young people and organise them into a force. so the tradition remains. Finally the respect given to soldiers does not perpetuate wars. Soldiers don't start wars politicians do. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | I view soldiers very similarly to janitors, garbage men, waiters / waitresses, and anyone else whose job essentially exists to make my life easier. In addition, I would probably respect a school janitor more than a garbage man because I know their job is a fair bit harder, and they don't get paid any more. So these people have a very difficult job, which due to their efforts makes my life easier and better. So I don't think it's unusual to thank a man or woman in uniform for their service. Of all the examples I listed, soldiers definitely have the most difficult job of them all. Calling them all heroes may be a bit of a stretch, but in my eyes they deserve the respect and praise they are given. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | You should think of soldiers as slaves. They usually enlist for the free education and pay, but they don't have the freedom to quit when they are asked to do something likely to get them killed. Rather than thanking soldiers for their service, you could consider appologizing to them for their service. You are supporting and enabling their slavery, more often than not, for evil nefarious objectives rather than a genuine protection that you should be grateful for. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | I volunteered to go to Baghdad as an infantry officer ended up doing more nation building / peace keeping, ( b / c UN pulled out and is worthless ). When Obama was elected I couldn't hold up my oath and resigned my commission. Even though Ed benefits were great there are some of us who serve for principled reasons. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | The thing about soldiers is, they aren't doing their job for personal gain. Sure, they get paid, but they don't get paid that much and they're risking their lives to " protect their country ", which of course has been a bullshit excuse for a lot of wars, but isn't the soldiers that start the wars, it's the governments. I really think soldiers deserve all of the respect they get. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | I agree to a point. I think soldiers deserve respect as firemen and policemen deserve respect ; they all put their lives or safety on the line for an essential public service career. However, I'm also from the UK and I'm sure it's similar in the US, but I don't agree with the idea the media and politicians have that all soldiers are automatically and inherently heroes. They have really softened the word, being a soldier gives you more opportunity to do heroic things but it is not a title you get when you sign on the dotted line. The only soldiers I think that can be called heroes automatically are those who were enlisted out of necessity, in the world wars for example. Modern day soldiers sign up voluntarily. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | I completely agree with you and thought that I was alone in thinking that soldiers deserve no respect. I am completely against killing and violence of any form and I find the military barbaric and I have no respect for anyone involved in it. This view also extends to anyone involved in the murder of animals such as farmers, fisherman etc. | cmv |
I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation. CMV | When I " praise " or " respect " soldiers it's not so much for the whole defending my freedom type of thing, but more along the lines of they are doing what I don't want to have to do. I respect that they volunteered for the job. Without mass amounts of volunteers there is a threat of a draft, and I certainly don't want to be drafted. | cmv |
It doesn't matter whether I vote in US presidential elections. CMV. | You should be fighting to help fix the system. Petition when you can and support local or Congressional candidates who support the fixes. Please see these videos : How the Electoral College Works The Trouble with the Electoral College The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained This logically leads you to the fixes which are here : National Popular Vote Interstate Compact The Alternative Vote Explained | cmv |
It doesn't matter whether I vote in US presidential elections. CMV. | If all eligible voters were perfectly rational people, each would realize that, individually, his or her vote is insignificant by itself. Further, each would realize that allother voters have reached the same conclusion ( all being perfectly rational ). Each would then realize that if he withheld his own vote, there would be little consequence, but if enough people withheld their votes, there would be great consequence. Each voter, then, knowing that they can never be certain how many others withhold their votes, must choose to cast his own vote, this being the only rational course of action. Ergo, your choice to withhold your vote is irrational. | cmv |
I believe Greece should be kicked out of the EU, CMV | Firstly, the state of their economy isn't very relevant for the EU, I believe you are mixing up the EU and the Eurozone here, their economic instability is creating problems for the stability of the Euro, not for that of the EU as a whole. Secondly, many European countries have racist or xenophobic popular parties. Where would you draw the line? The vast majority of Greek political parties have, in fact, strongly condemned the Golden Dawn party and have made it clear that they would not govern in a coalition with them. | cmv |
I believe Greece should be kicked out of the EU, CMV | Why would you kick out a country that imports so much of Western Europe's stuff? It's not just banks that made investments there. After the adoption of the Euro, their comparative wage advantage vanished and all their industries did too. They import so much stuff now. Where do you think Germany's huge trade surplus came from? A hard work ethic? Germans work less than other nationalities because they make money faster. Well, regardless of what you think your politicians would never allow it. Not after your industries complained of how much money they'd lose. | cmv |
I believe Greece should be kicked out of the EU, CMV | They shouldn't be kicked out because they gain from the stability of the currency. The problem with the EU is that Germany is still in it. They gain the benefits of having everyone do what they want without having any downsides. Germany's currency would do fine and it would allow for the currency manipulation of the other countries of the EU and get them out of there severe problems. The other problem is that austerity was the name of the game for many people because they didn't realize the real impacts that it would have. Major voices from the IMF and other large economic institutions have found the major policy decisions did more harm than good. I will get you more information if you desire. I need to head to work though. | cmv |
I'm actually ok with the NSA's actions so far. CMV | The issue is not what they are doing but the fact that they are doing it without any transparency, explanation or need to justify it. There is no warrant process, there is no control to ensure the tools are used responsibly, the entire project was designed to be hidden and completely off limits to scrutiny. It could be open without affecting the projects effectiveness, even if it wasn't it should still be open because democracy requires transparency to function. Transparency here will not hurt the US as a whole, only the NSA because they know what the public will think when they find out what they have been doing. | cmv |
I think homelessness should be illegal. CMV | Using drugs, being drunk in public, being a public nuisance, trespass, prostitution, loitering, urinating in public, and a host of other behaviors are already illegal. It is hard to spend any amount of time on the streets without picking up a police record. Section 8 housing in my area has a 12 - 18 month long waiting list, and that is relatively short for a metro area. Anyone with a record of certain kinds of felonies is barred from using public housing. Housing for the mentally ill is vanishingly small. If you cannot pay rent / mortgage, then it is pretty easy to become homeless. Getting re - housed is much harder. And if you have a record ( which you are suggesting adding on to with new laws ), then the degree of difficulty is raised again. With a conviction, 60 % of employers won't hire you, for example. | cmv |
I think homelessness should be illegal. CMV | This is a decent idea, but is not practical because of the cost required. There were 6, 977, 700 people in prison as of 2011, and this number is increasing every year. ( Source ) There were 633, 782 homeless in 2012. ( Source ) America already has the highest incarceration rate of any country. Here is an article that shows the amount of spending that is already spent on jails and prisoners. I am not saying they should all go to prison, I am just using this to show the cost of your idea. | cmv |
I think homelessness should be illegal. CMV | You've given many reasons why help should be available to the homeless, or even that it should be forced on them ( maybe through somehow declaring them legally incompetent? ) but you haven't given one reason why homelessness per se ( and not the many co - morbid problems ) should be illegal. It doesn't need to be illegal in order to be able to intervene. Maybe you read the suicide CMV thread the other day and now think that making things illegal is the hammer, and all social problems are nails? | cmv |
I think homelessness should be illegal. CMV | In the USA, there are people that are sane, hard working, sober, and educated, but made a mistake / poor choice and are homeless due to the Sex offender registry. For example, in many areas peeing outdoors is enough to get you on the registry for public indecency. Most apartments / neighborhoods / communities don't allow residents that are on the list. They don't need help, they don't need incarceration, they don't need therapy. Your proposal to make homelessness illegal is essentially invoking double jeopardy on people in this specific situation. Punished for the indecent act, and punished for the effects of the first punishment. The government will have the power to put anyone they want in prison. Eminent Domain gives municipalities the right to fairly compensate a person for their property and take ownership of it ( usually for building a highway or something ). The government can take someone's land with almost no notice, then turn around and arrest them for homelessness that instant before he / she can find other arrangements. This is not ethical, and a law that allows this case is not ethical. | cmv |
I believe that all religious institutions in the USA should have their non - profit status revoked and required to pay taxes. CMV | In regards to your view that they should be tax exempt, consider the ability of a singular person to be able to claim tax exemptions based on community service and / or donations. People who wish to give back to their community and support institutions which distribute goods and resources to those who cannot provide for themselves or their families should not be discouraged from doing so through a religious organization. That is largely the basis of religious service, and if they were not tax exempt, many would attempt to do so through another organization. Churches must be able to accept donations in order to pay non - profit employees, and serve the community with any extra resources they bring in. While individuals are eligible for government sponsored benefits, religious institutions are forbidden to receive them. Many churches support social issues such as immigration reform, shelters, food pantries, and other forms of community support. Without the organized charitable support of religious institutions, many of these existing establishments would go | cmv |
I believe that all religious institutions in the USA should have their non - profit status revoked and required to pay taxes. CMV | I agree with you in a sense, but one of the reasons that Church's have a tax exempt status is how much charity work they do. I think that they should be required to submit paper work that shows that they are doing legitimate charitable work instead of just building a larger institution. They could receive larger deductions for charity than businesses or individuals, but they should have to prove that they are actually engaging in acts that help society. | cmv |
I believe that all religious institutions in the USA should have their non - profit status revoked and required to pay taxes. CMV | Here is my comment about this issue when it was asked a few days ago. I hope it has at least a bit of relevance to your view. The people responding to OP had some great arguments that you might like. | cmv |