summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I think private schools should be abolished. CMV. | Flip the question : Why should childless individuals pay for other people's children to go to school? This is different to something like the NHS, because you are always responsible for having a child, but it is not always your fault you are not healthy. If you accept this line of reasoning, all schools should be private. | cmv |
I think private schools should be abolished. CMV. | I live in a heavily Zionist community in the USA. Most of the extremely religious families send their kids to Jewish private schools and yet even so the public schools have dropped a reading from their curriculum because it suggested that the IDF had committed human rights abuses. I would hate to see what would happen if all the really extremist families sent their kids to public schools and were involving themselves in the system. | cmv |
I think private schools should be abolished. CMV. | If you abolished private schools, the rich would just hire private tutors, send kids to extra curricular classes, etc. etc. The bottom line is that families that have resources will always find a way to give their kids as much advantages as possible relative to other kids. Banning private schools would not change any of that. | cmv |
I believe Capitalism is currently the best economic system there is. CMV | saying that capitalism is the best economic system is like saying that scissors is the best choice in paper - rock - scissors. there are a finite number of pure options ; every choice is better than some other option ; every choice is worse than some option. Therefore none of the pure options is always the best. I can provide examples and further justification upon request. | cmv |
I believe Capitalism is currently the best economic system there is. CMV | If you think that capitalism prevents government interference, you're clearly not American. Unless you think that anarcho - capitalism is the only True Capitalism ( TM )? The problem is that you don't define " best. " Pure capitalism is " best " in that it ( theoretically ) optimizes for efficiency - that is, the overall average output per capita is as high as possible. Pure communism is " best " in that it ( theoretically ) optimizes for equality - that is, the highest possible lowest income. I happen to think that the former is beyond despicable, because it does nothing to guarantee sustainable distribution of those goods once they're produced, and naturally concentrates huge amounts of wealth at the top. | cmv |
I believe Capitalism is currently the best economic system there is. CMV | " best economic system that currently exists simply because all of the other economic systems I know about seem too oppressive and give the government too much power. " If freedom from government interference is your yardstick, why not look into anarchism, anarchocapitalism, anarchosocialism, or even gift economy systems? Capitalism tends to need more gov't interference because it favors the previously - funded, those who began with an advantage bias the system. Also, capitalism tends to entropy - profit motive is not the only reward in life, but living in a capitalist system makes other pursuits difficult for many people. | cmv |
I find I'm judgmental about single parents, but wish I weren't. Help me CMV. | It's very similar to finding yourself divorced. You try your best to partner with someone, but you don't have a crystal ball. You love them, trust them, and try... and it fails. More than 50 % of marriages fail, so what does that say about us? That we all have bad judgement, or that marriage is just hard? Kids bring stress into relationships like nothing else. And no one can forsee how you are going to handle it. I know both Moms and Dads who have left their families. It's hard to explain, hard to excuse. | cmv |
I find I'm judgmental about single parents, but wish I weren't. Help me CMV. | How about single dads? You seem to be focused on Mom's having to deal with the consequences of a bad choice like it's a burden being forced upon them and everyone loses. People make mistakes. Not everyone admits even small mistakes. How many embrace their mistakes? How many run toward them instead of away? How many love them selflessly regardless? The people who do are awesome, and deserving of praise. But why might it matter if that person is born with one or two X chromosomes? | cmv |
I find I'm judgmental about single parents, but wish I weren't. Help me CMV. | My question to you would be, why do you see making a bad decision, or several, as a reason to look down on someone? How do you feel about yourself when you make large mistakes? This may be more about you, and your attitude about risk and failure, than about them. | cmv |
I find I'm judgmental about single parents, but wish I weren't. Help me CMV. | What about deaths? What about a partner developing substance abuse or traumatic event? Deciding to have a kid with someone who is judged to be a bad parent / partner is one thing, but having a person change for the worse is something else entirely. This is a problem with assumptions, but cannot be addressed without figuring out why you assume that the decision was bad, how fast and completely change, and how much control people have over when and where people have kids. | cmv |
I believe the United States should dismantle all of its nuclear weapons. CMV. | The nuclear capability of the US offers it the ability to leverage its position in ways that even the greatest powers don't have. As a result they have vast amounts of influence that are gained from carrying these weapons. This influence directly contributes to the stability of the world order and the kind of trade agreements the US has in place. Losing this capability, while not destroying US regional influences, makes it significantly more difficult for the US to have its way. Removal of nuclear weapons from the US arsenal will sure to have an effect on the security of US interests and likely have some effect on the economy. While I understand you want to live in a perfect world without nukes that is simply unrealistic. It only takes one actor to reestablish a program and in that time they can use that leverage to make significant gains. | cmv |
I believe the United States should dismantle all of its nuclear weapons. CMV. | The removal of American nuclear weapons doesn't change anything without the removal of other nuclear weapons. And saying " we destroyed one of our many guns " isn't a way to convince everyone else to disarm themselves as well. After all, weapons aren't exclusively for defense, and removing that justification might get some, but it won't convince those who consider offensive use of weapons to make a change. | cmv |
I believe that it is acceptable and should be legal for people to marry animals. CMV | Marriage is meant to a bond between beings that shows the amount of affection they have to each other. I don't think any creature on earth other than humans really has the ability to comprehend marriage. I know some animals mate for life, but they're still just mating, there's no visible emotion on par with what humans experience when they join together in marriage. | cmv |
I am comfortable in my apathy. CMV | If you are comfortable in your apathy then continue on as you wish, however don't say that activists cause ruckus over trivial matters. SOPA is not trivial, it never became law because of the efforts of those involved. You give credit to gay and minority rights but seem to not understand that there are many different kinds of people who can petition their government for change. The 40 hour work week is the result of worker protests and the lack of SOPA in federal law today is the result of internet users protests, how many other facets of life might this apply to? You and yours benefit from the actions of all different types of activists while you sit back pretending everything will always work out for you. If you don't have a problem living off the victories of others then continue on in your passive ignorance. Positive psychology has described apathy as a result of the individual feeling they don't possess the level of skill required to confront a challenge. Does voting scare you, are you easily manipulated, do you feel like you are not worthy of the rights and ability you have as person to make a difference in this world? You should change your view because it is attitude's like yours that allow the more sinister forces in our society to oppress people socially and economically, your apathy fuels their ability to take advantage of us. | cmv |
I believe that students should be able to have concealed weapons on campus. CMV. | What are the biggest advantages to concealed carry? Well, the presence of the firearm is a deterrent for the use of force. That's it. Is force a primary issue? Are people commonly attacked? Are alternative security plans wholly insufficient? Is there a lack of police or legitimate force on campus? If not, why change? In order for a change, any change, to be justified you have to get more than you lose. It costs people stuff to change, if it's not clear what you gain then it's not justifiable. | cmv |
I believe that students should be able to have concealed weapons on campus. CMV. | If there were no guns in the first place there would be no need for guns for protection. America has seriously the worst gun laws in the world... Allowing students to carry concealed weapons is a massive risk. I would not feel safe on campus where anyone, psychopath or not, was allowed to have a weapon on them. | cmv |
I believe that all drugs should be legalized and government regulated and sold to the public. CMV | playing the devil's advocate here ; how do you plan on testing and persecuting offenders that are on a particular substance. tests, specifically for marijuana are very inaccurate when it comes to gauging if someone is high or not. are you really going to go all in on a cops judgement on this issue for people that are casual users? | cmv |
I believe that all drugs should be legalized and government regulated and sold to the public. CMV | Krokodil, the drug going through Russia right now, puts you through a month of withdrawal pain that's strong enough to make you black out according to a Vice documentary on it. The potential to abuse this is ridiculous, and legalizing it just makes it easier for people to do that. If a seller tricks some idiot into doing it just once it really screws that person over, to the point where it could leave them dead or physically / mentally disabled. I think that's just far far far too much power to put into the hands of the free market. Also, krokodil is one of the worse drugs out there, and it was pretty much invented by a bunch of druggies who couldn't afford heroin. I really don't want to see what happens when corporations start trying to develop the most addictive drugs possible. | cmv |
I believe that all drugs should be legalized and government regulated and sold to the public. CMV | Are you advocating the government be in charge of distribution? If so the purity of certain drugs could be an issue. Heroine needs to be cut down a lot to be safe. Pure heroine will kill you. If the government is selling me heroine, and decides my political activism is annoying, that I am an enemy, would they not have a very convenient way to kill me? They know exactly how pure my supply is, just cut it half as much and watch me OD. Also, decriminalization tends to work better that legalization for harder drugs. It allows dealers and manufacturers to still be prosecuted. Generally possession would not carry a criminal charge, but might come with a recommendation or court order for rehab. | cmv |
I believe future armed conflicts America involves itself in should require a mandatory military service draft. CMV | I am on the same page as many of you by saying drafts are bad. They are and should be as bad as war itself. The unpopularity of a draft, taking people from their lives should be an added layer upon the decision of going to war. I'm not saying Yay Draft! Go Draft Go! | cmv |
I believe that the purchase of medical data gained from Japan's Unit 731 is morally defensible. CMV | If we allow for the use of data obtained from unethical medical experiments, such as those that occurred at Unit 731, it could encourage future experimenters. However, if a potential future Shirō Ishii or Josef Mengele knows that society has a strict policy of refusing to benefit from their work, they may be less likely to undertake their work in the first place. In other words, if we refuse to use the data, it may help people today, but hurt people in the future. It is hard to know which is the better choice, but it certainly may be the case that using the data causes more harm, and would therefore be morally wrong. | cmv |
The two party system is a sham. CMV | When you have too many parties, a plurality can win when there is no majority. You end up having many splintered factions looking out for their own interests and nothing else. You create even more minorities and end up with even fewer people happy. | cmv |
I believe the institution of legal marriage should be abolished. CMV. | I will play partial devil's advocate here. ( I advocate that marriages be created legally simply as a contract between two people ) The institution of marriage is deeply imbedded in our culture. It makes the spouses eachothers next of kin which gives certain legal rights such as signing off on medical procedures when you're unconscious. It also specifies what would happen in the event of a split. Without a legal definition a divorce could be far more complicated. This affects any children in the relationship as well as the spouses. | cmv |
I believe the institution of legal marriage should be abolished. CMV. | So... all marriages that currently exist should lose all legal recognition, resulting in couples paying entirely different taxes, losing all legal benefits, and having no official recognition of their marriage other than what some church says? Also, the movement to legalize marriage of gays isn't going to be solved by completely eliminating the end goal. The relationship between government and marriage is one that should be reformed, yes, but not severed completely. | cmv |
I think that the gay rights struggle is really a distraction from actually important issues. CMV | " Actually important " is subjective. Every time I see someone starting a fundraiser for research on how to cure some rare non - fatal disease that their child has I don't wonder why they are not starting a fundraiser for something " more important " like cancer or AIDS research. You're not wrong that the gay rights struggle distracts from other issues... you're wrong in thinking you have the right to single - handedly decide what is and is not important in the world. | cmv |
I think that the gay rights struggle is really a distraction from actually important issues. CMV | How can you say that some humans being denied the same rights as others is not an important issue? Say that black people were unable to get married, they are technically a minority right? So would you say that issue is unimportant? The basic denial of human rights to a particular group of humans is extremely important and cannot be ignored. | cmv |
I think that the gay rights struggle is really a distraction from actually important issues. CMV | The'importance'is irrelevant. We have'all men are created equal'in our highest legal document. We should be ashamed, and we should fix it where we fall short of that idea. In my personal life, I would never blow off a serious moral duty to make something right in favor of getting a head start on some project that I need done for work, regardless of any disparate economic output of the two. I personally don't want my country to do that either. | cmv |
I think that the gay rights struggle is really a distraction from actually important issues. CMV | The government of the United States provides fewer rights to approximately one - tenth of its population based on what they are, not what they do. This is, very simply, disgraceful for the world's premier republic, one that prides itself on freedom and liberty. This problem has an obvious solution and can easily be solved, while the other issues you mentioned are more complicated and would take much longer to come to a consensus about. | cmv |
I think that the gay rights struggle is really a distraction from actually important issues. CMV | How I think of it is that the government exists in order to govern and protect everyone in the country. They don't only exist to budget or discuss war, etc., but as the representatives responsible for protecting the rights of the citizens. The government can't only focus on military, as an example, because there are other issues that affect the citizens. Rather than thinking about it as time being taken away from other issues, I think about it more as one issue that deserves some division of the government's time and efforts. The government isn't putting other issues on the back burner and only focusing on one issue at a time, rather many movements and issues are being discussed every day and are at different points in their progress. | cmv |
I think that the gay rights struggle is really a distraction from actually important issues. CMV | The major flaw in your argument is that you're assuming that these issues are mutually exclusive. The fact is, these different issues - from the economy to gay rights to education - can be argued, legislated, and voted on concurrently. If you came here to have your view changed to gay rights being an important issue, there's another argument to consider. As Edmund Burke said, " All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men don'thing ". Following that logic, we see that inaction on the part of legislators and the courts means harm to part of the population, and in your own view, rights being violated. Considering that problems can be solved concurrently and this is an issue where inaction truly does cause harm, the gay rights struggle should definitely have a seat at the table. | cmv |
I think that the gay rights struggle is really a distraction from actually important issues. CMV | I think the breakdown is that " important " is in many ways such a relative term. I'm not gay, so gay marriage is not important to me in the sense that the rights or lack of rights for gay people to marry has zero direct consequences to me. On the other hand, I highly value freedom and equal rights, so to make gay marriage illegal flies in the face of how I think our country ought to be. So the issue has great importance to me. Also, your argument assumes that we are incapable of tackling more than one issue at a time. In the middle of the gay rights talk, Obama submitted a budget compromise to Congress, and we have generals weighing in on how to handle the North Korea situation. | cmv |
I think that the gay rights struggle is really a distraction from actually important issues. CMV | Here's a few reasons gay marriage is important : 1. Political action is not a zero - sum game. Making progress on gay rights doesn't necessarily distract from other issues. 2. In the context of the rights of all sexual minorities ( trans people, poly people, etc. ) this is important as a stepping stone. One reason it's so important is because there are rights trapped in marriage and marriage is the only way you can choose adult family. 3. It forces cultural conservatives to make a bunch of ridiculous arguments in public and discredits their ideology. | cmv |
I think that the gay rights struggle is really a distraction from actually important issues. CMV | I think it's poorly or improperly named. There is no issue of RIGHTS being debated. They have the same rights any heterosexual has. Marriage is not a right, and if it was they have the same right as I would to marry someone of the opposite sex. I don't have to right to marry someone of the same sex either. Religions have the right to dictate the requirements of their own following. There are beliefs inherent in the religious system, otherwise there would be no such thing as religion. The question is whether anyone has the RIGHT to a civil union. Marriage is typically a religious affair. Now, is it a right, or must certain conditions be met? | cmv |
I think forced military service is morally reprehensible, and I see nothing wrong with draft - dodging. CMV | If you are a citizen of a nation that comes with both benefits and costs. Part of the costs include taxes and another part of the cost ( in most countries at least ) is that if the nation goes to war / needs to be defended then people able to fight should fight. If you are willing to take benefits of citizenship but not willing to pay the costs if they are needed, then you should have left the country before the war started. Staying in the country when it is convient for you is immoral. | cmv |
I think forced military service is morally reprehensible, and I see nothing wrong with draft - dodging. CMV | Draft dodging is much easier when you have the resourses and privilege to do so ( "... it ain't me, I ain't no millionare's / senator's / military son! ) If we accept that dodging the draft is morally acceptable ( but still illegal ), we must acknowlege that the only draftees who will be able to leave the country or fabricate a reason for deferrment will be the wealthy and well - connected. If the reason to accept draft dodging is to show disapproval for war, shifting the burden of the conflict on to the poor and disaffected only makes the problem worse. Those without privilege already lack the political capital to influence national policy : these people already lack the resourses to influence whether a war takes place, and if we accept draft dodging they'll be the only ones who will be forced to fight it. | cmv |
I think forced military service is morally reprehensible, and I see nothing wrong with draft - dodging. CMV | The people that have benefited from living in that country have a responsibility to protect its interests ( and by proxy their own ). By dodging the draft, they are effectively taking a dump on any and all benefits they received in one way or another from that country. Had clean water growing up? Decent medical care? All those are benefits that one should gladly fight for, even in an unjust war. | cmv |
As an American taving travel around the world, I believe Western Europe is a better place to live than the United States. - CMV | Well, the fact of the matter is that there are different sets of values in different cultures, and there are people who do better in a Western European environment rather than an American one. But I do feel the need to contest some things. The fact of the matter is that the cost of health care wasn't free, but only hidden from you. The race was an issue, but the relative value placed on it differs and you were shielded form a lot of the connotations because of the national affiliation ( ethnicity, culture, nationality, and religion are far more closely associated in Europe than the United States ). Transportation that works there doesn't work here, not because of current culture but fundamentally different scales and patterns of development. If you really want to go then you should, I am just not sure that you really appreciate the extent of the variation in America. There is no American culture, there are six or eight ( depending upon how things are defined ) major regional sub - cultures that are distinct from one another but close enough to be representative of the hypothetical " American " culture. It might be that by experiencing Atlanta versus Austin, San Francisco versus Portland, New York versus Philadelphia, or Chicago versus St. Louis you could find something undeniably American that also hits the same standards. TL ; DR America isn't for everyone, and Western Europe has advantages, but there are many " Americas " and judging all of them on one standard while viewing the full variety of Western Europe is an unbalanced standard. | cmv |
I think that being a teenage parent is wrong. CMV | My grandmother was 19 and married when my mom was born. My mom grew up loved and adored, and is a successful lawyer with multiple advanced degrees. Age is a number, and has no bearing on how mature someone is. | cmv |
I think that being a teenage parent is wrong. CMV | Adolescence is a pretty recent construct - - 100 years or so ago, 17 - year - olds were pretty much just adults. Are they less likely to be financially stable? Sure. But so are people who graduated university into a recession. Are they less mature? They can be, but no less than my then - 30 - year - old ex who " crashed " with me for five months instead of looking for a job. | cmv |
I think unmarried fathers should have the right to absolve themselves of responsibility to their offspring. Please CMV. | I'll take a sideswing at this. This only works if the mother agrees with abortion. If she doesn't, but doesn't want the child, then she's stuck bringing up the child herself, with no financial help. This pushes the unfairness in the system from unwilling fathers who believe in abortion, to unwilling mothers who don't - it doesn't remove it. There's also the argument that when one of the primary motivators for using contraception is removed for one of the sexes, this will automatically result in increased pregnancy rates and more unwanted pregnancies. In an ideal world, this would not be the case, but there are a lot of young fools out there. | cmv |
I think unmarried fathers should have the right to absolve themselves of responsibility to their offspring. Please CMV. | The morning after pill does not always work. Abortion can cause you to be infertile and depending on the type has many possible side effects. Adoption means that woman has to carry a child for 9 months, spend a few weeks in the hospital and probably miss a little more time from work after that. All the options available to a woman will effect her life in some way. If the condom breaks, all parties are responsible for the consequences. How would you feel if the condom broke or you chose not to wear one, and the abortion caused her to become infertile? It wouldn't change your life at all unless you were still with her, but she would have to live with it for the rest of her hers. Maybe even miss out on a great relationship because that guy wants to be a dad. | cmv |
I think unmarried fathers should have the right to absolve themselves of responsibility to their offspring. Please CMV. | The biggest problem with this is that it is going to affect the woman's choice to abort or not. Unless she's rich or lives in a country with very good social security her choice to abort or keep will no longer be a free choice. Money is already a big issue, this would make it much worse. And what if he says he wants it and then changes his mind when it's born and she's stuck with a child she can't support? Sorry, I changed my mind our kid will have to go on welfare? | cmv |
I think unmarried fathers should have the right to absolve themselves of responsibility to their offspring. Please CMV. | The problem with this is if the father decides he wants to opt out after the child is born, or after it's too late to get an abortion. It'd be too tricky to enforce, especially given the fact that most women take a while to realize they're pregnant. Not all women have equal access to birth control / pregnancy tests. Also this may, in some strange cases, serve as an incentive for a woman to " not realize " she's pregnant until it's too late to get an abortion. The only way around all of this would be to make a man make a statement ( notarized if we're talking the legal possibility of this ) immediately post - coitus saying he doesn't agree to financially support the potential baby. And that's absurd. | cmv |
I think unmarried fathers should have the right to absolve themselves of responsibility to their offspring. Please CMV. | The reason why noncustodial parents have to financially support their children is not to punish them or to equalize the contributions of each parent, but to ensure that the child is adequately provided for. In many instances, the financial resources of a single parent will not be adequate to raise a child. In those cases, there are only a few options : 1 ) let the child starve / go without clothing / schooling / etc. 2 ) have the state provide assistance 3 ) have the absent parent provide assistance. We have decided that it is better to require the absent parent to provide assistance than to let the child go without or to require the taxpayer to assist. In both of those cases, a completely innocent party has to suffer. In essence, you should ask not whether it is fair that the father has to provide support while the mother can choose to abort / adopt, but whether it is fair to make you and me support the child instead of the father. | cmv |
If you are an adult and you don't report a sexual assault, you are being extremely selfish and immoral. | Semi Devil's Advocate It's difficult to argue that it isn't selfish, but it may not be immoral. To me, an action is immoral if it directly harms someone. Not reporting a sexual assault may indirectly lead to harm, but the person who directly causes the harm is still the assaulter, not the person who didn't report the assault. Only the assaulter caused direct harm, so only the assaulter is behaving immorally. | cmv |
If you are an adult and you don't report a sexual assault, you are being extremely selfish and immoral. | We live in a victim blaming culture. A lot of our social structures don't want victims to report their sexual assault ( see : rape culture ). Don't get me wrong. You still should report sexual assault. But if you don't, it's not because you're'selfish and immoral'it's because of rape culture. | cmv |
I think law enforcement officers should be held to a higher standard when they break the law themselves. CMV. | One concern I would have with your boldfaced statement is that there is plenty of gray area in acts of questionable legality. There are certain acts that are explicitly legal for LEOs that are illegal for civilians. On the same note, there are situations that would require a LEO to perform an otherwise illegal act in the line of duty. | cmv |
I dont think a'head of state'serves any political purpose in commonwealth realms. I think the role should be taken on by the Prime Minister. CMV | Then I don't think you quite understand the role of the governor general. Structurally speaking the GG is the supreme executive authority in the nation. They might not serve a'political'purpose in the sense of'political debate ', but essentially the system in place in commonwealth countries is a democracy structured to deal with having an executive monarch. The structure in place in the US is essentially a republic that looks a lot like the structure of England at the time of the revolution, except with a President fulfilling the position of supreme executive head, and elected ( oh so indirectly ). If, for example, Australia became a republic, you wouldn't need a president in place of the GG, but you do need a structure that is going to deal with the powers currently resident in the GG, for example dealing with deadlocked parliaments, the formation of government, etc.. | cmv |
I dont think a'head of state'serves any political purpose in commonwealth realms. I think the role should be taken on by the Prime Minister. CMV | I'm going to talk about the British Royal Family. I don't know enough about what, for instance, the Russian president gets up to. 1. The royal family make a profit in Britain. Source 2. It is a source of moral comfort to many people, especially those who are older. People feel honoured and uplifted to meet the Queen. 3. If the Royal family go to official events and open stuff, it saves people with more valuable time from doing it. 4. They can be useful in diplomacy and trade missions, especially to areas like the Middle East where they're quite big on monarchy. 5. It is possible that William or Charles would refuse to sign into law something like ID cards, which politicians would push through but weren't in the country's best interest. Even if they're deposed because of it, they've served a useful function. 6. The Queen is heard of the Church of England : someone has to fill that role. | cmv |
I don't think that the second amendment protects individual rights to own firearms. CMV | In a constitutional context, the Bill of Rights deals with personal freedom. Logically it does not make sense for the 2nd amendment to be an exception. In a historical context, many of framers and founding fathers are documented as believing in the personal right to bear arms. George Mason, Noah Webster, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson all have good quotes concerning this. Please read The Federalist # 46 and the 2nd Amendment ratification debates ( here is the wiki summary for them ). | cmv |
I think investing and gambling are similar and should have the same laws. CMV. | The difference is that when you make the bet, your risk is performing two very different actions. In casino gambling, your risk is sitting on a roulette square doing absolutely nothing except being risk. Whether you win or lose is up to chance, but heavily weighted against you. In investment, your risk is translated into business capital which allows the business you've invested in to carry out their operations. If you lose your investment, it means the company you chose to bet on was not a fit in the economic landscape, meaning you misread whatever indicators you were looking at that made you think that was a good business in which to invest. If you " win, " then your investment was used well by the company and they are increasing their value in the market. Depending on what they do, this could have any meaning imaginable - if it was a medical research company, your " gamble " might have financed a cure for cancer. So investment is useful to everyone, while casino gambling is useful to casinoes / tax collectors only. | cmv |
I beleive that rights are intrinsic and self evident, they are not granted by any other party. CMV. Impossible mode. | Simple answer : where is the objective morality coming from? What created it? Who enforces it? What proof do you have of its existence? In all, at some point morality turns on blind faith whether religious or not. | cmv |
I beleive that rights are intrinsic and self evident, they are not granted by any other party. CMV. Impossible mode. | I think you have some circular reasoning going on here. Certain freedoms are inherent rights because we all have them and any attempt to take them away is immoral. It is immoral to attempt to take away certain freedoms because they are inherent rights. Where in this argument are you deriving which things are rights? Here is your post with some words changed to make it sillier, but the logic left intact : I believe that all humans have dog ownership, they and only they have ultimate control over their dog and what the time energy and resources their dog produces. No other party can give or take rights away from that person. Any infringement on dog ownership is immoral. Any use of coercion against a person's dog is immoral. | cmv |
I think adults over 18 should be able to legally purchase and smoke Marijuana. CMV. | I would agree - to an extent. A governments responsibility is to the people it serves. If the people demand legalization of something, then the government needs to provide that. BUT : The government is also responsible for the wellbeing of it's people. If a drug ( not marijuana per - se ) is excessively harmful - then it's legal sale needs to be banned. HOWEVER : You could use this argument to ban tobacco sales, but consider that for all the harm cigarettes can cause, the tax revenue made from their sale can be used to offset the costs associated with their damage, with the extra revenue used for the good of all people. I remember reading that alot of smokers die young enough so that there is no need to take a pension, or require excessive health care. So my argument to you would be : Do you think that the potential harm caused by the legalization of the marijuanas are offset by the benefits from taxed sales, and improvement of quality of life? | cmv |
I think organ donation should be an opt - out system and if you do you also opt - out of receiving donated organs, should you need them. CMV | I agree with your second point but the first point would send a dangerous new precedent. Suddenly you have now established the government has full ownership of your body. That goes against the very nature of the citizen, establishment relationship. The constitution set up the idea that the government works for the people. We have suddenly entered this age where we are being told to believe that the opposite is true. Its not. | cmv |
I think organ donation should be an opt - out system and if you do you also opt - out of receiving donated organs, should you need them. CMV | Honestly, I don't want to change your view. I am not an organ donor yet, simply because I have the paperwork sitting on my desk waiting to be sent in with my health card renewal. I think if it was an opt - out system, there would be a lot more organs available for transplant. Of course, there are other complications to this which may make this harder to accomplish. Would parents be responsible for the decision - making process in the cases of their children? What rules would there be regarding opting in after having already opted out? | cmv |
I think organ donation should be an opt - out system and if you do you also opt - out of receiving donated organs, should you need them. CMV | There are two questions here so let me take a shot at each. 1. Opt - in / out system Why should the government immeadiatly get to own my body the moment I die rather then respect my wishes and the wishes of my family. The reason people have to opt - in is because the state needs your consent before it can claim your body. The state cannot sieze my car to give to a meals on wheels program why should it beable to sieze my body? The idea of an opt - out system is based on the premise that I have to give consent to keep my own body in my family's posession. It is far safer to not grant the government the precident that your body is by default the governments property. 2. Recieving Organs What if we were to extend this concept to other things. Should I only beable to be protected by the military if I have served in the military? Should I only beable to by insulin if I work at a chemical plant that makes insulin? | cmv |
I think DAs should be paid less than Public Defenders. CMV | District attorneys and public defenders make the same amount of money because they are both employed by the same company, the government. Generally, the structure and advancement potential in each office mirror each other. Therefore, your premise is flawed from the beginning. Moving beyond that, others have mentioned the burden of proof required by a prosecutor to successful run their cases. Furthermore, the district attorney's office handles more cases in total volume ( but I don't know of the figures regarding cases per attorney ). And the last point, while you mention that district attorneys use their office to launch into political careers, the percentage of attorneys who do so is rather low because there are not enough positions to fill for the number of attorneys in that office. On the other hand, public defenders are notorious for leaving the office to work for a private defense firm because there are many private firms looking for experienced litigators and the pay there is significantly higher. | cmv |
I think the world should end North Korea. CMV | I'm not fully convinced either way, but there's a good argument to be made against such attack : You could say the same thing about a lot of countries in the past - like Soviet Union under Stalin, or China under Mao, or various petty dictatorships in Africa. Stalin and Mao were also - as you say - " literally as bad as Hitler ". And all such countries somehow managed to move away from totalitarianism eventually, usually after death of the leader, without any war. Meanwhile our track record of bringing freedom and democracy with wars is less than stellar. Usually millions die, foreigners withdraw, another dictator takes over. On the other hand - all these examples were non - hereditary dictatorships, there's a reason why pragmatists who are good at party politics tend to follow crazy ideologues. For hereditary dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Syria there's much less improvement typically. That's why everybody expected North Korea to change under new regime, but it didn't, twice. | cmv |
I think the world should end North Korea. CMV | I think no one is attacking North Korea because countries are worried about the after math. Who wants to take care of refugees and repair NK's government? Who gets the land? How many people will we lose and how many more mouths to feed? Since NK is not taking immediate action we can formulate a plan, but honestly I don't even know if anyone is making a plan. | cmv |
I think the world should end North Korea. CMV | I will play devils advocate. The scenario I think that will likely play out if we do decide to end NK is mass suicides. Imagine being told your entire life that your ruler is a supreme God and the entire earth was created by / for him. I think you see something along the lines of when the Japanese surrendered and the Emperor per US military ( I believe on McArthurs ) demanded he denounce himself as a god. Now I dont have the stats for Japanese people who died by their own hand. But that fact that So many during the war thought they were dieing for a God / Emperor, gives a little credence to my theory that if we end NK, then a bunch of people will probably take their own life. Hell, if NK felt they were going to be attack THEY might even tell their own populace to off themselves. Like a Jim Jones situation. TL ; DR we shouldnt end NK, because we are unaware of the social and societal impact it would have on actual NK citizens. | cmv |
I think the world should end North Korea. CMV | I'm going to take a different angle. I don't know much about the situation, but, from what I understand, KJ seems pretty crazy. And crazy people who are paranoid about foreign countries trying to take over their country do two things, 1 ) Build bunkers 30 meters below the ground, and 2 ) Design passive defense systems. No weapon or human force will be able to instantly take out the bunkers, but even if they could, you still have the passive defense systems. Without someone to entering 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 42 into an archaic computer every 108 minutes, something really bad is going to happen. | cmv |
I think the world should end North Korea. CMV | The world doesn't have the right to end north Korea. Only the North Koreans have that right. And they have the possibility to do so. Many countries have gone through dictatorships and they usually end with bloody revolution. That is the way this should end. the people of North Korea are not children, they don't need our protection. Let them find their own way in the world. | cmv |
I think freedom is an overrated value. CMV. | Whether I can change your view depends on your values. What is " good "? Perhaps happiness and mental health qualify as indicators of good for you. If that's the case, perceived lack control over one's life is strongly correlated with depression ( example study - PDF ). Extrapolating from that, the perception that the government is acting as a nanny is likely to reduce happiness and increase depression in the population to a much greater degree than one might expect. Half - gallon servings of soda won't really make very many people happy, but banning them in a very visible manner might contribute to depression. | cmv |
I see nothing admirable or desirable about having patriotism. CMV. | I'd imagine it's similar to wearing the jersey of your favorite sports team, or wearing a shirt of your favorite music band. You like something, and you want to publicly express that like. Some people really like their country, and they want to express it. I'm not sure if this answers your question, but it might help you to understand why people do it. And patriotism isn't just about liking your country, it's also means caring about your country, which motivates you to protect it and make it a better place to live. No one willingly risks their life to defend something that they don't care about ( unless they are being paid ). Caring about something enough to protect it and make it better can be admirable. Patriotism is just that, but with one's own country. | cmv |
I see nothing admirable or desirable about having patriotism. CMV. | Patriotism is the belief that your country is better than every other country because you were born there. I want you to think about that for a moment, I want you to think about how dumb everyone feels compared to yourself, how often people do things that are obviously wrong. Think about how much better you are than everyone else, think about how handsome you are infront of the mirror. What, are you saying you're an inferiour man? Flex a little infront of the mirror again, yeah, I bet you're feeling the patriotism coming on now aren't you? | cmv |
I see nothing admirable or desirable about having patriotism. CMV. | You can be a patriot and love your country like the southern rednecks that you're seeing, that only see " WE'RE NUMBER 1!!! " and an MURICA '! Or, you can be a patriot and love your country like a parent loves their child, they acknowledge their flaws and work with them to improve. patriotism is what you make of it in this case. | cmv |
I believe the obese aren't entitled to the same accommodations we make for the disabled. | The problem is, when they make accommodations for special needs ( pregnancy, wounded vet, etc. ) there is always someone who will come along and take advantage of it and ruin it for the people who need it. Also, what is the motivation to lose weight and be healthier if people just make accommodations for your poor choices? While a wounded vet may have chosen to go to war, it wasn't for a selfish reason like someone who chooses another slice of pizza, therefore, allowing the vet to continue to enjoy life the best they can isn't enabling him. We're not doing anyone any favors by continuing to make excuses for poor diet choices. | cmv |
I believe the obese aren't entitled to the same accommodations we make for the disabled. | This situation you listed is really up to the event owner. He wasn't required to make special accommodations for them. Its the same thing as those " pregnancy " parking spots. Or " wounded vet " parking spots. Not trying to compare being super obese with either one of those, but they are, essentially, a choice made by whoever owns the place. | cmv |
I believe the obese aren't entitled to the same accommodations we make for the disabled. | What if someone blows their legs off in some stupid fireworks prank gone wrong? That's their choice and their own stupidity. Do we need to segregate the disabled and make the ones that are disabled by choice not have the accommodations that the ones who are disabled by accident / nature get to have? Whether it's by their own choice or not, they are human beings and deserve to be treated as such. Human decency and compassion is the mentality we should have instead of doing everything in our power to make sure people don't have things that WE feel they aren't entitled to. | cmv |
I believe the obese aren't entitled to the same accommodations we make for the disabled. | I don't think anyone has pointed this out yet, but they may have requested seating for reasons that were entirely or partially unrelated to their obesity. They may have had chronic pain or some variety of invisible mobility impairment. This is something I force myself to remember every time a situation like this comes up. Obese person using a scooter at the grocery store, someone with a disabled placard in their car who doesn't " look disabled. " There are too many other possibilities that you can't know. | cmv |
I believe the obese aren't entitled to the same accommodations we make for the disabled. | America doesn't have high obesity because Americans have low willpower ; not unless something managed to sap all our willpower in the last couple decades somehow. Obesity is a systemic problem that should be solved systemically. Ideally, we should be doing things like stopping government subsidy of corn, which has caused the food we've all gotten fat on to be so cheap and easy, but in the meantime it seems irresponsible not to reasonably accomadate the obese. Consider that our system also drives people to be poor, and you probably recognize that and don't think, " Our system shouldn't make allowances for the poor, they deserve what they have. " | cmv |
I believe the obese aren't entitled to the same accommodations we make for the disabled. | I don't think people get fat by choice. As many people here would agree that addiction is a disease, one can also be addicted to food like any other substance. Even worse is that people have to eat to survive, and thus have many more opportunities to binge. If you don't expect drug addicts to simply quit cold turkey whenever they want, should people addicted to food somehow be able to do so? | cmv |
[ CMV ] I don't think hiring a white person over a black person who is equally qualified to be racism. | Define racism. In a legal context, yes it would be racism. If a company has bee found that they consistently discriminate against equally qualified black people, they can be taken to court and sued for a lot of money for racial discrimination. | cmv |
I don't think atheists can have objectively meaningful lives | Okay. So let's postulate that there's some sort of deity who can determine, objectively, whether our lives are or are not meaningful. If such a deity exists, it exists objectively, whether you believe in it or not. So whether you're an atheist has no bearing on whether this deity judges you. That means as long as faith in the divine isn't a hard prerequisite for having an objectively meaningful life ( and we have no reason to believe it is ), atheists have the same shot at a meaningful life as any other person, even given a " lawgiver ". Now, let's postulate an opposite assumption : that there is no such deity, and according to your premise, there is no objective meaning to life. In this scenario, no person's life - - theist or not - - has objective meaning as you define it. In both cases, there is no relation between atheism and lack of objective meaning to one's life. | cmv |
I don't think atheists can have objectively meaningful lives | Everything is pointless objectively. Meaning and reasons are things we invented. So I can't change your opinion on that unless maybe it was to try to convince you that deists also can't live objectively meaningful lives either, since the deity that they rely on for meaning is subjective as well. Deists are also granting their lives their own subjective meaning, they just externalize it. There are laws though. They arise out of the nature of the universe, and the nature of life, and the nature of our species and it's survival strategy. As a result, what we do is not random at all. Our actions are the result of physics, evolution, social strategy, our knowledge and experience, the circumstances we are in, choices we make, and any number of factors we are not able to perceive. Also, if all meaning is subjective ( those stars whose light is a billion years old when you see them don't " mean " anything except to you while you look at them ) then feeling subjectively that something is meaningful actually does grant it meaning. Relative to the viewpoint of others it might not be, but the meaning is still there while you are granting it. | cmv |
I don't think atheists can have objectively meaningful lives | The law giver is simply something that one believes in which gives one a sense of meaning. A belief in humanism provides the same. But both cases are subjective. There is no such thing as objective truth, because there is no such thing as an objective perspective. Passing responsibility for meaning up one level just creates an infinite regress anyway. If some Deity provides your existence with meaning, but there is no meaning to that Deity's existence then we're still going to bottom out on meaninglessness. So then we need a Deity for our Deity to provide Him with meaning. If we define that Deity's existence as being inherently meaningful, then why not just simplify it and define our own existence as inherently meaningful? Meaning is where you find it. | cmv |
As a counterpoint to a post from yesterday : I think that colonialism has ruined every society it has come into contact with. CMV | China and areas of east Asia seems to have ended up better, or in the same position. Especially areas of heavy colonization, such as Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore. The area and societies certainly changed, but using that alone as evidence of ruining a society turns the question into a tautology. Of course it changed due to an influx of people. How could it not? So this leads me to ask, what standards are you using for whether a society was ruined? | cmv |
As a counterpoint to a post from yesterday : I think that colonialism has ruined every society it has come into contact with. CMV | An obvious example of successful colonization is that of most of Europe, by the Roman Empire. Literacy was introduced and education advanced tremendously, as did material culture. After the initial conquests, violence and war became far rarer under the Pax Romana. Local elites were quickly Romanized and incorporated into a broad cosmopolitan class. There was no racial animus ; someone from a remote province might be teased, but this was snobbishness, not racism. | cmv |
I think that according to current standards, homosexuality / Tran sexuality must be considered mental illnesses. Please CMV | You're right that both personality disorders and homosexuality imply a certain permanent state of being outside traditional social expectations. Personality disorders are notoriously tough to define, but they're usually associated with a certain lack of important social or behavioral skills. Antisocial personality disorder ( psychopathy ) is characterized by a lack of ability to empathize. Moreover, personality disorders are pervasive - - they affect all of a person's social interactions, whereas homosexuality only affects sexual relationships and desires - - family relationships, for example, shouldn't be affected at all ( except indirectly through stigma ). Homosexuality just doesn't come with that sort of cognitive disability. There's nothing that a " normal " person can do that a LGBT person cannot do. All of the disadvantage comes from social stigma. | cmv |
I think that according to current standards, homosexuality / Tran sexuality must be considered mental illnesses. Please CMV | It looks like left - handedness might also qualify as a mental illness under the definition you're using. It's not statistically " normal, " and it can cause problems for a person living in a right handed society. If you look at the history of left - handedness, in the past it was generally believed to be something awful. Rather than an illness, don't modern folks look at left - handedness as a natural variation of the Human condition? Gender - sex variance such as homosexuality, transsex and intersex are natural variants, like left - handedness. Since gender - sex variances have resisted aggressive social efforts to eradicate them over thousands of years, they appear to be programmed into our biology and have some value for our species. For a more thorough discussion : Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development - Rice, et al, The Quarterly Review of Biology Vol. 87, No. 4, December 2012 | cmv |
I don't believe homosexuals should be able to marry or adopt ( with priority ). CMV. | 1 Most cultures define marriage differently and marriage has been an adapting idea for as long as it has existed. I can see your a religious person which is why you don't mind giving them the idea of marriage but in a different word. But as you said its the title they're after. The title and position would be different if they were given'civil partnership'as compared to marriage, marriage has a more powerful meaning of love between the two. Honestly I see more straights screwing up marriage than gays, until I see a source for this I can't really argue this. Humans define words, so even though you see it more in a biblical sense, my definition is more of the joining of two loved ones. 2 As I said, I've seen some horrible heterosexual marriages and I believe that the adopted child should go to the best fit family, why should a heterosexual couple get first treatment over a shown responsible gay couple? To state the record I'm not gay nor are my close friends. | cmv |
I don't believe homosexuals should be able to marry or adopt ( with priority ). CMV. | traditions are highly overrated. We give so much meaning to marriage when in reality marriage is nothing more than a contract signed between two parties, resulting in the merger of their assets ( so romantic ). Complimentary genitals has nothing to do with marriage, nor is procreation its intended purpose. Also there's no evidence to indicate that a child will be worse off with a same - sex couple for parents. The most beneficial thing for a child is to be brought up in a household with supportive, nurturing parents, regardless of their gender. Like with heterosexual couples, there are going to be same - sex couples that make great parents, and ones that don't. And in the case of the ones that don't, their sexual orientation is not a defining factor. | cmv |
I don't believe homosexuals should be able to marry or adopt ( with priority ). CMV. | Marriage, at its core, was a monetary agreement. In the past, if the wife loses her husband, she was stuck with his brother... There are some other odd and end rules that I can't recall at the moment. Also... concubines, slaves, etc. were also part of the sexual dynamic within marriage, so polyamory is in the traditional form. Complementary genitals be damned. As far as the adoption thing, that is purely your opinion. All mothers and fathers have potential to abuse or love their children... whether or not they have two of each, one of each, or a dozen! | cmv |
I don't believe homosexuals should be able to marry or adopt ( with priority ). CMV. | I'm only going to comment on your adoption view. While I may not change your view about gays being on a level playing field, I think I can change your view about process and priority. I believe a birth parent should be able to decide whether their child is adopted by a gay couple or a straight couple. I understand there may be extenuating circumstances—abandoned children or deceased parents—but until the child is adopted, his or her well - being should be at the discretion of the biological parent. And the parent should be able to say, " I don't want my child adopted by a gay couple " or " I don't care if my child is adopted by a gay couple " or similar sentiments. | cmv |
I don't believe homosexuals should be able to marry or adopt ( with priority ). CMV. | 1. As other people have pointed out, marriage has been defined as many different things, so no need to go on about that. However, " I don't understand why homosexuals demand the title of " marriage " " : There was an article that perfectly displays one of the reasons why they want the right to marry, this one, I recommend reading it. In it, a man was dragged away from the hospital bed of his partner because his partner's family didn't recognise them as being a couple and wanted him taken away. They also didn't recognise his power of attorney over his partner, the nurse not even looking at it and probably won't be reprimanded for it. Marriage is a lot more than just a relationship status or title, there are hundreds of laws that are enacted based on that legal status. The power of attorney, inheritance of property after his partner dies and then tax benefits. If his partner dies, the family is likely to get everything - - if their house, car or anything like that is in the deceased partners name, it's possible that they lose it all to the family whom may not even be on speaking terms if they're biggots. I'll have to find the threads on the article I mentioned above because there was some good discussion covering what I mentioned in greater detail. | cmv |
I don't think I have an obligation to my child to provide financial support for post - secondary education. CMV | While you're technically right, it's a really nice thing to do for your kid. I mean... just open a newspaper and you'll read about how much debt kids walk out of college with. My girlfriend has about $ 60k debt. Think of all the places you could go and all the homes you could buy with $ 60k. I'm graduating with no debt, but I've had to stretch my 4 year degree out over the course of 9 years to swing that. It's crushing. And she's got 6 months after graduation before she has to start paying that off. | cmv |
I don't think I have an obligation to my child to provide financial support for post - secondary education. CMV | What if your child turns into a stand - out in terms of intelligence? What if she ends up being able to benefit from a top - tier school? If this happens, would you say your child would be better off if she didn't have to worry about money issues and taking up a part - time job when she just wants to pursue her academic career? Furthermore, what if college tuition continues increasing to record heights, and assuming you're a middle - income earner, your child simply cannot afford a good College without going into massive debt? I'm a junior in high school, I live in a trailer park and my parents are quite poor. My parents are going to give me a big $ 0 in support, and I'm okay with that. However, if I didn't have federal aid and potential for scholarships, I have no idea what I'd do. I'd imagine the same sense of security comes from parental aid for the middle class. | cmv |
Vegetarians ( and the like minded ) are being hypocritical if they are Pro - Choice. CMV | If I understand correctlly, being a vegitarian is often due to the mistreatment of animals, which would mean that a vegitarian would primarily be against the suffering, not just life. It can also easily be believed ( it's a matter of opinion ) that the total suffering during an abortion can ( and remember, can is all that matters since, as has been pointed out, pro choice! = pro abortion ) cause less overall suffering than having the child. Even if it is put up for adoption, I have been informed that birth can be painful. | cmv |
Vegetarians ( and the like minded ) are being hypocritical if they are Pro - Choice. CMV | Eating animal products causes unnecessary suffering. Throwing doctors and women in prison for preforming or having abortions also causes unnecessary suffering ( without actually preventing women from having abortions ). I am against unnecessary suffering, so I am vegan and pro - choice. | cmv |
Vegetarians ( and the like minded ) are being hypocritical if they are Pro - Choice. CMV | I'm a vegetarian because I don't want animals to die through unnatural, torturous ways ( i. e. factory farms. ) I even go hunting and fishing because I know that's how the natural world works : food chains, predators / prey, etc. Someone would be completely insane to actually be against the death of animals, because ecosystems would be completely out of balance. On the other hand, there are already way too many humans on the planet, so why would we want more of them, especially if they are destined to live in sub - par circumstances? | cmv |
Vegetarians ( and the like minded ) are being hypocritical if they are Pro - Choice. CMV | I am a vegan because I am against unnecessary suffering. Not everything that is alive can suffer, a plant for example cannot suffer as it is not sentient, even though it is alive. Similarly I am not against abortion as an early fetus ( when abortions happen ), while alive, is not sentient. TL ; DR : it's not being alive that is important, it's sentience. A fetus is not sentient, therefor abortion is perfectly consistent with being against unnecessary suffering. | cmv |
Vegetarians ( and the like minded ) are being hypocritical if they are Pro - Choice. CMV | Some people aren't vegetarians by choice. Some people are raised as vegetarians by their parents and don't know any different. Some people are vegetarians for health reasons. Some people are vegetarians for religious reasons. | cmv |
Vegetarians ( and the like minded ) are being hypocritical if they are Pro - Choice. CMV | I think that there is a disconnect with the term " life. " An animal is alive and can survive on its own. A fetus on the other hand, cannot survive on its own until its around 26 weeks old ( I think ). Abortion is not the taking of a life, while eating meat is. Also, pro - choice does not equal pro - late term abortion. | cmv |
Vegetarians ( and the like minded ) are being hypocritical if they are Pro - Choice. CMV | Vegetarians don't always have one purpose in not eating meat. When I was vegetarian, sure I hated the idea of slaughtering an animal for someone's future enjoyment for a cheap quick meal, but that wasn't the only reason. Some vegetarians are also concerned about impacts on the climate due to massive factory farms ( GHG's from animals, transportation, water pollution from feces ), government subsidies for large farms, consuming too many antibiotics through animal products, health reasons, and religious encouragement. These reasons don't have much to do with believing that a women should be able to control her body ( pro - choice ). | cmv |
Vegetarians ( and the like minded ) are being hypocritical if they are Pro - Choice. CMV | First of all, being pro - choice doesn't mean that you are pro - abortion ; it means that you think it is better for people to have the option than for the government to ban abortion entirely. I'm a vegetarian and I think it would be great if everyone stopped eating meat. I don't think it would be great if everyone were banned, under penalty of law, from eating meat. Second, the majority of abortions take place before 15 weeks ( 91 % ), and I don't think anyone is really trying to argue for a 36 week abortion. | cmv |
I think all college freshmen should be required to take a sociology class. CMV. | I argue that every student should take a CS class because computers are so common these days and everyone should know how they work internally. I also argue that every student should take a polisci course because no one knows how the government works. Furthermore every student should take an antro course because we we live in a diverse society and we need to understand what humanity is like. Do you see the issue here? Everything is important to those who think it important. | cmv |
I believe " swatting " is a waste of public resources and an extremely unethical form of harassment and is always wrong. CMV. | I have never heard of this, would you mind linking to some instances of it? Since I'm not sure of what exactly this is, my best guess to a possible benefit would be that it can encourage better systems for emergency cheeking. By doing ( relatively ) harmless pranks now, it makes sure the system is prepared for if ( and when ) a malicious attempt presents itself. | cmv |
I believe " swatting " is a waste of public resources and an extremely unethical form of harassment and is always wrong. CMV. | maybe a utilitarian approach? if people find this funny to the extent that their joy is greater than the distress caused to the victim and the additional burden of money wasted ( which honestly probably isnt much ) then it could be justified. i doubt this is the case though, bc its not that funny. you could also maybe argue that it makes the cops more vigilant about verifying guilt, thus possibly preventing future innocent arrests. | cmv |
CMV : It seems like Sen Dianne Feinstein and other Anti gun leaders have motives other than public safety. | A popular meme on here recently was that you should not confuse malice with ignorance. When you see a person that's speaking out against guns and they have very little knowledge of the guns, it's not impossible to draw a connection that they are unaware of FBI, Secret Service, and impartial body statistics. I think we should stop assuming the politicians are anything more than regular people that happen to be really good at persuasion and have a lot of money so they can make it to the positions they're in. We put them up on a pedestal and then scream at them when they do something wrong. Instead, we should focus on educating them. Write to your representatives. Show them that they are wrong. They made not individually read it, but someone will and whomever does will pass it along if it seems worth their time. As an aside : Assault Weapons also contains most handguns, which are the most widely used weapons of choice for violence. Yeah, they be sneaky. | cmv |