summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe that teachers should be allowed to spank their students. CMV | My main issue with the idea is that corporal punishment of any kind simply shouldn't be necessary in the classroom. If there is a situation in which the only way a teacher can maintain control of a student is to spank them, then realistically either the teacher is incompetent and needs to be removed or the student has an issue and needs to be put in a different educational environment. The only way I can see a situation arising in which spanking would be necessary is if there are deeper underlying causes. I think forcing the education system to deal with those issues would be better than allowing teachers to hand out ad hoc physical punishments. | cmv |
I believe that teachers should be allowed to spank their students. CMV | Teachers do more than just educate their students. A teacher spends most of a school aged child's waking hours with them. Trust and respect is an important thing between a student and a teacher. It has been proven again and again that corporal punishment severs the trust and bond that the child feels towards the authority figure. It also teaches children that the best way to handle others'negative emotions is through violence. Kids already fight enough in schools. The last thing we need to do is encourage them to fight. Why spank a child and cause unneeded psychological damage when it's just as, if not more, effective to use other forms of punishment? | cmv |
I believe alcohol and tobacco are legal despite being the most deadly drugs because the powers that be have a vested interest in keeping the general population dumbed down. CMV | Not really, tobacco and alcohol are legal because they are culturally accepted ; they are not culturally accepted just because they are legal. When we tried to ban alcohol it didn't work at all. Due to the fact that they are culturally acceptable and legal, people tend to use them more so they became more " deadly " in that there are more hospital visits due to alcohol or tobacco. It's not really that they are inherently " more deadly " than other drugs outside of this... I am fairly sure that heroin, cocaine, and meth for example would have much deadlier effects on the population as a whole if they were used just as regularly as alcohol. I don't think your experience is really relevant when it's scientifically proven otherwise that there are worse drugs than alcohol and tobacco ; your personal experience can't be applied to everyone. The reason why studies say alcohol is the " deadliest drug " is because it's so widespread and harms the population more as a whole ; it is not literally in itself the deadliest drug. In any case, if authorities are purposefully allowing these drugs just to make us stupider, why in the world would they ban other drugs? If they want to keep the general population dumbed down, why wouldn't they just make all drugs accessible to everyone? Or choose more mind - affecting drugs than tobacco? | cmv |
I believe alcohol and tobacco are legal despite being the most deadly drugs because the powers that be have a vested interest in keeping the general population dumbed down. CMV | Well to answer your first one the main reason is that they are so popular and have been used so much that they are ingrained to our culture and our society that they escape ban. While newer drugs aren't ingrained so they are banned even if they are not neccessarily more harmful. Drugs don't grant any sort of spiritual enlightment their active compounds have affects on your body that are observable the reason X drug makes you feel Y way is not magic it is because of chemical reactions in the body. Sure because they are affecting your brain you may feel enlightened or something but it is not like you are actually enlightened its just your brain is being affected so it can't work properly. | cmv |
I believe alcohol and tobacco are legal despite being the most deadly drugs because the powers that be have a vested interest in keeping the general population dumbed down. CMV | Well, I can change a small part of your view but I can't even begin to tackle the main issue. Alcohol and tobacco are not the most deadly drugs. Heroin and methadone are ( barbituates are higher on the list but I don't understand why - their deaths / user is very low, although they still kill a large absolute number of users ) | cmv |
I believe alcohol and tobacco are legal despite being the most deadly drugs because the powers that be have a vested interest in keeping the general population dumbed down. CMV | Can't speak to tobacco except for some speculation. Alcohol on the other hand. There are two things that humans have always had with them for as long as we can go back : art and alcohol. Alcohol is a fun drug and is extremely easy to make. Further, it is so socially acceptable that it is practically impossible for a government to ban it : see Prohibition. As for banning ones that could lead to enlightenment (... if you say so ) these drugs are more difficult to make so they have not been around since practically the beginning of time. I would also bet that when these drugs started to really emerge in terms of legal action, religion probably still had a firm hold on most of the population and the government. People have hallucinations, spiritual revelations, etc are not exactly in line with institutional religion and a religious government. | cmv |
I believe that feminist / queer scholars see through a lens thick with confirmation bias. They see only what they want to see. CMV. | I'd love to see some examples of the articles you're talking about. Would you say the same of confirmation bias in sociology or anthropology? What about American Studies? Just trying to suss out the crux of your argument. | cmv |
I believe that feminist / queer scholars see through a lens thick with confirmation bias. They see only what they want to see. CMV. | Are you no longer interested in this topic? Only asking since you personally asked me to respond. I'm not asking for examples to give you a hard time. There is a very wide range of feminist discourse and it's difficult to address all academic approaches at once. Some stuff relies more on logic than on citation. I could pick some articles and give examples, but it seems more relevant / fair for you to do so. Would you say that there is a similar confirmation bias in philosophy? Foucault, for example? | cmv |
I believe that feminist / queer scholars see through a lens thick with confirmation bias. They see only what they want to see. CMV. | It's really late here but I want to come back to this. What I'd urge you to do first is get out of your head that feminist think that white, cis - gendered males are evil. That is not the case. The issue that feminists focus on is privilege. It just so happens that white cis - gendered males generally have the most privilege across different aspects : race, gender, ( usually ) economic status, etc. Lastly, before I retire I'd like you to try and take a step back and see if you are approaching these articles with your own confirmation bias. I know I do that a lot. Also, I'd like to see some examples of what you are talking about. Would help with a bit more context. I'll come back to this later, and hopefully I'll be able to change your view. | cmv |
People should be allowed to buy more votes. | And what's to stop someone from lying about their position to buy someone's vote? If someone already doesn't care about voting, they wont care who they sell it to, just who will give them the most money. What's to stop the rich from literally buying the election? | cmv |
Non - voters should default to white votes. | In the jurisdicition I live, persons who want to vote must first register. Registrations from people not eligible to vote ( 15 year olds, non - citizens, non - residents ) will in theory be rejected. My first question is are non - voters, registered voters who don't vote or persons eligible to vote who don't vote. If non - voters are registered voters who don't vote, then determining who the nonvoters is simply a matter of going through the list of registered votes, removing those who voted, or those who died before election day. What about Jimmy Hoffa. His body has never been found, so we don't know he is dead. He should be casting a white vote until someone can prove he is dead, right? If non - voters are people eligible to vote who don't vote, then wouldn't electoral commissions have to find people who recently moved into their city to count the white votes. | cmv |
Non - voters should default to white votes. | I would argue that it wouldn't increase voter participation since not everyone wants to go to vote, or care enough about the political process to do the voting. In America around 57 % of the country went to vote in the polls in the last election for president. For the average large democracy 50 % of the population going to vote is normal, and if the country is much smaller demographically there is a higher chance that there will be a higher voter turnout. Voting is more of a question of civic duty and responsibility than of choosing your next dictator. ( Non - mod notice ) You forgot to put CMV in your title | cmv |
I believe that, generally, white people think they are better than black people. CMV | Lots of white people think they're better than lower class people. Poverty runs higher among the black community so there's lots of black people to think we're better than. But remember we also think we're better than the white trash. It's much more connected to poverty than to race. If you said " White people generally think they're better than poor people " I would agree with you. To compare, most white people think they're better than a trashy black guy. They also think they're better than a trashy white guy. Most white people don't think they're better than Bill Gates, they also don't think they're better than Oprah Winfrey. Obviously there exists a small contingent of object racists, but it's far from a majority. | cmv |
Black culture is toxic, glorifies violence and leads to worklessness, laziness and self - entitlement & it's their fault. CMV. | I'm roughly copying what I've read here before. The culture of a group is very heavily dependent on the socioeconomic history of that group. Black people, or more specifically African American people, have gone through conditions which worsened starting with the colonialism of European nations. When brought to America, they started with no rights whatsoever, and only over time ( but in bursts, like civil war and civil rights movement ) have they attained the rights they have now. Because of this history, many black families have started with nothing, and attained little. Poverty is most often inherited, so it is quite foolish to say it is their " fault " for having these conditions. Now, the culture you mention is more the culture of impoverished people in general, it just so happens that black people have gone through the history to make them be more impoverished than other ethnicities. This is not their " fault ". | cmv |
Veterans have not fought for my freedom. CMV. | Don't you think it's possible that protecting the interests of the world can be a form of protecting our freedom? In World War II, when we fought Fascist or expansionist regimes like Germany and Japan, couldn't it be argued that by defeating these regimes, we were directly defending our freedom? Not just our way of life and our democratic values, but had Germany and Japan been left unchecked, they might have continued to grow in power and influence until they threatened our nation and people directly. | cmv |
Veterans have not fought for my freedom. CMV. | This really all depends on your definition of freedom, my dad was born in the USSR and when they collapsed it was largely in part due to spies that the US had. Also it's important to consider the south when your talking about freedom, because as far as the ancient south is concerned the civil war was about protecting their freedom to own slaves. Maybe " freedom " as you know it is simply a byproduct of protecting our world interests. | cmv |
Veterans have not fought for my freedom. CMV. | Well, you might think that, but given the wording of the question it quite possibly doesn't matter. You are asking what people fought for, you would have to ask them what their motivations were. Take for example those who signed up after 9 / 11. They would probably say, however misguided, that they were fighting for freedom. Is it true? Who knows, but that was in all likelihood a big part of their motivation. Though freedom is a very vague terms these days after all the wars. | cmv |
Veterans have not fought for my freedom. CMV. | Imagine one of these regimes the US did not like managed to " go hitler " and start growing in power and influence. Then we would be seeing a threat to our freedom. It's because the US is so influential that all we do is attack the little guys. There are no big guys we have reason to fight against. | cmv |
I believe a woman cannot rape a man. CMV! | I suspect that you believe this because a man would have to be hard to have sex with a woman, and if a man does not want to have sex he would not be erect, is that correct? An erection is not a voluntary action, just as salivating is not a voluntary action. When a person is hungry and food imagery is shown to them, they salivate whether they want to or not. They can even be made to salivate when they are not hungry. The same is true for erections and vaginal lubrication. These are purely physical responses to stimuli. A woman being raped will still'get wet ', and may even orgasm. This does not mean she wanted to have sex. Likewise, a man can be made erect by stimuli and once that happens there's no reason a woman could not force herself on him. | cmv |
I believe a woman cannot rape a man. CMV! | Rape : Non - consensual sex. There's " it's rape because they're too drunk to consent " which happens to guys too. There's stuff like this. And this. There are female child molesters, female therapists who rape their patients, basically women of authority who use their power to force men into sex. There are the " sleep with me or you're fired " bosses. And there's the myth that all men want to have sex with all women, all the time. | cmv |
I believe a woman cannot rape a man. CMV! | Then what do you call it when a woman forces a man against his will to engage in penetrative vaginal intercourse? Women blackmail men into sex all the time. Women force drunk men to have sex with them all the time. These men are being forced to have sex against their will. WTF do you call that if not rape? Why are you trying to insinuate that women somehow can't take advantage of a man sexually? Do you sincerely think that all men want to have sex with all women? TIL that it's only rape if it involves physical force. | cmv |
I believe a woman cannot rape a man. CMV! | OP really only intends to argue semantics, it seems... which isn't really worth arguing, if you ask me. Of course, if you define " rape " as forcibly penetrating another person with a penis, then yes, a biological female cannot " rape " a biological male. But that's not what rape is, and it's absurd to think think so. OP is basically just making up definitions based on his / her skewed worldview. | cmv |
I believe a woman cannot rape a man. CMV! | OP, based on your definition of rape ( which is very narrow and archaic ), women can still rape men. For example, if a man is drugged, a woman can still envelop him. If a man is overpowered by a woman, she can still rape him. If a man doesn't want to have sex but is coerced into it by a woman, then the woman raped the man. | cmv |
I believe a woman cannot rape a man. CMV! | They pull a Revenge of the Nerd. Lady overhears that a man and his wife are planning a trisk where each wears a mask. Rapist sneaks in wearing the mask. They drug the person causing priapism then use phsyical force. | cmv |
I believe a woman cannot rape a man. CMV! | I assume this is based on the idea of a man needing to be aroused to get an erection? Men can be drugged, just like women, and there are drugs which can give a man an erection whether he's willing or not. It might not be as common, but it's entirely possible. | cmv |
I believe a woman cannot rape a man. CMV! | The idea that a woman cannot rape a man through vaginal envelopment is often contingent upon the idea that a man cannot involuntarily get an erection. This is patently false. In fact, even men in vegetative states can experience a state of arousal. The physiological arousal of a person, regardless of gender, is involuntary, and is therefore not proof of consent. | cmv |
I believe a woman cannot rape a man. CMV! | - A woman can rape a man via statutory rape. Where the man is under the age of consent and the woman is over it. - A woman can rape a rape a man via blackmail or coercion. - A sober / significantly less intoxicated woman can rape a man who is intoxicated. Intoxicated people cannot legally give consent. - A woman can rape a man via threats, violence, or drugs. - A woman can rape a man simply by overpowering him. A man doesn't actually, necessarily need to be aroused or attracted to the person to get an erection. Many men's penises will simply get hard by stimulation. So if she can get him hard, she can find a way to force him to penetrate her. | cmv |
I believe a woman cannot rape a man. CMV! | Erections and orgasms are involuntary biological responses. It's not that uncommon for a woman to orgasm during rape. The same can happen to a man. It does not change the fact that the person did not give consent. | cmv |
I believe a woman cannot rape a man. CMV! | A lot of people believe it's not rape if the guy has an erection or even ejaculates and tend to think " he must have wanted it ". The truth is, women will also get aroused and even orgasm during rape... both cases are simply normal reflexive reactions to physical stimulation and not indicative of willingness or consent. If someone says no, it's rape no matter who is ignoring the lack of consent. | cmv |
I think there should be a maximum limit on an individual's net worth and a maximum wage. CMV | I'm not sure a maximum wage is possible without a 100 % tax bracket. If you own your own business, then your earnings are simply revenues minus expenses. There's nowhere else that money can go except for the business owner. Putting a limit on net worth doesn't free up capital to flow more evenly to all, unless you have a 100 % net worth tax bracket for individuals and businesses. Net worth increases / decreases based on how much revenues exceeded costs that year. That money has to go somewhere, whether it's the business owner or the corporate entity, and that money will probably just be invested, which is the same thing that's happening now. And when people invest it in stocks, CDs, mutual funds, etc ; that money doesn't just sit there, it provides capital to companies who use it for business operations, often to expand and hire more employees. Money doesn't sit idle when people invest it, it flows through the economy and helps everyone. | cmv |
I think there should be a maximum limit on an individual's net worth and a maximum wage. CMV | Putting a cap on wage would cause chaos within society. People are driven by incentives. If you were to pay a doctor the same as a window cleaner, why would he / she go through all those years of medical school for the same wage? Simple, they wouldn't. Society needs goals, and attainment of wealth is one of these. | cmv |
I think there should be a maximum limit on an individual's net worth and a maximum wage. CMV | Putting a cap on NET worth and wage would simply be taking away constitutional rights. One of your reasons for putting a cap on net wealth was so that capital would " flow more evenly to all. " The beautiful thing about capitalism ( which is keeping this barely surviving country alive ) is that it creates incentive. If you work, you amass wealth over time, if you don't work, you don't amass wealth over time. The actual problem is that part of that incentive is taken away by the American Government when it hands out money to people who aren't even attempting to work. | cmv |
I think there should be a maximum limit on an individual's net worth and a maximum wage. CMV | What you would see happen very quickly would be that companies would move their headquarters out of the US very quickly. They'd set up shop on some other country and just continue to sell things here. At this point though their outside of the country and any money they spend will not go back into our economy and wouldn't even be taxed much comparatively for us. So now we've driven out all of the big corporations but they're still running our economy and putting very little back in. I'll leave it to you to figure out what happens after that. | cmv |
I think there should be a maximum limit on an individual's net worth and a maximum wage. CMV | Do you really think people, once they reach the cap, will focus on efforts that will help redistribute their extra wealth? My guess is that they'll just try and cheat the system many times over by giving assets to family, close friends, etc. People don't react well to having their wealth taken from them and I believe a free market is a much more conducive environment to encourage capital investment, because the wealthy have an incentive to take risks - they could become more wealthy. | cmv |
I believe abortion is wrong in most circumstances and don't understand how more and more people are becoming " pro - choice ". CMV | Hypothetical question : If you had the opportunity to prevent three women from having abortions or one man from shooting a three year old girl in the head, and you can only choose one, which would you pick? If you truly believe that abortion is wrongful killing ( so basically murder? ), than you would have no problem choosing three human lives over one ; if you have a hesitation to choose that option than you have an internal conflict with the label'wrongful killing ' | cmv |
I believe abortion is wrong in most circumstances and don't understand how more and more people are becoming " pro - choice ". CMV | Hypothetical : You wake up one morning in a hospital bed, with a series of tubes running out of your body, connected to a stranger lying in a bed a few feet away. Your doctor tells you that you can disconnect the tubes at any time, and resume your life as if today is no different from yesterday, but if you do the stranger will die. The doctor also tells you that if you decide to leave the tubes in, the process will take around 40 weeks but the stranger will live - - the catch is that you'll become legally and financially responsible for the stranger's well being after that point. Should you have a choice regarding what to do in that situation, or should the outcome be decided for you by legislators who don't know anything about you? | cmv |
I believe abortion is wrong in most circumstances and don't understand how more and more people are becoming " pro - choice ". CMV | Does your perspective take into consideration the parents ability to raise a child in a safe and healthy environment? In theory, I can see where you're coming from. But in reality, it's so much more complicated than a biological / property / life rights debate. | cmv |
I believe abortion is wrong in most circumstances and don't understand how more and more people are becoming " pro - choice ". CMV | Hypothetical situation : You attend an orchestral concert to hear a famous violinist play. Now, after the play, let's say a group of people kidnap you, and hook your kidneys up to the violinist. His kidneys have failed, and the only way to save him is to keep him hooked up to your body for 9 months. You gave him no consent to do such a thing. Do you have the right to unhook yourself from the violinist? Yes, it would be kind of you stay hooked up to him, but do you think you have an obligation to stay hooked up to him? That's basically the pro - choice argument. Having sex isn't the same as giving a fetus permission to grow in you, just like attending the concert doesn't give the violinist the right to hook up to you. | cmv |
I believe abortion is wrong in most circumstances and don't understand how more and more people are becoming " pro - choice ". CMV | How do you feel about abortion in cases of rape? A lot of anti - abortion people make that exception, but if you do I think a big problem with that is proving that rape was involved. Most cases of rape go unreported, and even if it is reported it might take a long time to go through court and by then, the fetus has only become more developed. In my opinion, it is better to perform abortions legally without question until the fetus can survive outside the womb. It is really nobody's business but the mother's as to why she would wish to terminate a pregnancy. Instead of trying to outlaw abortion, maybe we should focus on making them less common or necessary, or persuading women to not have them, or provide help for mothers who need it. Simply outlawing abortion only treats a symptom and not the root of the problem. | cmv |
I believe abortion is wrong in most circumstances and don't understand how more and more people are becoming " pro - choice ". CMV | I think it's the woman's choice because the fetus is relying specifically on the woman's body. Without her body, it would die ( which is why people who are against abortion even if the mother's life is in danger just completely baffles me ). Until the baby can survive outside of the mother's body, I view it as a parasite. If a fetus reaches the point where it can survive outside the womb with medical technology, that's when abortion should be illegal. So I think the time frame of allowed abortions should change as medical technology improves. And no, I don't think a fetus has the same rights as a baby / full grown human. | cmv |
I believe abortion is wrong in most circumstances and don't understand how more and more people are becoming " pro - choice ". CMV | This is what the brain of a fetus looks like throughout development. It starts out as an elongating tube and doesn't look anything like a developed brain until close to birth. This isn't just a matter of cosmetics either. The fetus doesn't have the capacity for experience or sensory processing that a baby does because the machinery just isn't there. The brain of the fetus is more akin to a coma patient that has severe brain atrophy, except that the brain develops rather than degenerate further. I think that the biggest problem here is just the definition of what constitutes a human. I see the fetus as a piece of meat. You see it as a baby. That's the fundamental difference here. | cmv |
I believe abortion is wrong in most circumstances and don't understand how more and more people are becoming " pro - choice ". CMV | Why does it matter if the fetus is fertilized and aborted as opposed to never being fertilized at all? Either way the end result is the same, a prospective human life never actually gets a chance at it. Why does it matter if the egg has been fertilized, or not? | cmv |
I believe that the government does not have the right to make abortion illegal. CMV | As a preface, I am pro - choice, but I definitely think this is a gray issue. Think of this scenario. What if a women has a child with severe physical disabilities. That child will strongly restrict the freedom of that women, because she now has essentially been forced to be committed to this child for life. She does not, however, have the right to terminate that baby, because it is considered to be a human being with it's own rights. Now, if she terminated that baby right before it was born, would that be okay? Is that one - day earlier baby really so different? The question about when an embryo / fetus should considered a human being with rights is gray, and I think the source for much of the contention about abortion. If you think personal liberty is less important than bodily liberty, I would like to hear your argument about that. | cmv |
I believe that the government does not have the right to make abortion illegal. CMV | Note : My personal belief is that abortion should be legal, but I disagree that the government doesn't have the right to make it not. Democratically elected governments, in short, represent the will of the people. This is done through electing people who hold values or represent stances that the majority ( of voters ) support. If the people of a country keep putting people, who oppose abortion, in power, and it gets to be a majority, then they have a mandate to make it illegal. Now there are rules in place to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, but nevertheless, the government is in place to represent the will of the majority. | cmv |
I believe that the second amendment is much less important than the first amendment in terms of protecting our rights. CMV | The idea is that if there is a large enough armed resistance, the United States will have to fight a prolonged war against its own citizens, thereby drawing criticism from the international community. If no one had guns it would be easy for the government to roll over the population ( see : China, North Korea ) with little resistance. No muss, no fuss. Public rights to bear arms, even shotguns and bolt - action rifles, could turn a two day scuffle into a several - years - long black mark on the country, and therefore could mean the difference between being silenced or being supported by other first - world countries. You underestimate the negative impact that Waco had on the government's image. Guns turned Waco from a simple matter of rounding up uncooperative people into a prolonged ( 51 day ) siege involving tanks and costing the lives of 86 people. The fact that you're mentioning it in your post 20 years later should demonstrate how much of a difference people owning guns makes. I believe that the first amendment is equally important, because as you said, these days communication is powerful. However, the second amendment makes silencing the population an extremely unattractive option for those who would seek to violate our rights. | cmv |
I believe that the second amendment is much less important than the first amendment in terms of protecting our rights. CMV | Semi - Devil's Advocate I think, if nothing more, the 2nd amendment forces the US government to use deadly force against its own unruly citizens. This may seem like a bad thing, but it is actually a check against government power in a not so obvious way. If you're going to use deadly force, then someone on the government's side is going to have to pull the trigger. Because the people who pull the trigger have families, friends, morals, etc, it means something to them when they pull the trigger. They will be less likely to pull that trigger if the gun is pointed at someone they know, or in defense of a law that they don't agree with. The government can only be as tyrannical as the laws they are able to enforce, and the limit to what they can enforce depends on how unethical their enforcers are willing to behave in order to uphold those laws. You may be able to tase someone to uphold a law that you don't agree with, but would you kill someone? The 2nd amendment ensures that those who enforce the law are willing to die for it, and kill for it. That presents a natural check against what the government can and can't enforce. | cmv |
I believe that instead of talking about less testing in ( United States Public ) schools, we should talk about MORE testing and standardized tests. CMV | The inherent flaw in that is this : You're asserting that performance on one exam or test is a better indicator of ability or intelligence than sustained performance over one semester, one year, or even four years. That is simply not the case. A larger sample size of an individual's performance will give you a better indication of their ability. Simply scrapping that and replacing it with a set of final exams puts in place a worse barometer of ability. | cmv |
I think people that are homophobic are generally amoral people. CMV | Many people who are homophobic are so for religious reasons. They may still give to charity, honor their elders, hold to their word, and do all of the other things that we consider moral. None of the homophobes I know are racist, although I'm sure there's people in whom both those traits occur. | cmv |
I think people that are homophobic are generally amoral people. CMV | Why would someone who is homophobic have to have no moral compass in order to hold that belief? If anything, a great many people's disdain for homosexuality is an overt expression of their moral compass, and the fact that homosexuality clashes with it. As to the dynamism argument - - someone can recognize a broad spectrum of human behaviors without considering them all to be moral simply because they occur. | cmv |
I think people that are homophobic are generally amoral people. CMV | Many people who are homophobic are not doing it for no reason, they are doing it because they think they are upholding a specific moral code which is necessary to make society work, and which if violated is damaging it. Sexism too, can be based on the idea that certain societal roles are immutable. Racism is a little less so, but that is often based on personal concerns. Whether they are wrong is irrelevant. But they think they are trying to protect something. It's not wholly unrelated to a moral system. | cmv |
I think people that are homophobic are generally amoral people. CMV | I was homophobic up until I was fifteen, simply because I lived in a conservative area and was unaccustomed to homosexuality. I think a huge cause for homophobia is not understanding gay people. I genuinely hated being a homophobe ( but I never admitted it until later ) and I used to get jealous of people who were accepting of everyone. It was only when I befriended a really liberal girl who exposed me to gay culture that I finally understood why they couldn't just " be straight like everyone else. " And actually, it turned out I was gay myself. Because of that experience I insist on never judging someone solely on their homophobia. Obviously, I'd rather they be accepting, but I've managed to help people open their minds like my friend helped me multiple times. I think everyone is capable of being a non - judgmental person, but they aren't always raised that way and have to make the change on their own. | cmv |
I believe u / violentacrez got what he deserved. CMV. | Did any of that do anything to stop actual child abuse? Is shaming someone publicly going to have any influence on the problem itself? If not, it's just causing suffering to another human being for no reason at all. | cmv |
I believe u / violentacrez got what he deserved. CMV. | He certainly got a consequence. How do you define what he " deserved "? That is very subjective. There wasn't a trial. There wasn't representation or any sort of official evidence. You are essentially asserting that in cases where the evidence appears to show that an individual has committed unethical actions, a witch hunt is appropriate. I'm not saying that if an official investigation were done the result would have been different, but we have certain avenues of legal justice for a reason. Do you remember what happened with Sunil Tripathi? A large community was so sure they had the right evidence. | cmv |
I don't believe that true gender equality will ever be achieved. CMV | Women are only the weaker sex when you hold men up as the ideal goal. If the ideal is to be flexible, smaller, less aggressive, with a higher pain tolerance and the ability to feed a newborn from your body, then all of a sudden men are the'weaker'ones. Being physically bigger and able to carry a heavier load, or pull a truck, aren't really skills that are important in our world. They certainly aren't valued as highly as intellectual skills in any case. It's not a case of wanting to be treated in exactly the same way, it is being valued in the same way. It is separating certain skills and talents ( nurturing children, building a house, operating on a person's heart, making clothes ) from the gender of the person, so that everyone has the opportunity to pursue what suits them as a person and is not constrained by'womanly'or'manly'roles. It means encouraging boys and girls to build with blocks, play house, cry, shout, run around - do all of the things that come naturally to them, and not cutting off certain parts of the world because it's not what they are'supposed'to like. It isn't simply about equal pay, but about equal rights and equal opportunity. The high suicide rate for men, the amount of violence that men have to deal with - these types of things would be reduced in the next generation if boys were encouraged to build their emotional intelligence as well that their physical or intellectual smarts. | cmv |
I believe that American society is biased toward minorities, and that being a minority member in America is advantageous. CMV | What advantages do you feel being a minority confers on you in America? Do you recognize any disadvantages minorities might face? And do you think their advantages substantially outweigh these? | cmv |
I believe that American society is biased toward minorities, and that being a minority member in America is advantageous. CMV | A minority group is a segment of society that is in some way differentiated from the society as a whole, so by definition society is biased towards the majority. I don't think that's what you mean though. By'society ', do you mean government? The media? Something else? | cmv |
I believe that American society is biased toward minorities, and that being a minority member in America is advantageous. CMV | Not really going to comment, as this topic is genuinely too broad for me to address, but come on people, this is / r / changemyview not AdviceAnimals here. If you're going to construct a response at least make it meaningful. OP, while I can see where you're coming from, I think you should take a look at the fact that the vast majority of minorities live in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas - so it can appear that things like the welfare system are biased towards them. I could start throwing in other terms like " black culture ", " white nationalism " etc. etc. but the whole thing would get too bogged down and it's all borderline racist. | cmv |
I believe that American society is biased toward minorities, and that being a minority member in America is advantageous. CMV | So empirical analysis seems to demonstrate otherwise. Unless we are going to start out with racist assumptions, the easiest way to tell whether the level of advantage being given to one group is greater than another is to examine the gap in outcomes for people of these groups. Any research at all will show you that in general minority groups are still not reaching equivalent outcomes. For instance minorities have lower median income levels and tend to reach lower levels of education. They are also vastly underrepresented in both business and government. If it was really easier to be a minority, then we would expect these communities to be thriving and these outcomes to be reversed. The fact that they aren't heavily implies that minorities still face significant hurtles to success. | cmv |
I think there is nothing wrong with killing or torturing non - human animals. CMV | I don't believe in animal rights, and think animal suffering is okay if it produces any real benefit for humans ( cheap food, medical research, etc ). I don't believe that the ability to feel pain or sentience / self - awareness ( whatever that is ) is the criterion for moral consideration. However, I disagree with your opening statement because there is in some contexts it is wrong to kill or torture animals - those being when there are no real benefits to humans. For example, it is bad to torture animals for fun - not because animals deserve moral consideration, but because it's bad for the torturer as it promotes sociopathic thinking and behavior. Similarly, if meat grown in vats was the same as meat harvested from animals on farms ( vat - grown meat costs the same amount, tastes the same, and is indistinguishable from normally - produced meat ), then there is no reason to cause animals unnecessary pain. Even though any benefit to humans ( however small ) outweighs any harm to animals ( however large ), if humans are indifferent, then it is better to not cause unnecessary pain. | cmv |
I think there is nothing wrong with killing or torturing non - human animals. CMV | Well, what's so special about being human? If we met intelligent aliens, would you think it's wrong to hurt them? If I could magically give a dog human - like intelligence, would you think it's wrong to kill it? If you agree, then you agree that species isn't really important - what's important are the mental qualities of something. Just this, though, is completely compatible with not caring about humans of animal - like intelligence, like the severely mentally disabled. If you have a problem with that, and you agree with the first statement about species not mattering, then you don't have a good reason not to extend it to animals as well as humans. So if you accept both those points, then you have a reason to care about animals as well as people. | cmv |
I believe that the purpose of feminism ( the sort of feminism that has political clout ) is to give power to women, simply for powers sake. Concepts of " social justice " and " equality " are nothing more than rhetoric. CMV | Technically, if someone is a disadvantaged class, giving them more power for it's own sake IS helping them to arrive at more equality. " Empowerment " as an individual to be on a level with the best is how equality is achieved. They are clearly doing it to an incorrect extreme, but that does not mean the vague intentions are incorrect, only the format. | cmv |
I believe that the purpose of feminism ( the sort of feminism that has political clout ) is to give power to women, simply for powers sake. Concepts of " social justice " and " equality " are nothing more than rhetoric. CMV | Men have more social power then women. The data on employment, political representation, sexual violence / harassment, and on and on all show this very clearly. You have shown no evidence to the contrary. As long as this is true, when I say that women should have more power then they currently do, I am saying there should be a more equal balance of power between men and women. This, very simply, is why feminism is in fact an issue of equality and social justice. | cmv |
I believe that the purpose of feminism ( the sort of feminism that has political clout ) is to give power to women, simply for powers sake. Concepts of " social justice " and " equality " are nothing more than rhetoric. CMV | It's easy to write off the actions of angry members as being representative of the entire group. Many of the most vocal feminists are those who behave poorly in public forums. You speak of the " purpose " of feminism as if it's some guarded secret, but most feminist groups make their aims fairly clear, and the larger movement has always been about equality. Obviously, there will always be splinter groups which differ in their intent, but it really isn't that complicated. Incidentally, I'm both a male and a feminist. I believe that the movement has achieved a lot, but some feminists speak as if things are worse than ever. | cmv |
When choosing a doctor, it's better for your own benefit to choose an Asian / white one as opposed to a black / Hispanic one. CMV | I think you are committing a logical fallacy : On one hand, you claim that you are assuming that all you know is : 1. Your candidate doctors all graduated from a random college X 2. The race of the doctors But then you apply statistics from a bunch of colleges from only one country. That's not logical : maybe " X ", as opposed to the average, is a college where black / hispanic doctors excel compared to asian / white ones. Or maybe X is not even in that country. Your reasoning is statistically valid only if you say that all you know is that ALL your candidates graduated in that country ( but you don't know which college each doctor graduated from ) and if you know their race. | cmv |
When choosing a doctor, it's better for your own benefit to choose an Asian / white one as opposed to a black / Hispanic one. CMV | They have higher GPA over all types of courses therefore they are certain to be better at medicine? Sorry, that just makes no sense. That GPA is calculated from not just medicine but also literature, journalism, engineering, compsci, theology, opera singing... It is patently ridiculous to assume that it will have any relevance to how good a doctor will be. | cmv |
The reason we consider Nazism so evil is because they treated westerners the way westerners treated the world. CMV | The Soviets treated westerners the way westerners treated the world. Oliver Cromwell treated westerners the way westerners treated the world. The Thirty Years War killed one third of Germany. The Romans treated westerners the way westerners treated the world. The Spartan equals did awful, awful things to their Helots. In the US neither Cromwell nor the Soviets nor any faction of the Thirty Years War nor the Romans nor the Spartan equals have the reputation the Nazis do. Jefferson Davis killed Americans, and he doesn't even have the reputation the Nazis do. Your argument fails. | cmv |
The reason we consider Nazism so evil is because they treated westerners the way westerners treated the world. CMV | Having certain similarities does not make two things equal. The thing about the Nazis is that they combined the very worst of all our evils into one great ball, and then waged a war against the rest of Europe. You ask whether it's a matter of scale - well yes it is. I doubt there would be many who'd disagree that serial killers are " more evil " than a guy who murdered someone in a botched robbery. But I will offer you an alternative - the reason why the Nazis were, and are, held up as being evil incarnate probably has more to do with their victims than their specific actions. It's not that they were like us, it's that they were against us. Western civilization is largely colonial, and as such much of our ancestry comes from Europe, so when we see atrocities committed against them we can easily put ourselves in their place. | cmv |
100 % inheritance tax is a good idea. CMV | This post kinda violates Rule II because you are coming from a position that socialism is the best or a very good system and that government should provide an amazing safety net. Throughout this thread, you have not seriously responded to the problem that you are relying on the government and disrespecting individual wealth gained through personal responsibility. On the merits, this proposal seems like nothing more than a stab at individuals with assets, middle class and upper class. It does nothing to help equality as has been pointed out by various criticisms in this thread. I just don't understand what the point of this post was other than to discuss how socialism is better. And don't get me wrong, I run fairly left politically, but this isn't the right use of CMV. Maybe start another post were you just say, " I think a robust social safety net is better than the American capitalism model, CMV. " | cmv |
100 % inheritance tax is a good idea. CMV | What about assets that are not simply money in the bank? What about a family business? Do you propose that the govt. come in and take the business over? Shut it down and fire the employees indefinitely until a buyer is located? This would negatively impact many peoples lives. | cmv |
100 % inheritance tax is a good idea. CMV | Just a thought - this seems to encourage spending all one's money before death. Does this mean that gifts would also be given to the state by default? And does this also mean that wills are null and void now? | cmv |
CMV : I completely agree with Joseph Heller's quote " Certainly so many countries cant be all worth dying for ". | To be fair, this quote shouldn't be attributed to Joseph Heller. In the novel, the " pimp " of Nately's favorite prostitute tries to make him angry by criticizing the war. Joseph Heller never said that ; one of his satirical characters did. | cmv |
I believe that the American model of self - paid college makes America less competitive in a global economy. CMV | The American model encourages people to get degrees in " productive " fields. Yes, it costs a lot but because you are more productive you make more money and therefore can afford the debt. Unfortunately ( to some ), the downside is if you get a degree in something less productive, such as Shakespearean Literature, you end up paying a lot of money with less chance of paying it back. However, because the student is paying for their education there is no pressure for them to be productive if they are willing to make the sacrifices. This is a good system for doctors and businessmen because it encourages people to get those degrees. It is a bad system for English and Art majors because it discourages people from getting those degrees. But it's also a good system for those who don't want degrees or don't want to pay for Art History degrees. I suppose in the end it depends on whether you believe college should be mostly to get a better job / be more productive to society. Or if you see it simply as a way to educate people in general and productivity isn't a priority. For me, and I think most of America, it is the former. | cmv |
I believe that the American model of self - paid college makes America less competitive in a global economy. CMV | What the hell is the point of elementary / junior / high school / primary / secondary school then? Everyone gets like 12 years of free education, why should they be given 4 more? I never understand the " everyone should go to college. " Why? we already have public free sponsored education. Why in the world should we pay for four more years? Why not just change that system? | cmv |
I believe that the American model of self - paid college makes America less competitive in a global economy. CMV | Why should education not be a business? It is another array of services of varying importance in the economy. If this service is to be provided by government, why not all other services? In fact, there is good reason to believe that government subsidization of education makes matters much worse. Not only does it cut short the competitive process which drives innovation and decreases in prices, but it also creates negative signaling externalities, about which economist Bryan Caplan has written extensively. That is, college essentially doesn't teach the majority of the public anything - it merely shows to employers which students are most capable of following directions and getting up early in the morning and not start fights. By subsidizing education, government increases the expectations of business owners, who begin demanding higher and higher levels of education - because everyone is starting to get more abundant college degrees, and signaling once again becomes more difficult. It's like telling everyone at a concert to stand up so they can see better. In fact, the argument about education can and should be extended even to basic K - 12 education - it shouldn't be government provided at all, but provided voluntarily. | cmv |
I believe that the American model of self - paid college makes America less competitive in a global economy. CMV | People come from all over the world to go to American schools. They are the best in the world. There is a price for this. Granted it has become a racket in things like books and dorms, but the system is in no way " less competitive. " | cmv |
I believe that the American model of self - paid college makes America less competitive in a global economy. CMV | I agree that higher education should be provided for everyone that wants it. But I may be reading too much into your title, but Americans are disadvantaged, but not America. We have some of, if not the, best Universities in the world. The smartest of the smart come here and do their research, and as a consequence our country is on the cutting edge of technology, even if our average citizen isnt as technically inclined as other places, but I dont blame this on our college model. Now, would we still be in the top spot if education was publicly funded for citizens? I think so, but to say America ( not Americans ) are less competitive in the global market is incorrect, we are arguably number one for higher education. I apologize if I am splitting hairs and this isnt even close to what you are talking about. | cmv |
I believe that the American model of self - paid college makes America less competitive in a global economy. CMV | In order to institute such a system in the United States, tax rates would have to increase dramatically. While the debate over tax rates is ongoing, such an increase would almost certainly lead to meaningful capital flight. Relatively low rates are an important factor in American economic success. Of course, this does not mean that taxes should never be raised, or that America's tax rates are necessarily at the correct level. Ultimately, however, there is a trade - off between public funding of programs like education and capital flight. | cmv |
I believe that the American model of self - paid college makes America less competitive in a global economy. CMV | Overall, I think that your view just needs to be changed slightly, not reversed. It would make sense to make America's public universities, which now average $ 8, 000 / year, even cheaper, including with free tuition. But we have to move carefully so as not to damage the working bits of the current system. The sheer quality of universities is one of the few areas in which America is actually a world leader, in all rankings ( ex amp les ). Unlike domains like health care or gun violence where we could hardly do worse, in universities there is actually a reason to be conservative about what we change. | cmv |
I believe that the American model of self - paid college makes America less competitive in a global economy. CMV | Legitimate question, how often in Europe do undergrads have the chance to do new research and be a co author or get advice from people top in their fields? I'm currently on study abroad at the University of Edinburgh ( so an internationally ranked school ) and people here are always surprised when I tell them some of the opportunities I have. I do go to a small liberal arts school and know even in the US these kinds of opportunities aren't always available, but you have the choice here to go to a smaller school. To my understanding, large universities are the only kinds of schools that really exist in Europe. | cmv |
I believe that there are some things that a government simply does better than private groups or companies can. CMV. | The problem with private prisons is that the government forces their " customers " to them. It's as if the government forced you to buy a specific brand of computer. Sure, the production is taking place at a ( nominally ) private firm, and the profit is private, but that doesn't mean that it is free - market with respect for private property. I would link you to a good article on the distinction, but my website is down : \ | cmv |
I believe that there are some things that a government simply does better than private groups or companies can. CMV. | Governments are not dispassionate. Governments are made up of humans same as private organizations. Private contracting is not the the same as privatization. The government is still in charge of a private contractor and contractor has the incentive to lobby, bribe, and get as much money from the government as they can without the limits markets would put on them. The problem with private prisons currently is the government is the customer and not the prisoners. The government does not care about the prisoners. To better understand how fully privatized " prisons " could work see Prisons in a free society? | cmv |
I believe that there are some things that a government simply does better than private groups or companies can. CMV. | I consider myself to be libertarian, but I generally agree that privatizing courts, police, and prisons would create a conflict of interest and an impotent enforcement system. However, for the most part the profit motive breeds efficiency and innovation, while competition breeds improvement of products and services. These elements of business are absent from government, along with some other aspects such as the fact that a person generally is more careful with resources when they own those resources and have personal time and money invested in them. Many services that the government provides could be greatly improved by exposing them to these market forces and letting multiple groups provide the same services. But as far as the justice system goes, courts have to make unpopular rulings at times, and I believe those may be disincentivised ( is that a word? ) in a private system. | cmv |
I believe prohibition of any substance is wrong and only promotes more crime CMV | You have to take into account how it effects other people, not just the users. Hard drugs are not like gay marriage in the fact that using hard drugs effects other peoples live, not just your own. users become addicted and will do anything for their high, including committing crimes. Users become dependent on society and hurt those who care about them. | cmv |
I believe prohibition of any substance is wrong and only promotes more crime CMV | Any substance? Even substances you can make bombs with? If you're talking specifically about drugs, while legalizing drugs would provides a " safer " market for them, look at tobacco. Cigarettes are smoked by a vast portion of the population, but second hand smoke isn't of much of a detriment to other people comparatively. Harder drugs, like LSD, can legitimately ruin a person psychologically if they are administered it without knowing. Legalizing it would just be another step towards more problems. | cmv |
I believe prohibition of any substance is wrong and only promotes more crime CMV | The success of a ban is dependent on many things. Focusing on your point about suppliers. Lets say, for example, that there was a drug that is generally lethal in a few months of use. Such a drug would never be picked up by the cartels because dead people don't pay you money and they wouldn't be able to drum up new customers fast enough to replace the old customers. To be economically viable they would have to be paid an astounding price per dose and they would be unable to move product at that price. Prohibition of such a drug would be fairly simple to implement and enforce without negative externalities. So I'd at least amend it to " prohibition of an economically viable substance " rather than " any substance ". | cmv |
I believe prohibition of any substance is wrong and only promotes more crime CMV | What is there is a drug, and all it does it make you want to drive a car, and POORLY. You will take a car ; yours, mine, that parked one over there, doesn't matter. You will drive it, and likely hit people. Should that be legal? | cmv |
I believe prohibition of any substance is wrong and only promotes more crime CMV | Let's say a new drug makes it to market tomorrow. It's called Evilin. It's highly addictive, and every single person who has every tried it has, as a direct result of taking the drug, gone on to hurt themselves, hurt others, or both. There are no exceptions. Do you think Evilin should be available legally ( and regulated, using your word )? Or should it be made illegal altogether? | cmv |
I believe that if humans engage in space conquest and exploration, that we should take copies of our diseases with us to use as weapons. CMV | What makes you think our plagues will be even remotely useful against space aliens? Most of our diseases don't even affect monkeys! Whereas the probability they affect humans is huge. You're taking a huge risk of something going wrong for basically zero payoff. Also, the super - remote chance that it does work. Would we really want to destroy an alien civilization just for attacking our ship? Think of it, a whole new species, all sorts of knowledge and a totally different culture and everything and we're just gonna kill'em off before finding out all we can about them just cause they destroyed our spaceship? I don't think I make that choice. | cmv |
I believe that if humans engage in space conquest and exploration, that we should take copies of our diseases with us to use as weapons. CMV | Besides the point that it probably wouldn't be effective against an alien species there is something else to consider. You mention it being used as a defensive weapon but is it really the best tactic to release some germs when someone attacks your ship? Diseases can be quite slowly spreading ( especially at the beginning ) and it might take several days until the attackers are unable to fight because of the symptoms. If they aren't able to destroy our ship and kill us in that time they simply aren't powerful enough to be a real threat even if we use conventional weapons. It also wouldn't conform with the ethics of todays confilcts. There is a reason we banned biological, chemical and nuclear weapons as well as cluster bombs and the like internationally. You simply can't control good enough who's going to suffer from your attacks. Imagine aliens arrive at the earth and by chance they land in North Korea where they get attacked immediatly because they think it's Americas doing. The aliens release their super virus and almost all life on earth get's vanished. Is it fair that the whole species gets " punished " for something a little group did and everybody else disagreed with? | cmv |
If you believe that abortion there should be legal, then you shouldn't ethically be against limitations on it. CMV | Semi - Devil's Advocate Since hiring and firing people are both legal, should it be legal for owners to hire and fire people for any reason, including sex, race, sexual orientation, hair color, eye color, etc? It's their assets that are being put at risk, so why shouldn't the owner's rights supersede another person's privilege of being employed? | cmv |
I believe that if you aren't sure about who to vote for, it's better to not do it at all. CMV. | Like the 30 second quiz / u / BadBoyFTW suggests, except useful : the voting booth questions your stance on some of the broader, bigger issues, and then helps you choose which candidate is best for you based on your responses. There are tons of websites that already do this, though—at least here in the US—so there really isn't much of an " excuse " to not be able to choose. Also, always vote third party rather than not voting. Again I am speaking from a US - centric POV, but we need to open up the political scene to more voices that will make people feel more well - represented than the current two party system. | cmv |
I believe that if you aren't sure about who to vote for, it's better to not do it at all. CMV. | I think that the posturing and presentation of a party is incredibly important in reminding every democratic government that there first link and duty is to the people. If you don't vote you fail to demonstrate any opinion on political matters and parties will lose interest in appealing to you and your demographic. Though the effect of not voting now may be negligible the long term effect is a government that derives its power not from the will of the people but their laziness. It is why parties like UKIP are doing so well at the moment. They have clear policies that, though mostly wrong ( in my opinion, obviously ), people can get behind. It is demonstrating to Labour, Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats that they need to come down clearly on some issues in order to make an appeal to the common man. | cmv |
I believe that if you aren't sure about who to vote for, it's better to not do it at all. CMV. | How about a 30 second quiz before entering the voting booth? A simple " pin the policy on the politician ". If you get less than 2 / 3rd right, you can't vote. Would be hilarious... I bet only about 1 / 100 would pass. | cmv |
I believe that if you aren't sure about who to vote for, it's better to not do it at all. CMV. | If you are really unhappy with your choices you can always put an'' X'' on each candidate or a line through the candidates. It's a null vote. It shows that neither was deserving of your vote. Or vote because you dislike a specific candidate, and them winning is such a negative thing that doing nothing would make you feel irresponsible. | cmv |
I believe that North America is on the verge of systemic collapse. CMV | High... military budget? The late Roman empire? No. That is incorrect sir. The Roman state failed partly because it had basically no military budget, instead allowing general to keep their own private armies. Which evolved from roman legionaires with auxilliary troops to mercenary armies taken from the surrounding nations of those they were fighting. ( It was cheaper than paying to have a man trained, paying him to fight, and then paying him when he retires ) These private armies, loyal to their general over the state, were what allowed all the infighting of the late Roman period. It's also why some of the later Roman emperors didn't speak Latin. Imagine if half of the American army were paid by Donald Trump. They had been hired by men representing Trump, trained by other Trump men, fought under Trump, and were born and raised in Mexico. | cmv |
I believe that North America is on the verge of systemic collapse. CMV | Crime is down, economy is up, there hasn't been a war on mainland American soil in over a century. Debt greater than GDP is a little ridiculous, but if worse comes to worse the USA is more than capable of living within its means. Also, our creditors have a vested interest in seeing us succeed, It's not like China is going to come try to get their money by force. Pat Buchanan's idea that immigration weakens the nation is patently ridiculous. the USA is a nation founded by immigrants and continually improved by hardworking immigrants. People thought the scots - irish were going to collapse the state and that never happened ( quite the opposite ), the only real difference is that immigrants are more brown now. Any idea that they are going to impact America differently at a core level than any other set of immigrants is patently racist. | cmv |
I Believe that libertarianism is a flawed and naive ideal CMV | I think it's a flawed and naive ideal to believe politicians are intelligent and also have my individual interest in mind. I think it's flawed and naive to think that people could not manage their own affairs in the absence of government. I mean, 99 percent of our daily interactions occur without explicit government intervention already. | cmv |
I believe Prisoners should have the Right to Vote, CMV | Prisoners are ostracized from the political community, they wouldn't know what is going on. Furthermore, they'd be deciding who would be making laws, which they don't follow. Seems a little backwards. | cmv |
I believe Prisoners should have the Right to Vote, CMV | Losing the right to vote is a deterrent and punishment within the legal system. The penalty for breaking the law and being in prisoners will mean that you will no longer have the ability to have a say in the system you live under. The idea is that if you commit crimes you will lose rights. | cmv |
I believe Prisoners should have the Right to Vote, CMV | In many states, non - felons are not removed from the voter rolls. In my state, Felons that have completed their sentences can add themselves back on the voter rolls just by asking. Really, voters have a big influence to making the law. What if prisoners organized themselves into an effective voting block at the state level. They could theoretically apply pressure to State Governors to achieve pardons for the truly guilty. | cmv |