summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I think it should be illegal for people to not to vote on council / government matters that concern them. CMV. | Although not a 1 - to - 1 match, you're going to see a lot of overlap between people who don't care enough to vote, and people who don't care enough to stay informed. It's hard to imagine what benefit there would be to having more votes from uninformed people. At least in the US, the average voter is already too clueless as it is. | cmv |
I think it should be illegal for people to not to vote on council / government matters that concern them. CMV. | I'm completely in the opposite camp. I hate the idea that voting is a duty, and think we should actively discouraged voting on issues you're unfamiliar with. If someone doesn't care enough to vote, I don't want them to skew the results by picking sides based on incomplete or inaccurate information. If you want more people to vote, convince more people they should care. Forcing people to vote doesn't help anything. | cmv |
I think it should be illegal for people to not to vote on council / government matters that concern them. CMV. | While I agree with the premise and don't think you need your view changed, one problem would be families or friends just guiding people, " I dunno who to vote for, oh just vote for this guy / girl. " I also believe statistically the person at the top of the ballot has an advantage. Don't have sources for that though. | cmv |
I'm not a feminist simply because I don't see much gender inequality that isn't simply biological differences between men and women. CMV. | I'd argue that yes, " we are talking abotu certain parts where there is obvious oppression " It's hard for me to make sense of your post, which claims that Feminism is'complete'except for the oppression of women | cmv |
I'm not a feminist simply because I don't see much gender inequality that isn't simply biological differences between men and women. CMV. | There is still a massive, massive wage gap for women in the work world. For every 7 dollars a woman makes, her male counterpart makes 10. The gap gets even bigger for women of minority or in poverse areas. On top of this, women are subject to huge markups due to gender pricing - products marketed towards women compaired to men are usually much more expensive, even if it's the same product in different packaging. Women executives will end up making about 600, 000 dollars less in their lifetime than a male exec would. Women who have the exact same resume as a man will get significantly less call backs and interviews than he does. There is definitely still inequality, although that is changing for the better. | cmv |
I'm not a feminist simply because I don't see much gender inequality that isn't simply biological differences between men and women. CMV. | How are the crappy rights that fathers have down to biological differences? How is the female victim and male perpertrator narrative in domestic violence existing even though the evidence shows that domestic violence is non - gendered down to biological differences? How are men often seen as paedophiles, to the point that they are not trusted in schools or allowed to sit next to children in aeroplanes, even though it is also clearly not a gendered issue, caused by biological differences? Obviously these are just some issues that lead to people being descriminated against by gender. I kept a male slant to maybe go against the usual grain in these discussions. There are many ways to be against gender inequality without being a feminist. | cmv |
I'm not a feminist simply because I don't see much gender inequality that isn't simply biological differences between men and women. CMV. | There are still a lot of people out there - in developed countries - who don't respect the opinion of women simply due to their gender. In developing nations, this problem is absolutely present and needs to be dealt with. Saudi Arabian women can't drive, for instance ; however, we need to also respect the cultural differences between us and them so this problem gets sticky. As for your points about the workforce, I'd like to throw a link down. You should watch this if you're about to post that women receive less pay on average | cmv |
I'm not a feminist simply because I don't see much gender inequality that isn't simply biological differences between men and women. CMV. | Feminism is bigger than just " difference in the workplace " ( although, statistically the glass ceiling is still a problem ). It also involves making sure accessible birth control ( and abortions when necessary ) are available so that women can actually be sexual without fear of being burdened by an unwanted pregnancy ( they way men can be ). It's about ending a required strict adherence to gender roles that our society enforces. It's about ending domestic violence against women. It's about ending rape and addressing problems with rape culture ( for example, telling women to stop dressing a certain way instead of telling men to stope raping women ). Additionally, feminism isn't just about women, because men have long been required to fit into strict gender roles too. There are certain activities and behaviors that are thought of as " for men " and certain activities and behaviors that are thought of as " for women " and feminism tries to show people that they can be or do whatever they want to regardless of what the gender norm is. Those are just a few of the very many other things feminism is trying to do. | cmv |
I'm not a feminist simply because I don't see much gender inequality that isn't simply biological differences between men and women. CMV. | Here's an experiment you can try. Next time you are in a situation where there are men and woman discussing " high level " stuff like business or politics, keep note of how much each gender holds the floor and who is interrupted the most. I roll with some very strong feminists both male and female and even in our circles men dominate conversations and interrupt woman much more. I suspect that you'll see men speaking much more than woman and interrupting woman more often. | cmv |
I'm not a feminist simply because I don't see much gender inequality that isn't simply biological differences between men and women. CMV. | Well, I don't think adopting belief systems such as feminism is some kind of ultimate solution, but what I do see is that, as humans, we don't need to accept things just because they come from biological reasons. That's why we have ethics and justice systems in the first place. Those are human attempts to control their animal, biological impulses, although they are clearly not enough as murders, rapes, wars and discrimination continue to happen. | cmv |
I'm not a feminist simply because I don't see much gender inequality that isn't simply biological differences between men and women. CMV. | Do you not believe other people who have been the victims of gender inequality? Are you one of those people who only believes things they've lived through themselves? If not, then there are plenty of testimonials out there, evidence, court cases, wherein women are still mistreated due to their gender up until today. I'm assuming you're male, which is why you don't see it. What makes you think you would have seen it if it were real? You're probably not in closed - door meetings where women receive performance reviews, or involved in discussions of vacation / healthcare / pay where female workers are concerned. | cmv |
I believe modern day feminism has the equivalency of an appendix. CMV | Do you think we have achieved complete gender equality? If so, the facts would like to have a few words with you. If not, then there's still plenty to legitimately be frustrated with. | cmv |
I believe that everything is subjective, contextual, and relativistic. CMV | There are three assumptions we must make : 1. it is possible for things to exist. 2. It is possible to observe things that exist. 3. It is possible to make deductions based on observations. These are assumptions that we must make before logic can step in. If these assumptions are not true, than it is impossible to know anything about anything, and therefore a pointless option. | cmv |
I believe that everything is subjective, contextual, and relativistic. CMV | The ideas of objectivity and subjectivity are themselves not absolutes, but relative to a particular context. If you were on a jury, and the prosecutor says " It's an objective fact that the defendant purchased the knives the night before the murder " are you going to chirp in with an objection about the nature of absolute truth? Or do you understand that we're talking about truth in a legal context, where the sorts of arguments you bring up have no place? ( of course, this is in contrast to an objection regarding whether the prosecutor established the purchase simply to the standard of " reasonable doubt " ). But in another context, where the same set of evidence points to that individual purchasing those knives that night, even though we know this individual has been dead for years, we're much less inclined to accept the same statement as the truth. Because the context now is a paranormal claim. Quite reasonably, we now question the evidence that points to the conclusion someone was raised from the dead. So saying " everything is subjective " is like saying " everything is hot ", because nothing exists at absolute zero. But this totally ignores the usefulness of the notion of cold in a wide variety of contexts and it doesn't disprove the very existence of coldness. | cmv |
I believe that in a situation where a man and a woman don't agree whether to have or to abort a child, the Man's request should be given as much weight as the woman's. | In an ideal world the physical consequences of pregnancy and childbirth would be evenly distributed and transferable between the parents. Unfortunately this is not the case, the position of the " child " before birth is very different to after. After the birth pretty much either parent can look after it independently if needed ( excluding breast feeding ). So yes, in theory the father should have an equal say, however the physical reality distorts the control away from the father pre birth. It is tragic and opens the door to abuse but the alternative would be worse. The cost of any decision is not equal between the parents and so, when you consider the average total damage inflicted over all the possible situations on either side, favouring the woman is the least harmful. | cmv |
I believe that in a situation where a man and a woman don't agree whether to have or to abort a child, the Man's request should be given as much weight as the woman's. | It is my personal belief that any people who deal with a pregnancy needs to take each other's views into consideration when making these decisions. However, the person who is going to be directly affected physically by the abortion or the pregnancy and birth should have the final say. How could a court decide these things? One person wants the child, one does not. There is no impartial way to decide, no witnesses can be called and no evidence brought forth. And could you imagine if the court were to decide that the man is in the right and then force a woman through nine months of pregnancy and the most painful event of her life - to then become a mother to a child she doesn't want. Or force her to kill her child which she wants to keep. That sounds like torture to me and has absolutely no place in a free country. Yes, the man may go through similar feelings but in the end, one person needs to have veto right and that person needs to be the one carrying the fetus inside their body. | cmv |
I believe that in a situation where a man and a woman don't agree whether to have or to abort a child, the Man's request should be given as much weight as the woman's. | So you're ok with forcing a woman to go through pregnancy to have a child she has no interest in having? You think it's right to force her body to go through that, force her to go through horrible mood swings and possible vomiting for months, force her to go to the doctor when she may not even have the time? What about someone who lives in a very conservative area? Do you think a court will be impartial and not consider their own opinions on the topic? Also, why should random people have any say what so ever in a private discussion? Yes, the man's opinion should be considered, but ultimately it is the woman who has to go through the pregnancy and should be her choice. | cmv |
CMV : I believe it is ethical and useful to pay drug addicts and the extremely poor to get themselves permanently sterilized. | I think that permanently is wayy to far. sure paying people to be maybe cut the tubes if they can't raise the child would be a good thing but. forever?! what if the get themselves together and want a new life and to make new life? your idea completely avoids the american ideal of self improvement. though the permanence of your plan is the only problem I have with it and the fix is quite simple, don't make it permanent sterilization. You can reverse a vasectomy. So reversal should be subsidized, but not provided for, by the government. This would stop people from cashing in on the free money and then getting it fixed for free. | cmv |
CMV : I believe it is ethical and useful to pay drug addicts and the extremely poor to get themselves permanently sterilized. | It's not sterilization that's unethical, its the bribe to do it. Sterilizing the rich, and when they die using their money for welfare would achieve the same outcome. Except it would never work, because when your comfortable wouldn't be coerced in to doing something so extreme. Is it really okay to dangle a carrot in - front of vulnerable people, in the hope they will do it even though they might regret it later. These are human beings your talking about not just drains on resources. | cmv |
CMV : I believe it is ethical and useful to pay drug addicts and the extremely poor to get themselves permanently sterilized. | I think offering someone money to get sterilized is degrading and would victimize poor people and addicts desperate for money. What if an 18 year old addict gets her tubes tied so she can buy some pills, then a few years later, gets her life in order, kicks her habit and wants to have kids? OOPS lol sorry suzie, no family for you, should have thought of that before you got addicted to pain pills and sold your reproductive capacity to get a fix. FREE MARKET what you are suggesting would essentially be eugenics aimed at eliminating the " lower " classes, and would disproportionately target the most vulnerable members of our society. How about using that sterilization money to invest in low income communities to help those who are already born? | cmv |
CMV : I believe it is ethical and useful to pay drug addicts and the extremely poor to get themselves permanently sterilized. | Most people in extreme poverty had kids before they became poor ( usually it's the issues around caring for children that sent them there - needing to pay for more space, food, clothing, childcare, etc... ). Drug addicts also often have children before becoming addicted. Closing the barn door after the horse has left is not going to do anything except stop the cows from coming home. | cmv |
CMV : I believe it is ethical and useful to pay drug addicts and the extremely poor to get themselves permanently sterilized. | Population control and sterilization is not ethical. Ethical systems that include removing freedom are generally seen as less ethical than ones that don't, up to a point of feasibility. The feasibility of something like widespread sterilization occurring is very low. People don't go to the doctor when they have something wrong with them, they won't go to get paid if it involves being worked on physically. Also I don't see people going for this because of the idea of rehabilitation. If the focus we've come to is that people can get better than this option flies in the face of that. Thank you for your post! | cmv |
I believe that labeling someone by race is wrong. CMV | I live in a neighborhood that is primarily Black. My street has roughly 20 families and 3 of them are White. My household routinely refers to the White families as " that White family a few houses down " or " the White family on the other side of the street. " It's just convenient. | cmv |
I believe that labeling someone by race is wrong. CMV | This is simply an expedient means to identify a person. I am kind of afraid of coming off as racist sometimes, because I'm a tightwad like that, but I actually have trouble like this. I hesitate to identify people by race, and because I am bad at describing people's other physical features, I have basically nothing to go by. I can recall one specific instance at my job where a co - worker ( a black woman ) was asking me who I gave a bundle of papers to and I literally couldn't think of any important identifying characteristics of this guy, except that he was black. She was grilling me over this and eventually another black woman joined in the conversation to ask and specifically asked " Is he black?? " and I said yes, and they immediately knew who he was. It's just one physical characteristic like height, or weight, or eye color that's used for identification purposes. Nobody thinks eye - color is discriminatory, but we put that on our driver's license to make sure it's really describing us. | cmv |
I believe that labeling someone by race is wrong. CMV | When I go to Africa they call me whitey. You don't describe people by the majority. e. g. You don't go to China and say the pale man with short black hair. It's not helpful. | cmv |
I believe that labeling someone by race is wrong. CMV | Pointing out a minorities skin color narrows down who you are talking about. If I'm in America ill say " the black guy " because odds are that you'll know based on context who I was talking about. If I'm in The Congo ill say " look at the white guy ". If your describing someone as their race as a negative point than that it wrong. Simply doing so for clarity isn't. | cmv |
I don't see a problem with polygamy, CMV | Polygamy itself isn't necessarily automatically " evil " or " wrong " or any such nonsense. The problem with polygamy - and the reason for its current legal status - is that historically, polygamy has never been about love or multiple consenting individuals wanting to be together, and the fear is that it will always be that way. There's no reason to alter the laws to allow a tiny minority of people to get marriage benefits ( after all, why can't two of them get legally married and the rest just get non - legal unions? ) when the risk of it being abused by the powerful being so high. | cmv |
I don't see a problem with polygamy, CMV | In almost every instance of polygamy in history, it's been male - centric. It is therefore reasonable to believe that it will be male centric if it is allowed in future. And when you're dealing with an issue like this, I don't think it's fair to just write off the social and economic details. While I'm no expert on them, if polygamy were to be allowed and practiced by many families it would have many social impacts. If a particular practice produces negative social and economic impacts, then surely it would be morally wrong. If there were positive impacts, it would be morally okay. So, social and economic impacts are definitely important in a discussion like this. I'm just not very sure on the details. | cmv |
I don't see a problem with polygamy, CMV | Cultural norms about which behaviors are preferable or not preferable permeate pretty much every aspect of our existence. ( And this isn't unique to our culture / existence - that's how societies work. ) There are cultural norms about food consumption, how to treat family members, the circumstances under which to have children, money, work, etc. Most of these norms don't have to do with the less - preferred behavior being " inherently wrong ", they just have to do with people thinking it's less preferable in some way - less healthy, less generally conducive to a good society, whatever. You acknowledge that there are difficult social and economic aspects to polygamy, but you dismiss that as a reason to reject this. I'd encourage you to consider that difficult social or economic aspects are why most of our cultural norms exist, not because something is inherently wrong. If your bar for whether we should stigmatize something is set as high as " inherently wrong, " it's not just cultural norms around polygamy you have a problem with, it's cultural norms around most things. To convince yourself of this, I'd start with thinking about all the stuff you believe to be not good behaviors, things that, say, if you had kids you'd strongly discourage them from doing, or even tell them to avoid other people who do them. Are all those things inherently wrong? Probably most of them won't be, they'll just be on average somewhat more foolish or hurtful. | cmv |
I believe that an opt - out system of organ donation could only be beneficial CMV | My country uses an opt - out system. It leads to a higher number of donors but is not an ideal system. Very few people know the system so the medical team has to ask the family about the deceased's opinion. It can be a very painful moment for the family. If the family doesn't want to take any decision the doctors often choose not to do anything, even if the law would allow them. In practice the surest way to be an organ donor is to register with some associations and get a donor car and to talk with your relatives : it tends toward an opt - in system. Regarding the arguments against being a donor, I can't really say since I often disagree with them, but they usually revolve around the religious idea of the body integrity for the afterlife. | cmv |
I believe that an opt - out system of organ donation could only be beneficial CMV | I live in the US, and I am not an organ donor, and I believe they should have to have explicit consent to take my organs. My biggest reason is that I firmly believe the distribution system is flawed. Having a diagnosis of schizophrenia or most mental illnesses is an automatic exclusion from being accepted onto the waiting list in most cases. There are several articles on this. Here is one. If the system were opt - out many mentally ill would be subject to having their organs harvested. These people most likely could never get on the waiting list to receive an organ, and their organs should not be taken at all if the system deems them undeserving to receive them. Most of them also probably would be aware of this. I also would never take an organ myself, so I feel no obligation to donate my organs. | cmv |
I think that we would have a better legal system if judges would not be appointed for life and if they were being prosecuted for their legal judgement. CMV | Appointments allow judges the flexibility to make rulings without being concerned with politics or a reelection campaign that might otherwise sway their opinion. Decisions like Roe v. Wade or the Brown decisions in the US would most likely not be possible without a life appointment system. Most rulings in the US are subject to an appeals process and incorrect rulings or breaches in proper judicial procedure can be corrected during this process. Additionally judges are not above the law. It's very possible for judges to loose their appointments if they are caught operating outside of the law. You seem to live in a country with a poor judicial system. I would argue that your experiences are the result of corruption in the system rather than appointments themselves being a poor system. | cmv |
I think that we would have a better legal system if judges would not be appointed for life and if they were being prosecuted for their legal judgement. CMV | I assume you're talking primarily about Supreme Court justices, since many lower court judges are not appointed for life. They have set terms and have to run for election, or are appointed for a set period of time. What type of ruling to you think should be subject to prosecution? | cmv |
I think that we would have a better legal system if judges would not be appointed for life and if they were being prosecuted for their legal judgement. CMV | Very few judges are appointed for life. Hell, a majority of states elect their judges so they aren't even appointed by anyone. Justices are for life, but there's only 9 of them. Judges are also not above the law as you seem to be suggesting. If their rulings are overturned on appeal they aren't punished, but if there's impropriety in coming to the ruling they certainly are. Are you suggesting judges be held accountable for their rulings that are ultimately overturned? That's a terrible idea because a lot of good judges, using their best honest interpretation of the law, can still be overturned by a higher judge who simply have a different interpretation. I can understand arguments against appointments for life, but there are very few judges like that. But I honestly don't understand the second part of your proposal, under what conditions should they be sanctioned? | cmv |
I think that we would have a better legal system if judges would not be appointed for life and if they were being prosecuted for their legal judgement. CMV | First off, you're wrong about your assumption that judges are appointed for life ; they aren't. Second, you're wrong about your assumption that judges are always the ones who do the sentences ; they aren't. Third, what's your counter - proposal to allow judges to be prosecutable? If a party to a suit doesn't like the verdict, instead of appealing, they sue the judge? And which court does that case go to? And if they don't like that verdict, can they sue that judge, then? This seems highly implausible and not justified. | cmv |
I believe that personal gun ownership allows for self - reliance, and gun prohibition is antithetical to this foundation for American success. CMV | Where do you get this idea that independence in the arena of personal safety is the foundation of American success? This is a bizarre notion to anyone pursuing a wide array of careers - - is my success in getting to the top of my company going to depend more on my mastery of intra - office politics, or on my getting a gun? And it ignores the fact we are intimately interdependent on almost everything that does matter. Elsewhere in this thread you mention Bill Gates. Bill's success was highly dependent on the state of transistor technology at a crucial age of his life. This is a dependence on the work of other people that he had nothing to do with. And that kind of social and economic dependence is way more important than independence in the area of personal safety, for Gates and just about everyone else who achieves success in some area. Think of it this way : if Steve Jobs was born in 1900, he could easily have a gun, but he almost certainly wouldn't have achieved the level of success that he did. Your thesis is one that is considerably weakened when crime rates are dropping, as they are now. In fact, focusing on crime victimization, regulation of leaded gasoline is MUCH more important than gun ownership, whose effect on crime rates is notoriously difficult to ascertain. | cmv |
I'm fairly ashamed of this, so please help me CMV. I believe that the vast majority of parents, no matter how tolerant and loving, would not choose to have a gay child. | s'okay. My mom told me she hoped I wouldn't be gay. I turned out gay anyway and I know that she loves me. I want to change the part of your view that says it's a problem. No one wants life to be harder for their children. Life is harder for gay people than straight people. These are two undeniable facts. Together, they make it clear that no one would choose to have gay children, just like no one would choose to have depressed children even though plenty of parents love and support their children through their depression. It's just an additional hardship that you'd rather your kid not have. | cmv |
I'm fairly ashamed of this, so please help me CMV. I believe that the vast majority of parents, no matter how tolerant and loving, would not choose to have a gay child. | Being gay has nothing to do with who the kid is, really. It has nothing to do with a persons compassion, sense of humour or Intrests. Sexuality doesn't define someone and it's a shame when people treat it like it does. | cmv |
I'm fairly ashamed of this, so please help me CMV. I believe that the vast majority of parents, no matter how tolerant and loving, would not choose to have a gay child. | I've discussed this with my parents in depth, because everyone in my family is wondering whether or not my younger brother will turn out to be gay. While we all agree we love him no matter what, my dad sincerely hopes he does not turn out gay simply so that he can avoid all the hate directed at homosexuals. To me, that's a thought that comes purely from a place of love and has nothing to do with homosexuality at all. So I know this isn't of much use in a CMV, but maybe it's a view that doesn't need to be changed. | cmv |
I'm fairly ashamed of this, so please help me CMV. I believe that the vast majority of parents, no matter how tolerant and loving, would not choose to have a gay child. | I think there's a difference between saying'I wouldn't chose to have a gay child'and'I don't care if my child is gay '. Life is harder for someone who isn't straight because there are prejudices against them and many people will hate them just because of that. I think it's perfectly natural to want to protect your child from that and no one would chose to have their child go through it. I don't think your view needs to be changed per se, but maybe you might want to change why you feel that way? | cmv |
I think murderers should get the electric chair. CMV | Revenge is not a goal of the justice system. we punish people for three reasons : to deter crime, to remove dangerous people from society, and to rehabilitate. What difference does it make if injection is like a medical procedure? As far as I know it's the most humane way to kill a person, which is important because we have rules against cruel punishment written into our constitution. What benefit is there to valuing revenge over the rights of the accused? | cmv |
I think murderers should get the electric chair. CMV | The argument I've always made against the death penalty is the pragmatic argument : it's far too costly. A lot more legal proceedings are involved for criminals facing the death penalty than for those facing a life sentence, and those trials require a ton of money. Is it worth 3 - 4 times the cost of a life sentence just to zap a guy? | cmv |
I fear that Islam will play a large role in escalating conflicts with western nations to the point of world war. CMV. | I think you are confusing the terms Islam with Radical Islamists. You mention at first " radical Islam " that is spreading, which you say is the source of the problem. Then you note the " large influx of Muslims. " I don't mean to assume, but I think you have a bit of confusion over the two groups. They are separate. Completely. Islam does contain a volatile subgroup of radical Islamists, but the reason they are so volatile is because of the " power " they are given. There are almost as many Muslims on earth as there are Christians, but on TV ( especially America ), they are alienated and demonized. Since 9 / 11, this has sparked a huge divide in the tolerance of Islam, and I think much of the media's portrayal has biased your views. I know I did not address your point completely, but I hope this helps. | cmv |
I fear that Islam will play a large role in escalating conflicts with western nations to the point of world war. CMV. | No. Governments don't go to war over such issues. These are just issues to be fixed at the local level. The Western nations are very much dependent on the Arab nations and vice versa. Money is a greater motivating factor than religion. Also, right now, no one can really afford to wage war. That is expensive. | cmv |
I fear that Islam will play a large role in escalating conflicts with western nations to the point of world war. CMV. | The double - down on radicalization is the death throws of a conservative branch of Islam that knows that it doesn't have a place in the contemporary world. As long as we make it through the next generation or two without world war three, they'll die out. It's the same principle as the uptick in American evangelicalism corresponding to us finally giving minorities rights. People have a tendency to move one direction or another during social shifts like that, but the people who move hard towards conservatism tend to be a flash in the pan. | cmv |
I fear that Islam will play a large role in escalating conflicts with western nations to the point of world war. CMV. | The natural tendency of the vast majority of people in the world is not to want to go to war or to die or have their lives put in significant danger. I'm not going to write any sort of apologia for the oft - criticized aspects of Islam or Muslim culture in general. But it's just the reality that this is sort of a trend for people cross - culturally that only seems to have grown stronger over time, even if there are little differences and variations here and there. The Arab countries made peace with Israel, who many of them arguably hate as much if not more than any other western country, because they saw the futility of perpetual war. They can be pragmatic, even when sometimes the worst examples make it seem like they're driven solely by ideology. There will be threats presented by stateless extremist groups, and that shouldn't be minimized or ignored. But I don't think you need to worry about the Muslim world as a whole chomping at the bit to drag the global population into a war filled with pointless slaughter. Radical groups like Al Qaeda don't even poll well with the average Arab citizen today, and I suspect, " Let's destroy entire generations of our own people in a holy war against the West, " wouldn't either if you surveyed with that question instead. | cmv |
I fear that Islam will play a large role in escalating conflicts with western nations to the point of world war. CMV. | The United States has waged war in the Middle East for decades now. We have bases in their holy lands, engage in illegal wars of choice, reign death from drones and have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. If this were happening to you, your family and your home town from Canada how would you feel about Canadians regardless of their religion? Put yourself in their shoes and you'll see why they feel the need to retaliate and why any kind of radical group against the US can gain supporters quickly. | cmv |
I believe all gun owners should be equally responsible for any crimes committed with that gun, whether or not they actually committed the crime. CMV | What about retailers? Let's say I get all my credentials and show up to Wal - Mart with a background check, my hunter's safety license, permits, concealed carry license, and ID. The guy at the counter sells me a handgun, and then I go shoot up a school. Is the retailer now responsible for my crimes? Retailers are essentially just people who own a lot of guns and sell those guns to other people. Even if they take all legal precautions it's still possible that someone will use their guns to commit a crime. Should gun sales be banned because of this? | cmv |
I believe all gun owners should be equally responsible for any crimes committed with that gun, whether or not they actually committed the crime. CMV | Rephrasing the title a bit : " I believe people should be held responsible for crimes that they don't commit. " What makes guns so special for your argument? If you lend someone your car, and they get in an accident with it, you aren't criminally responsible for their actions ( unless, of course, you think they should be. ) | cmv |
I don't think it's possible for homosexuality aka gayness to be an evolutionary trait. CMV. | We know that people in a family aren't all exclusively hetreosexual or homosexual. Provides an addition parent to support your kids. So your homosexual uncle puts in time with your child instead of his own. There is a theory that in females the gay gene causes them to have more children. | cmv |
I don't think it's possible for homosexuality aka gayness to be an evolutionary trait. CMV. | There is speculation that homosexuality can be caused by multiple genes that each produce a unique benefit, but collectively produce a predisposition towards homosexuality. And the expression of genes can depend on environmental factors. A gene that may express itself as something favorable in a hunter gatherer environment may express itself as homosexuality in an urban environment. Both of these are ways in which the genes responsible for homosexuality can be selected and passed on, but not necessarily the trait itself, so these explanations may not answer your question. | cmv |
I don't think it's possible for homosexuality aka gayness to be an evolutionary trait. CMV. | It's incorrect to view evolution as simply advantageous traits being passed down. Many traits are selected for over long periods of time because they are advantageous, that is only a part of evolution. Traits that physically show up in someone are part of their phenotype, but you have tons of genes that don't really affect or show in you but may affect your children or their children, this is one's genotype. Anyways, non - adaptive traits can be passed down indefinitely through your genotype. Many genes either increase or decrease in frequency entirely because of random genetic drift, not because of natural selection. I'm not going to argue that homosexuality would be an adaptive trait, I'm would simply argue that the fact that natural selection wouldn't favour something certainly doesn't mean it would have been wiped out by now. If that was the case, evolution would have selected away all genetic defects by now. | cmv |
I don't think it's possible for homosexuality aka gayness to be an evolutionary trait. CMV. | I read a paper a while back on a'helper theory.'The idea is that a families with a homosexual member have a better chance of passing on their genes because the homosexual family member does not reproduce and therefore can help parents provide for children. IE, the ideal parenting number is higher than 2. This way family genes ( including possible'gay genes'for lack of a better word ) are passed down. | cmv |
I don't think that the pro - life stance is misogynistic. CMV. | It depends which version, obviously. Actual pro life organizations are in fact populated by mostly females, since in the end it is a more feminine point of view. They are vastly different from people like rush limbaugh who are clearly misogynistic and who simply don't care. I think that in order to be maximallly about reduction of harm to the parents they would have to support birth control, condoms, and government benefits for a lot of these things. ONLY supporting the legislation is giving a bit of a short end of the stick. So no, the pro life position is not technically inherently misogynistic, but some practical applications of it could certainly be. The concept of thinking it automatically is ipso facto is obviously just extremist rhetoric designed to not have to actually argue the logic of why it shouldn't be implemented though. | cmv |
I don't think that the pro - life stance is misogynistic. CMV. | It is a strong claim, but from a certain point of view it does lead one to the conclusion that it's misogynistic. The issue is that a strong pro - life position doesn't incorporate any thoughts for a woman's bodily autonomy, which basically relegates them to human incubators rather than fully autonomous beings capable of making their own decisions regarding their own persons. It takes their ability to make choices regarding their own well - being out of their hands. I don't think this is from a purely misogynistic point of view ( i. e. I don't think they " hate women " ), but it's the undesirable consequence of enacting any policy or espousing any view which takes personal health decisions our of the purview of the individual directly involved. This doesn't mean that one can't have a principled stance against abortion ( If you don't think so I suggest you read Don Marquis'essay " Why Abortion is Immoral ), but sadly too many pro - life advocates will take any measure to further prevent abortion from happening. From vaginal wands to having to hear the heartbeat of the child, the methods that they will take to prevent something they consider " wrong " from happening are invasive and manipulative, showing that they don't particularly care what happens to the woman at all. That is what's misogynistic, the complete lack of regard for women in any area in order to get their desired end result. | cmv |
I don't think that the pro - life stance is misogynistic. CMV. | Because a woman's right over her body is fundamental ( I'd actually argue it's the most fundamental right there is ). Let me give you an analogy : Suppose that instead of a fetus needing her womb, it's her adult son who needs her kidney. Could it be anything but misogynistic to mandate by law that she MUST donate the kidney? Essentially, could it be anything but misogynistic to give even another adult ownership over part of a woman's body? If not how could it be anything but misogynistic to give a lump of cells that can't even think yet that same control over her body? | cmv |
I don't think that the pro - life stance is misogynistic. CMV. | Can you force someone to donate a kidney? Early in pregnancy it should be an option because pregnancy is dangerous, painful, and changes everything about your life. Late in pregnancy, when the fetus has a functioning nervous system and is alive by any standards we apply to born people, it's disgusting. Fortunately, 3rd trimester abortions are illegal in most of the western world. | cmv |
I don't think that the pro - life stance is misogynistic. CMV. | Part of this view comes from prominent conservatives who have repeatedly talked about pro - choice rape victims as not being legitimate. I'm referring to " the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down " guy as well as others who have talked about who legitimate rape means you are a virgin who was saving yourself for marriage. Their views of maternal rights are intertwined and " informed " by their ideology which is rooted in misogyny. Much more | cmv |
Congress should abandon attempts to institute gun control beyond what is already in place, CMV. | HELLO. I am so tired of your second argument that I actually groan when I hear it now. It's simply not true. Leaving aside the fairly obvious fact that, as a trend, the stricter the gun laws the less gun violence there is. There's also the simple fact that we have an actual example of national sweeping gun reform resulting in a decrease in violence and an elimination of mass shootings : Australia. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | I wish my parents would tell me this post face to face in real life so I could try to change their views. It would make me happy if they would just give it a real chance, but they're close minded. I really appreciate your interest in finding out more before deciding that you will never accept it. Btw, I'm not some 14 year old kid that thinks I should be able to smoke weed every day in the house. I'm an adult, but my parents changing their views would mean a lot to me. PS : I'm not telling anyone to smoke or do any drug, personal research should always be done first. You also have to make a decision like this for yourself, not because someone told you too. Just letting you know about my experience. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | I can give you numerous benefits of medicinal marijuana, but I could only think of a few recreational uses off the top of my head. I'm rather socially awkward, and I've found that I talk to people and make friends easier under the influence. Of course, if I'm stoned out of my mind I can hardly function, but with a good amount I can have a really good time and open up like I desire. In addition, I find I invent some really good inventions while high. For instance, a chocolate filled marshmallow. Great for s'mores. : ) | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | why would drugs and alcohol be different than other hedonistic pleasure? Is there a substantive difference in using a drug to constitutively bind dopamine receptors ; as opposed to using the pleasure and excitement that accompanies the rush of adrenaline watching your favorite team in the playoffs? I guess my main point is, provided it is used in an unselfish way, why should one activity for achieving pleasure using artificial constructs be morally preferable to another? | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | The fact is that those who work hard in life are not always rewarded. Many people work for years in school, in a job, or to build a company from the ground up and find that they are not happy. Time spent not being drunk or high is time spent working / learning / interacting with people yes but there is no guarantee that this makes you happy. Now I have not personally used marijuana. But I have used alcohol, and I can say that when I go to sleep buzzed, I'm happier then when I go to sleep sober, and its not time I would otherwise have spent doing anything else. As someone who enjoys writing short stories, I can also say that alcohol sometimes helps my mind think in different ways than it normally does, and I enjoy some of the ideas I come up with while inebriated. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | I understand where you are coming from. I believe it all comes down to priorities. Everyone has different values, as well as different degrees of said value. Some people value certain things over the other. Take marijuana, for example. It has negative health consequences if you smoke it - inhaling any smoke is bad for you. It has a few negative psychological consequences for some people ( lack of motivation ; it can trigger schizophrenia in rare cases for people who have predispositions to mental illness ). That being said, some people really enjoy smoking it. Their enjoyment exceeds the risks, the harms that come from it. I would say that if they enjoy the benefits of taking the drug to that extent, it likely exceeds any harm that comes from it. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | I'll focus on alcohol, because I've never done any drugs. What do you mean by " recreational use "? Having a few beers with your friends while you watch a football game, or getting blackout drunk at a party? There's a vast array of different recreations that you might indulge in alcohol while doing. I went on a cruise with my family, and the cruise line offered a lot of different alcoholic beverages that my parents and I indulged in while sitting by the pool or watching shows. I can't really see any harmful effects coming from that. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | Beyond the " pleasure " aspect everyone else has done to death, there's something to be said for the fact that humans did not evolve to handle the stresses we now deal with on a daily basis. 9 - 5 jobs, traffic, computers, etc. - - all worlds away from the hunter - gatherer lifestyle, spending maybe 20 hours a week working with a small family group and no real distractions. Now we see orders of magnitude more people every day than our ancestors ever would have. So, what does that have to do with drugs? Drugs - - not just recreational - - modulate the internal state of people to adapt to these circumstances. Alcohol helps with social interactions ; it makes it easier to meet and socialize with people outside of those smaller circles our ancient ancestors had. Stimulants like coffee and nicotine are used to improve focus and deal with our very different sleep cycles. Marijuana I don't know as much about, but I believe its often essentially used to deal with stress. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | On the topic of recreational cannabis, growing up your always told how bad it is for you and the dangers and risks associated. As I grew up I came to discover that cannabis can do no more harm to you than eating massive amounts of fast food. Everything in moderation, even alcohol. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | Do you have any arguments for your assertion that a sober state of mind is preferable to an altered one? I don't see any reasoning for that viewpoint beyond " It's the status quo. " You must concede the point that altering one's state of mind does not necessitate addiction, or even the formation of a habit, and also that novel sensations that come from drug use are not inherently addictive. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | You are doing harm to yourself but that's your choice to make. If you don't want to harm yourself with drugs and alcohol then don't. People should have the choice to put what they want in their bodies. What so bad with that? | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | I'm not sure anyone has mentioned the " social lubricant " aspect of something like alcohol or even weed. At a gathering where it's socially acceptable to partake, you may have three times as many conversations and ten times as much laughter with friends, old and new, versus sitting around sober. I will say, though, that I know quite a few people who can't figure out how to have fun otherwise, and that's a shame. So, my current stance is to drink a little, socially, to cut through the awkwardness. But really, a glass of wine while I'm cooking or some good beer while I'm grilling really puts me in the mood to cook up something delicious because it awakens my taste buds. Weed is something totally different. I think it hits people in different ways. I hardly ever consume anymore, maybe once a year, but when I do, I want to do it alone and just let my mind and senses ramp up and go off on the craziest introspective tangents. None of the ideas are really any good, but I have such intense eureka moments with such strange thoughts that I feel cleansed, later, mentally. It's definitely a recreational approach, but it yields a therapeutic result. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | Anything you do which changes your mental state is having a physiological effect on your brain already. One could argue from that standpoint that the difference from getting to a state from merely one's actions or through some recreational substance is not that important. For example, say you're a thrill seeker. The act of skydiving or going on a rollercoaster would effectively be your " drug ". Similar to a real drug, they would get you to a mental state which you could not attain without their aid, but would you consider their decision to go on a rollercoaster to be a bad choice? To be clear this is in the context of casual drug users, not addicts. For someone to be addicted to thrill seeking may also end up not being all that safe. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | Recreational use of drugs often stimulates creativity. Much of the art and music our society treasures and values was at least partially influenced by the changed mindset that drugs offer. Drugs lower the inhibitions which restrict our social interaction and make us more sociable creatures. Finally, drugs show us an altered state of mind, which gives us many benefits in this postmodern, existentialist world that many people are unable to cope with. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | What makes sobriety for sobriety's sake so desirable? There are certainly situations where it's important to be sober. I want other motorists on the road to be sober. I want my surgeon to be sober. But these are because that person's lack of sobriety could result in harm to others. What if my roommate has had a couple drinks and decides to brush his teeth? Take off his shoes? Will being sober give him any advantage in either of these compared to having consumed a moderate amount of alcohol prior? He's capable of performing these actions without harming anyone. Perhaps he finds drunken shoe - removal more enjoyable enough that he'll put up with any of the drawbacks of moderate consumption. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | A couple can have a perfectly good life if they simply enjoy each others company respect each others morals and have sex to procreate. For some a crazy sex life is not necessary. For others sex can completely mess up a relationship but it can also enhance a relationship. Drugs and alcohol are very similar in that aspect. Drugs like ecstasy when taken with couples can strongly increase a relationship between them or can help people with ptsd get over there disability. Alcohol allows many people to feel comfortable in large groups and able to make new friends or strengthen old friendships. Marijuana and other mind altering drugs can help philosophers view the world in a different light one they haven't seen before. There are a lot of positive side effects associated with many drugs. Thats not to say there are not a lot of negative ones as well. But if you feel content with going through life and not trying these it is completely alright but thats not to say someone who does try them are any worse off. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | I'm going to ignore any medical applications completely because op is talking about rec use. Okay so the whole purpose of recreational drugs for most people is to get more enjoyment or to distract them from their normal life, not including addictions that is. For some people the benefits of drinking or taking drugs which are is more enjoyment and a distraction from normal life out weigh the negative effects such as death. It all really depends on the type of drugs you are talking about and in what sort of quantities so if you could give more information that would be great. Of course some people just enjoy the taste of a nice wine, beer, ect. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | Lots of things people do recreationally can be potentially detrimental. You have to make trade - offs sometimes and think " Is the potential detriment of this activity worth the enjoyment I will derive from it? ". You could make that argument about just about anything people do recreationally. If a person likes to ride bicycles recreationally, they could get hit by a car. Does that make it a bad decision? I mean, I think one could argue that in many situations, you would be more safe staying locked up inside your house, as there are more potential dangers outside. Does that mean going outside is a bad choice? | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | I think I understand your reasoning, but correct me if I'm wrong. That people shouldn't rely on substances in order to feel better, and instead be content with themselves in sobriety? I used to be against all drinking and drugs until I experienced it personally and realized it wasn't what I thought it was. I think that you can still be content with yourself without relying on substances and still use them. It is hard to describe what it is like to be drunk / high, but for me ( whose been both ) I am still in control, and I'm still myself. I can be content with myself sober and still enjoy being in a different " state ", and sometimes I feel like I lose myself more in a really good book or movie then when drunk / high. I also respect when people choose not to drink / smoke, because they don't want to, but just because you feel like it's bad doesn't mean it is. It can be damaging to some but not to others, and it depends on the person using and why they use it. When someone drinks to forget something bad, or because they are unhappy with themselves, it has potential to be damaging, but it is still possible to partake and enjoy yourself without negative consequences. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | It always baffles me when people lump cannabis and alcohol together as mind - altering poisons. Everyone I know who smokes does so to get high ; nobody I know who drinks does so to get drunk. ( Although I will admit in some countries there is an unfortunate boozing culture. ) There simply is no non - alcoholic equivalent to wine to accompany a good meal or nice cheese. There is no equivalent to a nice Armagnac or Calvados to polish off a meal. There is no equivalent to champagne to fete a celebration. In all those instances the mind - altering qualities are of secondary importance. | cmv |
I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW? | Sobriety, as somebody else mentioned, is a socially normative idea. Life is experienced across a constantly fluctuating spectrum of mental states, all of which are " natural ", all of which are chemically induced, none of which should be accepted as " normal ". My brief period of experimentation with marijuana and other psychedelics ended many years ago, but I believe that I walked away from it with a new sense of perspective on life and my own mind that I derive contentment from without needing the actual substances anymore. It was good for me, in the broadest sense, but also just fun. However I don't think you are ever going to read an argument that you feel justifies recreational drug use, because " harm " and " good " are subjective terms which you can only define for yourself. In the same way, you can never tell somebody that they are making a bad choice unless you understand what their goals and priorities are. The psychosomatic dependency that you refer to as harmful ( not physical addiction, which is a different issue ) I think stems from a deeper depression and is an effect rather than a cause. I know from personal experience that a refusal to confront a problem causing issue in your life can manifest in many different forms of escapism : drug use, video games, reading, excessive sleep, etc. | cmv |
I think SRS is kind of a good thing CMV | a. SRS does not welcome discussion. b. They only seek to protect one side of the spectrum. They completely ignore the other side ; and when confronted with it, they forsake logic and resort to mockery instead of structured arguments. SRS breeds ignorance and suppresses valid arguments through shaming. They are a disgrace to feminism and are very detrimental to it. | cmv |
I think SRS is kind of a good thing CMV | The issue is not that people being racist and sexist is a good thing, but rather that addressing problems does not automatically mean that you are doing it correctly. Extremist attitudes that call for " hate of the haters " often are very general, and in the end are just regularly a form of hate. Encouraging rage filled vengeance is not only a bad thing for the consequences, but will also make addressing the problems you are trying to seen as something only extremists do. So it is counter - productive. | cmv |
I think SRS is kind of a good thing CMV | SRS is concerned with perceived injustices and keeping things " balanced " - but focuses on mainly one thing - women. Not just any women but white college educated women - the second most privileged class of all people on the planet. They do so by banning all opposing viewpoints and labeling people who disagree with them as sexists and do things like this | cmv |
I think SRS is kind of a good thing CMV | While the idea of SRS sounds good, it really isn't. They seem to not understand satire, and post everything that's not even blatant sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. So what they are doing is counter productive. | cmv |
I think SRS is kind of a good thing CMV | Well - My issue of this is that I question that SRS isn't a troll sub. They are hated ( almost ) across the board, they are inflammatory and controversial. They go into subs and pick fights and bring insults and extreme viewpoints to the discussion. I don't disagree with the idea of SRS - but I am almost positive that about 90 % of the people who frequent that sub are there to get reactions. | cmv |
I believe men should not be present in the delivery room during a child's birth. CMV. | Men should be present if the mother and father has decided that's how they want to do it. There is no one - size - fits - all solution here. Unless you have some kind of evidence that shows that men in the room increase the risk there's no reason to believe they shouldn't be there if that wasn't too be. Furthermore, childbirth it's a very emotional event and a mother may want someone to provide moral support or comfort | cmv |
I believe men should not be present in the delivery room during a child's birth. CMV. | Most of the time women want the father to be present for support and a hand to hold. It's not a practicality argument, it's an emotional one. Furthermore, this is just sexism. If there are " men things " and " women things ", than by your line of logic women should not be present during anything deemed a " man thing ". | cmv |
I believe men should not be present in the delivery room during a child's birth. CMV. | ∆ I'd like to thank everyone for helping me out. I had not phrased the question exactly as I meant, and I can understand the motivations of fathers to want to be present at the birth of their child ( ren ) and also the emotions of all involved. I think I also assumed a greater risk for infant mortality than is in reality and that the father's presence doesn't necessarily gum up the works as much as I imagined. Thanks again, all! | cmv |
I am a conscientious non - voter in the US CMV | Voting is the means by which we peacefully change power. It is an unprecedented advancement of civilization. Not voting is a vote to revert to a less civilized means of transferring power. It is a similar choice to the Amish choosing not to use electricity or the fundamentalist Muslims refusal to recognize the rights of women. It is a rejection of the progress of civilization. Not voting is an indication that you don't intend to make a peaceful transition of power work. That you are waiting for the previous method of changing power by blood and death. | cmv |
I am a conscientious non - voter in the US CMV | There are many third parties that share your complaints about a broken system. Vote for them. You aren't changing anything anyways, so you might as well be another number behind the third party movement to turn your dissatisfaction with the system into some kind of voice. | cmv |
I am a conscientious non - voter in the US CMV | The two parties in the US are essentially what would be called coalitions overseas ; the real action ( in narrowing down specific policies to be implemented ) happens though petitioning elected officials and participating in primaries. If you don't vote in the primaries, you're a part of the problem because at that point you're choosing between two candidates specifically selected to represent a broad coalition of viewpoints representing upwards of 45 % of the population each, with the remaining 10 % in contention in the general election. If you're far to the right or left, I can see how it'd be frustrating to see your viewpoint eliminated very quickly - - but, sadly, outside of noisy fringe groups and college campuses, radical ( far from center ) politics just aren't popular enough. | cmv |
I am a conscientious non - voter in the US CMV | I'm a liberal Democrat in Texas, so I get the meaningless presidential vote feeling. I take solace in the fact that all the major cities went for Obama this past cycle. It's about letting your voice be heard. And hopefully getting rid if the electoral college some day. I also think that just because something seems futile is no reason to fight for the things you believe in. Be the change you want to see. | cmv |
I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. CMV | My brother is gay, and I will be the first to support him. I would definitely call it a disorder. Just because there is negative connotation behind the word " disorder " doesn't change the fact that he is biologically inhibited. The soul biological process for life is to pass on DNA, since a homosexual has a predisposition to not pass on DNA, therefore it is a disorder. I love my brother and all gay people, I think people who view the opposite of OP are just afraid of being called biggots, when truly it is just a biological term and connotations should not affect the root definition of the word " disorder. " | cmv |
I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. CMV | I think many people fail to realize that mental disorders are not something humans " discover " but rather something that we create. The categories are arbitrary and created largely out of the current social context. The purpose of labeling a condition a mental disorder is to create categories in order for psychilogists to help people more efficiently. Labeling homosexuality a mental disorder is not only wrong by the definition of mental disorder, but the category is also useless because there are no negative mental effects resulting directly from homosexuality. Unfortunately, there can be indirect mental health consequences to being homosexual, but those result solely from stigma. | cmv |
I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. CMV | If by " nature " you mean evolution, do consider that humans are social animals, like a lot of mammals. Survival of a group of mammals in a tribe is not only based on individual bloodlines, but which tribe is most likely to survive and thrive. So, in a much more chaotic and dangerous reality than we live in today, mothers and fathers may die before a child is old enough to take care of itself. So my hypothesis is that in a tribe where every mother has 3 - 6 surviving children, it might be beneficial that a portion of those are able to create a family with a same - sex peer. In a situation where children need a family, and the male - female balance is heavy on one side. Over time, the tribes where homosexuality exists may be better off than the competing tribe where it isn't, because a larger portion of orphans have a safe and nurturing family to become good contributors to the tribe, through adoption. I find it stranger that infertile women have sex drive, to be honest. | cmv |
I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. CMV | I'm bi and I don't find that offensive at all. If my sexual orientation is defined as a disorder, that doesn't affect me at all, it's a disorder I'm happy to have in that case. And it's not really a problem that gays can't reproduce, seeing as we're too many people anyway. | cmv |
I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. CMV | The definition of a disorder is an ailment that affects the function of mind or body. The word disorder has negative connotations that makes it seem like being gay is detrimental to them. Its not a disorder, its just a mental state in a sense. I agree with most of what you're saying, I just think that mental disorder is much too harsh of a definition, because of all of the negative things that come along with it. | cmv |
CMV : I think Native American Reservations are bad for society and morally wrong. | While integration is a desirable goal for any society, it is important to note that the Native Americans act and are recognized as their own nation - - and rightfully so, this land was theirs before it was stolen from the by Europeans. And since they are sovereign nations, they naturally have land that is solely theirs to reside in and govern. You might be thinking it's similar to having separate lands for Mexican Americans, but it a more apt comparison would be having separate land for Mexico and America | cmv |
CMV : I think Native American Reservations are bad for society and morally wrong. | I'm not here to completely change your view as I don't know a whole lot about reservations. But the way I see it, native Americans all had their land before and now that the u. s. has that land the least they could do is give a little bit back. I see why it could be considered segregation but I'm guessing that most of them aren't too happy about losing their land and want to keep what they have left ( by staying In the reservations ). and stop the tribes from dying out by staying there. I think that if they combined with the normal us population that their culture would slowly die out. So from my point of view it seems like they deserve at least some land to call their own. | cmv |
I believe in the death penalty. CMV | It actually costs more money to upkeep the death penalty. Also, I think that killing a criminal who has done something heinous is giving them the easy way out. Having to live out their life in captivity is more of a punishment theoretically. Anyone can be put out of misery by death. | cmv |
I believe in the death penalty. CMV | lets put it this way : if your father / brother killed someone and the court determined it was hideous enough for the death penalty, would you be ok with it? also : if someone you love is murdered, you would probably be ok with them dying. you are acting on sentiment, not reason. you would probably be ok with him being tortured, gutted and hung for display. there aught to be laws to prevent a community from acting on sentiment. | cmv |