summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe in the death penalty. CMV | Let's assume that some non - zero number of people are wrongly sentenced to death ( we know this happens ) Read here for examples. Is it morally better to allow all murderers to live incarcerated, or to put to death all those who are found guilty, even if they are innocent? Even if the number of wrongful executions was very low, say 1 / 10000. Would that be acceptable? How many innocent lives are allowed to be taken before it is too many? | cmv |
I believe in the death penalty. CMV | I see two rational arguments against the death penalty : 1 : No matter how good a country's justice system may be, and no matter how much extra scrutiny capital cases may receive, there is still the possibility of putting an innocent person to death. Wrongful convictions, though quite rare, are impossible to eliminate altogether. If the death penalty is carried out on someone who has been wrongfully convicted, it is final and impossible to reverse. 2 : When it is practiced in a civilized country ( i. e. the U. S. ), the death penalty takes many years to be carried out after the sentence is passed. This is because everyone who receives a death sentence is entitled to a lengthy appeals process which ends up costing the taxpayer more than the cost of locking them up for the rest of their lives. I can totally understand the visceral need for revenge against those who have committed the worst crimes, but the death penalty just isn't the way to do it. Lock them in a box for the rest of their lives, it's probably worse than a quick death anyhow. Also, there is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. | cmv |
I'm bisexual, I love my gay friends. But I think gay marriage shouldn't be forced to happen, and that it infringes on the beliefs of said religion. CMV | No one wants to force homophobic churches to perform same - sex marriages. All we ask is that the state recognizes them. Marriage is not a religious concept, although many religions do hold it dear. | cmv |
I'm bisexual, I love my gay friends. But I think gay marriage shouldn't be forced to happen, and that it infringes on the beliefs of said religion. CMV | The Church can decline to marry a same sex couple if they choose. I don't believe that power can be taken away from them regardless if same sex marriage is legalized or not. However what is being debated now is if the government can " marry " same sex couples. This includes the couple being recognized as a couple and therefore receive the same benefits as other married couples. So the church will not be forced to recognize or marry same sex couples. | cmv |
I'm bisexual, I love my gay friends. But I think gay marriage shouldn't be forced to happen, and that it infringes on the beliefs of said religion. CMV | If you use the " good book " homosexual marriage is impossible. It will never be recognized by actual christians. So let them get married the sooner that happens the sooner i can marry a couple of ladies at the same time. | cmv |
I'm bisexual, I love my gay friends. But I think gay marriage shouldn't be forced to happen, and that it infringes on the beliefs of said religion. CMV | A marriage is only official if you go down to City Hall and receive a marriage certificate. Marriage does not in any way, shape, or form have to be approved by a religious figurehead. Sure, if that portion means something to someone, then that is their right to have it ordained. If the US is a nonsectarian government, then gay marriage really should have no opponent. | cmv |
I'm bisexual, I love my gay friends. But I think gay marriage shouldn't be forced to happen, and that it infringes on the beliefs of said religion. CMV | Churches can't be forced to marry any two people. That would infringe their rights, but no one is suggesting that. Marriage isn't a religious institution anymore than education and birth certificates are. People were joining together and living monogamously long before the church existed, and they will continue to do so thousand of years from now, when Christianity dies out. People think that marriage is a religious institution because it used to run by the church. Between the first millennia and the early second, almost all official records were kept by the church. Education was run by the church, and marriage was a church institution. By they didn't create any of those things. They adopted them, took them over. Religious groups have no more claim on marriage than do secular groups. | cmv |
CMV : The " Brain Drain " of Immigrants is Helping This Country ( The United States ) More Than It's Hurting It | Umm, what do you mean by Brain Drain? Do you mean immigrants getting an education in the US and going back home? The Brain Drain is usually used to refer to the cream of the crop ( wealthy or smart population ) of a developing country moving to a developed country and not helping their home country. | cmv |
I think right wing political parties exist purely to funnel money from the lower and middle classes to the richest 0. 1 %. CMV | I used to think this exact thing... Until I saw the donor list of some of the biggest and most powerful democrats. This isn't a Red / Blue thing, it's a politician thing. Jesse Jackson Jr. a democrat is going to prison over misuse of his campaign funds. Mayor Bloomberg of New York is a billionaire, He may tout liberal agenda's in the public but I do feel that if it threatened his wealth, he wouldn't bat an eye striking down something that helped the poor but hurt people with his wealth status. Source I was also a registered democrat in 2004 and 2008. I lean more conservative these days. Call it age I guess. | cmv |
I think right wing political parties exist purely to funnel money from the lower and middle classes to the richest 0. 1 %. CMV | uh, how? Can you give examples of how they TAKE money from the poor and give it to the rich? In the amount that is GREATER than the tax differences between the two? | cmv |
I will not touch girls who have ever messed with black gangsters. CMV | Just because you say " I'm not a racist " doesn't make it so. Why did you say " messed with black gangsters " instead of " messed with gangsters "? If you think it's just about them being antisocial, or making bad decisions ( and so the women who associate with them must also have poor judgment ), then why do you think that applies only to black gangsters, and not also to white gangsters, or latino gangsters, or asian gangsters? I'm sorry, OP, but you're a racist. | cmv |
I believe that abortion is entirely wrong because the mother chose to have sex, and she has the ability to put the child up for adoption after pregnancy. CMV ( please don't bring up rape, different topic entirely ) | I think this view might hold water if it were coupled with the view that children should receive comprehensive sexual health education, including use of and easy confidential access to contraceptives. If these go together, then you're right, people having unprotected sex are making a choice. Unfortunately, in all too many places, kids don't receive this sort of education. They are told that their genitals are evil, and never to ever touch the opposite sex, and so of course when they do, they don't know to take precautions, they don't know the risks, and so they end up in bad situations. | cmv |
I believe that abortion is entirely wrong because the mother chose to have sex, and she has the ability to put the child up for adoption after pregnancy. CMV ( please don't bring up rape, different topic entirely ) | What about teenage mothers, who are unable to look after themselves, let alone another child - they are still children themselves. Or drug addicts, who may not care about contraception, live in filthy houses with needles laying around, who have no empathy for others? What quality of life can an unwanted child expect? I think I'd rather have been aborted than grow up in a loveless household, to be someone's burden - to grow up ignorant, because nobody has taught you skills for life. Not being washed by your mum as a kid, bullied because of being smelly, left alone for long periods to look after yourself, you would become violent and problematic for society. | cmv |
I believe that abortion is entirely wrong because the mother chose to have sex, and she has the ability to put the child up for adoption after pregnancy. CMV ( please don't bring up rape, different topic entirely ) | My girlfriend sometimes mentions how lucky she was that she didn't have to go into the system because her aunt adopted her. That stuff is a horror story. Would you ever rape and beat a child, all day erryday? A foster parent would. | cmv |
I believe that abortion is entirely wrong because the mother chose to have sex, and she has the ability to put the child up for adoption after pregnancy. CMV ( please don't bring up rape, different topic entirely ) | The issue boils down to this : Is it right to tell someone else what to do with their body? The answer has to be'no '. I agree that abortion should not be contraception, that it is wrong in your scenario, but when it comes down to the choice between telling a woman what to do or allowing abortion as contraception, any rational society will support the first over the second. There isn't a correct answer here, there is only different levels of which wrongness you will chose to let slide. | cmv |
I believe that abortion is entirely wrong because the mother chose to have sex, and she has the ability to put the child up for adoption after pregnancy. CMV ( please don't bring up rape, different topic entirely ) | Because the embryo is only a potential person. It will become an individual in the future, but as an embryo / foetus it is simply a brainless lump of cells like any other lump of cells on a person's body. Every time a person choose not to procreate he / she is denying a potential person the chance to become a real one. There's simply too many of them and we cannot consider these may or may not exist people's desires. If these potential humans are never given existence then they will have lost nothing because they will have never had anything. You would have never had your friend in the first place either, so you wouldn't have lost anything as well. So the current desires of the pregnant woman trump the uncertain future desires of a potential person. | cmv |
I think that smoking cigarettes is no worse than eating McDonald's CMV | There's no such thing as second - hand obesity. I can't get fat by sitting next to you while you eat two dozen cheeseburgers. Also, pray tell, OP, what " basic human rights " are smokers being denied over there? | cmv |
I think that smoking cigarettes is no worse than eating McDonald's CMV | Obesity is extremely bad, but eating at McDonald's doesn't automatically make someone obese. Eating 5 Big macs a day is only a bad thing if you don't burn the calories consumed and they turn into an unhealthy amounts of body fat. A Big Mac can be apart of a healthy balanced diet. | cmv |
I believe in the case of violent crimes, especially rape and murder, there is no such thing as justice CMV | Justice is not the same as victim reparation. In your examples justice is a means of getting the victim back to where they were. In the case of murder it's impossible ( and in many other crimes really hard psychologically ). The purpose of justice is to hold people accountable for their actions and to be a deterrent to others. Part of victim reparation is justice and truth, but there is much more to it, ( family members would be the victims of murder as the dead guy can't do anything ). TL ; DR : Victim reparation = / = justice, they are both much more | cmv |
I don't believe gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and frankly I consider comparisons to the civil rights movement insulting. CMV | I'm not sure how your argument doesn't apply to interracial marriage as well. A white man has the right to marry a woman of his race. So does a black man. The law applies universally. | cmv |
I believe universal health care is wrong unless smoking and fast food are illegal. CMV | As a Brit, I think the NHS is the best thing about this country. Universal healthcare is fantastic, because it supports everyone and doesn't discriminate based on income, as is common in the US, where people remain ill and sometimes die because they cannot afford medical treatment. Others have already made the perfectly sound economic argument that smokers and the obese die younger, not ageing enough to cost the system as much as the healthy, though that is not my main issue with your point. My main problem is your use of the word " irresponsibility ". Would it be a bad idea to treat someone injured in a skiing accident because it was irresponsible to go skiing, since we all know it's a dangerous sport? Would it be bad to treat someone with a sexually transmitted infection because it was irresponsible to have unprotected sex? Smokers and the obese contribute to the system as much as any other demographic, and don't use proportionally more than their share of the funds, so to deny them use would not make sense on any level. As a side note, these categories of people do get less than preferential treatment when it comes to NHS organ donation plans. A alcoholic will not get a second liver if a non - alcoholic needs one, and this is, I think, fair. My argument does not extend this far. | cmv |
I believe universal health care is wrong unless smoking and fast food are illegal. CMV | You realize I can gorge myself on food that isn't from a fastfood joint. And I can drink alcohol till my liver fails and go to the hospital. Not to mention you're assuming the only people in hospitals are irresponsible people. Sure there are, but ALL? I have no sources but I assume car accidents, or really any other form of accidents, happen daily, in the entire nation of the U. S. Some cancers are unforeseeable and many diseases are not preventable. I am not arguing against Universal Health Care, I am unsure myself on my position on it, but your argument is not developed and flawed. Lastly I'd like to mention that allowing the government to decide what we can eat, and that we can't smoke is opening doors allowing them to decide far more than just what we can eat. I'm sure I don't need to explain why that's a bad thing. | cmv |
I believe universal health care is wrong unless smoking and fast food are illegal. CMV | Do you have statistics that show that smoking and unhealthy diets cause you to pay more by some significant amount? The data I've seen shows that people who engage in those types of behaviors end up living shorter lives and end up costing less. If you're worried about money, you should be encouraging everyone to take up smoking to keep your taxes down : P | cmv |
Russians responsible for radical Islam. | Actually, radical Islam ( or Islamism ) has its intellectual roots in the musings of Sayyid Qutb. You can read an article of his on the arts in America here ( it's worth a read, pretty interesting ). He's very much the Karl Marx of Islamism if you will. Maybe bin Laden is the Lenin, but his enemy is not the one responsible. The people who came up with the idea are. Islamism started because of Western imperialism through the supporting of puppet dictators like the Shah in Iran or Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Eventually, a pan - Islamic movement grew calling on Muslims to take back what had been taken from them and to drive the oppressors of Muslims out of Muslim lands. It is much bigger than just Russia's fault because it was spurred on by the policies of much of the world during the Cold War. | cmv |
As a male working in retail, I don't treat attractive women with same level of good customer service as I do other women because I believe they get enough attention already. CMV? | I'm guessing the view you want us to change is that doing this is the right thing to do? Lots of people feel that men get enough benefits in society as it is. Same is true for white people. Indeed, there's a long list of such traits - I'd imagine you have at least some of them. Would you be okay with someone shortchanging you in some professional interaction because of this? Essentially you're applying a kind of affirmative action here. How do you feel about affirmative action? | cmv |
As a male working in retail, I don't treat attractive women with same level of good customer service as I do other women because I believe they get enough attention already. CMV? | I know a lot of people who think the way you do. I also know a lot of attractive women who get constantly ignored because people judge them. Many men can be intimidated by attractive women, and afraid to approach them due to rejection, or assume they're already taken or, like you, just assume they already get enough attention. Other women, as well often ignore these attractive women because they are jealous of them, and assume, like you, that they receive plenty of attention. In my experience, also in customer service, there are definitely women who do get entirely too much attention and don't really deserve more. On the flip side however, it's been attractive young women that I've noticed end up being the most receptive to smiles and friendliness, because a lot of times the truth is they don't see nearly enough of that past the snarls and name calling of their normal social lives. | cmv |
I believe that Julian Assange has done great things for journalism. CMV | He made it more difficult for journalists to get the military to speak up. IIRC anyone in the military can inform congress about anything going on that shouldn't be going on. That should have been used instead of what Assange did. I'm not saying the way the US reacted to this was right, but just because the US is wrong doesn't mean Assange is right. | cmv |
I think modern medicine should be banned to allow traditional medicine. CMW | Surely what you now called traditional medicine was once modern in its time? So when's the cut off? What do you define as'modern '? Many of the chemicals used in common drugs are either directly extracted from plants or chemically made to imitate those such molecules. In fact, some could argue it's better using chemically made medicines as they're cleaner ( less contamination, bacteria and impurities ), cheaper ( mass produced from common reactants ), and can be modified to reduce side effects. | cmv |
I believe the feminist movement is extremely harmful and provides little or no good whatsoever. CMV | Your idea of a feminist isn't a feminist at all, it's an extremist sexist. A feminist is simply someone who believes in equality. You are associating a vocal radical group of people with the name " feminism " ; this is not true. I could call myself an ally but then vote against marriage equality, that would make me a bigot regardless of what I say otherwise. Same goes for the radicals you are talking about. | cmv |
I believe the feminist movement is extremely harmful and provides little or no good whatsoever. CMV | Devil's advocate here ; I believe that feminists seek to be above men and its a problem. Feminism doesn't scream equality to me, frankly. If it were about equality it wouldn't have a gender distinction to go along with it. If you want to justify feminism through that method then misogyny is totally fine and " empowering " to men. Sorry feminists, just my opinion. | cmv |
I'm an atheist / nonbeliever and I believe that the majority of secular / atheist movements are made up of bullies who just want to antagonize religious people. CMV | Moderate or non confrontational people don't really advocate or publicly show their beliefs as often as extremists or passionate people do. You can easily forget about them because they don't make themselves known. So take that concept and apply it to groups. | cmv |
I'm an atheist / nonbeliever and I believe that the majority of secular / atheist movements are made up of bullies who just want to antagonize religious people. CMV | I don't necessarily think the groups you mentioned should be viewed in the same light. As an atheist, I often get extremely frustrated with the attitude of some theists'attitudes towards atheism. While I think that their beliefs are nonsensical and illogical, I don't care that they believe it, as long as it doesn't lead them to do unreasonable or immoral things to others. This isn't really a problem for most atheists because we tend to just avoid the nutters and conservatives, but there are certain things that even sensible theists believe. One such thing is that I will burn in hell for all eternity and that I am immoral and other unfounded claims and beliefs. My sense is that the people in these groups are either overzealous atheists or people who are just extremely frustrated by the way that religion permeates American life and makes them feel out of place. If they are anything like me, they just don't want to have to deal with it and want to be free from it's public presence. Personally, I think that religious beliefs should be kept to one's self, and I would like it if there was a more secular climate in America, by which I mean a reduction of public displays of religion etc. That said, I wouldn't become an activist, or at least not an activist in the same way those who are involved with these groups are. | cmv |
I'm an atheist / nonbeliever and I believe that the majority of secular / atheist movements are made up of bullies who just want to antagonize religious people. CMV | I'm not aware of many formal organised atheist movements other than the British Humanist Association. They are a wonderful organisation, full of positivity and support. I hope they help to balance things a little in your mind! | cmv |
I don't think that a cancer patient, or any other person suffering from illness, is courageous or heroic as all they have to do is let the doctor, the real hero, do their work. CMV | It depends on how you define what a hero is. If your definition is limited to someone who chooses to endure personal loss for benefiting someone else, then certainly we are talking about heroism in altruistic sense. However, we also refer to those people as heroes who have endured unfair difficult circumstances and hardships and yet come out on top of things. Their stories inspire other people to be strong and count their blessings. This category could include many people, such as poor immigrants who have, through sheer hard work, became successful businessmen and millionaires, people fighting discrimination such as Rosa Parks, and also people who suffered physical and mental challenges as well as diseases. It also involves victims of war, torture or sexual or parental assault, and have surpassed their trauma to become successful. We praise them for their strength and courage, where others might have failed. Note that altruism, in this case, is not a necessary criteria. The only criteria is facing an unnaturally harsh circumstance and yet facing it with determination, creating a success story and an example for others to follow. They are heroes in terms of their courage and bravery. | cmv |
I don't think that a cancer patient, or any other person suffering from illness, is courageous or heroic as all they have to do is let the doctor, the real hero, do their work. CMV | Let's say that there is a soldier that has been captured by the enemy, they are tortured daily and suffer all the time. All they have to do is survive through each day and wait - eventually a regiment from their army will come save me. They could give up and possibly kill them selves, but instead they endure the pain that is pushed upon them. Would you say they aren't a hero? They didn't do anything besides endure suffering. | cmv |
I don't think that a cancer patient, or any other person suffering from illness, is courageous or heroic as all they have to do is let the doctor, the real hero, do their work. CMV | The emotional prescriptions for attitudes toward someone who is suffering are not always clear but always present to affect a positive outcome. Since you don't think they are what they are being called, it's not true to the nature of why they are being called that in every case which may explain some of your confusion. People also use hero to describe making it through a situation intact, so that may clear up the confusion. | cmv |
I don't think Benghazi was a big deal, but I think I must be missing something. | The problem was the proximity of the matter to the election and the cover - up attempt by the White House. The White House tried to play off the incident as if it were not a big deal in order to secure public opinion for Obama with re - election coming up. Personally, I don't think it matters because both parties are just a bunch of crooks and liars, but maybe you can understand that the incident was important because of when it happened, not necessarily what actually happened. | cmv |
I feel that government intervention in the market is crucial to ensuring American values of freedom and equality CMV | Neither of the quotes you mentioned came from the Constitution. Both come from the Declaration of Independence, an important but not legally guiding document. So can you restructure your argument based on this new set of facts? | cmv |
I think adultery should be legal in the United States. CMV | What would be the point of a marriage contract or civil union if the very thing that violates the sanctity of a relationship the most often and with the most explosive consequences ( aside from money, growing apart, abusiveness etc ) were legal? That would make marriage licenses weak and I don't understand why you think that's a good thing. In other words I don't understand what you think the world would be like on the other side, after you've made adultery legal. | cmv |
I think adultery should be legal in the United States. CMV | Can you give us an example of adultery being effectively illegal in any of the states, rather than just incidentally illegal purely by virtue of obsolete legal vestige? I am not aware any contemporay cases under which someone was criminally charged for adultery or a case in which a law against adultery was actually enforced, but I might just be naively optimistic about that aspect of the current US legal system. If there are no such examples, then I wonder if the question isn't moot. | cmv |
I think adultery should be legal in the United States. CMV | I actually agree with you but let's play devil's advocate. A marriage is a contract between two people. For the most part, they are allowed to determine the contents of that contract, but as the state is involved ( tax benefits etc ), the state is allowed to make certain claims as well as enforce the contract itself. In most cases, sexual fidelity is part of the contract ( though in some cases it is not, and that's fine : open relationships are not adultery ). If this is broken, then the contract can be seen as invalid, carrying the penalty of termination of the contract. It shouldn't be a jail - able offense for sure, but you could make an argument that the state does have reason to punish any breaking of contracts that involve the state. I still think that marriage should be a purely private matter : the people decide when the contract has been broken and react accordingly with divorce. But, the opposing argument could be made. | cmv |
I believe that the United States should treat ALL American citizens suspected of terrorism as enemy combatants. CMV. | So... what makes someone a suspected terrorist? Does simply having an allegation of terrorism levied at one make them subject to having their rights stripped of them? Say I read a lot of books from the father of Islamist thought Sayyid Qutb for my course on Modern Islamic Political Movements ; if there's an attack near where I live, should I lose all my rights just because I am a suspected terrorist? | cmv |
I believe that the United States should treat ALL American citizens suspected of terrorism as enemy combatants. CMV. | First, the American legal system operates under the presumption of innocence. If we designate a suspect to be an " enemy combatant, " we have made a judgment of guilt. Try to place yourself in the shoes of an individual that the government suspected of terrorism. Let's say you are innocent of this crime. How would you react to your government designating you as an " enemy combatant? " Think about how that would impact your right to a fair trial. If an individual accused of terrorism and designated as an enemy combatant wasn't considering terrorist acts previous to this type of situation, they might well be afterward. Additionally, this would undoubtedly strongly upset one's family and friends, perhaps even to the point of aiding them in a terrorist act. Treating ones own citizens as " enemy combatants " likely would turn them into combatants, or, at the least, anti - government sympathizers, even if they weren't before. | cmv |
I believe that the United States should treat ALL American citizens suspected of terrorism as enemy combatants. CMV. | and the government could just accuse anyone for being terrorists and rights will be taken from them? it is very dangerous. It is one of the most important rights in democracy and freedom that you cannot be judged without prove.. | cmv |
I believe that the United States should treat ALL American citizens suspected of terrorism as enemy combatants. CMV. | Wait... suspected of terrorism? What happened to the presumption of innocence? Is that not a well - established part of the constitution? You are willing to waive your constitutional right to a fair trial based on the snap judgement of... who? Joe schmo police officer? Private Joe schmo? That's a really slippery slope you're walking, there. | cmv |
Humanitarian intervention does not work. Committing military forces in a sovereign state to prevent genocide has never really been successful. | It's very hard to prevent genocide. Humanitarian action is not meant to clean the slate and solve every problem genocide creates, but up the scraps from where genocide left off. If a genocide is still occurring, then yes, stop it by all means. But humanitarian effort can't bring people back, and it can't do undo atrocities by a government. It seems obvious, but think about it : the deaths caused by genocide will create a strain on society. Families will be shattered, communities will be hurt, the people who were victimized will feel differently about the country they currently live in. Humanitarian action can't solve all this by just going in. It can try to make things better though : get everything back to normal. The goal is to heal the scars, even if the damage has already been done. | cmv |
I believe governments don't have the authority to tell citizens what they can or cannot do to their own body. CMV. | Sadly, whether I agree with you on'absolute'moral rights they can in no way transcend the body of regulation we use and would in no way, especially, invalidate the reasons for the regulations. Drug regulations are more about controlling substances that can easily be used to compromise another person like ghb than it is to regulate use, although use has to be a part due to the nature of'possession.'Suicide is more about liability and other legal considerations than it is about depriving you of control over your body. People bring up moral arguments against euthanasia but the legal justification is mainly a legal consideration. | cmv |
I believe that, in the US, there is an " education bubble " that will burst within fifteen years, CMV | Very interesting points. I'm a grad student as well, but only Master's so I'm not as concerned with the state of academia as I will be out of it soon enough. That being said, I think the whole system ( student loans, grad school in general, etc. ) could use a complete overhaul, and that will become apparent soon enough to the point where they have to. Anyways, I guess the only thing I would try to argue about what you're say is, why do you think that schools will fold / collapse, instead of just reducing ( perhaps drastically ), their size and spending? | cmv |
I believe that, in the US, there is an " education bubble " that will burst within fifteen years, CMV | Your argument is a valid argument for the folding or ceasing of existence of certain majors or academic departments, but it is not sufficiently strong to to justify belief in the financial failure of entire schools. Briefly, you believe that enrollment will be drastically reduced due to financial incentives. However, this argument will only be true for a subset of majors, while other majors will become even more profitable relative to having only a high school degree. The wealth - gap between these STEM majors and the humanities will widen, forcing people who otherwise would not want to be scientists and engineers to pursue education in those fields for the sake of their financial survival. We all know that the earning potential with a degree in english, sociology, anthropology, philosophy is not high. People who are interested in these fields for their own sake will continue to pursue them. But as you point out, the financial feasibility of pursuing these fields for their own sake will decrease precipitously. I agree with you that if you are a graduate student in these fields, it might make sense to abandon academia on this basis, but I hope you agree that your argument is not general. | cmv |
I believe that, in the US, there is an " education bubble " that will burst within fifteen years, CMV | Also take not however that with the ubiquity of a tertiary education, those without a degree will find themselves unemployable. We hear many complaints of those unable to find jobs after university - where are these people going to get employed? Why employ a salesperson with no degree, when you can hire someone with a business or marketing degree? Front desk with a degree in communications or hospitality. The current generation took heed of advice to educate themselves, only the problem too many took this advice - now having a degree is no longer a competitive edge, but an expectation. I hypothesize that 2 degrees, or a bachelors and a masters, will become the new one degree. Anecdotal evidence - my parents didn't finish high school, and looked at those who did favorably and those with degrees as very well off. I believe that tier system will be dropped one notch with more and more of the population getting tertiary qualifications. I understand your point referring to the international market, but I believe this point is also relevant internationally, with other nations also filling the possible void that you contend is forming in China. Also consider however that with the growth of China, education may become more accessible to lower classes, either maintaining or even increasing demand. | cmv |
I believe that, in the US, there is an " education bubble " that will burst within fifteen years, CMV | I agree that the many universities in the West will look quite different in say, two decades, but I think you're leaving out a huge factor - - the growth in online education. ( Obligatory wikipedia link on MOOCs here. There are many state schools with significant enrollments today who lack a large endowment, are mostly supported by taxes and tuition, and will have a hard time distinguishing themselves. Those universities will the most vulnerable. These schools may not even be " second tier " as you defined them. In fact, while the contributions of international students are huge and growing financially, I am unconvinced that there will be a precipitous drop. As universities improve worldwide, access to U. S. universities from emerging economies will likely broaden. This may very well make up for any potential drop in enrollment from a given country. | cmv |
I believe that, in the US, there is an " education bubble " that will burst within fifteen years, CMV | I doubt that the " bubble " would burst within 15 years. That's a very short amount of time, and if competition from new Chinese universities is arising in this time period, they would have a very limited amount of time in which to be legitimatized in. Most universities have a tradition of acedemic success, and establishing an entirely new university doesn't encourage applicants to believe that your university is the " best ". I do agree with what you are saying, but I believe that you have underestimated the time frame in which it could happen, and therefore the results. I would say that it would take closer to 30 years for universities to build up suffiencient " prestige " to be able to compete with American / European institutions. Also I think there is something to be said for it being possible that the opinion may end up being that older American universities are somehow more trusted than newer ones in China - somewhat similar to how we might view Oxford or Cambridge. Also, you could just learn Mandarin if it gets really bad. | cmv |
I believe that, in the US, there is an " education bubble " that will burst within fifteen years, CMV | The proposed immigration reform bills include green cards for students with masters degrees in STEM fields from US Universities. This could further increase the number of students from China, India, and other developing countries. Many second tier Universities are considering giving credit for MOOC classes or assigning lectures from MOOC classes as part of the curriculum for regular classes. This would allow the Universities and students that attend them to save money by greatly reducing the cost of large lecture style classes. | cmv |
I believe that, in the US, there is an " education bubble " that will burst within fifteen years, CMV | Regarding point 1 : More and more Chinese families will be able to afford a US education for their little princeling. This might offset the decreasing pool of 18 - 24 year olds. Regarding point 2 : The Chinese education system is a joke. It's geared towards tests, with little or no room for critical or independent thinking. It still has a looong way to go before it comes even close to the western standards. | cmv |
I believe that taking care of one's elderly parents is the responsibility of their children. CMV. | With modern day medical care, the elderly are living longer. The ideals of yesteryear such as children should look after their elderly parents or the husband should go out and work while the wife stays home are being seriously reconsidered in this rapidly changing world. Some of the things we used to do just aren't possible any more because circumstances are changing. I agree with you up until the point that professional care is required for the elderly parent - then it's up to the child to decide. Picture a married couple struggling to care for an elderly parent with dementia or alzheimers. Imagine the strain it would put on the couple. Imagine the guilt the child would feel when they are happy when the parent finally dies. When the parent dies, the marriage may be strained beyond repair. It's a dilemma that most people face at some stage, and I'm sure most make the best possible decision based on their personal situations. | cmv |
I believe that taking care of one's elderly parents is the responsibility of their children. CMV. | Sometimes the medical requirements of the elderly person is beyond the families ability to take proper care of them. For example elderly people with Alzheimer's who are unable to ensure that their parent / grandparent cannot get out and get lost. Some elderly people are larger in size or too big for the necessarily lifting / cleaning efforts required ( my grandmother was 5 foot nothing and could not lift her husband to take care of him and he was immobile ). You can get nurses in to your home to help, but again sometimes the needs of the elderly individual extends beyond what can be provided by a short visit from a nurse. Another issue is that sometimes the elderly person WANTS to be in the home. Sometimes children are too busy, too self important or outright cruel to the elderly person and they are happier with the social aspects and care in a care facility. In ideal cases, I agree with you. Life is not ideal for everybody though. | cmv |
I believe that taking care of one's elderly parents is the responsibility of their children. CMV. | It's really hard to argue absolute responsibility given the vast number of conflicting responsibilities and general ambiguity of moral absolutes. In the event that one has children of one's own, how should they choose in the hypothetical event that they must choose between caring for their elderly parent or caring for their child? How would you advice an individual in a situation where, in order to care for one elderly parent, they'd have to neglect to save the other from death? There any number of conceivable instances in which one might have to forsake one culturally paramount responsibility in order to maintain another. | cmv |
I believe that the identity of people accused of crimes should not be public knowledge until after their trial is over. CMV | I actually disagree with pretty much evrey argument below here - the problem isn't'secret trials'or'restrictions on liberty '. I don't think any of us support judicial corruption, and in most nations even secret trials are scrutinised by someone, just not the public. The reason I disagree with this is information - sometimes we need to give people names and identities of suspects, because that encourages people to come forward and jogs memories. Sure, you get Chris Jeffries cases, when everyone's wrong, and that absolutely sucks. However, it's often the reporting that does the damage, not the simple release of the names. If the media said'this man, Mr x, is currently a suspect, and investigations are ongoing, contact if you know anything'it'd be fine. Problem is that most papers just say " here's the face of the guy who definitely did it " and ruin the lives of people who are potentially innocent. If they're guilty, or innocent, we need as much information as possible, and we need to release the name and identity in order to do that. | cmv |
I believe that the identity of people accused of crimes should not be public knowledge until after their trial is over. CMV | In theory this would be a good idea, except that if the defendant isn't known to the public, it give the government a lot of leeway in what it can do. If people don't know a person is accused of a crime, they can be subjected to violations of their human rights and nobody would know. Case in point, a lot of prisoners at Gitmo. | cmv |
I believe that the identity of people accused of crimes should not be public knowledge until after their trial is over. CMV | Here in the UK, the Jimmy Savile paedophile case shows both sides of this. Several accusations were made by victims over the years, but because of Savile's fame and reputation his name was never released. Different police forces didn't even know accusations had been made in other locations. Eventually the old perv dies, and the stories start coming out. Once the name is made public, all those kids who had been abused, and told they couldn't do anything " because he's powerful and famous " start coming out and there is a tide of evidence - over 200 assaults. In cases where there is a suspicion of multiple crimes, particularly in these paedophile cases, giving out the name of the accused may bring together a weight of evidence that would not otherwise make a case. The Stuart Hall case is another good example, guy says he did nothing wrong, pleads innocence, within a few months we have an old paedophile in jail, with a bunch of corroborating evidence from several victims that hold the case together like a single accusation wouldn't. All that said, naming the accused, for example schoolteachers, being falsely accused by kids that want rid of their teacher, will destroy lives and careers. There's no easy answer. | cmv |
I believe that the identity of people accused of crimes should not be public knowledge until after their trial is over. CMV | I also used to think this until I took a law class in college. The U. S. court system is structured on being open. It has to be open not so that there can be a witch hunt to ruin someone, but so that they are protected from a secret trial. If the trials weren't open for everyone to see then there would be no protection for the defendants from the prosecution and the judge. The public and the press can serve as watchdogs on judge and prosecutor to ensure that they aren't being treated unfairly. | cmv |
I believe that the gun laws today are perfectly fine CMV | I assume you're talking about American laws. 300 hand guns and shot guns are not going to do us much good against a military stocked with jets, smart bombs, and drones. To think that our hunting and sporting weapons are going to hold off an invasion is absurd. All it will do is get more people, mostly US citizens, killed. As for gun deaths it's a clear fact that guns kill people, often the wrong people. Your gun is more likely to kill a family / friend than it is to stop a crime. That is the worst plan for protecting your family I've ever heard of. Watch this for a fun look at Australian gun control vs US guns | cmv |
Might makes right. CMV | It is impossible to debate a nihilist. Since nothing is anything is right, nothing is right. How can you prove someone wrong when they believe in nothing? However, it is easy to win arguments like these because most people do believe there are objective rights and, since they are in control of most of the power, the nihilist believe they are right. | cmv |
CMV - Homosexuality is Bad, But Not Wrong | I really don't understand why the inability to procreate makes a relationship " bad ". There are a number of things which homosexuals can do which heterosexual couples cannot, and vice versa. Just because one group can do something the other group cannot doesn't mean one of the groups is inferior. That's a ridiculous idea. Not everything can be classified as bad or good. Life isn't like that. | cmv |
CMV - Homosexuality is Bad, But Not Wrong | If fertility and population is the crux of the argument that can be easily addressed. Homosexuals don't need to have babies. Let them adopt. Or, alternately, make immigration more lax. There is no shortage of people who will come to a developed country to work. | cmv |
CMV - Homosexuality is Bad, But Not Wrong | Is it " bad " to choose not to have children? Because plenty of heterosexuals choose not to have children, and plenty of homosexuals choose to have children. Do you " give condolences " to heterosexuals who choose not to have children? | cmv |
I believe that any Gun Control legislation by the United States Government is infringing on my inalienable right to bear arms, CMV. | The main point is that the current legislation does not create a federal gun registry, nor would it ban your shotgun. I propose to create a law that specifically states that a federal gun registry is illegal, and to provide punishment for anyone who tries to create one. The solution is simple, take assault weapons like AK - 47's Uzi's and all the automatic weapons off the street. Additionally increase background checks so that guns don't fall into the hands of the wrong people. These two solutions would in no way effect your competitive shooting, or put you on any type of registry. I think this is a very fair, middle of the road solution. | cmv |
I believe that there is equality between men and women today. CMV. | By equality, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean " people are treated as a person and not as a man or a woman? " That would imply that men and women are valued ( or not valued ) in the same way... but we are not. For example : Are we as a society equally comfortable sending men and women to die on the front line in war? Do we place the same expectation on both parents to be the caregiver for their child? Is there media conversations about how fathers with careers manage to " have it all " as much as there are about mothers with careers? Are men and women in advertising treated the same way? Are the models earning the same amount? Are they posed in equally awkward ways, to sell similar things? | cmv |
I believe that there is equality between men and women today. CMV. | We don't. 1 ) Politically the world stage is still a male dominated area. We only have a few major female political leaders in the world today and thats doesn't look to be changing anytime soon. 2 ) There still isn't Income equality. Businesses can still charge females differently for performing the same job than males. This has yet to be fixed and until it is we can't argue that there is equality economically. 3 ) Even in terms of religion you can't find a place where women are looked upon equally. There was talk about allowing nuns to apply for positions like Priests and clergy and so on but that fell through long ago. | cmv |
I believe that people who murder in a fit of rage should get very lenient sentences. CMV. | If this was changed, the primary result will be that anyone planning a 1st - degree - murder will simply need to " fake " a rage, and possibly a scenario that would stimulate such rage. People get enraged over small things. Think about road rage. Now, I can fake rage ( not hard to do ) and get almost no penalty. Sounds like something a lot of people would be willing to do again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... | cmv |
I believe that people who murder in a fit of rage should get very lenient sentences. CMV. | What about in cases of hate crimes? Is the gay panic defense a valid one? If an incredibly racist person kills a black person because said person put a hand on his arm with intent to anger him, would said murderer's irresistible impulse towards violence be excusable? Perhaps the justice system doesn't take into account the more complex issues, but I don't see how passion makes murder more okay. Just because I'm really mad doesn't mean I should get off lighter. If anything, I should be put away longer because I can't control my violent impulses and am thus a larger threat to society at large. | cmv |
I believe the legal recognition of marriage in any capacity for the US is flawed. CMV | Isn't marriage just a legal contract now? It's a contract with a celebration involved, backed in tradition. You are pretty much allowed to celebrate that marriage anyway you want. You can even go to city hall and sign a contract making you married which is the same as you are proposing. What would the benefit be of abolishing marriage for a similar contract be? | cmv |
I believe the legal recognition of marriage in any capacity for the US is flawed. CMV | I am an atheist who's engaged, I fail to see how this improves the separation of church and state. You're asking to rename it for the sake of renaming. There's no point if the end effect is that it's exactly the same. Marriage as a legal concept it's already distinct from marriage the religious ceremony. | cmv |
I believe the current government system isn't working, CMV. | I assume you mean the american vote / government system, and the point you want challenged is that electronic votes should be the way to go : I don't disagree with you totally. IF the security is right it could be a possibility and only then. But only as an alternative. People should NOT have taken their vote from them, if they don't own or have access to a computer. | cmv |
I think that African Americans have it pretty good CMV | It's about race. Working hard cannot magically make you appear to be less of a criminal to institutions like HR departments and police vice squads. Working hard cannot allow you to afford a school that adequately prepares you for a first - rate college education. The laws that force majority - black districts may create the appearance of racial representation ( to the ignorant ) but it allows dynastic criminal - political organizations to flourish. | cmv |
I don't think it's all that bad that the Justice Department monitored AP phone calls, and I don't think we should expect complete privacy, in general. CMV | Many people expect that if they don't do anything to forfeit their rights, then they should retain their rights. If you are being a good person then there is no need to waste taxpayer money monitoring you. It is the same principle as " well if you don't have any illegal items, the you won't have a problem if we search your house car computer and other storage places. Also on a final note not everything you say you want recorded. It might be embarrassing or a slip of the tongue. | cmv |
I don't think that " the economy " is a good excuse for college grads being unemployed, and they mostly just think they're too " superior " for menial jobs out of their field. CMV | Let me try going in from an economic angle and not " snobbery ". For a perfect economy, production is best when all factor of labor is being used ( ie, being at the max production possible ). University grads want to maximize their worth and so want to work where their full potential can be tapped ( and compensated ). For such a scenario, it is actually in the best interest of the economy to fully utilize the worth of the university grads to produce the maximum returns. Now, the problem I believe you would ask is that some types of grads are not in demand. My response would be just to let the economy sort it out, either by exporting to other country or to be information for the next undergrad batch to choose their major. | cmv |
I don't think that " the economy " is a good excuse for college grads being unemployed, and they mostly just think they're too " superior " for menial jobs out of their field. CMV | As is often the case with many college graduates, they leave the academic setting with a fair amount of debt. This debt cannot be easily paid back working at McDonald's or as a janitor, especially if they hope to pay their loans back within the next decade or so. I agree that people shouldn't be above working any job that is available if they need the money, but it's not always about not wanting to work jobs that are " beneath " them. | cmv |
I think all drugs should be leagalised. CMV | When you use some hard drugs you aren't in control of who you harm, you may black out and not remember the experience. Also, I don't agree because it would be too easy for underage kids to get a hold of. It was easy for 14 year old me to get cigarettes. Meth / heroin / cocaine wouldn't be much of a challenge. | cmv |
A lot of people take pride in being a patriot, I believe patriotism only encourages conflict. CMV | I agree with you that a globalized community would be better IF IT HAD STARTED THAT WAY. The problem is that we have to go to that from what we have now, and that's not going to lead to a happy global community. With developed nation's using child slaves in developing nations to make cheap goods to satisfy the developed nations'gluttony, there would be a huge imbalance in the global community between the rich ( most likely you who are on the Internet ) and the desperately poor. Income inequality is one of the most discussed things in the US, but if people instead just accepted one global community, could you imagine what income inequality would be like? Essentially, this would be Marx's wet dream, and I'm not down for Wolrd War III. | cmv |
A lot of people take pride in being a patriot, I believe patriotism only encourages conflict. CMV | It really depends on how you interpret the word. Some people who describe themselves as " patriots " decide to serve their country in order to make it a better place for the others who live there. Humans have divided themselves into nations, in which people from the same nation are dependent on each other to some extent, so working within that model to improve the lives of others is a good thing. However, the " we're number 1 " mentality that is another side of patriotism is absolutely harmful, as well as irrational. I've literally never met another person who agrees with me on this, but I don't feel any pride when I hear about the past accomplishments of my country, or when I see my compatriots do something impressive. They share one fairly arbitrary characteristic with me - nationality. I don't see why that entitles me to take any share in their pride. | cmv |
A lot of people take pride in being a patriot, I believe patriotism only encourages conflict. CMV | While I completely agree with your sentiment, there is a difference between patriotism and nationalism, and politicians / media often exploit the former for the sake of the latter. Patriotism is a love for one's own country, nationalism includes the fear or hatred of others. Patriotism is cultural, nationalism is political. Nationalism believes in the connection between one people in particular and the nation, and wants a single national culture ; patriotism is not necessarily ethnically exclusive - although it can be. Nationalism must coincide with some form of patriotism, but not vice versa. | cmv |
The ideal National Socialist society ( or at least what I've understood to be some of the central ideas of it ) sounds pretty good to me. CMV | Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos. It's very cohesive, if you are in the specific homogenous group. I'm sure it would work great if people actually worked that way. Yet people have been observed to find ways to disagree with one another on the simplest possible things, sometimes even for the sake of disagreement. Even if the homogeneity of race, culture, and physical form ( cripples can't be Aryan supermen ) Hitler was aiming for was achieved, there is no guarantee that it would result in societal harmony. More or less ethnically homogenous nation - states exist already. Japan, for example, is over 90 % Japanese. It doesn't change much about everyday human problems. | cmv |
The ideal National Socialist society ( or at least what I've understood to be some of the central ideas of it ) sounds pretty good to me. CMV | One distinct weakness of national socialism is that it is by its nature very conservative, and might have significant difficulty changing prescribed social roles to adapt to a modern market, for example. The prejudices would be so ingrained in the populace that it would be difficult for there to be progress. Progress would only come from the top and that doesn't always work out. Also, it is a stumbling block to people caring about other countries or people in other places that might be suffering. There is not much reason to care whether the country invades or attacks another. | cmv |
I think that the IRS should go after groups that file for tax exemption if they are a political group. CMV | Er, " targeted "? Filing for particular tax - status always results in some scrutiny by the IRS. We want to make sure that people getting these statuses ( a ) fall properly under the statute, and ; ( b ) aren't putting on some facade in order to get tax benefits, e. g., Churches filing for 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) status are actually churches based on the IRS'guidelines. However, what was going on with Tea Party - esque groups - and some liberal groups under Bush's term - is enhanced scrutiny based on those political beliefs. Disproportionate scrutiny of one group over another violates IRS protocol and can potentially result in litigation on a number of grounds. We generally don't want arms of the government giving some similarly situated political views preferential treatment. | cmv |
I think that the IRS should go after groups that file for tax exemption if they are a political group. CMV | And we also know that liberal groups filed for the same status and didn't encounter the same scrutiny. Thank the Citizens United ruling for opening the floodgates for political ads favoring or opposing certain views. As long as they aren't actively for or against a candidate they are legal. | cmv |
I don't think the government should have any roll or influence in society. CMV. | What is society? I think that saying governments should have no role or influence in society is like saying museums or galleries should have no role in art. You're drawing the line in the wrong place and creating a false " us versus them " dichotomy. Governments are not staffed by aliens, they're staffed by us. Governments have been - - historically, and for the foreseeable future - - hopelessly contaminated by society and the cultures that societies generate. Whether elected or wrestled, leaders are a product of their society, and can barely last a few years unless they reflect it in some way. Our present government in the United States is tumbling, brakes disintegrating, into the inevitability of facts such as gay marriage and marijuana legalization. In the long run, the distinction between society and government evaporates, and finds an equilibrium where it is not government that has an influence over society, but vice versa. One day Bashir Al - Asad will die, and Syrian society will cement what it has already become. As Alexis de Tocqueville once said, a people will get the government it deserves. | cmv |
People are not completely responsible for their actions because they don't have true free will. CMV. | So discretion doesn't exist? Intent and by extension discretion are what we based laws on because we say people are responsible for what they do with their thoughts. I'm curious, how do you intend to prove we can't control ourselves? | cmv |
I believe America would benefit greatly from having a dual executive. One to handle domestic issues, and another for international. | It's actually quite similar to how the Roman Republic operated. Two consuls were elected, one of which usually left for campaign. The problem is that they're politicians, and they'll work to undermine each other for their own benefit. | cmv |
I believe America would benefit greatly from having a dual executive. One to handle domestic issues, and another for international. | There was a great post recently about how the two are too intertwined for it to work. I searched a little but didn't find it. I don't remember any of his / her specifics, so here are a few of my own : Our foreign policy is directly linked to our biggest domestic jobs program, the department of defense. If you have your foreign policy president advocating that we spend money on aid rather than Abrams, things might get awkward. Take something like the militarization of the boarder with Mexico or the War on Drugs generally. Both are HUGE jobs programs domestically. Both are great for the domestic guy. Neither are so great for the guy responsible for talking to Mexico. | cmv |
I believe America would benefit greatly from having a dual executive. One to handle domestic issues, and another for international. | We actually have 50 executives to handle domestic issues. I think most people would be surprised by how many of the government services they rely on in their day - to - day lives are actually provided at the state and local levels. Even a lot of federal programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, are actually administered by the states. | cmv |
I believe that Batman and Iron Man are not real superheroes because they don't have superpowers. CMV. | Iron Man and Batman are both good examples of the " magic gadget pool " class of superheroes. Iron Man in particular derives his superhuman powers ( flight, near - indestructibility etc ) from his magic chest power widget which conveniently can't be replicated. Sure it's presented as " science " but it's not real science of course. His gadgets have limitations based on plot needs, not on any sort of logic or reality. Same with Batman, if he needs to do something we would categorize as impossible today, he just goes to his magical R & D department and poof here you go Mr. Wayne here is a device to read the thoughts of everyone in Metropolis. No real constraints on his tech, just whatever makes a good story. Anyway they've both got pretty hefty magic gadget pools, that's one of their main superpowers aside from high but human - normal intelligence, powers of deduction, fighting prowess & etc. Yes I am a tabletop Champions player : D | cmv |
When someone falsely accuses someone of a crime ( e. g. Rape ) I don't think the accuser should get the same sentence as that of a guilty conviction of the accused. CMV | Not even focusing on the whether your change in policy would be just, its worth pointing out that it would absolutely destroy our already overloaded court system. There is no feasible way our current system could process that many court cases at once. Looking at rape stats alone, only 3 out of every 100 suspects are judged guilty. Are you seriously proposing that our courts would have to hold 97 more trials? Holding trials would further discourage women even more from reporting rape. According to Rainn only 54 % of assaults are reported. Why risk making that drop even more? | cmv |
When someone falsely accuses someone of a crime ( e. g. Rape ) I don't think the accuser should get the same sentence as that of a guilty conviction of the accused. CMV | I'm going to go ahead and argue ( from personal experience ) that people who make false rape claims don't get the punishment they deserve. I started seeing a girl and decided it wasn't working out after a few months. She then tried to blackmail me into paying her money or else she would accuse me of rape. I refused to pay her money and she began to accuse me of rape. I showed the police our chat records and they did nothing about it. Neither of us has been charged with anything, but I've lost friends who bought into her story that I raped her. No telling how it will affect me in the future when I'm searching for a job or just socially. The charges for rape against me would have had a much higher consequence than if she had been charged with anything like extortion or making a false claim of rape. | cmv |
I believe public safety should always take precedence over officer safety. CMV | Currently, a cop has a gun, training, and access to more resources than the average citizen. If you want to protect the public, during times where civilians are in danger ( say, a man with a gun going rampant ), more people would be protected if officers ( carrying guns, going towards the violence, not away ) were alive rather than dead. More people would be saved as a result. Therefore, officer safety can actually increase public safety. But I also would like to point out that when a man is shooting a gun, the police are the only people expected to go towards him. Tell me again how this shows that " the current crop of new cops all signed up with the knowledge that their safety is prioritized above all else ". | cmv |
I think marijuana should remain illegal. CMV. | its not a harmful drug, the only harm is the fact that its illegal and if you're caught with it you could get in a lot of trouble. its only a gateway drug because its illegal and it is sold right next to other, more harmful drugs. legalisation would see a fall in crime surrounding marijiuana and its illgal trade. it changes thought process and on some degree it does make you lazy but plenty of legal things do this too, its also not like everyone will be high ALL the time if you set aside times to do weed you can be lazy for that time then work others. i think most of all people who are against it should try weed to see what it is like to be on the drug, the misconceptions surrounding it amaze me... | cmv |
I think marijuana should remain illegal. CMV. | To assume that it being legalized would make people try illegal drugs strikes me as somewhat contradictory. If someone is not willing to try marijuana unless it is legal, why would they get into harder drugs that are illegal? Also, I believe that people should, to some extent, have the right to choose what they put in their bodies. | cmv |
I think marijuana should remain illegal. CMV. | Decriminalizing it would lead to fewer crimes rather than more crimes. Just like alcohol Prohibition, there are more crimes associated with the substance when it is illegal than when it is legal. Second, change is not always a bad thing. Many scientists and artists have used drugs to enhance their ways of thinking. Carl Sagan used marijuana, for example, and said it helped him in his thinking. As for making people lazy, people are lazy if they want to be lazy. Plus, a lot of people use the drug recreationally, and were intending on being lazy in some form before they used the drug. ( i. e. they didn't become lazy after using the drug, they used the drug because they were feeling lazy ). | cmv |
I think marijuana should remain illegal. CMV. | I don't believe the government has the right to control what we put in our body, or how we explore our own consciousness. Why do you know what is better for me than I do? What exploration into your own self have you done, and why are you prohibiting avenues for my own? Psychedelics should be legal also. | cmv |
The US shouldn't have a bicameral legislature. CMV. | Regional interest are still important. We are a republic not a democracy and having a single legislative body based only on population is idiotic. The balance of power is intended and is why CISPA has yet to pass. | cmv |