summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I don't believe there are any arguments against same - sex marriage that aren't based on religion. CMV | Well, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage. I think it is something for private individuals to take care of. When we get the government involved in marriage these sorts of issues tend to crop up, gay marriage and polygamy are two off the top of my head. Whenever we want to expand marriage to include less common forms of romantic relationships, we would need to fight the government to get it done. If it was done through private contracts between individuals, these issues would not exist. You might have extremist Christians calling them devil - worshipers or what have you, but this isn't an issue that will ever really be resolved. This would allow for all sorts of people to marry, with whatever caveats the individuals want. If the movement in favor of same - sex marriage is truly one of freedom and equality, then this same movement should be against government intrusion into private relationships at all. | cmv |
I don't believe there are any arguments against same - sex marriage that aren't based on religion. CMV | We live in a culture that has had a taboo against homosexuality for a very long time. It's changing now, and it's possible that that change will have unforeseen consequences. Have you seen the movie " When Harry Met Sally "? One of the themes is whether or not men and women can be friends. It's hard because the sex gets in the way. In a society with no taboo on homosexuality, the sex would always get in the way of all relationships. This is not about the people who are totally gay or totally straight, but people who are mostly straight but wouldn't necessarily mind a good blow job at the end of the night. Suddenly I can't be out with my bros without any sexual tension. | cmv |
I don't believe there are any arguments against same - sex marriage that aren't based on religion. CMV | My parents came up with those. Although i disagree, they are obviously arguments : It is making as if the women and men were the same thing, which, according to them, is not and should not be. We are different, let us admit it. It leads to a possible adoption of children by gay couple ( which is allowed here by the way, and i'm proud of my country for that ), which can lead to disturbed children according to them. " Marriage " is a word that has not often been used for same - sex marriage, thus, they can find another word, as this word describe something that is not same sex marriage. My parents consider that same - sex marriage must be differentiated, and that same - sex couple must admit that they are different, not in a better or worse way, they just aren't a couple constituted by a male and a female. My parents consider that we are misleading when saying that male and female are the same thing and that the differentiation is useful in our society. I believe that we are different, but that we shouldn't regarding th law. Personally, same - sex marriage is not my main concern, but i disagree with the above arguments. | cmv |
I am against absolute freedom of press and believe censorship to be justified. CMV | What level of harm are you talking about? Publishing troop movements could result in many people dying directly as a result of the publication. When you say that you would " suppress the dissemination of harmful information in general " do you limit it to information that is likely to result in death to people or is the slightest harm sufficient? Also, can you demonstrate that there is a person who has argued that freedom of the press in the Unites States is absolute? I think everyone admits that there are in fact limits and you are arguing against a straw man. | cmv |
I am against absolute freedom of press and believe censorship to be justified. CMV | If someone disagrees with a country's foreign policy and wishes to disclose troop movements, then that person should be free to do so. At the same time, the government is free to charge that person with treason ( if they are a citizen of said country ), or treat them as an enemy combatant / spy ( if they are not ). Ideas should never be censored. The consequences of their dissemination are real however, and it's up to any government to determine the extent of the freedom of speech. Similarly, the government's prosecutorial efforts following the dissemination of an idea are subject to scrutiny by that same completely - free press. If the majority of citizens believe that prosecutions were justified, then the government remains in power. | cmv |
I believe that some redistribution of wealth is a necessary component of a healthy, reasonable society. CMV | I think one powerful counterargument to redistribution of wealth is that it teaches people that things will be handed to them and they will abuse the system. Instead we should use tax dollars to fund education. More highly educated people can work a wider variety of jobs meaning they will find a job that pays more money. The more people working those jobs requiring higher education the less people available to work low wage jobs. Using the basic principles of supply and demand we can infer that the less supply of available people there are to work a job, the higher the wages will be for that job. Using education we can increase wages for all without having to actually redistribute wealth. Education is available to every American meaning it isn't a rich or poor thing because funding it doesn't favor one socioeconomic class over another. Using this system people won't be given anything, they will still have to work hard in school, find a job and work hard to make a living. But we can still increase wages for poorer workers. | cmv |
I believe that some redistribution of wealth is a necessary component of a healthy, reasonable society. CMV | A radical left critique, while not necessarily being anti - tax, would look primarily towards changing the ownership and management of society's wealth ; that is to say, look to redistributing not just a sliver of wealth through taxation but " redistribute " the whole edifice of wealth prod. / mgmt such that workers control the fruits of their labor rather than losing a portion of it to owners and shareholders ( ie, profits ). That way there will be less need for social provision since people will be taking home more money. Translated into practice that would mean cooperatives or, in a more centrist / liberal solution, unions / workers having a seat at the table at corporate boardrooms. Funnily enough, rightists have a similar vision of self - ownership ( all their talk of " small businessmen ", also Jefferson's vision of a future America of yeoman farmers ). As a lefty I think they're deluding themselves and don't see the sad reality of massive corporate power—but that's for another thread. | cmv |
The presumption of innocence is rampantly violated when suspects are kept in jail. CMV | So the obvious trade - off here is that you are weighing the cost of potentially keeping an innocent person in jail, as compared to the cost of having a guilty person flee in order to avoid justice or commit more crimes while their free. In this vein while I will agree with you that bail is used excessively I don't think the very idea that we should sometimes hold people awaiting trial is flawed. Take an extreme example. Imagine a domestic terrorist, such as a Timothy McVeigh type, has just committed a mass murdering event. While in a court we should treat him as innocent until proven guilty, the odds of him committing other crimes if let free are simply too high for him to be let go. At some point the government owes his potential future victims more than merely waiting to see if he commits another terrorist act. Our society has recognized the dilemma you point out though, and has tried to strike a balance. Bail should only ever be applied to cases in which there is substantial belief that either the accused will harm others or flee if let go. While often courts go beyond this and distribute excessive bails, the answer is to work on reforming the bail system not merely obliterating it. | cmv |
I am unconvinced that same - sex marriage is unequivocally justified, and I find a lot of the arguments employed by its proponents to be disingenuous. CMB | 1 ) Religion didn't invent marriage it existed long before that. 2 ) nothing bad happens when gay people marry. 3 ) Nothing good is demanded from straight people or can be reasonably legally rendered from them in exchange for giving them the right to marry. 4 ) Ergo there's no reason gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, society loses nothing, and wins nothing, but it also cannot demand anything from any marriage, there you have it. Now if you're comparing the feeling of love to soda, you've most likely never experienced it yourself. | cmv |
I am unconvinced that same - sex marriage is unequivocally justified, and I find a lot of the arguments employed by its proponents to be disingenuous. CMB | If two people love each other, they have a right to. End of story. I know several LGBT people and they're very nice, but are sick of being hated simply for how they love people. | cmv |
I am unconvinced that same - sex marriage is unequivocally justified, and I find a lot of the arguments employed by its proponents to be disingenuous. CMB | I think you are conflating sex and marriage, when really they are independent but sometimes overlapping things. Marriage is a formal recognition of life - partnership, and as such is a social good. It is in society's interest to promote stability. If you look at the history of marriage, it is only in the very recent history of Western civilization that romantic love, sex - exclusivity and marriage have all come to be the same thing. People used to get married to form families, first and foremost, and in many cultures they still do, but in those truly traditional marriages it was accepted that the men, at least, get to go outside the marriage for sex. When the wingers speak of defending traditional marriage they need but read the Bible to see what marriage traditionally has been for most of human history. And in that sense, allowing two men to form a stable pair - bond and have a life together is in society's best interest as much as allowing a man and a woman to do it. Leave sex out of it, it's just not relevant. | cmv |
To have meaningful international policing, international courts require legal power not just judicial power. | States are reluctant to cede part of their sovereignty for good reason. Allowing international courts the ability to change your laws can create a scenario against the interests of the country. While I'm sure you are in this for a " people of the world " collective this still leads to scenario where laws that offend or hurt states own citizens could be passed without the ability to do anything. | cmv |
I support free migration, and believe that all immigration restrictions are unjust. CMV | What about brain drain and the loss of people who really want a better life? Instead of these people working hard and achieving well in their own countries, you allow the people with the most can - do attitudes to end up elsewhere. This is a problem that has consistently plagued many places where the people who are pro - civil liberties flee to some other country leaving behind the conservatives who allow things to say as bad as they always are. | cmv |
I support free migration, and believe that all immigration restrictions are unjust. CMV | The problem with what you are saying is this. 1 ) We have to be able to pay taxes into the system in order to maintain the system. If we don't have a record of who is coming and going we have no way of getting tax money to fund healthcare, education, military, etc. 2 ) We have no way of regulating if criminals are coming and going which makes protecting the public a problem. The only reason the drug cartels haven't made it over the board and set up positions in texas and arizona is because we prevent them with armed boarder patrol. 3 ) Cultures clash even when we live in separate countries. Imagine taking everyone in the middle east and sprinkling them around the different countries in the area. You will have rioting in the streets. | cmv |
I support free migration, and believe that all immigration restrictions are unjust. CMV | As I understand, immigration restrictions in more socially - liberal places like Norway or Canada are there mostly to prevent abuse, I. e., fugitives, terrorists, etc. Every country wants to keep ne'er - do - wells outside their borders for obvious reasons, and frankly I think immigration laws are perhaps the most reasonable way of doing this. So I believe immigration restrictions are logical, but there are far, far better reasons for this than the counterpoints you present in your OP. | cmv |
I support free migration, and believe that all immigration restrictions are unjust. CMV | Money is the key ingredient in immigration restrictions. Citizens pay taxes and get the benefits of those taxes. Immigration restrictions are in place to guard against illegal immigrants coming into the country and benefiting from the citizens tax money. Also, educated immigrants are usually a good thing because they bring something to contribute to the society - hence why they can usually get citizenship faster. Uneducated immigrants are beneficial too, but only to a certain extent. They provide cheap labor but suck up resources they usually can't pay for. So it's a pretty grey issue, but immigration restrictions are there to protect tax dollars. | cmv |
I support free migration, and believe that all immigration restrictions are unjust. CMV | Personal property is the small - scale version of country borders. If you believe immigration should not have any ability to say " no " at all, this is simply the large - scale version of saying we should not be allowed to stop someone from entering our house. We can require them to " register " with us before entering oru home, but literally everyone must be allowed in. | cmv |
I support free migration, and believe that all immigration restrictions are unjust. CMV | Limit the welfare state to citizens... So you want to allow immigrants to work but NOT have any right to healthcare, unemployment or social security? Sounds like illegal discrimination to me, or let's just call it slavery. It does not work. If you let them in, they will stay. Look at turks and moroccons in europe. In the end they become citizens and completely overrun your culture, while sending a lot of money abroad and still taking orders from their original government. | cmv |
I support free migration, and believe that all immigration restrictions are unjust. CMV | I believe there should be restrictions on people with extensive criminal histories and / or people for whom there is good reason to believe they are migrating with intent to cause crime or avoid justice. There have been issues here in New Zealand where people who had convictions in Australia came here and were able to repeat their crimes. ( NZ is very migration friendly to Australians, I believe they get auto - residency ). Or there are things like people moving from Canada to Pakistan so that they can force their child to marry. Also I think there should be some restriction to prevent people using migration as a tax dodge. This is why I don't support totally unrestricted immigration. | cmv |
I believe Zimbabwe was better run under white rule CMV | You win, OP! Unless we are debating racial superiority, it is a fact that Mugabe has run Zimbabwe worse than whites did. No one can debate this, because it is a fact. You win! Unless you wanted to debate the reasons why Mugabe ran it worse than whites did. Otherwise, you win! Congrats. We have not " changed your view " of facts. | cmv |
I believe Zimbabwe was better run under white rule CMV | If Zimbabwe was still run by whites would it in your view still be under the control of Ian Smiths UDI government? Would it still be embroiled by the destructive bush war? Would blacks receive any governmental representation? And finally would it be isolated and embargoed by the rest of the world still? Also would you classify yourself as a Rhodie? | cmv |
I believe the British Royal family is of little benefit to Canada and ties should be cut once the Queen dies. CMV | The queen is not the head of the political sphere of government, but serves the function of figurehead. She does the formalities so as to alloe the prime minister, or whatever the canadian equivalent is, to focus on politics and governing. The president of the United States spends a great deal of time acting as a host, a dignitary, giving out medals and attending fancy dinner parties. He has to serve as both the social and political head of the country. Having a monarch as a figurehead means that your political leaders can do less of that. This is only speaking of Great Britain though, and I know very little about Canadian ties to the queen. If she serves a similar function for the Canadians as she does for the British, then she has a valid use in letting your government govern. | cmv |
I believe the British Royal family is of little benefit to Canada and ties should be cut once the Queen dies. CMV | Being under the same British Royal family makes Canada seem like a " First Cousin " of theirs. Boosting Tourism where UK is the 2nd biggest spenders in Canada. I think its worth the amount spent on the Royal family. | cmv |
I believe some cultures are inherently superior than others. CMV | It's relative to time and circumstance, OP. As others have pointed out, the middle east was a marvel of educated culture before the mongol invasions. The barbarians destroyed it. The result? Barbarism. All cultures take time to develop, and can be set back. It's inherent. | cmv |
I believe that every person has the right to fight for their own life at any cost CMV | You're conflating game theory with ethics. Just because a course of action serves a rational self - interest doesn't mean you have a " right " to do it or that it's " justified ", unless you're a follower of Ayn Rand. Most ethical perspectives account for respect for other rational beings, simply as an inherent moral imperative. At the very least, it depends on what you mean by " right ". It's certainly not in the constitution. | cmv |
Free markets are compatible with socialism. CMV | You could look to the market structure employed before and during WWI in the United States, in which the Federal Government became so large that it both single - handedly ran the economy while simultaneously establishing the country's first minimum wage and eight - hour work day. You have to be careful when you give too much power to the Federal Government though, because in retrospect the Federal Government has never been so despotic in the history of the United States. See the Espionage Act of 1917 for a jaw - dropper. In summary, yes, we can have a free - market, socialist economy, but this is essentially totalitarianism, which is inherently dangerous to any person. | cmv |
Free markets are compatible with socialism. CMV | Depends on what you mean by " socialism ". If you mean " worker ownership of the means of production ", it's compatible, though unlikely. You could have firms that are owned by the workers. The workers own shares of the firm, which they can sell to each other but have to sell back to the company if they quit ( agreeing to do so would be a condition of employment ). These firms would compete with each other in the free market, as would workers looking for jobs. But " companies owned exclusively by their employees " are generally not what people think of when they hear or say " socialism ". | cmv |
Free markets are compatible with socialism. CMV | They are generally opposite by definition, but are not incompatible in that there can be elements of both at the same time. Socialism just means either government ownership of business or management of the economy or both, which is the opposite of a free market. There can be ( and always is, historically ) a mixture of socialism and free market forces in any economy. You could make a pretty good philosophical argument that one cannot really exist without the absence of the other, but it seems to be an argument of semantics. | cmv |
No Vote = No complaint. CMV | I'd be more inclined to agree if there was a direct democracy. However, most systems are representative democracies. We elect people to make decisions for us. We might be convinced an agree with the stated platforms of our elected officials, but they have no obligation to fulfill their promises. Just look at the public support of most wars. Operation Iraqi Freedom was supported by 54 % of the US population ( according to polls ), but that dropped to 47 % if a UN mandate was not achieved. Source If the liberation of Iraq was put to a public vote, then I'd agree that voting would matter. | cmv |
No Vote = No complaint. CMV | A foundational belief of most democracies is that by choosing to vote you are participating in the democractic process and thus binding yourself to the majority outcome of that vote, including when you are in the minority. What if you don't agree with the democratic system? What if you fundamentally oppose representative democracy? Then the choice to vote would be complicitedness with that system. Not voting with such a political view is your only political - voting option. Furthermore your view is a form of political reductionism. It reduces the general population's political participation to the idealised ballot box. Political life is far more than just the casting of votes, indeed an actively engaged political person should exercise most of their political energy outside actual votes, in civil discussion and civic life. | cmv |
No Vote = No complaint. CMV | Voting isn't just an opinion though. It's a decision - making process as to which rules everyone under a system should follow, regardless of the opinions of the people under that system. Just because I don't wish to impose my views on others through a system that decides what they can and can't do doesn't mean I can't complain when they impose the rules that fit their views upon me. One could argue that the people who can't complain are the ones who voted in the rules / lawmakers that create bad outcomes. Also, what about people that don't vote because their decisive power is so incredibly small? If I choose not to vote because I have such little influence on the outcome ( like in, say, the U. S. presidential election ), would that mean that for my criticism to be valid I would had to have voted? If I have no effect on the outcome whether I vote or not, do I not deserve the right to criticize either way as well? | cmv |
No Vote = No complaint. CMV | This is like saying that if you're kidnapped, you have no right to complain if your kidnapper let's you vote on what your bed time will be or what your next meal will be. Voting just gives you a false a Illusion of choice, and the odds of your one vote impacting any election is close to 0 %. The candidates are already bought, and the differences between the two major sides are so slim as to be negligible ( at least from a budget perspective ). | cmv |
No Vote = No complaint. CMV | I'm on a phone now so I don't want to type an extremely long reply but google median voter theory. I vote. I don't know why i vote though, because my vote does not matter. That is the way I feel. I have had my views changed to this over time. I am open to hearing what others say on the topic. Median voter summed up is says this : if you are hard left or hard right on the voting scale, your vote means nothing. It's all on the people in the middle, the ones that could go either way. | cmv |
No Vote = No complaint. CMV | How do non - voters have any less right to complain than voters with no decent choices? A lot of the folks I voted for in the last election won and they're still toying with SOPA - like legislation and initiating drone strikes. It's disgusting whether one voted or not. | cmv |
No Vote = No complaint. CMV | Many people vote, see their candidate win, and are later disappointed. Many people vote, see their candidate lose, and are later disappointed. If you honestly didn't see a difference between the candidates at the time, I think it's still possible to at least be disappointed by how things turned out. Or maybe you just don't see a difference, but both candidates are absolutely terrible. What would voting accomplish? And why shouldn't you complain about your lack of options? | cmv |
I believe that watching and downloading child porn should be legal. CMV | You're assuming that people who watch child porn are somehow restraining themselves from the real activity. This is like saying that psychopaths who torture animals are just stopping themselves from killing real people. In each case, the first step is actually a good indicator that a worse act will happen later on in life. Also child porn as a whole is exploitative and terrible, as I'm sure you'll agree. Just as we have laws against littering even though one person littering once won't really impact the environment, so we need laws against watching child porn even though one person watching child porn really won't make things worse for anyone. The problem is that taken as a whole, people who watch child porn make the world a worse place. You have to punish them individually or else you can't punish them at all. | cmv |
I believe that watching and downloading child porn should be legal. CMV | How do you think child porn is made, exactly? Somebody has to have sex with a child. A child cannot consent to sex because they don't understand the physical and emotional ramifications of sex. Child porn becoming legal ( and thus profitable ) would encourage more production, which would inevitably lead to some children being raped for profit. When people watch child porn, it only encourages the creation of more. As it is illegal to rape children, so it should be illegal to allow people to subsidize the rape of children. | cmv |
I believe that watching and downloading child porn should be legal. CMV | Children are used in the production of child pornography. Which means that somewhere a child is being assaulted. Somewhere a child is being abused. Somewhere a child is being degraded. The list goes on. Take a look at some of the more base ( adult ) pornography on the internet... should children be doing that? | cmv |
I believe a global government or New World Order would be a great thing. CMV. | Maybe in the future, but at the moment, the opinions and needs of the people of Earth vary too greatly, and the leaders we choose often end up working for a select few's interests. Perhaps in a Star Trek - esque future this could work out. But humans today are just too racist, too corrupt, and don't care enough about each other. | cmv |
I believe a global government or New World Order would be a great thing. CMV. | What about varying resources, geography, demographics etc? How can any singular government be sure about what is best for everyone on the planet when we're so varied? What if every nation decided it would be ok to take away the oil in Kuwait without permission based on a vote? Little Kuwait wouldn't stand a chance in that type of system. What if a country refused to abide by this government and did whatever it saw fit? How would the NWO be able to control these outsiders? Man, it's starting to sound more and more like the UN in here. | cmv |
I believe a global government or New World Order would be a great thing. CMV. | In current times it would be a pretty terrible idea. The conflict and cultural diversity between countries all across the world would make a government incompatible with global needs. It's like the worst case scenario where you have a coalition government of 20 parties. As soon as one screw falls out of the machine that is the government, the whole thing falls apart. In this day and age, it is not feasible to have NWO for this precise reason. The diversity of culture - and political agendas - would bring too many people into conflict for there to be a compatible governing system. As it stands, many countries ( Such as the US ) are filled with corrupt politicians, an unfair distribution of wealth, and social / economic discrimmination and discrepencies. Most countries cannot handle their internal problems, let alone join together to solve eachother's issues. To achieve such a system, there would need to be decades of homogenization of culture, aggressive education of the masses and in no small amount, military disarmament. Then it may be a good idea. | cmv |
I believe a global government or New World Order would be a great thing. CMV. | IMO, NWO is bad because it involves a global government. Do not get me wrong tho, my dream would be a world where all Humans are hands in hands and especially build toward an ecologic / sustain world and space discovery program. Each " old " regions would still have their identity but we wouldn't need governors. We would need better educational system to fit this, people would be born and raised into a world where nobody rule them and they would understand that the reason they exist is to be part of a great race, Humans. Of course their would people with mental disorders and conflictual people but less and less as medical and education get better and better. Eventually Earth would be peaceful, because I truly believe humans aren't born good or bad, it's their environment that challenge them into behaviors. Look in the past, once people like knights would be the most honest and most reliable people, now these values are over but we can build toward a new society by education. Tl ; Dr : NWO = ruling = bad future for Human race, whereas Education = peace = harmonious future for Human race | cmv |
I believe a global government or New World Order would be a great thing. CMV. | At least with multiple countries, if I don't like what the country I am living in does, I can always " vote with my feet " and emigrate. With a global government, this is impossible. ( At least until Mars colonization begins. ) The more people governments try to represent, the further they are from the people and their interests. If anything I think many countries are too large right now. A global government would just make this problem worse. | cmv |
I believe that the " few " individuals with IQ's within the upper 5 % deviation should be given full access and complete control of the world provided they have " humanitarian - prospects " and are " tolerant " of the world's race's and beliefs. CMV. | IQ is only one measure of intelligence. Autistic savants have clocked very high IQs but can't wrap their heads around human compassion. How do you feel now? Also, who defines what constitutes a " humanitarian prospect " or a " tolerant " idea? Morality is subjective. Power corrupts, I don't see how a high IQ would make anyone immune to that truth. Lastly, what if all of the less intelligent people don't want to be ruled by a small group of leaders? This political theory you have proposed is called aristocracy by the way : ) | cmv |
I believe that the " few " individuals with IQ's within the upper 5 % deviation should be given full access and complete control of the world provided they have " humanitarian - prospects " and are " tolerant " of the world's race's and beliefs. CMV. | A little late to the discussion, and Amablue had lots of good things to say. Why do you get to determine that it's people with IQs above 200 and humanitarian prospects and tolerance. If your position is that this elite group of smart people are smart enough to know better than everyone else, then should the second set of criteria be irrelevant? What if they decide that the only smart and ethical thing to do is create a master race and condemn believers in deviant populations to death? You can't consistently give all power into these people's hands, and then try and pre - control what they will do with it. | cmv |
I think the death penalty is wrong, contradictory, and ironic. CMV | Is it wrong to kill all people? Would you kill a man if you knew that left alive he would kill 100 people later that day? This isn't related to your juror argument but simply points out the conundrum when saying it's always wrong to kill people. What if death is a more humane approach? A sweet release if you will. Lets say without the death penalty the person would be in solitary confinement all day everyday until they died. Sounds like a living hell to me. Or perhaps they would go to a prison where the other inmates would surely rape, beat and or kill the criminal themselves ( not unimaginable in cases of child rapists / serial killers, in fact Jeffery Dahmer was killed in the prison shower. ) So, if the jury takes this into account, and decided to kill based on mercy, isn't that the humane moral stance? Morality is subjective of course but you get my point. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | I'm sure the politicians in my country are highly educated. But I wouldn't give them any more weight than anyone else. Otherwise they just vote themselves and their friends in. The poor and uneducated of the country will have no one interested or willing to represent or defend them. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | I too live in Pakistan, and am highly saddened by the current political situation in our country, however, votes based on education are not going to improve much in the long run. Here's why : 1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of uneducated individuals highly outnumber the educated individuals in our country, meaning that a minority will only have access to bring change in the country. Naturally, the lower class uneducated people will most probably rise up, and may in fact get violent in that process ( and both of us know how violent they can get, coupled by the fact that a certain rich percentage in our country are uneducated ) 2. Also, the people who are receiving education in this country ( those with a voting power according to you ) are more or less well off, since the standard of education here fluctuates largely across the country. If a candidate rises who promises to make beneficial changes to our country, at the expense of the rich, educated class, well, a large percentage will definitely not be voting for him, as they too are out to preserve their own interests. These people are definitely not going to be willing to sacrifice their own blessings for the good of the country, and if these people only have the power to vote, well, you can see where I'm going with this. I get where you are coming from OP ; a large percentage of people vote for the person who throws more money at them rather than thinking for themselves while casting a vote. Your plan could somewhat work if the standard of education was regulated in the country, and if the literacy rate was higher, but at this time I'm sorry to say that it is not a good plan at all. ( Unrelated to your post OP, but if you could vote for anyone in the current elections, who would get your vote? ) | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | While I completely understand this viewpoint, think about it from the perspective of the uneducated ; they are not being represented. Most of the poor will get paid less, have fewer rights, ect... The point of voting and a democracy is to give everyone a voice and to have the government stretched in all directions. Instead of this, maybe something where there was a fact checker and only debate instead of propoganda / media corruption. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | Don't worry ; all developing countries will one day rise to become even more powerful than the developed nations of today. As these nations fall, it will pave the way for developing nations to rise. I am from India, and corruption is rampant. However, India is still developing and will eventually surpass the likes of America as America grows weaker. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | Just one last thing, since everything else seems to have been covered. There are a lot more uneducated people than educated. The majority, actually, are uneducated by your account. Therefore, unless the ratio is 2 : 1 or something similar, the fact is that droves of people with half a vote will still make their candidate come out on top. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | You are assuming that an educatedperson will vote more rationally. I believe you are mistaken. Many uneducated people know very well what is right and wrong and many educated people are religious fanatics with no clue to what is right and wrong. Many people are also self - educated. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | I think the main problem with this is that " one man, one vote " is an untouchable principle. And this is good, since everything else would lead to no good. So let's say, you would introcduce a voting system as you proposed. Educated people would say, " Why does my vote not count double as much as a normal vote ". People would only argue about how much a vote should count, not about the real problem. In hundret years, either 10 % of the people would decide everything, or the other 90 % would throw the system over. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | The major issue I see is " who is providing the education? " If the institutes of education are controlled by any particular group, they will decide what does and does not make it into the curriculum. Then people will vote based on the information they have and not the information that's out there. This is what happens anyway, but the difference is that all people who are considered " educated " or " uneducated " are representing different aspects of available information. If only those considered educated by the official educational system are having their votes fully counted, then there will always be only the " official " position that is fully represented. He who provides the diameter of your information controls the circumference of your activity. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | America isn't any better. The previous president ( son of another president ) won in a vote - fraud scandal that was ended by supreme court members appointed by his father in a state his brother runs. He later appointed a treasury secretary who was CEO of a bank that then received untold billions in funds from the federal government while that bank's competitors were driven into bankruptcy by withholding federal funds. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | I am a US citizen holding a terminal Masters degree. If the US were to adopt such a system my vote would count more than most but less than others, until I earned my $ 100 mail - order PhD degree. Since I was educated abroad, would my vote count more or less than US educated voters. Should a Harvard educated citizen's vote count more than a Yale educated citizen or a University of Wyoming educated citizen. Gore graduated from Harvard. Bush graduated from Yale. Cheney dropped out of Yale and graduated from the University of Wyoming. How do you weight their votes? Imagine a small city that adopted such a system. Could not you make inferences about who voted for whom based on the weighted vote total. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | Is education free and universally available for boys and girls in Pakistan? If somehow you are not educated as a child, is it possible to be freely educated as an adult in Pakistan? If things are not true than an education restriction of the vote will result in a systematic denial of quality education to minority groups in order to prevent them from being able to cast votes. This is not pure speculation but an historical situation in the US. Please read about " Jim Crow Laws " and the later " Voting Rights Act of 1965 ". | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | I think what we have seen throughout the Middle East is that democracy cannot be thrust on a society that is not ready for it. It's something that must be brought about to exist from within, by people who fight for their own rights. However, that won't necessarily change your view, since I'm not absolutely sure it's 100 % wrong. We limit votes by age, so perhaps by education level might have some benefits. The biggest problem with that approach, IMO, is that it becomes a slippery slope. You can easily change the scoring, or limit by major, or whatever, so that the weighted democracy becomes a de facto kleptocracy or outright dictatorship. The more interesting question, and more relevant to Pakistan, is why a " one man, one vote " system works so well in some countries and not in others. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | So they'll promise larger research budgets, better education, free market policies. And when in power, dominate university education through nationalizing grant funding and monopolizing research. So if you want that doctorate, you'd better walk the party line. Institutes of political science will quietly retire " obnoxious " professors that speak out against them ; universities will become apparatuses of indoctrination rather than learning. The poor can go to hell, the educated class will get the unemployment benefits and healthcare in the name of " encouraging education ". The fact of the matter is, we have the intractable problem of classes of people not having enough information to decide their own good for themselves, and other classes with that information using it to their own advantage regardless of others detriment. I wish it were as easy as just weighting expertise differently. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | If this,'One man, one vote.'is erased, what do you think will happen? The same uneducated, corrupt, Islamist fools will have the ability to cast votes, and not cultured Pakistanis! Not to mention these people would have total control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, without ANY accountability to anyone. It would be much like what exists in China. BHARAT MATA KI JAI | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | I understand why you would propose that as a solution but I believe two issues are inherent in your proposal : 1. Education does not = Intelligence. If you start judging people by their education level and or intelligence, you start on the slippery slope of Eugenics. 2. Privilege and education, especially in countries with large class gaps will ensure the educated only vote for changes that benefit them. This undermines democracy at its core to make one individual's vote count less. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | Greeks that invented democracy did not allow common people to vote. It was between the highly educated. It was even said that if common people were allowed to vote that the system would break. BUT. System where the common people had no vote was always on their cost. Rich people get into politics for their gain but the little man suffered. If people go hungry but have no influence on their life they create a revolution sooner or later. If everyone have food and roof over their head they won't do anything. Not even vote for that matter. | cmv |
I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not'one man, one vote'TCMV | I won't debate whether or not such a system would produce a government with " better " policies. Others have already done so. The problem with your plan is that is unsustainable. The democratic system is not in place because it selects the most effective leader, but because it prevents popular violence i. e., revolts and riots. If votes were weighted by education, than the vast majority of the population would not get what they wanted, which would lead to instability and rebellion. Your plan would not work because it would mean the collapse of the government. | cmv |
I think childbirth should be licenced. CMV | How would criteria be set? Just as an example, some religious people would say parents that aren't their religion, or at least religious, are unfit parents. Meanwhile you have some non religious people saying religion is brainwashing and very religious people are unfit parents. What if two parents have a license and they get divorced. Do they keep their license? One person marries someone without a license and the couple doesn't get a new one. Are their kids taken away from them? This also could open the door to the government forcing abortions. | cmv |
I think childbirth should be licenced. CMV | Why not tax those considered unfit to have children? The money taxed could be given to a fitter potential family in order to encourage birthing potentially happy kids. Its a simple punishment for those who don't avoid having kids either when they are not ready or unfit to take good care of them. Requiring a licence would restrict personal freedoms while taxing bad decisions would seems to me as a beneficial system similar to speeding tickets. If the unfit family really wants to have kids they can, but they have to pay for it. | cmv |
I believe mainstream pornography is fundamentally racist and sexist. CMV | The fact that they have titles such as " hot Asian " etc are much more for providing categories than for any other. Different people like different ethnicities / hair colors / body types and this is how most of these videos are categorized to makeup easier for the consumer to find what they want. Other forms of categories are the BDSM / dominant / submissive / etc. these categories are also a description of content rather than sexism. There are many videos where the man is submissive. There are also categories where the pleasure of the woman is the subject. Tldr - at the surface view the categories and titles of these videos may seem racist / sexist, but if you truly explore the vast categories you will see that there is something for every ones personal preferences. NSFW LINK - for an easy website that has a massive variety of categories check out www. fuq. com and scroll to the bottom to browse them. | cmv |
I believe there is nothing morally wrong with incest. CMV. | Presuming we are talking about just sex as an activity with no consequence, removing the possibility of disabled offspring or STDs which are a possibility in all sexual relations, I think the only argument that would say incest is morally wrong would be situation based. For instance, a parent may take advantage of their children sexually and ( assuming they are above the age of consent ) there would be no moral principle that I see to combat this. This does not mean all incest is morally wrong just that it could lead to situations that allow moral infringements to occur. ( It's a tenuous argument I know, just trying to play devils advocate ) | cmv |
I believe there is nothing morally wrong with incest. CMV. | If you're asking why it's morally bad as entirely rational beings, nothing. But why do we feel it's morally bad? Because it leads to diseases and such, and historically having sex meant having kids. So we humans developed a part of our moral compass that tells us that incest is wrong. | cmv |
I believe there is nothing morally wrong with incest. CMV. | I live near and go to school with a lot of menonites. Most of the children there are related due to cousins and brothers and sisters creating offspring. Due to this most of the menonites in my school have some sort of disability. The majoirty of them have a form of hearing aid and the second most common one is some sort of learning disability. Now i don't know if this is directly caused by incest, but in my opinion it is. | cmv |
I believe there is nothing morally wrong with incest. CMV. | The reason incest is considered morally wrong and, often, illegal is mostly to do with the " ick " factor. But while your qualifiers ( love, consenting age ) present a situation people could only counter with the gut reaction, " ew, they're related " it also leaves a great scope for immoral relationships. The family dynamic is always messy, and by allowing the moral justification for sexual love between relatives in some cases, you set a precedent for a moral form of incest when the vast majority of it is harmful. Sexual abusers often try and justify their actions by making the victim feel it is normal behaviour and that their objections are stupid / weird etc. Allowing the form of'moral'incest you mentioned makes immoral incest easier to justify in the mind of both the perpetrator and the victim, which in the long run does far more damage than the blanket ban or societal taboo regarding'moral'incest. | cmv |
I believe there is nothing morally wrong with incest. CMV. | Morality is a spectrum and everyone has their own spectrum. What some people find digusting you may not and there is nothing right or wrong about it. It is personal preference sometimes when it comes to morals. Also, the act of intercourse will always leave chance to the possibility of offspring. So you got your mom or sister pregnant. Is it morally wrong to get an abortion? Well depends on where you land on the moral spectrum, although most people would say no. It should also be note that the real purpose of sex is to have children. So assuming that the only purpose of sex is to have children then incest would be morally wrong since you are purposely breeding children with deficiencies. I am not saying that people don't have sex for pleasure or whatever other reason, I am just saying that since the ultimate goal of sex is to have children ( its biological purpose ) then incest would be morally wrong. | cmv |
I believe there is nothing morally wrong with incest. CMV. | This is one of the situations in which we don't need to search for a moral reason for the taboo, we can just consult our understanding of science and see why we ( and the majority of the animal kingdom ) tend to avoid the act. The inherent danger in incest is that it creates offspring. These offspring will not necessarily be deformed or be worse off but the reality is they will be much more likely to do so. Genetics tell us that an offspring of two parents too closely related will be much more likely to suffer from congenital birth defects due to recessive allele amplification. As a result, sibling - sibling or parent - child offspring in humans have, by some studies, a 30 % higher mortality rate. Even the less closely related cousin - cousin mating puts the offspring at a 5 % higher risk of an early death. While the varying laws on incest in different parts of the world may seem completely arbitrary, there is good reason and established scientific evidence to back them up. | cmv |
I believe that it's sometimes right to kill for revenge. CMV | The reason you might want to execute a murderer is the exact same reasons you shouldn't. Killing is unacceptable behavior. Imprison them because we have no better solution. For what it's worth, I think imprisoning human beings is almost as immoral as murdering them, we just don't have any better ways of preventing murderers from repeat offenses. | cmv |
I belive a definitive answer to " who am I? " that anyone can use is " I am what I do " | That's from the perspective where your actions are interpreted by others, so it's like saying " I am what other people perceive me to be doing " but you could be'doing'a lot of things that aren't perceivable, even to yourself. Who are you if no - one perceives your actions ever again? | cmv |
I think that the USA should remove the Title of Nobility Clause. | When you hear " Neil Armstrong ", you immediately think " first man to land on the moon ", right? Even though he has no official title of nobility or anything. People don't necessarily need titles. If what they did really is amazing, people will know it. | cmv |
I believe people who refuse to identify as a specific sexuality ( even pan or poly ) are simply just being difficult. CMV | If you truly cared about a person ( friend, relative, prospective partner ) you would wish to understand them accurately. If you think this information is bothersome or too difficult to hear, it seems likely to me you entering in topics too personal for people you view as acquaintances. Don't ask casual acquaintances about their sexual orientation and your problem is solved. If they start telling you information that is too personal for your comfort change the topic. This will also reinforce the level of relationship you wish to have with them which they may be pressing make more intimate by opening up on such a topic. | cmv |
I believe people who refuse to identify as a specific sexuality ( even pan or poly ) are simply just being difficult. CMV | The thing is, almost all human categories ( race, gender, and sexuality ) are socially constructed, and not biologically - based. The essence of the human condition that gives rise to philosophy and art is the struggle against these enforced categories, so while you may feel at home in a particular category, not everyone else does. This is not to say that sexuality is an individual choice, but rather that society has chosen to define relatively arbitrary ( or at least not nearly specific enough ) categories, and some of us fit neatly into a particular category, while some of us don't. | cmv |
I believe people who refuse to identify as a specific sexuality ( even pan or poly ) are simply just being difficult. CMV | It depends on the context of the question. I think it is a personal question, therefore possibly " too much " to ask in the first place. You can give people whatever labels you want, but they don't have to take them / agree. Why is it so important to you that others use " the " terms? Additionaly, some people are - - - sexual but | cmv |
I believe people who refuse to identify as a specific sexuality ( even pan or poly ) are simply just being difficult. CMV | The term bisexual means that you like the two, dintinct genders. My bisexual friends like more masculine men and more feminine women. They are not attracted to genderqueer individuals. Pansexuals don't think about gender when they are attracted to someone. For example, if you were not able to identify someone's gender by looking at them, a pansexual may find them attractive and not care about their genitalia. A bisexual person would most likely not find that persin attractive. This is a very minor difference but it is important to people who don't fit well in the gender binary. | cmv |
I believe people who refuse to identify as a specific sexuality ( even pan or poly ) are simply just being difficult. CMV | Let's say each label you listed is part of a spectrum. But surely that doesn't cover all the spectrum and all the overlapping parts. Now, it's reasonable to think that this spectrum is somehow continuous and each persons has his sexuality defined by what portions of the spectrum they represent ( is this too abstract? ). I guess my point is, you can come up with names for each part or combinations of parts in the sexuality spectrum. But what's the point? If you want to differentiate two kinds of sexuality that are very similar you would have to come up with new labels. I think that's impractical and it's a lot easier NOT to identify and simply BE ( that also eases judgments ). Does that make sense to you? | cmv |
I believe people who refuse to identify as a specific sexuality ( even pan or poly ) are simply just being difficult. CMV | Why do you feel a burning need to label who I'm attracted to? Is there going to be something wrong with your life if my sexuality does not get labeled? I mean honestly, what business of it is yours? | cmv |
I believe people who refuse to identify as a specific sexuality ( even pan or poly ) are simply just being difficult. CMV | " Poly " always struck me as a copout. If you tell me you're poly and don't explain any more you may as well have told me " I have more than one favorite color. " Why bother? As for me, I'm attracted to ( trans - or cis - ) women, as well as anyone who is exceptionally androgynous, usually with some kind of unusual or genderqueer gender identity. What's it to ya? Though I suppose I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate, as I usually just say " bi, mostly straight. " | cmv |
I am a republican. CMV | Why are you one thing? I mean, you mentioned you're a fiscal conservative. Even if you are, Republicans don't seem to be anymore. Even if they were, I'm going to guess you don't agree with them on social or religious issues. I find it highly unlikely you agree with any one person on everything, let alone a political party. Now, if you wanted me to change your view on whether you should vote Republican, that's another matter. I tend to vote Democratic. But I don't consider myself a Democrat, though I'm registered as one. The Democrats have plenty of things wrong with them as well. | cmv |
I am a republican. CMV | Personally, I would never associate with any political party. My beliefs align more so with the Democratic party, but unless my views aligned 100 %, association is ridiculous. You're letting an outside group decide what your beliefs are. For example, if you say something like " I'm a republican, but am against the death penalty. " Granted it's not 100 % black and white, but for this example republicans are pro death penalty and democrats are against. By contributing to, associating with, and registering as republican, you're directly enforcing beliefs you disagree with. Regardless of your personal convictions, a political party as a whole has an agenda of its own, compromised of the loudest voices from within itself. I always found it ridiculous to associate yourself with something that doesn't have my best interests in mind. This is not why you should change parties, but why you should drop them all together. | cmv |
I am a republican. CMV | Why do you need to be one or the other? Vote for individuals, and stop letting yourself be'binned '. Once people know which side you're on, they stop working for your vote. I'm not going to say you should become a hardcore democrat, but you should become more individualistic in your views, and not adopt prepackaged viewpoints from either side. If you want some arguments as to why the current top brass in the Republican Party don't represent your interests, hop on over to / r / politics. I just think you should stop associating with one party or the other. Start creating your own set of ideas and working on them through life experience and conversation. You dont need the'all in one'thought kit. | cmv |
I think people who have murdered others or done so much wrong should be put to death, as long as they are given a fair trial. CMV | Although i agree with this principle in most cases there are other cases in which it wouldn't work at all. Many people are convicted wrongly, even in modern society with all of the forensic technology at our fingertips, if you make a blanket statement that says everyone who does X should be killed then there is the potential for innocents to get killed. While this is obviously a tiny amount the death of one innocent isn't worth the price, what if you were that innocent? The way i would like to see it would be mainly for premeditated murder. A fair trial would be given and the convict would be put in prison for 2 years, i this time they would be allowed appeals in which new evidence can be presented. If they still cannot disprove their guilt then they would be executed. | cmv |
I think we should bring back hanging. CMV | The issue being here that hanging isn't always 100 % effective, some people just won't die! : P Any death penalty is enough to cause fear, as long as it actually happens. Being killed is being killed, what would you be more scared of, how you are going to be killed or the fact you are going to die? | cmv |
I believe that almost all serious or violent criminal behavior should be treated as mental illness. CMV. | In order to really debate you, I'd need to know more of your argument. What constitutes a " serious " criminal? What aspect of modern psychiatry " seems to label " them as mentally ill? As far as " is it moral to punish the mentally ill without treating them " goes, do you have an argument that it isn't moral? If you make some of these clarifications, it will make our job here a little easier. | cmv |
I believe semi - automatic rifles are necessary firearms, and legal, to possess. CMV | 1. The constitution was not written with these kinds of weapons in mind. It also doesn't prohibit chain guns but would you allow these? 2. These restrictions ( apart from the safe one ) exist at the moment and aren't enough. Even if the safe law did exist it would be almost impossible to enforce apart from random home checks which I am guessing you would also be against so won't go on to explain why. 3. If the government were to attack with the full weight of the US army ( which wouldn't happen as the US army is made of normal people and not mindless drones ) you would be destroyed anyway. Have you seen the defense budget lately? You really think a few people with rifles are going to make the slightest difference. 4. I know little about guns but as I understand assault rifles have much greater range and accuracy generally making it a more dangerous weapon making multiple deaths more likely. The benefits ( which I see as non - existent ) are highly outweighed by the consequences we consistently see. | cmv |
I believe semi - automatic rifles are necessary firearms, and legal, to possess. CMV | We might be able to change your mind about their being necessary or good. We won't be able to change your mind about their being legal. Legality exists independently of your beliefs, or mine. They are or aren't legal regardless of what we think. | cmv |
I believe semi - automatic rifles are necessary firearms, and legal, to possess. CMV | Legality is up to the supreme courts interpretation of the second amendment, and they specify it is a well regulated right, so the right to regulate it as lawmakers see fit is well within legal. From a " is it right or wrong? " Perspective the constitution doesn't matter. If you feel it is right to be able to defend yourself from tyranny, that's understandable to a point. You can't realistically defend against air strikes or shillings or tanks with a rifle. If you then feel you should be able to but your own fighter craft or nukes, does this not infringe on the safety of your neighbors? If you don't trust the government to not abuse that power, how can you trust your neighbor? At least we vote for our representatives. | cmv |
I believe semi - automatic rifles are necessary firearms, and legal, to possess. CMV | Although I actually agree with you that guns like these should be legal I think the argument about fighting government tyranny is a weak one. The US government could kill all of its citizens before they had a chance to load their guns. If you really want to be able to fight the government then there would need to be some sort of equal ground. This doesn't mean all of us should own nukes for our safety. That would just be irresponsible. | cmv |
I think that being racist should be legal. CMW | Free speech is allowed until it interferes with someone elses rights / livelihood. No one's stopping you from saying you hate black people, but the second you deny a job to someone for being black, you're interfering with their livelihood. That's not racism, it's discrimination. | cmv |
I believe the government shouldn't cover Birth control, CMV. | It is in the government's best interest to cover birth control because people who cannot afford to buy birth control probably can't afford to raise a child. The child and the family will then likely become dependent on the system, cost the government far more than the cost of birth control. It's a prevention measure. | cmv |
I believe the government shouldn't cover Birth control, CMV. | I know your mind has already been changed, but I felt like I needed to make another point that I haven't seen anyone make yet. All of the changes that humans seem to have on the climate stem from one single problem ; Population. Within the last decade, population has increased by more than a billion. It's only a start if governments decide to pay for birth control. | cmv |
I believe the government shouldn't cover Birth control, CMV. | If someone can't afford birth control, they are likely not going to be be able to afford the costs of raising a child. You may say " that's their problem " but it is in fact your problem, as it is mine and every other taxpayer. The negative consequences ( both societal and personal for both mother and child ) have been well documented and by some estimates it costs taxpayers $ 12 billion to provide medical care for mothers and infants due to unwanted pregnancy. Basically is is several orders of magnitude cheaper for us to provide birth control. | cmv |
I believe indoctrinating children into religion before the age of reason is child abuse. CMV | I disagree. I was raised in a catholic family and community, yet I don't believe in God. When I was young I went through the motions of religious celebrations but never took it in or truly believed. I just had a great time as a kid and put up with the boring hour or so in a cold church once a week. Out of the 20 or so kids in my class primary school ( ages 4 - 11 ) I can safely say only around 3 still go to church, and at our age now ( 20 ) it will definitely be of their own will. So, from my experience, being part of a religion from a young age has not turned out to be a bad thing, let alone child abuse. However, I can understand how your view may apply the extreme cases of religion. This, however, does not mean it can be blanketed to all. | cmv |
I believe indoctrinating children into religion before the age of reason is child abuse. CMV | While most beliefs, thoughts, ideas, and reasoning are instilled by the parents or caregivers of children it is ultimately up to the child as they mature to decide what they believe in. Most children grow out of believing in Santa, the same is also true about some things that are taught by parents and caregivers such as religion. It is ultimately up to the child once matured and educated to decide to stay with their parents or caregivers religion or to find something that works for them. Also, Religion does not hinder a persons ability to think rationally, although it can influence a persons reasons for doing things a certain way. | cmv |
I believe indoctrinating children into religion before the age of reason is child abuse. CMV | I have to ask, do you mean to say that you think indoctrinating children into religion is child abuse in the sense that it should be a crime? This is a difficult subject to argue against because of all the nuance involved. On a personal level, I feel that indoctrinating a child into religion is absolutely wrong. I think that people should freely be able to criticise ( any ) religion, I think that indoctrinating children into a religion and then punishing that child for asking or criticising that religion is morally reprehensible. However, that said, I think that if children are taught about religion correctly then it won't diminish their critical thinking skills, but of course that depends more on the parents or the teacher than anything else. Some parents, teachers and even schools lack the ability to teach children critical thinking skills or even develop their existing critical thinking skills, should they too be responsible for committing child abuse? | cmv |
I think that there is zero reason for psychedelic drugs ( e. g., LSD, mushrooms, etc. ) to be illegal and anyone who thinks otherwise is uneducated as to the effects of these drugs. CMV | I'm not going contend with your whole argument, but I'm sick to death of people saying " X should be legal because Y is worse and that is legal ". The incidence of violent crime on alcohol as opposed to violent crime on psychedelic drugs has no merit in the argument towards legalisation. That's like me saying that flamethrower deaths occur far less than alcohol poisoning, ergo flamethrowers should be legal. | cmv |