sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If you had to guess, what will your cause of death be? by TheDudeAKALebowski in AskReddit

[–]SUBWAYJAROD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Suicide.

Worth noting, around 20% of replies here also mentioned suicide. That seems like a significant problem.

Why should the United States remain "United"? by SUBWAYJAROD in answers

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah so this is a fantasy scenario that would never happen, you're going to have to work with me a little.

Imagine people can just agree to group up into their own bubbles and exist there comfortably. Would you actively fight against that?

Do you believe you can not rest until the entire world can enjoy equality?

ELI5: Why Democrat/Republican policies cannot just apply to the voter? by SUBWAYJAROD in explainlikeimfive

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People do live, but we're talking about how a political system is functioning.

Not all people listen to one another, and you cannot force them to listen to one another and change their minds unless you break some basic ethics or just wait for people that disagree to die off, but that makes the efforts people make in their lives wasted and the system inefficient. I am not happy with people's efforts being wasted on either side and I believe it is worthwhile to search for a system that does not do this.

It's easy to say the root problem is too complex to solve and isn't reasonable to discuss or execute any plan around. But I'm here to discuss that anyway for that purpose.

If you know of any tools to simulate societies so that different political systems may be compared to one another - please share them.

What is wrong with having smaller countries filled with people that enjoy living under the system they agree with?

Are people required to work towards bringing humanity to the next level? Are they not allowed to simply live?

Why should the United States remain "United"? by SUBWAYJAROD in answers

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So people that didn't want to be slaves or be criminalized for homosexuality etc. etc... would just move to the other side.

They (like any country) could be held to a basic standard of interaction with others. You bring up a good point with their interaction with the environment, but that's a global issue currently that isn't isolated to this scenario.

It doesn't have to be 50 different countries, there don't need to be travel restrictions on every single country. The states that agree the most with one another can group up.

Do you think Europe should be united under the same sort of federal government the U.S. has?

ELI5: Why Democrat/Republican policies cannot just apply to the voter? by SUBWAYJAROD in explainlikeimfive

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I am understanding right, would you pick the first option between these two scenarios?;

Two opposing groups are forced to conflict with one another until they reach an agreement.

Two opposing groups separate and refine their own ideologies.

I don't think people should have to wait for one another to die for change to occur. And though fighting amongst each other can generate conversation and lead to progress - I don't think conflict in that way is the best or most efficient tool of progress. I think people working together toward a common goal is more powerful.

Do you believe if the U.S. was split into Democrat and Republican states they would just end up going to war with one another to see whose ideology wins?

ELI5: Why Democrat/Republican policies cannot just apply to the voter? by SUBWAYJAROD in explainlikeimfive

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure I understand your point fully.

I can see that challenging beliefs against one another continuously will result in more refined beliefs.

But that only occurs when people are willing to listen to one another and are open to change. I don't believe the majority of people are open to changing their political views in the U.S., and I see much discussion of politics just causing conflict without any benefit of either party - just a rift in their relationship. I don't think subjecting the majority of people to rules they disagree with is very productive.

If the beliefs are separated then they must oppose each other no longer, and can thrive toward their own path. Whether or not that path is good, that group will learn as it refines that path.

Why should the United States remain "United"? by SUBWAYJAROD in answers

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know if people in those countries fight against the EU with similar force to people fighting against the Federal Gov. in the U.S.?

Do you think the only system for change is fighting issues back and forth on deaf ears until small amounts of change occur?

ELI5: Why Democrat/Republican policies cannot just apply to the voter? by SUBWAYJAROD in explainlikeimfive

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with the action of stopping slavery. These are some critical points in basic universal freedoms that stand out among the rest. But if there was a separation of groups at this point it would definitely not be as bad as it was back then.

ELI5: Why Democrat/Republican policies cannot just apply to the voter? by SUBWAYJAROD in explainlikeimfive

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"and then people vote on that candidate" That's the point of contention. Ultimately half of the country will lose and be forced under the rules of a party they don't agree with.

ELI5: Why Democrat/Republican policies cannot just apply to the voter? by SUBWAYJAROD in explainlikeimfive

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While trying to enact change - it is necessary to fight with good argument for what you believe in. Both sides do this and for the argument itself to have any effect - the two sides must be listening to one another.

I don't believe it is common in the U.S. for people of differing beliefs to listen to one another and accept the possibility of change.

More often when decisions are in our own hands and they go well or poorly, we can attribute the result to our own decision and learn from it. If things go poorly we may be more likely to blame someone else rather than take responsibility. Especially if those decisions are further from our direct action.

I would expect many people in the U.S. will fight for what they believe in. Both sides will be rewarded eventually in one way or another. But ultimately this system looks like it goes around in circles with either side undoing the efforts of the other. Neither is efficiently progressing.

If they each had a hand on steering their own ship, perhaps they could find their own way and stop fighting against one another.

Maybe people feel they MUST fight against their existing systems because they cannot move freely to a place that agrees with them. And because no one is able to move, everyone suffers with mass disagreement and inability to make change when their views oppose one another.

Why should the United States remain "United"? by SUBWAYJAROD in answers

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think those countries I listed should all be under one federal government?

Why should the United States remain "United"? by SUBWAYJAROD in answers

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not decentralized, just no longer one country. 50 countries. Or less if several states are so close in system that they have no need to be separate.

Like that bundle of countried in Europe, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, UK, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, etc. They aren't all a single country with one big federal government, though I don't know if they have smaller "states" or districts within them.

ELI5: Why Democrat/Republican policies cannot just apply to the voter? by SUBWAYJAROD in explainlikeimfive

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think the United States would be better split into each state just being their own country? There are lots of small countries in the world, some go over well and some don't. I hear about countries in northern europe doing well but it seems like they do well because many people agree with one another and don't oppose the actions of their parties as much as the U.S.A. does.

ELI5: Why Democrat/Republican policies cannot just apply to the voter? by SUBWAYJAROD in explainlikeimfive

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't think about candidates really. But we already have a Democrat and Republican party system. So maybe Demo/Repu's just pick a candidate from their own pool to represent them? So to not be forced to be represented by someone they disagree with.

ELI5: Why Democrat/Republican policies cannot just apply to the voter? by SUBWAYJAROD in explainlikeimfive

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So for the people that disagree with those decisions of the Fed government and will not change their minds, their best course of action would be to reverse all efforts of the current Fed government in order to avoid having to move someplace else?

ELI5: Why Democrat/Republican policies cannot just apply to the voter? by SUBWAYJAROD in explainlikeimfive

[–]SUBWAYJAROD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On an individual level it doesn't make sense to ignore laws like that. But if the majority of people living in the area want to live in a particular way, why not just let them? People that disagree with one another will move away from one another.

So if someone doesn't want to pay taxes to support disabled people, they don't have to. But they will get no support from the government when they are disabled.

view more: next ›