claim
stringlengths 20
257
| positive
stringlengths 139
5.07k
| negative
stringlengths 135
3.54k
| post_id
stringlengths 7
7
| post_title
stringlengths 20
257
| post_text
stringlengths 507
35.9k
| post_timestamp
int64 1.73B
1.74B
| post_author
stringlengths 4
20
| positive_comment_id
stringclasses 1
value | negative_comment_id
stringclasses 1
value | date
stringdate 2024-10-01 00:00:00
2024-12-31 00:00:00
| quarter
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMV: The NBA should move back the 3pt line
|
{'id': 'm3rhy0b', 'text': 'The problem is the current NBA seems soft. There’s lots of flopping and the teams don’t really hate each other. \n\nHow about instead of moving the three point line you remove the foul protections for three pointers? Meaning instead of three free throws on a fouled shot you get zero (unless you’re in the bonus). \n\nCall flagrant flops as a violation causing change of possession.', 'author': 'Jarkside', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735150558}
|
{'id': 'm3rdt0l', 'text': '\\>So you can\'t have fractions (i.e. making a 3 pointer worth 2.75 points) as it would just be too annoying to keep track of. So you have to work with whole numbers.\n\nI just completely disagree. Fractions are fine. \n\nMake 3-pointers worth 2.5 points or make mid-range shots worth 2.5 points. \n\n\\>I also don\'t think it\'s a problem to have a "distortionary" rule change. The NBA didn\'t even used to have a 3pt line at all. It was added in 1979\n\nYeah, it was added over 50 years ago! There hasn\'t been a substantial rule change during the lifetimes of 96% of this sub. Rules that change how the game is played at a physical level just creates too much chaos. Imagine playing ball since you could walk then being told you have to change the muscle memory that\'s been ingrained over tens of thousands of repetitions. The NBPA will never go for it; therefore, it\'s just a nonstarter.', 'author': 'IMakeMyOwnLunch', 'score': -3, 'timestamp': 1735149006}
|
1hm4x83
|
CMV: The NBA should move back the 3pt line
|
There's been a lot of discussion about the NBA's decline in ratings. Apparently the ratings are down 48% since 2012, and 28% this year compared to last year. There are a number of reasons that could account for this. Less people watching traditional media and cable television in general (however if you compare to other American sports, the NFL is doing just fine despite the changing media landscape).
The official league talking point right now is that "well actually the NBA is still getting interest on social media so people still care" but that's a load of crap. People aren't watching the games. And if you ask most NBA fans or people who are familiar with the game, it's because the games are boring now - at least not nearly as exciting as they used to be. The most effective tactic right now is for teams to jack up 30+ three point shots every game. It's just teams going back and forth shooting 3s. The reason for this is simple, it's because the expected value of a 3 point shot is worth more than any 2 point shot. Players have gotten so good at shooting that they can hit 3s at a high enough percentage that a 3 point shot is analytically a smarter shot than driving to the basket, shooting a mid range, or anything else.
You can't blame the teams for using this strategy because their goal is to win. But the problem is that it's not fun to watch. There is an easy solution to this problem. Move the 3 point line back and get rid of corner 3s (moving the 3 point line far enough back will eliminate the corner 3 anyway due to the size of the court). By moving the line back, the three point field goal % will go down, and as a result the expected value of a 3 point shot will go down. This will incentivise teams to actually score in other ways more often, i.e. more mid range, more driving to the basket, more dunking. Will this fix the NBA's ratings problem overnight? Probably not, but it will make the NBA more fun to watch, and eventually this will result in it becoming more popular again.
| 1,735,147,773
|
EvilBurner666
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-25
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: People arguing in bad faith and hiding their true motives is a huge obstacle to meaningful discussions
|
{'id': 'm3ww3wk', 'text': 'If I have changed your view at all, feel free to award a delta!', 'author': 'FearlessResource9785', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1735239338}
|
{'id': 'm3wvs0d', 'text': 'Sounds like me arguing with the religious. Since they have zero evidence for their claims, all their arguments are in bad faith.', 'author': 'angryatheist556', 'score': -3, 'timestamp': 1735239230}
|
1hmuzzf
|
CMV: People arguing in bad faith and hiding their true motives is a huge obstacle to meaningful discussions
|
I’ve noticed that many debates, especially online, are full of bad-faith arguments where people don’t seem willing to admit their true positions. Instead, they hide behind excuses or distractions to mask their real feelings. This makes it nearly impossible to have an honest, productive conversation. Here are some examples that I’ve come across:
1. "We like legal immigration, just not illegal immigration."
But let’s be real—some of you don’t like immigration at all, especially when it involves people from Central and South America. The distinction between legal and illegal is often just a cover for a broader anti-immigrant sentiment.
2. "Release the Epstein/Diddy list!"
Many people claim to be outraged about pedophilia and abuse, but their outrage is often selective. It’s focused on their political enemies while ignoring or excusing the same behavior in their own party. If you truly care, why not demand accountability across the board?
3. "Freedom of religion."
This is often invoked, but it seems like what some people really mean is their freedom to practice their religion. They push back hard against the idea of other religions being taught or even represented in schools, revealing a lack of interest in true religious freedom for all.
4. "What about Hunter Biden?"
The fixation on Hunter Biden feels less about genuine concern and more about attacking his father politically. Meanwhile, there’s little acknowledgment of similar issues, like Jared Kushner getting $2 billion from the Saudis or Don Jr.'s decades-long drug problems.
5. "Christianity is under attack."
What’s actually happening is people are being held accountable for bigoted views they claim are based on Christianity. It’s not an attack—it’s a demand for decency. Hiding hate and exclusion behind religion is dishonest and harmful.
6. "Eggs and groceries are expensive."
Yes, inflation is real, but for many, this was just a convenient excuse to express deeper discomfort with the pace of social and cultural change. Some openly admit they’d never vote for a woman, let alone a woman of color, and this sentiment was likely a bigger factor than the price of eggs.
7. "Both sides are the same."
This feels like a cop-out. One side has its flaws, but the other has completely detached itself from reality. Equating the two minimizes the real dangers of misinformation and bad-faith arguments coming from one side.
The pattern is clear: many arguments are not made in good faith, but as deflections or smokescreens to avoid admitting uncomfortable truths. This creates a toxic cycle where meaningful debate becomes impossible.
How can we have honest, productive conversations if so many people refuse to own their real motives or engage sincerely?
| 1,735,238,961
|
Nice_Substance9123
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-26
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Chipotle, Panara, and other "fast casual" joints are still fast food
|
{'id': 'm1iocs8', 'text': "> there are some panara joints that have drive through's, and some that don't is panara only sometimes fast food?\n\nPanera is in the process of transitioning to being fully fast food. But, it is not there yet. Give it time. The one near me is already removing seating in their location as most business is for the drive through or online carry out. The only people inside are old folks nursing coffees and bad hips. Just like McDonalds. \n\n>also my local gas station has a drive-into (its weird) where you can get booze \n\nDrive though liquor store, pretty common back in the day. \n\nMy overall breakdown is this:\n\nIf you are served by a waitress: resturant\n\nIf you serve yourself from various options: buffet\n\nIf someone else serves you from various options: cafeteria\n\nIf you order and they make it for you as you watch: deli\n\nIf you can order at a drive through: fast food\n\nIf the place has wheels: food truck\n\nSo, by this Panera and Chipotle are delis, with Panera attempting to turn into a fast food joint, but Chipotle holding firm to the deli model.", 'author': 'destro23', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1733922480}
|
{'id': 'm1iioe0', 'text': ">If every meal is paid for before it's eaten it's fast food. If you have the option of paying after you eat it's a restaurant.\n\nOkay, so any foods eaten at events are fast food according to this definition, as they are usually paid for upfront. For example, food for work events is often paid for upfront by the company, meaning that anything you eat at a work event is now fast food. This means that even if a 5-star chef shows up and gives you fresh ingredients from a local vegetable garden, it is fast food. \n\nThe reality is that this is not how people see fast food. People generally see fast food as lower quality, unhealthy foods that can be quickly prepared and eaten. We can easily argue over semantics, but this is ultimately the point that they are trying to make, even if the exact wording isn't correct in your eyes.", 'author': 'SpendEmbarrassed6060', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733919860}
|
1hbs1cq
|
CMV: Chipotle, Panara, and other "fast casual" joints are still fast food
|
I've heard argument lately that these kinds of restaurants are not "fast food" because the quality and style of food isn't mcdonald's.
My argument is that fast food by its simplest definition is food acquired quickly. I can walk into panara, a pizza joint, chipotle, etc. Pay, and have food in hand in under 10 minutes. If that's not fast what is?
My longest drive through time at mcdonald's is longer than my shortest chipotle order.
And don't tell me a drive through is required to count because mcdonald's didn't have drive throughs initially.
Here's another way to look at it. If every meal is paid for before it's eaten it's fast food. If you have the option of paying after you eat it's a restaurant.
| 1,733,918,913
|
ackley14
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-11
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Nothing is wrong with Xinjiang and Tibet being part of China from a legal pov.
|
{'id': 'm3v4rhi', 'text': "So if Russia didn't recognized Ukraine's independence but every other parameters were the same, you would argue that Ukraine's invasion was legal?", 'author': 'JailTrumpTheCrook', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1735214525}
|
{'id': 'm3v4d9n', 'text': "That's not what I asked, I asked whether the same logic you're using would be true for slavery when it was legal?", 'author': 'Vesurel', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735214278}
|
1hmmc02
|
CMV: Nothing is wrong with Xinjiang and Tibet being part of China from a legal pov.
|
From a legal perspective China restored it is sovereignty over these regions just as they did to other regions during the the Warlords period. I believe that people focusing on them is a political scheme.
I don't deny the human right abuses that is happening in both regions ,it is not the point, I am just arguing that their situation is no different from other parts of China and it is comparable to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Catalonia, and many more examples.
Hong kong and macau are a bit more complicated.
P.s. I am not defending china at all and I am not interested in attacking china either, I look at the situation from a pure academic (geopolitical?) perspective.
| 1,735,211,607
|
Luiszizo
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-26
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Trump’s Threat to Primary Senators with Musk’s Money is a Bluff That Senate Republicans Should Call
|
{'id': 'lym9tl3', 'text': 'Susan Collins of Maine is a pro choice Republican Senator. As are Shelley Moore Capito of West Viriginia and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.\n\nCollin Peterson of Minnesota retains an "A" grade from the NRA which makes a strongly pro-gun Democratic Senator according to the NRA. Four others have a "B" or "C" grade.', 'author': 'A_Soporific', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1732387883}
|
{'id': 'lylaf0d', 'text': "This is how money in politics work. \n\nName a strongly pro-gun Blue Senator, I'll wait,\n\nName a strongly pro-choice Red Senator, you get the picture.\n\nRepublican senators will go along with it because they want to stay relevant and they want to stay in power.\n\nMonied interests will fund opposition campaigns against them.", 'author': 'Human-Marionberry145', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1732376450}
|
1gy09w4
|
CMV: Trump’s Threat to Primary Senators with Musk’s Money is a Bluff That Senate Republicans Should Call
|
Former President Trump’s recent threat to use Elon Musk’s financial backing to primary any senator who doesn’t support his cabinet picks strikes me as a significant overreach. The critical question now is whether Senate Republicans are astute enough to recognize they hold the upper hand—or principled enough to act on it.
Here’s why I believe they have the upper hand: In the 2026 elections, Republicans will be defending 20 of the 33 Senate seats up for election, compared to the Democrats’ 13. With the party’s current majority being slim, even a modest wave of infighting or MAGA-aligned challengers losing winnable seats could jeopardize Republican control of the Senate.
Furthermore, not every Republican state aligns uniformly with MAGA ideology. Senators from states like Maine and North Carolina might *gain* support by standing up to unwise decisions from Trump. A principled stand could strengthen their appeal with more moderate voters and safeguard their seats in a general election.
Unfortunately, I recognize this is mostly hypothetical. Senate Republicans have shown little appetite to oppose Trump, and their alignment with him on most issues makes it unlikely they’ll seize this opportunity. If they just acquiesce, though, it’s even more reprehensible, in my view. They *clearly* have the leverage to push back but are either too afraid or too complicit to use it.
I’m open to counterarguments. Is there a strategic reason I’m missing why Republicans would *want* to risk their Senate majority in 2026? Or is this just about keeping Trump happy at all costs, regardless of long-term consequences?
| 1,732,370,519
|
_robjamesmusic
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-23
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Luigi did nothing
|
{'id': 'm3htcwb', 'text': 'Yeah but it’s funnier if I ignore everything except the title', 'author': 'UseAnAdblocker', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734987875}
|
{'id': 'm3hsiv9', 'text': 'Nah we talk about how happy we are about it irl too', 'author': 'AProperFuckingPirate', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734987587}
|
1hkx3vs
|
CMV: Luigi did nothing
|
I don't really understand it and it's kind of frustrating me seeing post after post with an incredible amount of likes on here.
To me it seems like the reason can really only be it feels good to stick it to rich CEOs?
Anything else doesn't really make any rational sense. The arguments I've seen have been
'Its got people talking about healthcare'-
I don't really buy this just because we have always kind of been talking about healthcare. Maybe there's more chatter, but it seems it's more about Luigi himself as some kind of hero then actual solutions regarding the issues that health insurance companies have.
'Its brought people of all political sides together'-
This is just a bit naive I think, still have people fighting on every single other issue and that will never change. Conservatives voted Trump who will likely turn out to be way worse for healthcare, he already took away the mandate last time. The right like Luigi because they hate the rich not enact any effective change.
'It did do something good!'
Here I'm talking about the anaesthesia thing that was rolled back. People were saying it was due to Luigi but this VOX article who are notoriously left leaning talk about how we have kind of been misled in what's actually happening here:
https://www.vox.com/policy/390031/anthem-blue-cross-blue-shield-anesthesia-limits-insurance
Ontop of that, it's just one thing in a sea of things people perceive as issues.
Overall i just can't see it, the CEOs been replaced and either way a company of that size is much bigger than just the CEO, sure he can direct the company but then there's also a board of directors among other interests.
People also saying maybe CEOs will be scared now and think twice about certain things. Is that a world you want to live in? Not all insurance companies are as bad as eachother and there are ways they have need to operate to keep functional that really honestly it just appears some people don't understand.
While i agree there's an issue with the healthcare insurance system, I seriously cannot see how this benefits really anything.
| 1,734,987,093
|
Trionomefilm
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-23
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: There's no hope for the United States.
|
{'id': 'm3ayh4a', 'text': 'Of course it matters 99.82% of the population isn’t homeless which means it isn’t a concern for the \nvast majority of the population much less a reason to be hopeless. Finland is too cold to have much homelessness.\n\nLinked to is different than is. Food insecurity was created to make the situation seem worse than it is to get funding.\n\n\nOne school shooting is too many. But it is still a one in a million chance for students. It would be like saying it is easy to get rich by linking to stories of lottery winners.\n\n\nThere is not a lump sum of money why so if someone gets more everyone else gets less. Wealth is created by work and investment. If people create more than there is more for everyone. The lifestyle of everyone in the country except for a tiny percentage is greater than at any point in time in any country in the world.\n\n\nInvestment is the only way to create wealth. More wealth means fewer poor people. \n\n\nYoung people today are the richest in history.', 'author': 'sourcreamus', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1734886476}
|
{'id': 'm3adccb', 'text': 'If it wasn’t over when we had a civil war, two world wars, presidential assassinations, a stock market collapse, multiple terror attacks, the Spanish flu, and on and on, I doubt America will be screwed over because people are poor. \n\nThe rich get richer because of the poor and consumers. We buy from Amazon, Walmart and Tesla and then pretend to be shocked when the “rich get richer.” \n\nWealth is not a pie. Just because the rich get richer doesn’t mean you have to stay poor. The poor stay poor because of shitty habits. Buying what they can’t afford to keep up with others. \n\nThe wealth gap and corruption is worse in other countries. And at least Americans know our system is corrupt. \n\nI think you’re just spending too much time on the internet. It’s purposely making you more anxious and depressed.', 'author': 'wetcornbread', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1734878802}
|
1hjzn41
|
CMV: There's no hope for the United States.
|
I'm exhausted from the culture wars and the political polarization and the sheer nastiness I've seen in the White House. We're the worlds largest economy and contributor to global trade, and yet people are saying the economy is tanking hard. We've got MORE than enough food to feed ourselves AND the rest of the world, and yet so much of it is wasted. We are SO wealthy and SO powerful yet we cannot house, feed, or provide for our people (housing, food, medicine, etc).
Moreover, our politicians are tied down in debates over transgender people, sexual orientation, etc. when material concerns are not getting resolved. The wealth gap is larger than it's ever been, and people are languishing in poverty but no one cares. The rich have enough to spend on a lavish lifestyle ten times over and yet they scheme and plot to gobble up whatever is left. Our railroads and highways are falling apart, gun violence is rampant, drugs are everywhere, supply chain issues are chronic, Covid may yet return, our people cannot afford a house or a family or the education to tap into the jobs that ARE available. Instead, they blame the migrants and gays and transpeople for all their woes while the rich just keep consuming all they can.
As far as I can see, it's all over. The system is so corrupt and broken that no amount of internal reform will change it. All that's left is for it to all come tumbling down so perhaps the survivors can actually learn to do better.
Given my lack of survival skills and knowledge, and my rather high level of body mass, I doubt I'll be among them.
Point out the flaws in my view and how we can still salvage the country. And please don't just say vote or canvass or phone-bank. I've done them all and it's not done much good.
| 1,734,878,120
|
hlanus
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-22
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Brian Thompson isn't any more evil than any average person.
|
{'id': 'm0npq3z', 'text': 'Have you seen this OP?\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/1VQ1reP7x4\n\nNot a singular cog, but an active participant in the harm', 'author': 'l_t_10', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1733458990}
|
{'id': 'm0n4hrh', 'text': 'So you think health insurance companies ought to approve all claims even if its outside outlined coverage...', 'author': 'PaperPiecePossible', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1733450955}
|
1h7q1bl
|
CMV: Brian Thompson isn't any more evil than any average person.
|
There's not a lot of details on his personal life so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt like I would w/ any of you and mainly just addressing his career. As far as I know he started in finance and worked his up to being a CEO of a health insurance company.
Every CEO's job is to make money for the company, they are legally required to make decisions that benefit the company. Even if he wasn't legally required to do so he would be replaced by the shareholders or never even selected for the position if he didn't.
This lack of empathy for someone who was just doing what he was supposed to do like all of us are is concerning. How many of you work for a corporation, have investments in companies, own things you know are made with literal slave labor, etc.
Brian Thompson had a wife and two sons who will never see him again. He's not a politician or a billionaire funding them he just runs a company. The grievances you have toward the healthcare system should be directed at the system itself, not a pawn within it.
| 1,733,449,583
|
blz4200
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-06
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: AI shouldn't be demonized
|
{'id': 'm3mdfz7', 'text': 'Not having the resources or "it\'s just a shitpost" aren\'t really good reasons to use AI. If you\'re just making a shitpost, you don\'t really need an AI generated voice. They already have mechanical voices for that. They also have non-AI autotune if you can\'t sing and need a voice.', 'author': 'CartographerKey4618', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735061682}
|
{'id': 'm3k5530', 'text': "There's no utility in expressing a blanket view here. Normal people understand that AI has legitimate uses.\xa0\n\nThe problem is that it's just as likely for people to use it to supplant the creative process and give us nightmare inducing Coke ads and plagiarized essays. It's corner cutting - plain and simple.\xa0", 'author': 'KokonutMonkey', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1735021972}
|
1hl6vz0
|
CMV: AI shouldn't be demonized
|
let me preface this by saying I don't value AI generated art, and don't affiliate myself with those who believe it superior to handmade art
I believe AI is a tool to be used sparingly to make the creative process easier, for when it would be unnecessary or time consuming to make something.
An example could be, say a song, where the lyrics are handwritten, and the instrumentals are made with either a software or recorded, all by one person, but the singing itself is done by an AI that had to be corralled into properly singing the lyrics.
A lot like this: https://youtu.be/6B6sohhZieg?si=mnRLRRYLc0bRVAiE
This was made by one person, and I am fine with one person using AI here, but I expect for a band to sing the lyrics, because they clearly have the resources to do so.
For this, I believe AI is a tool to be used to aid the creative process, but not replace it.
AI is a tool, like say, glue or a power hammer.
Glue is used in woodworking for when you need to connect a joint and nails/screws won't quite cut it, and any other method would be unnecessarily time consuming.
Power hammers are used in blacksmithing to skip hammering out your stock into a general shape, and then putting in small details.
I believe AI is used much in the same way.
For these reasons, I believe AI should not be demonized, and that there are instances where it makes sense, and is acceptable.
I might've repeated myself too much, but I wanted to make my beliefs clear (as to which I still doubt I did so)
| 1,735,018,771
|
Natural_Hold_344
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-24
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Society and pop culture is becoming more and more “childish”
|
{'id': 'm4h8j1m', 'text': '100 years ago was the Roaring 20s. The late 19th and early 29th century was pretty much the very *birth* of modern consumer culture, including massive marketing to children. \n\n\nhttps://exhibits.library.duke.edu/exhibits/show/childrenads/intro\n\n\n>Companies like Heinz and Palmolive published children’s stories that positively portrayed their products. By the 1910s companies like the Winchester Rifle Company established contests to encourage the use of their products and by the late 1920s kids could join “clubs” and might receive prizes and higher status if they consumed more of the product. Some companies promoted products through sponsored radio shows and even through schools, utilizing the authority of school officials as an implicit endorsement.<\n\nHaving the properly branded products has always been a big deal, including to children.', 'author': 'FriendlyCraig', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735535217}
|
{'id': 'm4h753x', 'text': 'there definitely is a “universal social media” (youtube)', 'author': 'OverallGamer692', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1735534619}
|
1hpf88b
|
CMV: Society and pop culture is becoming more and more “childish”
|
I used childish simply for a lack of a better word. So if someone could expand on that I would love it, since I’m not a native English speaker.
I’m going to use this weak analogy, but again, since English isn’t my first language, this is the best I can. Without any comment wether this change is for the better or for the worst, I think what I said in the title is truly happening.
In the old days, the “public square” had little to no room for kids and teens. They were there, but I don’t think they ever held any authority, and because of this, it seems like people were more honorable, serious and more mature.
With the advent of the internet, it seems like everyone has a voice nowadays. Now, I’m not saying that this is bad, or even good for that matter. But I think that a consequence of this is that kids and teens have a voice like never before in the new public square that is the internet and social media.
What this caused is a shift. Now companies cater more and more to this demographic, speech and attitudes change, priorities change. And I can’t help but notice that we are making pop culture and society a bit more childish than before, more reactive and more impulsive.
I’m not saying reactive and impulsive adults don’t exist, they surely do. But this type of reactive ness and impulsiveness we witness daily in our politics and culture is much more teenage like and child like
I’d love to hear other takes on this, and again I apologize if I couldn’t express this view well enough.
| 1,735,533,698
|
Bignuckbuck
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-30
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: There's nothing wrong with the 50s suburban "Nuclear Family"
|
{'id': 'm3ya3zl', 'text': '[This](https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI?si=4lWdlN5NA6fzzLjz) is a good short video that goes over the whole argument better than I could. It’s specifically showing the entire environmental and planning consulting for a city. If you just want a map, the organization Urban 3 has pretty stark maps like the one in [this article](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money) that show what areas of cities are profitable and which ones aren’t.\n\nFeel free to ask if you want anything else, I’ve stopped including statistics in primary answers as a lot of people respond negatively to them but I do have sources for my claims.', 'author': 'Anonymous_1q', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1735256540}
|
{'id': 'm3xzbzr', 'text': "Where are you seeing people arguing that there's something wrong with nuclear families? What's the position?\n\nI've seen people argue that they shouldn't be the expectation, assumption, or only family structure supported, recognized or legitimized. I've seen arguments that there's too much focus, or moralizing around traditional families, but I've never seen anyone suggest they're bad/worse in individual cases.\n\nAre you just seeing pushback against the idea that men and women *should* have specific roles, and interpreting that as arguments that they *shouldn't*?\n\n(I'm ignoring the suburban portion of the discussion for now)", 'author': 'Cultist_O', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735252581}
|
1hmzbcm
|
CMV: There's nothing wrong with the 50s suburban "Nuclear Family"
|
Maybe this isn't as big as I think but I'm finding a lot of people my age and plenty of online personalities with left wing views are quite opposed to the so called "white picket fence" life. There's been a lot of pushes for urban density and denser housing. A lot of people are making suburbs out to be some kind of ultra isolated liminal spaces and I'm left wondering what the issue is.
Now, before we go further, I do understand and acknowledge the criticisms. It can make things very car dependent but a lot of suburban kids get sent to school on a schoolbus. To my mind, if you can get a schoolbus there, you can create a regular bus route. I also understand that it's almost impossible to live the same life on a single income these days but advocating for higher wages is not a bad thing. Also, with the advent of the internet, things are nowhere near as isolated.
So with that in mind. What's wrong with the suburbs. I would love a house on a hill with a yard, a couple cars, a trampoline for my kids and a bit of distance from the big city hustle and bustle. There's improvements that could easily be made.
EDIT: People are pointing out that I got a bit sidetracked and focused more on suburban life than the family aspect. That's actually very fair, I'll address that more focused here.
The "Nuclear Family" can be bound up in 50s imagery and that can have some negative connotations relating to race and gender equality issues. I'm absolutely not ignoring that but I also think we can have nuclear families without those issues these days.
I think if you want to be poly, or live with a huge family, ie: grandparents, aunt and uncle's, as is common in parts of Asia, that's fine. I also would much prefer not to do that.
I'd absolutely never allow my parents to hang out to dry in the cold but I don't want to live with adult sibling, their kids, grandparents etc, as a standard. It just doesn't appeal to me. I want to live with a spouse and my kids. I don't see what's wrong with that.
I know that those who want to "Go back to a better times" are often saying that they only want one type of lifestyle to be accepted and treated with respect. I'm absolutely not saying that, I want you to be respected for whatever home you choose to build for yourself. I'm also saying that I think "White Picket Fence" life, stripped of it's negative connotations is a perfectly positive and fulfilling choice to plenty of people and should be denigrated without nuance.
| 1,735,250,626
|
Lifeshardbutnotme
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-26
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The AR15 Is the Most Versatile Rifle for Home Defense, and Should Be the Rifle Generally Recommended for That Purpose.
|
{'id': 'm35sgse', 'text': 'Penetration does depend on what kind of bullet is used, but 5.56 is more likely to overpenetrate than many kinds of shot. Large buckshots and slugs do tend to overpenetrate, though, like 5.56. “Remotely dense” materials aren’t exactly what houses are made of these days, and so even if what you heard is correct, it’s not really applicable in home defense situations. In any case, I’ll refer you to the late great Paul Harrell for his presentation on the matter: https://youtu.be/CiHHgjaR0TI?si=0mEmAmMZJOHJ6KX4\n\nAnd if you are interested, he has another one for birdshot, specifically: https://youtu.be/zaR1EVybUgc?si=JVaK3EHMSyhvyHVs\n\nRegarding mini shells, he has two: https://youtu.be/8F_AdP7VoxQ?si=TiATDeQjkd2hnkH-\n\nhttps://youtu.be/13LaTffG1K0?si=fOD7vKBa4LmHHw7g\n\nYou are correct that mini shells can have issues feeding in some kinds of shotguns, but the performance is, I think, more than adequate. If feeding is a concern, though, birdshot in regular 2 3/4 shells works just fine, too.', 'author': 'Cooldude638', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734801248}
|
{'id': 'm35r24h', 'text': "AR15 can come in a variety of lengths, but the most common length sold I believe is 16 inches (and I think for something to be classified as a rifle this is the minimum length).\n\nHave you ever gone to a range where you can train in close quarters combat? It's wildly different and barrel length matters a lot. I want something with a short barrel, and if you are insistent on three points of contact, this is why things like the P90 and MP7 were invented. \n\nAmmo cost. All combat requires training. You can't just buy a gun and expect to be effective with it. So you have to train, which requires ammo. Ammo is not cheap! You know what's cheaper than a 5.56 round? 9mm or 45 caliber. \n\nPenetration is also a concern with a 5.56 round. In a home invasion situation, you don't want your bullet to punch through a wall and kill your neighbor. Better stick to something with a little less power and ideally hollow points.", 'author': 'Zephos65', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734800749}
|
1hjdkg4
|
CMV: The AR15 Is the Most Versatile Rifle for Home Defense, and Should Be the Rifle Generally Recommended for That Purpose.
|
1) In terms of practical accuracy in a high stress situation, you want something with 3 points of contact so you can point the gun with your whole body rather than fine muscle control. Fine muscle control goes to shit with an adrenaline dump.
2) The AR15 is a light weight low recoil rifle that fires a small cartridge. This generally leads to it being able to be used by just about anyone. It was designed for 4'10" Filipinos to fight communists in the jungle, so it is able to be used by women and the disabled too. Meanwhile something like 00 buck - even the low recoil versions there of - can have recoil problems.
3) Commercial availability - you can get a very reliable rifle in the $500 dollar range. With most practical alternatives you are looking at $1000 for a small handful of options, or 1500-2000 for most of them. And even a 500 dollar AR15 tends to beat out most of the alternatives in regards to reliability.
The AR15 Is the Most Versatile Rifle for Home Defense, and Should Be the Rifle Generally Recommended for That Purpose.
| 1,734,799,267
|
JacketExpensive9817
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-21
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Bare-knuckle boxing isn't a legitimate sport and should probably be banned.
|
{'id': 'm3mi00x', 'text': 'Have you not simply typed into google "is bare knuckle boxing safer than gloved boxing"? How can you do that, see all the info presented, and then continue to claim that bare knuckle is more dangerous? Do you need me to provide a LMGTFY link so you can do this yourself? \n\nIt\'s well known that bare knuckle boxers do not hit as hard, and do not hit the face & head as much. It\'s also well known that gloved boxing turns boxers brains into mush, which is actual life-long life changing damage.', 'author': 'eNonsense', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1735063229}
|
{'id': 'm3mg45o', 'text': 'Bare-knuckle boxing is generally recognised to be safer than gloved boxing. It seems intuitively more brutal, but the lack of protection for the fist reduces the force with which the competitors can effectively throw punches. It also discourages blows to the head, since the bones of the head are hard and lightly padded. Bare-knuckle are significantly less likely to suffer fractures or brain damage. The gloves protect the fist of the guy punching, not the head of guy being punched.', 'author': 'Alesus2-0', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735062589}
|
1hli77f
|
CMV: Bare-knuckle boxing isn't a legitimate sport and should probably be banned.
|
This is a view I'm definitely open to changing my mind on as I am no expert in either bare-knuckle or regular boxing. I have just heard that bare-knuckle boxing isn't much different from regular boxing in the technical aspects of the sport, and it's really just more damaging to the boxers. I have heard that bare-knuckle boxers tend to be athletes that failed out of regular boxing and are desperate for paying fights and a chance for competitive glory, that's why they sacrifice their bodies in an arbitrarily more dangerous sport. I don't know how true that is, but if so, I think the sport should just be banned. It seems like it is taking advantage of athletes.
| 1,735,061,199
|
AcephalicDude
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-24
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Republicans will hold a permanent Senate majority for the foreseeable future
|
{'id': 'm3o0g1t', 'text': 'Yeah, Utah. The mormon Republicans tend to not be nearly as captured, and the sheer sectarian control of the state combined with moderates/liberals in places like SLC/Provo lead to less MAGA capture.', 'author': 'sundalius', 'score': 15, 'timestamp': 1735083786}
|
{'id': 'm3nm8oh', 'text': 'Also the 20228 house redistricting will remove around 12 house seats from Democrat states (mainly CA, NY and IL) and put them in republican states that are exploding in population (TX, FL, ARI)', 'author': 'Skillllly', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1735077852}
|
1hln8gs
|
CMV: Republicans will hold a permanent Senate majority for the foreseeable future
|
In recent years, the red state–blue state polarization has become more and more locked in. We are now at a point of having no Democratic Senators from red states (and one Republican from a blue state, Susan Collins in Maine). At the moment, there are 24 safe red states, 18 safe blue states, and 7 swing states. This gives Republicans a baseline of 48 Senators, and it means the math no longer works for Democrats. They must hold 12 of 14 swing state Senate positions at once to make it to 50, which would be broken by the Vice President only if Democrats hold presidential office. It just doesn’t add up for Democrats. Barring Texas, Florida, Ohio pipe dreams, Democrats are simply not competitive in any red state.
Obviously, this cripples any Democratic presidents in the near future and weakens the party nationally, as even winning the presidency will not allow Democrats to make any legislative progress since they cannot hold the Senate as well. This further strengthens Republican dominance, as they are the only ones who can get anything done.
The resistance of the national Democratic Party to change and its unwillingness to upset corporate donors and interested groups seems to only cement this and shut down future arguments about how parties adapt—they don’t WANT to adapt. They have little reason to as long as they can fundraise successfully.
| 1,735,076,688
|
ahedgehog
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-24
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: People care a disproportionate amount about the war in Gaza compared to other conflicts.
|
{'id': 'm199uu1', 'text': 'How many other conflicts involve stateless people ?\n\nThis sub forgets that there are different rules for the Palestinian people since they are stateless. When you don’t have a country and other country is putting people in your declared land you run into issues. \n\nThis is different from internal issues or country to country. \n\nIsrael and West Bank which most of the issues around the UN fall is unique. There isn’t something else like this on the planet. \n\nIsrael doesn’t declare it to be there land. Building houses and moving people there. Since they say it’s not there land it’s illegal. If Israel declared the West Bank its own it changes what the UN can do. Israel won’t do this as everyone who lives there becomes Israeli. \n\nPalestine does declare it but not recognized as a country. The people have limited rights. \n\nFor the average person your country will protect you. In the West Bank there only real avenue is the UN. so yes they will have UN declarations.', 'author': 'Swarez99', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1733779271}
|
{'id': 'm18quyc', 'text': 'The difference (for US supporters) is Israel is a mutual defense ally of the US. UAE and SA are partner countries with bilateral cooperation agreements.\n\nS.Sudan: civil war, UAE is backing the rebels.\n\nYemen: SA is backing the government (at the government\'s request and with at least 8 other nations) and if they weren\'t involved there wouldn\'t have been a ceasefire and political talks.\n\nPalestine is not in a civil war. Israel is not interfering or participating in internal struggles of the Palestinian people.\n\nI think it is less opposition to human suffering and more "our close allies should do better".\n\nThere is a difference between \\[growing closer\\] or \\[having close ties with\\] and \\[someone the U.S. would go to war to defend\\].\n\nThat aside, the sheer number of civilian casualties should be discussed among partner countries, which it is (most of the countries involved are UN members and it comes up).', 'author': 'olidus', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1733773390}
|
1hahwza
|
CMV: People care a disproportionate amount about the war in Gaza compared to other conflicts.
|
First off, I am not saying that we should be not shining a light on Israel's crimes, colonial aspirations and possible genocide.
I'm curious as to why no one talks about UAE's involvement in South Sudan, a war that is just as colonial, is longer lasting and has resulted in the death, rape and misplacement of far far more civilians. The UAE has very close ties with the US and receives considerably military, logistic and financial support. Your tax dollars are funding the murder of millions of people in South Sudan.
I've never seen anything on my feed or on any random subreddit about Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Saudi receives weapons from the US and the UK (and others) and uses them against civilians, causing mass starvation and has resulted in far more deaths than in Gaza. It is currently the world's largest humanitarian catastrophe.
Recently people have been posting about Israel invading parts of Western Syria and destroying chemical weapons facilities but I didn't see a single post when Turkey repeatedly invaded and occupied Northern Syria which they continue to do.
In my view, it can't be lack on emotional bandwidth as all the aforementioned wars started long before the most recent invasion of Gaza. It can't be about colonialism as the UAE's ambitions in South Sudan are purely motivated by economic colonialization. It can't be about the West's support for Israel as we support the UAE just as much as we support Israel, President Mohammed bin Zayed recently visited the White House and Biden called the UAE a "Major Defense Partner". Every year they are growing closer with the US, the UK, etc
Again, I'm not suggesting that that people shouldn't be posting about Israel's crimes, but if we care about human suffering, colonialism and our governments supporting awful regimes I should be seeing even more posts about UAE in South Sudan or Saudi Arabia in Yemen or Turkey in Syria.
Is it purely ignorance or is it more sinister antisemitism or something else entirely?
Sources:
[www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/24/uae-sudan-war-peace-emirates-uk-us-officials](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/24/uae-sudan-war-peace-emirates-uk-us-officials)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Arab\_Emirates%E2%80%93United\_States\_relations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates%E2%80%93United_States_relations)
[https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/war-yemen](https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/war-yemen)
[https://caat.org.uk/homepage/stop-arming-saudi-arabia/uk-arms-to-saudi-arabia/](https://caat.org.uk/homepage/stop-arming-saudi-arabia/uk-arms-to-saudi-arabia/)
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/09/israel-us-and-turkey-launch-strikes-to-protect-interests-in-syria](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/09/israel-us-and-turkey-launch-strikes-to-protect-interests-in-syria)
| 1,733,772,190
|
ownmonster3000
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-09
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: rape is de-facto legal in the US, unfortunately
|
{'id': 'm3kh8gz', 'text': 'Is there a law being broken? \n\nYou were just asking me if something is de-facto legal. What law are you referring to?', 'author': 'LeftFootLump', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1735029762}
|
{'id': 'm3jvhdq', 'text': "So you did state it then despite saying you didnt, but just that you didn't mean it exactly as was stated?", 'author': 'MPFromFriends', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735016770}
|
1hl3yt8
|
CMV: rape is de-facto legal in the US, unfortunately
|
I learned recently the conviction rate is extremely low like four percent and ninety seven percent of rapist never spend a day in jail this leads me to come to the conclusion that in the United States you could easily rape someone and get away with it making rape Basically legal in the United States, there are probably rapist everywhere living there best lives and blending in with everyone. Kind of a scary thought if you ask me, now that I think about it having my view changed would actually be very nice because right now I’m thinking we just straight up live in rape land. Based on this rape appears to be de facto legal in the US.
| 1,735,008,242
|
Perfect-Highway-6818
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-24
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Jesse Ventura is secretly prepping to run as a Democrat in 2028.
|
{'id': 'm3jceu5', 'text': 'He more or less has a moral code. Just because he\'s miffed does not mean he would sacrofice his morals. As Ventura said "[I could beat both Trump and Biden if he ran for president](https://www.startribune.com/jesse-ventura-biden-trump-cnn/600360168)". just because he has DNC friends does not mean he agrees with the DNC wants.\n\nVentura would have to make some significant betrayals to his moral foundations (one of them being again his disdain for the 2 party system and absolute support for the third party choice being one of the biggest champions of it)', 'author': 'JohnWittieless', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735008450}
|
{'id': 'm3j862r', 'text': 'I’m not sure how to change you mind on something that would be being planned in secret is happening or not. \n\nBut I can tell you this idea would be doa if they did try it. \n\nHe wouldn’t have a chance to win nationally with the dnc. \n\nIf he started tweeting some raciest comments (or comments that would get you deleted in this sub ;) ) he would have a shot at the GOP ticket.', 'author': 'Adequate_Images', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1735006758}
|
1hl3dqi
|
CMV: Jesse Ventura is secretly prepping to run as a Democrat in 2028.
|
Call me crazy, but the timing surrounding his return to the public spotlight by reentering the WWE just seems a bit suspicious.
When you consider the fact that Ken Martin, a DFL member, is taking the lead for the DNC chair in the aftermath of Harris' 2024 loss, it makes sense as to why Ventura is entering WWE again under a contract of 4 years until 2028. And, this is just within a month after a victory.
This sounds conspiratorial, but clearly certain members of Minnesota's Democratic party, or the DFL, are planning something behind the scenes in the wake of the national Democrats' loss in the most recent election.
Jesse also happens to have ties to a certain state. That's right. The leading candidate for the DNC chair also happens to be from Minnesota where Ventura is from. He happens to have close ties to the DFL, especially with one of the major figures like Tim Walz, someone who got his record as a military vet baselessly attacked by MAGA republicans. This may have angered and pushed Ventura over the edge. He considers Walz a friend and political ally, despite his Independent affiliation and distaste for two part politics.
I have a hunch, and I am calling it. Ventura is prepping to run as a Democrat in 2028 if Ken Martin wins DNC chair, thereby giving the Democrats their own version of Trump but this time someone who genuinely supports the average American.
I'm open to any insights with regard to my intuition and Ventura's viability as national candidate for the democrats under a possibly new DNC leadership that will mirror the DFL's more grassroots approach for campaigning. In my opinion, I believe Ventura will be the ideal candidate to unite broad swaths of Americans, especially during a time of populist fervor when Americans are just thirsty for change in the political system.
| 1,735,006,228
|
godlike_hikikomori
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-24
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Credit Card Companies are paying influencers to discourage credit card use so they can charge more interest
|
{'id': 'm4f4fh1', 'text': 'Because they take a cut on every transaction that occurs with the card by charging the merchant to process the payment (this is why some merchants offer cash discounts or add a 3% fee to use a credit card.) If they were discouraging responsible spenders from using the card , all they would be doing is reducing the total number of transactions they take a cut from, which in turn reduces their profits.', 'author': 'OrgullosoDeNoSer', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1735508416}
|
{'id': 'm4f3ea6', 'text': 'Also people who have more default risk. Banks don’t just care about returns but also volatility. They will take slightly lower returns if it means significantly lower volatility. This is the basis of modern portfolio theory. Better to have customers with good credit to provide a steady stream of profit to offset potential defaults from bad customers than to only have bad customers and risk having quarters where you are running in the red.\xa0', 'author': 'ownerofthewhitesudan', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735508095}
|
1hp65pm
|
CMV: Credit Card Companies are paying influencers to discourage credit card use so they can charge more interest
|
People like [Dave Ramsey](https://youtube.com/shorts/l2l9Wu1BfQw?si=jNLZ8cUe-XAuEPR7) who tell people to never use credit cards, even if they're using them properly. I absolutely believe he's getting kickbacks from credit card companies who want less people to have good credit scores so they can charge higher interest.
Now, there's absolutely people who can't use credit cards and warning them of all the ways they could be taken advantage of is great. I also think that telling people who aren't carrying any debt to avoid them is strange.
I obviously can't prove this and maybe this is a "The Hose Always Wins" scenario where the companies don't care because they make basically infinite money anyway. That said, it does feel like he's getting paid to keep people from a good tool.
| 1,735,507,206
|
Lifeshardbutnotme
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-29
|
2024_fall
|
Cmv: Poverty, child labour and ignorance will increase fertility rate
|
{'id': 'm2q1wht', 'text': '[https://cis.org/Report/Fertility-Among-Immigrants-and-NativeBorn-Americans](https://cis.org/Report/Fertility-Among-Immigrants-and-NativeBorn-Americans)\n\n \nKey findings:\n\n"Immigrant fertility has declined more rapidly than that of native-born women. In 2008, immigrant women had a TFR of 2.75 children; by 2019 it had fallen to 2.02 — a 0.73-child decline. For native-born women, it declined from 2.07 to 1.69 — a 0.38-child decline.\n\n\n\nMeasuring fertility by births per thousand also shows that fertility fell more dramatically for immigrant women of reproductive age (15-50), from 76 births per thousand in 2008 to 57 births per thousand in 2019 — a decline of 19 births per thousand. In contrast, native fertility declined from 55 births per thousand to 48 births per thousand in the same time period — a decline of seven births per thousand.\n\n\n\nThere is some evidence that immigration reduces native fertility. We find that in larger metropolitan areas, the higher the immigrant share of the population, the fewer children native-born women have. This is the case even after controlling for age, education, income, race, marital status, and other factors."\n\nSo by **2019** the stats your source relied on were already out of date. Not only do immigrants not have children at replacement rate, their fertility rates are rapidly falling *and* the presence of immigrants separately causes MORE fertility decrease among native-born people.', 'author': 'HadeanBlands', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734557499}
|
{'id': 'm2pyz2u', 'text': 'I am engaged in a discussion on CMV. How about you engage. The OP makes the claim that these policies lower birth rates and could collaps society. That is the claim. If you believe these policies are GOOD, the onus is on YOU to argue for them, and describe why these policies are worth the price of possible extinction.', 'author': 'justouzereddit', 'score': -6, 'timestamp': 1734556587}
|
1hhbdje
|
Cmv: Poverty, child labour and ignorance will increase fertility rate
|
The low fertility rate is a pressing issue in many societies, and some unconventional measures have been proposed to address this challenge. Below are five controversial suggestions, supported by historical references and data trends, for increasing fertility rates:
1. Legalizing Child Labor: Historically, children contributed significantly to the workforce. For example, during the 19th century, children were an integral part of agricultural and industrial labor, making large families economically advantageous (Humphries, 2010). By reinstating child labor, children could shift from being perceived as financial burdens to becoming assets, incentivizing larger families.
2. Restricting Female Education: Research indicates a correlation between higher education levels in women and lower fertility rates. A study by Lutz and Skirbekk (2014) found that women with college education tend to have fewer children due to career priorities and delayed childbirth. By limiting access to education for women, it is theorized that fertility rates could rise as women may prioritize family life over professional advancement.
3. Deregulating Education Prices: Increasing the cost of education could pressure young people to pursue blue-collar jobs and lower overall income levels. According to Becker (1991), higher-income individuals often have fewer children as they invest in alternative forms of personal fulfillment, such as entertainment or hobbies. Conversely, lower-income individuals may focus on familial and interpersonal relationships, including reproduction, as primary sources of joy.
4. Reducing Social Security Programs: Historically, before the establishment of pension systems and welfare programs, children served as a form of "insurance" for aging parents. Caldwell's (1976) "wealth flows theory" suggests that when parents depend on their children for financial and social security, fertility rates increase. Cutting modern welfare systems may replicate these conditions, encouraging people to have more children to ensure support in old age.
5. Abolishing Public Healthcare: In the past, high child mortality rates led to larger family sizes to offset the likelihood of losing children before adulthood. For instance, pre-20th-century societies experienced infant mortality rates as high as 30-40% (Reher, 1999). By eliminating public healthcare, families might respond to higher mortality risks by having more children.
Each of these proposals would also reduce government expenditures, potentially lowering taxes.
| 1,734,554,933
|
NayatoHayato
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-18
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The term "White Evangelical" should be dropped and "Fundamentalist" and exact churches names like SBC should be used instead
|
{'id': 'm2xj836', 'text': 'Ok. Dismiss the Baptist, but what about Encyclopedia Britanica that has essentially the similar articulation of principles?\n\nhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/Christian-fundamentalism\n\n“In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the mission of Jesus Christ, and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists affirmed a core of Christian beliefs that included the historical accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible, the imminent and physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and Christ’s Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and Atonement.”\n\nI get that you are discussing the out group but in so doing you should not mischaracterize the “in” group.', 'author': 'Apprehensive_Song490', 'score': 8, 'timestamp': 1734665716}
|
{'id': 'm2xgf0u', 'text': 'SBC is far from the only fundamentalist denomination. As someone else mentioned, everyone understands evangelical in the common sense of fundamentalist, and nobody thinks of the technical definition of evangelism.\n\nI see you asking others if they have spent time in Christian circles, but your view and comments suggest to me that your own experience of Christianity is quite narrow.', 'author': 'spanchor', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734664575}
|
1hia97w
|
CMV: The term "White Evangelical" should be dropped and "Fundamentalist" and exact churches names like SBC should be used instead
|
I just got done listening to 3 out of 4 of Rhett's Spiritual Deconstruction Ear Biscuits episodes, and on the whole, I agree and deeply sympathize with his experience, having experienced similar things myself.
However, listening to them reminded me of the problems with the term "White Evangelical" since it was used a lot. What he (Rhett) MEANT when he used the term, was SBC churches, and those that follow in that tradition, all of which are really "Fundamentalist." This means they take the Bible literally and regard it as the ultimate authority.
Meanwhile, "White Evangelical" really refers to most Christians in America, Canada, and even Mexico, since basically all branches of Christianity are technically evangelical, and most Christians in North America have some European heritage. So, the term is over-broad.
Additionally, when people study "White Evangelicals" and come away saying, "OH, they're really racist," what they're really studying is the SBC, which, if you're not a history buff, split away from the other Baptist churches BECAUSE they wanted slave owners to be missionaries. And then, they went on to lose the civil war, so, ya, they're going to have some racist residuals, at least. (being charitable here) This whole thing seems really unfortunate since it leads to more division in our country over religion than necessary. We have 2 big problematic churches, (plus a few that branched from them), and those are the SBC and the Mormons. So let's be precise about that and not paint with an over broad brush.
It's for the above reasons that "White Evangelical" seems like a destructive term which should be retired and replaced with "Fundamentalist" which is far more descriptive and not overbroad.
| 1,734,663,473
|
DeadTomGC
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-20
|
2024_fall
|
cmv: this headline doesn't minimize sexual assault
|
{'id': 'm3rovvi', 'text': 'I do think it would be better, yes. And I do think it trivializes sexual assault.', 'author': 'Hellioning', 'score': 89, 'timestamp': 1735153102}
|
{'id': 'm3rnv1q', 'text': 'I mean I think they couldve just said after assaulting another student as a better headline', 'author': 'Uhhyt231', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1735152722}
|
1hm6bpa
|
cmv: this headline doesn't minimize sexual assault
|
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/comments/1hm1k64/stupid\_news\_headline/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/comments/1hm1k64/stupid_news_headline/)
I'm genuinely lost, I'm assuming that social media is just a cancer that has caused mass brain rot for gen z/alpha, but maybe I'm missing something. A news headline is meant to convey relevant information, it's not an opinion piece. Reading that headline, I can't draw any conclusions as to how seriously the author thinks sexual assault is, they could think it's not a big deal, or they could think that anyone who commits sexual assault should be tortured and executed. The "murder" tweet's proposed headline is not only an opinion piece that draws legal conclusions, but it conveys almost none of the relevant information like who was involved, where it took place, what the alleged assault consisted of, or what was done in response to the alleged assault.
It seems to be a running theme on reddit where people think it's the job of every news article to be an opinion piece. I see quite a bit of people saying the media refuses to call out Trump. This confuses me because editorials are overwhelmingly very anti-Trump, I can only presume they are reading news articles and don't understand the difference between news pieces and opinion pieces.
| 1,735,152,181
|
StrangeLocal9641
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-25
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Anyone who bough Hawk Tuah Crypto with anything other than fun money is a fucking idiot
|
{'id': 'm0l00xa', 'text': 'If you don\'t take "anyone" as 100% literal then not really. While reading your post I assumed that those who were in the know were excluded, that you were just speaking to people who truly believed it was a good idea. And to that I would still agree with you, they\'re idiots. \n\nAlso to your "deserving" bit, nobody deserves anything. We get what we get because of our actions. Sometimes the world throws a wrench into the works but the way to avoid that is to position yourself to either accept the randomness of the universe or shield yourself from it. We all make our own path and the idea of "deserving" anything is silly to me.', 'author': 'Religion_Of_Speed', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1733425460}
|
{'id': 'm0kubxk', 'text': "I mean, in order to make money off a pump n dump someone's gotta get stuck holding the bag. Everyone who sent in their money on this scam had the same goal--Greed. Make a quick buck off of others who are afraid of missing out on major gains. Literally everyone has the same goal. The ones who got burned were just too late to the party. \n\nUnfortunate, for sure and I'm not relishing in the fact that they lost a lot of money. But, they are not exactly innocent victims here. Because if the coin fell the other way and they got out on top, they'd be laughing all the way to the bank.", 'author': 'JerseyDonut', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733423715}
|
1h7f34c
|
CMV: Anyone who bough Hawk Tuah Crypto with anything other than fun money is a fucking idiot
|
I actually don't have anything against Haley Welch. Let me be clear. I am (or at least was) of the opinion that she is a very smart woman who is able to capitalize on her 15 minutes of fame and might be a respected podcaster or something else. And if you say that's impossible, just listen to Joe Rogan's "I'm Gonna Be Dead Someday" CD and ask yourself if you think that had the makings of a millionaire podcaster who would sway the election of the United States and the world-changing consequences of Trump's election.
That said, Crypto is what it is. It might be a store of value. It might be the future of money transactions, replacing credit cards and cash. Or it might be a ticket to sell your crypto to a bigger fool than you. We're still figuring that out. If you thought a memecoin about a drunk girl giving blowjob instructions was going to be the next Bitcoin, or even the next Doge, that's on you. You're a fucking idiot if you thought spending a dollar on Tuah was a better investment than a scratch-off.
Change my view. Explain why, even though the rug got pulled, it was a good idea at the time.
| 1,733,420,977
|
EmpireStrikes1st
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-05
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: the shooting of the CEO is dangerous for society in the long run
|
{'id': 'm1hplh0', 'text': 'I think you are underestimating the direct impact that Thompson had on denial rates. The Senate investigated the change in denials for medicare advantage plans given the rapid rise under him. This was by 2022 (and it\'s risen since then)\n \n>Reports of increasing rates of prior authorization denials prompted investigations by ProPublica and the United States Senate, investigations which were described as a "stain" on Thompson\'s time of leadership by Fortune.[12] The Senate report, published by the United States Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, focused in particular on denials for Medicare Advantage plans serving the elderly and disabled.[15] The investigation revealed that in 2019, UHC\'s prior authorization denial rate was 8%. He became CEO in 2021, and by 2022 the rate of denial had increased to 22.7%. For both Medicare and non-Medicare claims, UHC declines claims at a rate which is double the industry average.', 'author': 'Amoral_Abe', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1733901301}
|
{'id': 'm1hpbk2', 'text': 'What effects? Has UnitedHealth changed their policies for the better? Has any health insurance company changed the way they operate?\n\nFrom the perspective of a health insurance company, which option do you think they’ll pick between\n\n1. Start handing out healthcare and money hoping the populace gets satiated and doesn’t murder another executive.\n\n2. Cut services or increase premiums to pay for extra security for all their executives.\n\nEvery developed nation in the world and many developing nations have figured out healthcare better than America. Apparently the new proposal is healthcare provided by the fear of random executions of insurance company managers?', 'author': 'TonySu', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1733901131}
|
1hbncck
|
CMV: the shooting of the CEO is dangerous for society in the long run
|
Let me start out by saying that I totally understand why people are in support of the shooting. Insurance companies are extremely crooked and their policies can lead to the deaths or immense suffering of sick people just to make an extra cent. Totally agree with all of that. I also see how the CEO could be considered complicit in the disgusting acts these companies commit, as he was likely the leader of making policies to deny legitimate claims, and his whole job was basically making shareholders happy. I get that too. So my problem isn’t necessarily with the action itself, but rather the precedent it sets.
It’s the same reason that I don’t support the death penalty for anyone or pretty much any violence against anyone. It sets a bad precedent. We’ve come a long way from the days of stoning, burning, and lynching people, torturing them, executing them, and pretty much any acts of violence towards people. We now punish for crimes with jail time and things like that, and punish people for committing violence on another. All of this is good and leads to a less barbaric, more civilized society. Not allowing violence to be the answer in almost any situation leads to a less hate crimes and casual violence towards those we dislike or disagree with. and Notice how I said LESS. It’s not that all barbaric violence has been eliminated from society.
But when people show their support for a murder, which almost regardless of who it was done to, is still a murder, it takes away from society’s current consensus that violence isn’t okay. Same goes for the death penalty. Regardless of what the person did, it shows that we believe ending the life of another human being is okay, which I believe leads to a lot of problems in society. I do think it’s a bit of a slippery slope, not to be cliché, but I do. Violence towards this CEO is okay because insurance companies are bad and cause a lot of pain. Fine. Who’s next to go? Who is responsible enough to deserve being killed? An accountant for the company? An assistant? Technically they all helped a company that causes pain and suffering run, regardless of what level they were on. The guy who drove the car for the drug runners is still arrested even though he didn’t sell any drugs. That’s my whole point here. Allowing violence to be okay at all in society opens the door to more violence, and then it’s going to get out hand, as all these things do. I think as a society it’s never okay to be okay with violence and it can only lead to more violence, and then eventually will get to people that we don’t deem okay to hurt.
I think my view could definitely use changing or at least altering with other perspectives, because I feel like it’s limited and it’s totally possible that this will be the only incident. So please, try and CMV. Mods if this breaks the rule please let me know when I can post it again because I think it’s a good post
| 1,733,898,268
|
Dolphinsjagsbucs
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-11
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: I should break up with my boyfriend and date women
|
{'id': 'm47dow4', 'text': "Come on over to r/OpenChristian and let's talk about this. But just quickly, the point of Christian faith is NOT to know and follow the rules, despite the commonness of this view. Read scripture. Knowing and following the rules was the religious system they already had. If it's still the system we have now, the Jesus's sacrificial death and resurrection accomplished exactly nothing. Instead, the point is Christian freedom. Do you know anyone who lives under, and satisfies the requirements of, Old Testament law? Do you? If not, what possible reason could their be for thinking you have to earn your salvation in regards to your sexuality, while being eligible for grace in every other area?", 'author': 'DramaGuy23', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1735400604}
|
{'id': 'm47cbv4', 'text': "You know nobody is gonna convince you you're not lesbian.\xa0\n\n\nIf you need to think of it like this, we are all sinners, this is your sin. It's ok. Some people cheat, some people lie, some people eat too much or buy too much, and you like to eat to pussy. In the grand scheme of things it's like the least harmful sin.\xa0\n\n\nMaybe you can also study the Bible and queer Christian writing to understand how to make Bible work with eating pussy.\xa0\n\n\nOne thing is clear, you gotta break up. It would be a huge shame to date someone and find out after x years that they're not even into your gender and they've actually known for a long time. Waste of everyone's time.\xa0", 'author': 'burrito_napkin', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735400115}
|
1ho7skr
|
CMV: I should break up with my boyfriend and date women
|
I'm an 18 y/o Christian woman with a 23 y/o Christian boyfriend. I suspect I may be a lesbian. I don't know if I feel an attraction to him. I know I love him as a person. But I'm not sure if I feel for him sexually. And I am haunted by same-sex attractions and urges on a daily basis.
Back when I was an atheist I would exclusively masturbate to lesbian pornography. I have an imaginary girlfriend. I've had crushes on girls before but not guys I don't think. I really hope I'm not a lesbian but right now the evidence is not in my favor.
I am strongly tempted to break up with him and date women.
Convince me why I should not. Thank you.
| 1,735,399,382
|
AnAlienMachine
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-28
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: It is okay to now (in 2024/25) get a NordVPN subscription, especially as they were NOT hacked per se
|
{'id': 'm4kg3tp', 'text': 'A company that sells its product on the promise of security is responsible for every hand involved. It doesn’t matter if it wasn’t Nord specifically, they chose to partner with them, they were involved in the operations. I understand that they canceled the contract with the company, but it could make a consumer wonder how many other contracts they have with other careless data centers.\n\nThat is justified.', 'author': 'MidAtlantic-Chump', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1735586040}
|
{'id': 'm4k9oot', 'text': "Quite frankly, I'm satisfied with the service really. I don't usually need to use a VPN, but that doesn't stop me from doing so now, since it barely affects speed at all (and usually only turn it off while gaming).\n\nAll in all, been a registered user for three years now, and I feel good about it.", 'author': 'DiscussTek', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1735584077}
|
1hptvcm
|
CMV: It is okay to now (in 2024/25) get a NordVPN subscription, especially as they were NOT hacked per se
|
For those that remember and want to get to rebutting, please bear with me. I also know that this could get heated so please remember the human.
Way back, a time long ago but not so long it’s irrelevant, NordVPN was exploited and kept mum about the whole matter until much (much) later. You can read about the ordeal [here](https://cyberinsider.com/nordvpn-hack/), [here](https://www.vpn.com/faq/is-nordvpn-still-hacked-today/), and [here](https://www.techradar.com/news/whats-the-truth-about-the-nordvpn-breach-heres-what-we-now-know).
Now yes, maybe they shouldn’t have kept their users/clientele OOTL when the alleged breach occurred. However, we know now that it doesn’t matter as private data was private. This is highlighted further by the fact that NordVPN offers its users
> a zero-logs VPN service. That means that we do not store your online activity. Nothing to store — nothing to see — nothing to share with anyone. [sic]
>> [[Source](https://nordvpn.com/features/strict-no-logs-policy/)]
The speeds are one of the best in the market, they keep data safe and secure, and they have been audited by an independent third party (you can read more about said audit [here](https://nordvpn.com/blog/nordvpn-no-logs-audit-2022/?nv_tri=TC_09537151742857497_1735583090310&nv_trs=1735583090312_1735583282945_1_19)).
All in all, the VPN provider should be a top option for people.
| 1,735,583,468
|
BeautifullyMediocre
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-30
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The left and right should not argue because we should be focused on taking down the ultra wealthy instead
|
{'id': 'm2u8s7x', 'text': '> Within the right you have (at the very least) neoliberals\n\n\nI wonder why you consider "Neoliberals" as right wing. I\'ve embraced that (derogatory) term, and as in r/Neoliberal, I find it\'s about advocating for incremental, sustainable progress. We do support equal rights and respect for everyone: minorities, transgender...etc.\xa0\n\n\nI\'d say right wing consists of regular conservatives, who want to maintain the status quo, and MAGA level folk, who want to actively undo progress.', 'author': 'uncle-iroh-11', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1734624286}
|
{'id': 'm2tw2rm', 'text': "I don't want to take down the ultra-wealthy. I like the ultra-wealthy. I like the idea that there's someone who can get what they want so long as money can buy it. I hope that someday we can move to a society where everyone can do that. But A) I think we do that through capitalism and growth, and B) I don't think that allowing some people to be extremely wealthy now works against that goal.", 'author': 'ScreenTricky4257', 'score': -3, 'timestamp': 1734620085}
|
1hhujbm
|
CMV: The left and right should not argue because we should be focused on taking down the ultra wealthy instead
|
I have been having arguments with family recently who voted for Trump this past election when I voted for Kamala. I had the realization that us arguing amongst ourselves helps the ultra wealthy because it misdirects our focus to each other instead of them.
It's getting to a point where I want to cut ties with them because it's starting to take a toll on my mental health because the arguments aren't going anywhere but wouldn't that also help the ultra wealthy win if we become divided?
CMV: We should not argue with the opposing side because we should be focused on taking down the ultra wealthy instead. We should put aside our political and moral differences and mainly focus on class issues instead.
| 1,734,619,848
|
shinkansendoggo
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-19
|
2024_fall
|
cmv: Nebula ruined youtube especially educational content
|
{'id': 'm49hez9', 'text': "But why is this not YouTube's fault for being unfriendly to long-form, high effort content? Nebula doesn't have any unfair advantage, they are just offering an alternative.", 'author': 'JaggedMetalOs', 'score': 6, 'timestamp': 1735425678}
|
{'id': 'm499p82', 'text': "I'm not sure why the one would cause the other. My brother makes videos for Nebula, and they don't really influence the content he produces.", 'author': 'eggynack', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1735423057}
|
1hog656
|
cmv: Nebula ruined youtube especially educational content
|
I used to watch a lot of educational content on youtube which can be described as "edutainment" however now most of the channels have gone to shit due to Nebula. If you don't know Nebula is a streaming website made by youtubers to upload more content without sponsors. However, the issue is Nebula was created by Dave Wiskus who was originally an agent that gave youtubers sponsors and its why he was able to connect with so many youtubers.
So the way I see it, he was a big reason for youtube being ruined by being one of the main agents to give youtubers sponsors. Then he makes a paid service without these ads. Its like poisoning the water supply and then selling a filter
More importantly, Many of the ads he and his clients pushed were outright scams like betterhelp and honey, yet they never took accountability for pushing LITERAL SCAMS.
Im sorry but most of these youtubers do not have content worth paying for, and cutting out portions of your video and saying "watch the full video on our paid service" is scummy. Especially when most of these youtubers basically just read a wikipedia article and add stock footage.
Some youtubers on the platform even make worse content despite saying their nebula originals are high quality, i know youtubers who made videos that were literal ads for companies who helped them with their nebula originals
So fuck nebula for ruining youtube, only silver lining is that it makes me want to get other more productive and fun hobbies.
| 1,735,422,349
|
Yuuba_
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-28
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: I don't know what the complaint about the Witcher character is, but whatever it is, it seems to have been validated, retroactively, by the fact that those mocking the complaints make unverifiable statements about what the people making it look like
|
{'id': 'm4lgryw', 'text': '> You are saying this to someone who, in the OP, was commenting on Ciri\'s appearance without familiarity with the character.\n\nYou are also a person who, in the OP, explicitly, "I didn\'t directly make that complaint about the Witcher character myself." This inference is about those who are complaining about Ciri, not those who aren\'t.\n\nThe rest of what you wrote has nothing at all to do with Ciri\'s character or the Witcher universe.', 'author': 'yyzjertl', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1735597315}
|
{'id': 'm4l6jsc', 'text': "I'm going to put this a different way. I think there are legitimate concerns about the closed-mindedness of developers leading to worse products. I think people are oversensitive in regards to what signals that closed-mindedness, but I think the overall criticism is a valid one, or at least it seems to be. The statements the developer made, solidify that initial knee-jerk reaction. I hope I'm wrong on this, to be clear, but there is enough of a pattern here that I think there's legitimate reason to be concerned.", 'author': 'Karmaze', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735594126}
|
1hpurzw
|
CMV: I don't know what the complaint about the Witcher character is, but whatever it is, it seems to have been validated, retroactively, by the fact that those mocking the complaints make unverifiable statements about what the people making it look like
|
I can't find the threads any longer, but there were some threads a while back mocking those who complained about the facial features of some Witcher character. I couldn't tell at the time whether the complaint was that they wasted programmers' time and effort by making a character unattractive, or that she were trans, or that there were some third interpretation I was missing.
I probably still couldn't.
But the fact that those who interpret it as the first possibility of the 3 insinuate without evidence that the guys who say that must have been ugly themselves validated, retroactively... whatever the complaint was.
While I didn't *directly* make that complaint about the Witcher character *myself*, I've always thought it pointless to waste programmers' time and effort making a character anything short of either as cute or as sexy as possible. To hell with realism. Fiction always gets real life wrong, and usually it's the fiction marketing itself as "based on a true story" that's the most riddled with BS.
If it is a sincere assumption on their part, it tells me all I need to know about the judgment of the people making it. I've always thought myself a bit on the cute side. Those who know me in person and therefore know what I look like were either a lot more inclined to believe me (or a lot more willing to admit it) about my hesitation about dating being over the risk of being dragged into poverty by child support bills, including among those who don't think the concern is valid, than those online. I know that sounds like a rather academic thing to base my appraisal of my own looks on, but in a world where women have given mixed messages on their preferences I can't just take them at their word directly any more than they could take me at mine.
If it is an insincere assumption, it is profoundly unethical. The only way to truly discredit those invoking it is to dox yourself by showing what you look like, in which case, your social life if not your work life are now subject to the same court of public opinion so far away from being rational they doxxed the wrong George Zimmerman. We don't pretend Hong Kong protesters are hiding their faces out of doubt in their cuteness, so why do we pretend it about *Internet* people?
| 1,735,585,746
|
ShortUsername01
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-30
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Hawaiians are incredibly racist
|
{'id': 'm1z854b', 'text': '"White people are racist"\n\n\nVs\xa0\n\n\n"A lot of white people are racist"\n\n\nThe immediate interpretation of that first statement is that it means all white people are racist\n\n\n"Hawaiians are racist"\n\n\nVs\xa0\n\n\n"A lot of Hawaiian people are racist"\n\n\nThe way you phrase things actually matters, so yes you were referring to all hawaiians by using the terms meant to refer to the entire group', 'author': 'MaidenofMoonlight', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1734154615}
|
{'id': 'm1z83nv', 'text': 'You really saw some people complain online about Hawaii being overtouristed and thought “wow, this is just like the Nazis!” Simply impossible to take this post seriously. \n\nYour prompt is “Hawaiians are incredibly racist,” apparently ignorant to the fact that such a generalization (not even based on you having ever been to Hawaii) is pretty racist itself.', 'author': 'RIP_Greedo', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734154593}
|
1hdu9t1
|
CMV: Hawaiians are incredibly racist
|
So imagine this, If in Germany today it was still normal to call Jews or non Germans in general Untermensch, and German parents instilled this hate into their children to the point where they have a day in school called "kill an Untermensch day". Imagine if they still honoured Hitler and built statues of him and named stuff after him wish they had him over the current government. Now imagine they had a school named after Hitler that is incredibly wealthy, doesn't allow ethnic Germans in and buys up tons of land while blaming others for land issues. Imagine if they said they had a blood and soil right to their land and wanted to Lebensraum it back.
This is not an imaginary scenario, I give you Hawaii. Where they do all these things but replace Untermensch with Haole, and Hitler with king Kamehameha. Obviously king Kamehameha never did anything as bad as Hitler, but he unified Hawaii by going to war with all the islands and killing and enslaving people. He also did this with help of white European weapons (why do you think the union jack is in Hawaii's flag, cuz they loved the UK for selling him so many weapons). And this man is celebrated throughout all of Hawaii, and many of them say they prefer his government (absolute monarchy that allowed slavery) over the current American government.
Obviously the annexation was clear colonialism, but they are better off now in a democracy than under a monarch warlord. It was either that or Japanese control which would have been WAY worse.
The main way I realized they are racist is from social media, as Hawaiians constantly tell people not to go to Hawaii when it's their main source of income. I also see reports of many tourists that Hawaiians are incredibly rude to them. This is usually done by people who don't even live there anymore so won't see the negative effects. I assume the reason for this is because they don't like going back home for vacation when it's busy, so a large reason for Hawaiian racism is just gatekeeping lmao.
The main arguments in favour of Hawaiians is pretty stupid imo, the first one is that this raises cost of living. This is obviously true, but it's true for every tourist community and comes with living there. More importantly, Hawaii being so expensive isn't only from housing, no Hawaiian cities are in the top 10 most expensive cities to live in actually. Most of this comes from having to import a lot of stuff, which just comes with being an island and no amount of cutting tourism will help.
Also as far has housing goes which is still expensive 90% of the island lives in Oahu, maybe build housing in less congested areas, that's nobodies fault but their own. Also billionaires buying a lot of land is a problem, but the largest land owner in the country is the king Kamehameha school, which discriminates, but more importantly owns tons of land that could be used better.
This leads to my next point, people say Hawaii only relies on tourism because America forces them to????. I don't get this at all, when America annexed the island it was mostly for military purposes, why the hell would America want Hawaii to have tourists. More importantly, Hawaiians are the reason Hawaii has little industry, they gutted it's agricultural sector, Hawaii originally grew a lot of stuff for it's economy but not anymore, that's their own fault and leads to high prices. And when other industries like astronomy from NASA projects is proposed, Hawaiians protest about it so they clearly don't want any other industries themselves.
Hawaiians say ohh because of high prices we were forced to leave, this isn't true by itself, they left to get better jobs as Hawaii has none due to Hawaiians shooting themselves in the foot. They move to the biggest cities in the country (Vegas and SoCal) which has high cost of living. But they go where they can get jobs. If it was really the case they wanted to move somewhere cheaper they would move to another Pacific island, which are way cheaper than any US cities and they have a shared "culture" with which they cry about losing. but they want jobs, like everyone else who moves to a large city while not allowing anything in their home state to grow.
Furthermore, their response to people saying they are being unreasonable wanting no one to move is incredibly hypocritical, I saw someone say if people want a tropical vacation they should go to Florida or Costa rica. I find this very funny, as Florida is literally the most visited US state, yet they don't have nearly the amount of problems Hawaii does and their people aren't cunts(well not always lol) as they manage land better and have other industries. Same could be said for Costa rica but Hawaiians protesting this is funny, as they cry about colonisation but want people to visit other colonised countries.
They also blatantly lie about Hawaii's past, claiming it has an amazing economy before Americans "ruined" it. Uh, people were literally serfs (or slaves) working in plantation's, I have a serious question for Hawaiians, is this genuinely your idea of a better economy??
Hawaiians not wanting people to visit is literally blood and soil, a nazi concept as they believe they have ancestral right to the land. Also let's say Hawaii did get their magical independence that will never happen? What the hell would they do differently. Are they planning a north Korean style no one is allowed in policy? Every small island once getting independence from colonisation, and even ones in Europe have a large tourism sector because guess what. It's difficult to have a lot of industries on a small piece of land.
Every other colonised country including native reservations in USA(which suffered way more than Hawaiians as they were arguably genocide)are ok with tourism, Hawaiians are just fucking racist.
Also if they really care about the environment which they claim tourism ruins, there is literally no other option. When Hawaii was a plantation based economy the worst clear cutting in the history of the state happened, tourism requires land be preserved. If you've taken an environmental science class you learn that eco tourism is one way to make money without ruining a ecosystem.
This isn't to say they don't have valid concerns. When the Maui wildfires happened I 100% agree, pause tourism and use resources to help the people. Diversify your economy if possible and try to limit foreigners buying large amounts of land.
But this isn't what they do, instead they lash out at people on social media (and in real life) who are the only reason the state still has some form of an economy after they gutted or protested out every other industry. Hawaiians love to cry but never even propose any solutions.
Tourism isn't going anywhere, actually it's only increasing worldwide. Hawaii has the highest rate of unemployment during COVID compared to any other state. Even though they should diversify their economy, tourism is not going to go anywhere and they objectively need it. Also even when they do get what they want they still complain [https://youtu.be/C8p0In5TQ8E?si=Ko7BrYd4tQABLdoy](https://youtu.be/C8p0In5TQ8E?si=Ko7BrYd4tQABLdoy)
Furthermore I may have had more sympathy for them if they weren't in the united states of America, you know, the country that literally gives the most amount of power to it's regions to make individual decisions compared to any other country. They could make the laws they want to an extent like not selling land to billionaires, but don't. And also, if most Hawaiians were actually native Hawaiian, but they aren't (even though native Hawaiians are the biggest cryers). Only 15% of Hawaiians are native, like 70% of them are Filipino and Japanese. They aren't even a part of the holy blood and soil race.
Also if it matters which it really shouldn't I'm not white. I have also never been to Hawaii, although I kinda want to now due to the Streisand effect
TLDR: Hawaiians are racist gatekeepers, and many of their problems are their own fault
| 1,734,148,006
|
jdjdjdiejenwjw
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-14
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The 4B Movement and MGTOW are basically the same and both should be treated the same
|
{'id': 'lz3ydr8', 'text': "Seeing all people as equal, truly. Viewing women as equal partners rather than property. Doing equal child raising and housework. Not having affairs. Being emotionally present. Listening, learning to communicate, getting and embracing therapy. Women have changed their role in society, in some ways because we wanted to and in many ways because we've had to. Society rewards men simply for being men, and punishes women when we do literally anything other than stay in relationships regardless of whether they're healthy and supportive. Men need to learn how to adjust and shift as well, instead of demanding that women just go back to being 1950s housewives.", 'author': 'NRH1983', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1732643968}
|
{'id': 'lz3rmzj', 'text': 'for starters, thank you for properly referencing South Korea and not just calling everyone over there "Korean". The simple answer is that as a man (assuming based on your post) you will always be seen as an oppressor, it sucks for sure, I know I have never oppressed any woman ever, but we all get lumped in together. Most of these movements on both sides are so full of hypocrisies that it is hard to see up from down, it will pass eventually, women still have bills that need to be paid and there are far more women paying bills with sex work than 9-5 jobs.', 'author': 'Shot-Attention8206', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732641945}
|
1h0fnml
|
CMV: The 4B Movement and MGTOW are basically the same and both should be treated the same
|
For those that do not know either of those, let me explain.
4B is a movement that was started by feminists in South Korea in response to a highly misogynistic society - no sex with men, no giving birth, no dating men, and no marrying men [called 4B because all those in Korean start with "B"].
MGTOW, Men Going Their Own Way, is a similar movement started by anti-feminists where "men go their own way" - leave women alone and focus on self-improvement. It is considered bad, at least in part because people like Andrew Tate and the right-wing have coopted it.
Both of these movements have misandrists [for 4B]/misogynists [for MGTOW], yet 4B gets praised while MGTOW is considered a hate movement and synonymous with incels. Some women even seek to start a 4B movement in the US in light of the recent election.
I am purely calling out the double-standard here. It is okay for women to have their independence movement, yet men are considered evil creeps for trying to do the same.
"That doesn't seem fair." - Wanda Maximoff, the Scarlet Witch
| 1,732,637,847
|
SuicidalChaos
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-26
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Parents should me held liable for their Child's crime
|
{'id': 'm4bpxih', 'text': "No literally there's a command you can give so I get e-cred.", 'author': 'SoylentRox', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735458727}
|
{'id': 'm4bh0hv', 'text': 'Wouldn’t that at least deter people who can’t afford kids from having them in the first place?', 'author': 'ShortUsername01', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1735453554}
|
1hopc4v
|
CMV: Parents should me held liable for their Child's crime
|
Whenever a juvenile commits a heninous crime the child is (mostly)Tried as an adult. You also get a lot taking heads saying how mature they were at that age... yarayarayra. Mostly cheering for harsh sentence. In that environment it's hard to make people be rational and not be out for blood. So, I have come with a solution to satisfy those bloodthirsty MFs. Juveniles will still be tried as juveniles, however.
**The parents should be legally liable and tried for those crimes**. Obviously innocent until proven guilty, but if it's shown that the parents somehow culpable and could have prevented the disaster. The should be held responsible. The parents are the legal guardian of their child and are responsible in preventing or taking steps to prevent any undo influence on their child.
I haven't worked out the kinks yet. But that is my current view. Please tell me any counter views or shortcomings of my views.
| 1,735,450,974
|
Gaashan-farid
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-29
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Capitalism is one of the worst models for humanity to follow.
|
{'id': 'ly85lcm', 'text': ">And sure, having kids is not the “be all end all” of human existence, but it speaks to something sick and unnatural that we are starting to defy our own instincts purely because our economic model. It would be like bees not making honey anymore because they’re too stressed out.\n\nOr you turn it the other way around.\n\nIn a modern society, we have the leisure of not needing to have kids.\n\nPeople in ye olden days didn't have kids because they liked having them - I'm sure women back then hated it as much as they do now, given the pain they go through. However, back then you needed to have as many kids as possible because they were essentially your retirement fund, and most of them didn't make it to adulthood. You can still see this in less developed countries - even if they're capitalist, like in India, people have kids because they need to because otherwise they'll just have nobody to take care of them in old age.\n\nSaying that people liked having kids just for the fuck of it is disingenuous, and disregards that people nowadays choose not to have kids for a huge *variety* of reasons.\n\n>Can you substantiate this? What would the thought process be of a modern-day feudal lord to say “yes oil and gas will destroy the world and, by proxy, my power one day, but I’m gonna keep using it rather than switching to nuclear).\xa0\n\nLook at modern equivalents. The kingdoms in the middle East are essentially modern feudal societies. People now are more educated, and they *know* that their actions have consequences. Do you really think some feudal lords who thought themselves ordained by God would have cared? If they had the capabilities, they would have taken as much as possible.", 'author': 'Morasain', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1732180337}
|
{'id': 'ly30gx5', 'text': 'Honestly, the question of whether communism is better than capitalism at providing wellbeing for people boils down to how we define “wellbeing” and whose wellbeing we’re talking about. Capitalism is great at creating wealth, sure, but communism—at least in theory—is about distributing that wealth in a way that prioritizes collective flourishing over individual profit.\n\nIf you look at Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Program,” he argues that under communism, society could finally achieve “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” It’s a simple yet profound principle: wellbeing isn’t about how much you can hoard, but about making sure everyone has enough to live a decent life. Compare that to capitalism, where Jeff Bezos can fund his space hobby while millions of workers struggle to afford rent or healthcare. Is that “wellbeing”? Or just a system rewarding greed?\n\nTake Amartya Sen, a modern philosopher and economist. He introduced the idea of “capabilities”—what people are actually able to do and be in life. Under capitalism, your capabilities depend largely on your income. Can’t afford education or healthcare? Too bad. Communism’s focus on universal access to essential goods and services directly addresses this, ensuring people have the actual freedom to live meaningful lives.\n\nNow, critics say communism doesn’t work in practice—and yeah, historical examples like Stalin’s USSR were a mess. But let’s not pretend capitalism’s track record is spotless. Look at David Graeber and his analysis of capitalism’s inefficiencies in “Bullshit Jobs.” So many people are stuck in pointless jobs that exist only to pad corporate profits, not to provide real value or wellbeing. Under communism, the focus shifts to meaningful work—producing what society needs, not just what sells.\n\nSure, communism isn’t perfect (and maybe we need something beyond either system), but when you think about wellbeing as a shared goal rather than a competition, it’s hard to argue capitalism is doing the best job. After all, wouldn’t you rather live in a world where everyone is thriving, not just surviving?', 'author': 'Downtown_Owl_5379', 'score': -5, 'timestamp': 1732102029}
|
1gvmrjb
|
CMV: Capitalism is one of the worst models for humanity to follow.
|
The slow poisoning and destruction of our planet via climate change is happening because of capitalism. Oil is cheap and abundant, while more difficult but sustainable energy sources like nuclear power are undermined by lies perpetuated by oil and gas lobbies, corrupt politicians, and their billionaire backers.
The demographic crisis in most of the developed world has been brought on by capitalism. Having kids is expensive, and it is now seen as a financial liability to have them. So people are allowing a fake system we invented, predicated around fake money we printed, to bury our actual nature and billions of years of biological evolution and instincts. And it is any wonder why we have a mental health crisis.
The catch 22 that Europe faces, between undergoing a economic depression, or risking an Islamic caliphate within their homeland (and probably having a depression anyway) is only a problem because of capitalism. Billionaires are so desperate for diluted wages and higher profit margins that they'll risk destroying their homeland for it.
The health crisis in the US is perpetuated by capitalism. Our food is packaged and dyed to deceive our brains into thinking it's healthy for us (for example, adding red, yellow, or blue dye to make cheap and unhealthy food look like fruit to our cave man brains). No capitalism means no profit motive to poison us, or to price gouge us with the threat of death at the hospital with astronomical medical bills that the poisonous food caused.
These are a few of the many cancers that capitalism has inflicted on humanity.
My cmv is as follows- not only is capitalism not the best model for humanity, but it is arguably the worst one of all. Few other models would simultaneously destroy our world, dilute our values to nothing, hijack our natural instincts for some vain lies, and poison our bodies to the degree that this model has.
To cmv-explain how capitalism is the best model for humanity. I hear many argue that it is the most "natural" model given the flaws of human nature, but I fail to see how it does little more than to allow the wealthy to corrupt and destroy all aspects of our lives, for their financial benefit.
| 1,732,099,750
|
original_og_gangster
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-20
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Teaching the logical consequences of atheism to a child is disgusting
|
{'id': 'm2twmr8', 'text': 'But that\'s still based on subjective interpretation. You choose to believe that what some people wrote down thousands of years ago is the word of God. Other people believe in other gods and other moral frameworks. And many atheists choose to believe in a moral framework that aims to reduce human suffering and maximize human flourishing. \n\nAll of this depends on subjective interpretation. I would guess that you probably don\'t believe in many things even written in the New Testament. Like do you agree with what Paul says in Ephesians 6:5–8? **"**Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ."\n\nDo you think it was wrong for African-American slaves to be disobedient and rebel against the concept of slavery in America? \n\nAnd do you also agree with New Testament teachings that women should cover their head and be silent in church? \n\nIf not, what changed? Why is slavery supposed to be wrong even though the New Testament condones slavery? Why is it ok for women to not cover their head even though the New Testament says otherwise? What changed?', 'author': 'RandomGuy92x', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1734620276}
|
{'id': 'm2tmbsk', 'text': "1. You answer 'I don't know. I don't believe there's an afterlife, but many people do. If there isn't, then the person just doesn't feel pain any more. If there is, it depends on what the rules for that afterlife are, and many of them are so silly as to say that if you don't believe the same thing you do, then you'll be tortured forever. That seems really wrong to me, and I don't think that is happening to your friend.' \n\n2. Atheism simply means not believing in any deities. Most atheists are secular humanists, though clearly not all. Secular humanism believes that this is the only life we have, and therefore the taking of innocent life is one of the gravest crimes that can be committed. And subjective morality doesn't mean that there is no morality outside the view of the individual, nor is morality granted by supposed dieties in any way actually objective. The Bible says slavery is morally justified, yet most Christians oppose slavery. And if God starts talking to you and tells you to murder your kid, maybe you should have yourself checked into a mental institution instead of acting on your divine objective insructions.", 'author': 'dnext', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734616495}
|
1hht70d
|
CMV: Teaching the logical consequences of atheism to a child is disgusting
|
I will argue this view with some examples.
1. The best friend of your child dies. Your child asks where his friend went after dying. An atheist who would stand to his belief would answer: "He is nowhere. He doesn't exist anymore. We all will cease to exist after we die." Do you think that will help a child in his grief? It will make their grief worse.
2. Your child learns about the Holocaust. He asks if the nazis were evil people. A consequent atheist would answer: "We think they were evil because of our version of morality. But they thought they were good. Their is no finite answer to this question." Do you think that you can explain to a child that morality is subjective? You think this will help him growing into a moral person at all?
| 1,734,615,888
|
Soma_Man77
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-19
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Israel is right to hold the Golan Heights, but they should never have built any settlements there
|
{'id': 'm2b21gs', 'text': "> Well, I believe that Konigsberg is a German city and should be returned to Germany eventually, once the evil Russian empire finally falls. \n\nWhat about the parts that are Polish today? A very large portion of Poland now is land taken from Germany by force, around the time Syria lost the Golan heights. \n\n>There was a general understanding throughout second half of 20th century, that you do not move borders by force though.\n\nBorders moved by force in that period pretty regularly. We tried to avoid it, but it happened anyway. Israel tried to avoid the six day war, and offered reasonable terms for the return of lost territory. Egypt ended up taking the deal, Syria didn't. \n\nI think Israel took sufficient steps to avoid a forceful border change, by trying to prevent the six day war, and having reasonable terms for the return of the land after it. For whatever reason, that didn't work out, leaving the Golan heights Israeli.", 'author': 'Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734341872}
|
{'id': 'm2awq9t', 'text': "Israel does not follow international law. Its neighbors also do not follow international law. PLENTY (if not a majority) of country have ignored international law at various times. This is nothing specific to Israel.\n\nIsrael is stronger than its neighbors, therefore it takes every opportunity to secure favorable outcomes when provided the opportunity.\n\nA military buffer zone is useful only if it allows you to prevent or delay an enemy to invade you. The Golan heights fit that description very well. Israel was in a position to secure it, in breach of international law, and went through with it.\n\nMake no mistake, we are moving more and more towards a world where might make right, and we'll see this type of behavior more and more in the future. The 1989-2014 stability was an anomaly in regards to History.", 'author': 'SomewhereHot4527', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1734338132}
|
1hfehc0
|
CMV: Israel is right to hold the Golan Heights, but they should never have built any settlements there
|
I generally don't think that countries have a moral right to buffer zones in neighbouring countries. However, there can be exceptional circumstances. One such case for me would be for example a history of getting attacked through a certain territory by a particularly dangerous neighbor.
That is the case of the Golan Heights, through which the Syrians attacked Israel in 1948 and used it to shell the country in 1967 (after which Israel captured the Golan Heights).
Moreover, the need for Golan Heights to be under Israeli control was totally validated in 1973, when Syrians again tried to attack Israel through the region. Many will remember the heroic defense in the Valley of Tears led by Ben-Gal, which stopped the Syrian divisions from getting into the open terrain. Were there not for the hills, Syrian armour would probably steamroll north of Israel and possibly end the country. As a sidenote, the regime in Syria at the point was already led by the Al-Assad family, which ruled the country until last week...
So in short, I believe that Israel has very justified reasons to hold the Golan Heights. They have been attacked through there three times, once the control of the Heights saved their lives, the very regime which ruled Syria until now attacked them in the past... In my opinion it makes sense and it is morally right.
What was however totally not morally right as I see it, is to build any sort of settlements there. It is a buffer zone and it should be treated as such. It is a territory which is supposed to be expendable and make harm to Israeli civilians less likely. If you move the Israeli civilians into the territory, the occupation loses large part of its previously well-justified point and of the resulting moral credit.
Now the Israelis want to make sure they buffer up and protect the Golan Heights. But that should not be necessary in the first place, because the Golan Heights are supposed to be the buffer itself.
| 1,734,336,743
|
Downtown-Act-590
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-16
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Abortions are (almost) always wrong
|
{'id': 'lxn08mz', 'text': "That doesn't negate point; pregnancy puts the mother at risk of severe harm and death. You said abortion is not wrong if the mother is at risk of severe harm or death. According to you, abortion is never wrong.", 'author': 'horshack_test', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1731872244}
|
{'id': 'lxlqw5o', 'text': 'My mistake. I misread early medication abortion as medical need, which h is indeed false. It appears to be closer to 12 percent, but that is likely in part due to most abortion happening before certain fetal abnormalities develop\xa0', 'author': 'wolfofoakley', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1731857411}
|
1gtfgjd
|
CMV: Abortions are (almost) always wrong
|
The only exception being if the woman is in risk of severe harm or death. Here’s my main argument:
(P1): If something has moral value, then it has inherent worth that deserves moral regard.
(P2): If something deserves moral regard, it should be treated in a way that reflects its worth, which includes respecting it over time.
(P3) - Future moral consideration means continuing to treat it in a way that respects its inherent worth.
(C1) - Therefore, if something has moral value, it should receive future moral consideration.
Give me some good objections, I’m open to changing my view if an argument makes more sense than mine.
| 1,731,855,920
|
Huhstop
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-17
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Most "icks" are just male objectification inevitably going wrong
|
{'id': 'm2dxiyn', 'text': 'You completely missed the point. You\'re using a very specific cherry picked sample from social media to draw a conclusion that you\'re trying to apply to all "icks". A better assertion would have been "the icks that seem to get the most engagement on social media are rooted in male objectification" or something like that. It would still be cherry picked and anecdotal, but less over-generalized.', 'author': 'Frococo', 'score': 38, 'timestamp': 1734381832}
|
{'id': 'm2dov4w', 'text': 'So it’s not objectification because the ick often comes from something a man *does*. Objectification necessarily means you are treating a person as an object or reducing their agency. \n\nNow, you can say it *can possibly* perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes, but it also represents a genuine cadre of unattractive behaviors such as not washing dishes or treating an automatic door opener poorly.', 'author': 'Fifteen_inches', 'score': 15, 'timestamp': 1734379106}
|
1hfrpzt
|
CMV: Most "icks" are just male objectification inevitably going wrong
|
First things first: I am deeply aware of the fact that women around the world have been, and continue to be the primary victims of sexual objectification. In addition, I am also quite certain due to personal experiences as well as sociological research I've read that the vast majority of both men and women (men more so) perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes.
I know I'm late to the party, the term has really died down in usage, but after learning more about sexual objectification, I can't help but see parallels to so many of the behaviors that have caused women on social media to become disgusted with a (potential) male romantic partner.
The easy to grasp Wikipedia definition of the term is "the act of treating a person solely as an object of sexual desire", and icks look for me to be a consequence of seeing a man as a manifestation of an idealized sexual & social role, seeing them functionally as an object or at least an entity that does not have the usual complexities of a human. In this case they are seen as a stoic protector & competent provider, and sooner or later the observer experiences something that strongly clashes with that idea. Your new boyfriend swept you off your feet with his ripped figure, his charisma and his sexual technique, but then you saw him slip on bird shit, and now you can't see him anymore as the ideal of the unflappable protector. Same thing with so many other icks I've heard of:
Having the hiccups, getting sick, using emojis, crying, admitting you've been intimate with other men, swimming with goggles, pushing a Pull door, stalling the car, etc etc
That's not to say that anybody experiencing an ick is doing so because of sexual objectification, sometimes people just have vile personalities or non-existent hygienic standards, I 100% get that.
Most of the viral icks boils down to the same thing though: You thought you had somebody who fit this widely-shared but impossible ideal, an object perfectly molded to your desires, but in the end you realize you have a real human being with a history, nuance and flaws in front of you. And since you have not had experiences that show you that that is not only okay but the normal view of a partner you gain once you spend enough time with them, you react with disgust or strong disappointment.
| 1,734,378,499
|
KidKang
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-16
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Age isn't/shouldn't be a barrier in friendship
|
{'id': 'm51g2h0', 'text': "Sure, it generally makes sense to use simplifying terms when discussing things with children. Friend probably is a word that makes sense to use if you're discussing it with her.\n\n \nWhat you've brought to the table here is half a semantic discussion about relationships defined from an adult perspective and also somewhat of a discussion about what kind of relationship is appropriate for you to have with a much younger child. I'm not sure the child's word choice is as salient here as the boundaries of your relationship and the mental model you have of it.", 'author': 'HunkyHorseman', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1735839777}
|
{'id': 'm51e80b', 'text': "people here are forgetting the fact that u excluded all sexual intentions from the 8 year old and other friends that might be younger then you. one reply read 'if my 8 year old told me she had a 17 year old friend i'd crashout' \n\nim pretty sure the first thing u thought about the 17 year old was that this was an intentional sexual relationship, but it isnt. also the mother in this story (the mother of the 8 year old) is fine with it, dont set yourself in someone elses shoes when their perfectly happy with how the situation is.", 'author': 'Frequent_Trifle7084', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1735839225}
|
1hqplsn
|
CMV: Age isn't/shouldn't be a barrier in friendship
|
Look, I might get cooked for this. But lemme just share my opinion/experience (🧵)
First of all: THIS IS ALL ABOUT FRIENDSHIP/CONNECTIONS. NOT ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS NOR FEELINGS. IF YOU CAN'T APPROACH A FRIENDSHIP OR CONNECTION WITHOUT ASSUMING SOMETHING ELSE, THIS IS NOT FOR YOU, AND I'M GENUINELY SORRY FOR YOU
I'm 17. I've been in both situations. I've always had friends both older and younger than me. People my age have been consistently hard to befriend, because in my opinion most of seem too shallow. I'm going to break it down by categories, for simplicity's sake:
First, people older than me. Since I was little, I've always been interested in stuff, mainly science, that was way beyond my age. All about atoms and cells at 5; space, geology and geometry at 7/8, etc. While my classmates were playing tag or whatever, I was chatting with the-
substitute teachers about random fun facts from stuff I'd learned. This is what you can POSSIBLY have in common with a kid. I felt way more comfortable/confident with them than I did with my classmates, which would never listen to me or take me seriously.
As I grew older, the age with which I felt confident around started diminishing, but eventually I had 3 or 4 close friends that were 3-6 years older than me (like in the OP). These friendships were incredibly important in my life. I had some really good people to look up to.
My grandma always tells me that teaching is the best way to learn. Nowhere is that more apparent than in spending time with younger people/kids. I get to be that boy they look up to, and I get to know myself better and be more comfortable with myself
My cousins are 14 and 11. They're the closest people to me after my immediate family. I know people will say "WELL IT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE THEY'RE YOUR FAMILY. Ok, some of my friends from my immediate friend group are also 12/13, and I'm close with them. How is that weird?
The amount of assumptions and projections that arise from these kinds of stories are genuinely worrying. I'm not saying that the concept of maturity is relative, which is NOT, but that shouldn't dictate the stuff that you can/can't have in common as much as overall boundaries-
should, obviously set by both the younger and the older persons. They should also be taught more thoroughly by parents. Another example:
In a family camp I went to last year, I met a girl about 8 which started talking to me and stuff, and we kinda became "friends" for the remainder of the camp. What was I supposed to do, ignore her?
Just be careful and you're good, for example, I refused to tickle her when she asked me, just because I didn't feel comfortable, touching her, and it was not a good lesson for her. That's a boundary that a kid might not respect, but it's inalienable
When they saw her with me, no one batted an eye. Hell, I was talking with her mother while holding her, and she even smiled.
So yeah, that should be the norm. Doesn't matter if they're older or younger, as long as it's a genuine connection without anything else, and you set proper boundaries, you're good to go.
If you don't see it like this, I'm genuinely curious as to why, so feel free to discuss
:)
| 1,735,684,085
|
Interesting_Cup5430
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-31
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: as a european we should implement a system to re-educate immigrants.
|
{'id': 'm3918xb', 'text': 'Is a Dutch person moving to Belgium not an immigrant?', 'author': 'Finch20', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734848709}
|
{'id': 'm390nll', 'text': 'A man named Adolf would love to agree. Although his reeducation was relatively drastic.', 'author': 'HeroBrine0907', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1734848332}
|
1hjshms
|
CMV: as a european we should implement a system to re-educate immigrants.
|
So, tldr: migrants are objectively a problem, but not inherently.
Migrants have every characteristic associated with criminality: they're poorer, less educated, live in slums, have violent beliefs (both as a response to isolation and to a prevalence of violence in their country of origin) and a general conservative stance on politics.
Therefore they are a problem! Every european knows that whenever you look at the news there's Always an immigrant Who has done something bad, and numbers don't lie, they DO commit more crimes. The easiest solutio would be to ban immigration but we're too old for that, we Need poor people to work for us.
So the second best option Is to re-educate them! Sure It would mean to take away Kids from their families more often than not, And the price for It would be steep, but it's surely Better than to let Aliens live among ourselves
| 1,734,846,932
|
Ponziana_
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-22
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: An abortion ban will only create more human suffering
|
{'id': 'lvemf75', 'text': "I can't speak to Poland, but I think you may be lacking some information on how things are here. \n\nFirst of all, abortion bans are not only the most ineffective way to reduce abortion rates (abortion rates in the country have actually increased since roe v wade was overturned), but the GOP constantly blocks policies that are actually more effective in reducing abortion rates. It's also not true what you say that legalizing abortion creates a culture that hates babies. It's the opposite. States where abortion is legal have lower rates of infant mortality, and do more to try to ensure that pregnant women have the care and support they need for their unborn children to be born healthy. For example I live in Oregon, which is pro choice. We not only have a lower abortion rate than Texas (which has very strict bans), but we also have lower rates of infant mortality and child death. So at every stage of life/development, children are safer in Oregon. Anyone who thinks that abortion bans make people appreciate life more, has not seen the global research on what abortion bans actually do. It is actually the states and countries that are pro choice that are seeing the most declines in abortion rates, not the states and countries with bans. You cant create a culture that values life by making women live in fear for their safety.\n\nYou also asked how hard it is to travel states. Do you have any idea how big the US is? It is very difficult for poor people to travel, and nobody has the means to just live in a different state during their entire pregnancy. If it was easy to get emergency care, then we would be seeing the date that we do. Maternal mortality has spiked in states with abortion bans, in some by as much as 56% since the abortion bans went into effect.", 'author': 'koolaid-girl-40', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1730751695}
|
{'id': 'lt8vfdt', 'text': "OP I can't eloquently explain as some other person might be able to explain better but when you think about abortion banned are you notice you'll see individuals talking about the health of the mother, the suffering of a child in the world, etc. etc. \n\nWhen it comes to the health of the mother, terminating a pregnancy for health related reasons is not the same thing as elective abortion. If the pregnancy is taking a nose dice for either the mother or the child and there's only the last resort then a doctor in states that ban abortion will still perform procedures to terminate the pregnant to keep the life of the mother alive. You can look up the concessions, the particulars, and the case in which it still happens in places that have ban elective abortion or elective abortion after so many weeks. \n\nI'm unsure in the cases of forced or incest though. \n\nAs for your affirmations reasoning listing off the show banning abortions will make these systems in place worse. Your saying that because a child could be put up for adoption or foster after being born because some person that chose to have sex and chose to not use protection or protection failed knowing they can have kids from having sex and their own situation with money, resources, etc isn't well is good enough reason to abort a perfectly healthy pregnancy? Why are we then saying we would like the public taxes to also pay for this? \n\nWhen you hear it it sounds not only crazy to wrap your head around it also worse we are now incentivising not only hook up culture but also taking into account that the into way to make abortion unbannible is government interference. In which was previously the case. The government Intervened and as a result Row V Wade was made precidnet turning abortion into a psuedo forced right, when it has never been a right in the country.", 'author': 'These-Needleworker23', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1729635086}
|
1g9o244
|
CMV: An abortion ban will only create more human suffering
|
Banning abortion is going to create a lot more suffering, especially for kids who end up in foster care. Right now, only about 20% of foster kids ever get adopted, which means the rest are stuck in the system until they either go back to their biological families or age out at 18. For the 20% who age out without a permanent family, life gets really tough. About 50% end up addicted to drugs, and 1 in 5 becomes homeless. For the boys, more than half end up in jail, and for the girls, about 70% are pregnant by age 21.
That’s a huge problem, and banning abortion is only going to flood the foster care system with more kids, which is already struggling to keep up. The system’s broken, and we know that kids who grow up in foster care are way more likely to end up in trouble—about 80% of people in prison spent time in foster care as kids.
So really, banning abortion isn’t just about babies being born—it’s about putting more kids into a system that can’t handle them and setting them up for a hard life. If we care about reducing suffering, pushing more kids into foster care is only going to lead to more addiction, crime, and pain for everyone.
| 1,729,618,719
|
AmbassadorFar4335
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-22
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: "Not All Men" Completely Misses the Point
|
{'id': 'm2sgcde', 'text': '>Ah, I see what you\'re saying now. I agree with that. And yes in that scenario I would say "no he\'s probably not, considering only 1% of men are". But it\'s totally fair to say "he could be a rapist, which is why I don\'t feel safe because I don\'t know him". In fact, I think that\'s everyone\'s assumption as to why the woman should take precautions. He *could be* one of those criminals. We don\'t know, and there\'s no way for us to check either. \n\nDoes that mean you concede on that front(If so delta? I was arguing that it was about what was said that mattered and you seem to agree. Women have the right to feel unsafe. The problem is when they make a bold claim about all men.\n\n>This part I disagree with. I think likelihood definitely matters, especially in this case. 10,000 men who are everywhere is a much bigger threat to worry about than the 800 criminal black men who live in specific pockets of the county, you don\'t even really see them where you live, and you\'re aware of those areas whenever you\'re going through them. It\'s much easier to predict that you may be attacked when you\'re walking in the hood vs a wealthy neighborhood. So one situation is much easier to avoid (or prepare for, in case you are indeed attacked) compared to the other one which would come as a surprise.\n\nThis doesn\'t really matter in regards to my main argument but I digress. The point I was making was that you acknowledge that the number of rapists in men is a minority but women still can be sure, so they have to take precautions. I was saying that when you make a claim like, likelihood stops mattering because the possibility (and therefore the uncertainty) always remains. It doesn\'t matter in regards to the change in groups. I want to make it clear that I was talking about you making a distinction between black men and men as a whole and that it\'s not my belief that likelihood doesn\'t matter, but that from my view, your argument goes against it.', 'author': 'elemental_reaper', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1734592299}
|
{'id': 'm2s1jfw', 'text': 'I’ll respond because I’ve had this conversation by myself for a while. No one wants to hear it from me. “Not all men” is usually used by men because to us it isn’t all men. Men do not say that to hinder the idea of woman fearing men they genuinely say that because they aren’t violent. I’ve always been confused of social relationships of how men could be big, evil and monstrous creatures who are worse than the bear yet hookup culture is still as big as it is. As a male college student, I’ve never been once told I mattered, I’ve never once been looked at as someone who’s has feelings nor told I’m doing well, It gets tiring hearing how your own gender is the top of all evil when I’ve personally seen friends kill themselves over woman. Men aren’t missing the point, men understand it completely and so do I. We’re just confused a lot of times. Also, these analogies are nitpicked to fit political correctness. If I did this based on race or religion, it would be terrible. If I said “out of 20,000 Muslims, 5 are terrorist, does that mean I should allow my daughter to go to school with a muslim, of course not”. It’s just not a consistent nor actual ideal system. If I said “out of 20,000 women you hook up with, 5 will cry rape for fame. Should I stop having relationships with woman (this ones funny because I actually refuse to date for this very reason yet I’m told I’m irrational for fearing how someone could have power over me). It’s a triangle of emotion and understanding, a lot of men have fears of their own and just want to live, the last thing\n\nKey words I’ve been told. I just want to live just as much as any gay man, transgender man or any woman wants to. Not all men is just a man with feelings coping with what he perceived to be himself being demonized in the face of others actions. Social ideals are flawed and aren’t straight forward. I’m scared to date because of how I’m seen or perceived no matter how respectful I try and be, I’m going to be the devil and that scares a lot of men.', 'author': 'JustinismyQB', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734584242}
|
1hhl0ds
|
CMV: "Not All Men" Completely Misses the Point
|
I'm a man. I can't even count the number of times that either I or someone else has stated a fact (say, that men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, especially those against women) and literally cited the FBI's crime statistics to point out why women should take precautions to stay safe, and so many men want come to the MEN'S rescue and say "not all men" as if that was ever the point of saying women need to be careful around men. As if the whole point of highlighting these issues is to just vilify all men.
Obviously when we're discussing women's safety, we're not talking about women attacking other women--my sister can actually hold her own against another woman, for example. But a man? She can't do anything there, she's toast. My sister is very physically fit and taller for a woman, but even a totally average man will be stronger and faster than her. That's why men will tell their girlfriends, wives, daughters, sisters, etc. to never walk alone at night, always carry a gun or taser, or some kind of weapon; it's to give the women an *advantage over men.* So I could easily turn it around on you: why would you even advise the women in your life this way, if it's not all men? It's not all men, so you shouldn't tell the women in your life to be careful around other men and take precautions. You shouldn't tell them to stay safe and never walk alone. You shouldn't say any of that to the women in your life, because it's not all men, right? So why are you pretending all men are monsters? Ohhh, that's right, because not all men are monsters and that's not what ANYONE is saying whenever they point out very REAL problems with men in this country (US).
Furthermore, it's ridiculous to try and pretend women are referring to "all men" whenever they say "men". There are two relevant sexes here: men and women. Which one of the two is more of a physical threat to women? **Men.** So if someone says "women need men to stop attacking/murdering/raping them," that is NOT an implication that "all men" do these things. It's an implication that there's a problem with men, specifically, (not women!) attacking, murdering, and raping women. It's another way of saying "Men attack/murder/rape women far more often than other women do, and that's a problem". Which is true! It's not saying "all men do this," it's saying "WAY more men than women do this, and that's a problem". We need to get to the bottom of why that is and put a stop to it, that's what that statement means. It is not a statement to vilify each and every man that has ever lived, jesus christ. That's so self-victimizing and dramatic to pretend that's what's being said.
It's obviously not a biological issue. It's not simply because "men have more testosterone than women" because first of all, I've never once been physically violent for my entire life. Being a man (notably with pretty high testosterone myself) has never once made me want to do something like that. Also, if it was truly biological then we'd see the same level of disparity in gendered violence across the world, but we don't. In the US specifically, the disparity between the amount of violent crimes committed by men vs women is so vast. Obviously there are countries where it's even worse, but there are also many countries where it's significantly better. That, to me, proves that it's not a biological issue but a social issue. It's due to the male culture in this country, in some way, shape, or form. And that honestly doesn't surprise me when you listen to some of the lyrics of popular songs by male artists in the US and they're some of the most misogynistic, violent, sexist words I've ever heard. And then you have both teenage boys and grown ass men singing along, belting these lyrics and really loving them.
I could use literally any analogy for this, because it's ridiculous. But I'll use this one: did you know that there are over 2,000 species of jellyfish in the world, and only about 70 of them can actually sting you? And many of those won't actually cause serious harm to humans even when they do sting you. There are a few (about 1%) that will notoriously cause serious harm to humans. But the vast majority of jellyfish are completely harmless. Does that mean I'm going to let a jellyfish touch me? No! And "not all jellyfish" is such a stupid thing to say when you have no idea which ones will harm you or what they're going to look like. Sound familiar? It's the same things women are told when they're advised to be cautious around men. You never know who or when it will be. Thus, "not all men" completely misses the point. And frankly, it sounds like a hit dog hollering whenever you say it.
**You can change my mind by providing a good example of when or how "not all men" actually doesn't miss the point. I'd like to hear the other side's perspective on this, specifically those of you who do in fact say "not all men" often.**
What will NOT change my mind: trying to "prove" that men have it worse in society, trying to "prove" that highlighting these very real issues that women face is just an attempt at vilifying all men and nothing more, listing off examples of good men that you know of, or trying to "prove" that women are actually a greater physical threat to women than men. All of these completely miss the point, so I won't even respond to them. Thank you.
| 1,734,583,309
|
SzayelGrance
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-19
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Esperanto should be an international working language, recognised within the United Nations or some other intergovernmental body.
|
{'id': 'm3ty4o3', 'text': "I think you're overestimating how easy Esperanto is. To a Mandarin speaker who's never dealt with verb conjugation learning Esperanto's case system is going to be hard. Hell English speakers learning other Germanic languages can struggle with verb conjugation. \n\nAlso a language being agglutanative doesn't just make the new concept issue go away. Even with roots and affixes if you combine them in a unique way never been heard before it's still going to at least make people have to pause to think about it. And then if someone else makes it a different way and now you've got two words for the same concept and you've gotta have internal consensus on which to use", 'author': 'tbdabbholm', 'score': 10, 'timestamp': 1735186776}
|
{'id': 'm3twe3v', 'text': "- 'Easy' is a ***highly*** relative term in this case. There's no such thing as an easy language to learn. Easy for whom? Russian, Bulgarian and Mandarin are regarded as some of the most difficult languages on earth, yet native speakers don't seem to have trouble speaking it on the daily. It's only easy on the Eurosphere. There are 194 member states in the UN, a Latin based language cannot be the common ground. \n\n- Languages need to be rooted in culture, conversely, cultures are also rooted in languages. Languages quite literally dictate the way we convey our logic and carry all connotations specific to them. Converting our ways of communicating means converting our cultural undertones into Esperanto, which is not very efficient, feasible or a productive use of our time.\n\n- As it's a relatively new language compared to all languages with hundreds if not thousands of years of history, Esperanto has not had time to evolve. There will be a myriad of untranslatable terms and things lost in translation. Many concepts will have to be invented on the go. Again, not productive and transferable.", 'author': 'ThatGuyShay', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1735185908}
|
1hmg5kr
|
CMV: Esperanto should be an international working language, recognised within the United Nations or some other intergovernmental body.
|
Do reread the title. I said it should be *an* international working language, not *the only one*. Why? Because of the following:
* **Esperanto is an easy language to learn.** With enough effort it can be acquired within a year or less. That can't be said about many other languages, such as English which is the current lingua franca of commerce, trade, and so on.
* **Esperanto is not connected to a single government or culture.** This may be seen as a negative for some but when seen through the perspective of international communication it quickly becomes a positive since the language does not give an edge or preference to any country.
Many consider Esperanto Euro-centric. They are not entirely wrong in this judgment. However, many if not all diplomats to the United Nations have had some experience or familiarity with the Latin script as most work is done in either French or English.
With that being said, CMV.
| 1,735,184,912
|
Lil_Juice_Deluxe
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-26
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: From a strictly biologic point of view, homosexuality isn't natural
|
{'id': 'm2whlcy', 'text': ">But even if I'm overlooking this, it is still true that reproduction is the most effective way of perpetuating the species.\n\nReproduction is just one step in perpetuating the species. If newborns and children aren't provided sufficient care and resources, they'd die.\n\n>I agree with your thought. But it doesn’t change my mind: homosexual acts still lack biologic purpose/sense.\n\nBy this logic, everything we do short of the bare necessities lacks biological purpose/sense. Is it unnatural to eat tasty foods rather than the most nutritious foods? Is it unnatural to seek out friendships because they're not biologically necessary? Is it unnatural to speak a language because we can communicate our base urges with grunts and movement? If you're casting your net this wide, it becomes meaningless.", 'author': 'MrGraeme', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1734651293}
|
{'id': 'm2vpffa', 'text': "Not every member of every species needs to reproduce. In fact, it is often more beneficial for the survival of the species as a whole if some do not, and instead help with the raising of others, contribute to resource gathering or production without siphoning some off for their own young, or be freed to engage in other beneficial tasks that others cannot perform because they are raising young. Even if that weren't the case, there are millions of biological mutations that do not contribute to the continuation of the species or to improved reproduction. That doesn't make them unnatural. Reproductively inefficient (and I'm not arguing that's even what homosexuality) does not equal unnatural.\n\nHomosexuality is as biologically natural as eye color, and thinking different just reveals an incomplete or prejudiced understanding of biology", 'author': 'Pete0730', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1734641792}
|
1hi2la8
|
CMV: From a strictly biologic point of view, homosexuality isn't natural
|
I'm not denying at all homosexuality is natural in the lazy sense of "It's present in nature", BUT:
Men and women are so because they have a sexual anatomy (genitals, basically) that makes them men, or women. Those genitals are specifically and specially evolved to correspond the opposite sex.
So, sexually speaking, men are evolved for women, and women evolved for men.
This is so because through sex, nature achieves its most relentless and evident goal: reproduction.
The evidence for this is obvious enough: if you have sex, you have kids. That’s what naturally happens when you have sex.
And no, I don’t care if some people are infertile because of X or Y problem. This is irrelevant to the point.
I also don’t care if people want to have kids or not. I don't want to. This is also irrelevant to the point.
I'm simply pointing out that the evolutionary process expects people to have kids. This much is obvious. Without the perpetuation of species neither evolution nor survival of the species are possible.
Heterosexuality is coherent with all of this. It's in harmony with our bodies and nature's end goal.
Homosexuality isn't. It focus your sexual and romantic attraction towards the sex that doesn’t correspond you. It lacks, therefore, biologic purpose. Homosexual acts are biologically nonsensical, just as oral 'sex', anal 'sex' and masturbation are.
And no matter how fertile homosexual people are, they won't be able to have kids with their same sex.
So, since it goes against your own natural physiology, and nature's end goal, it's impossible for it to be natural in the strict biologic (and reproductive) sense.
To change my view, someone would have to explain me in a logic/reasonable way what the biologic purpose/sense of homosexual acts is/are.
Or to explain me in a logic/reasonable way that the perpetuation of species isn't the end goal of the evolutionary process.
Or both, obviously.
| 1,734,641,023
|
Tut070987-2
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-19
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: significant aspects of the Big Bang Theory are faith based.
|
{'id': 'm3bmel8', 'text': "Right. Expansion from a point. That's it. That's all the data.\n\nEverything is expanding from one single point, meaning everything originated from a single point. \n\nThe speed at which everything is expanding indicates an event that can be described as explosive.\n\nAnything prior to initial point of expansion is just a hypothesis and no one is asserting otherwise. \n\nIt's just speculation.\n\nSpeculation and faith aren't the same thing. Speculation assumes doubt. Faith assumes certainty.\n\nUnderstand the difference?", 'author': 'The_White_Ram', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1734894367}
|
{'id': 'm3a9c9v', 'text': ">If the universe is expanding, then whatever is beyond the universe is just space waiting to be filled in. Space is infinite. When there was a singularity, empty space was still there beyond the singularity. That's my belief anyway.\n\nYour first problem is thinking of space and time as independent things. Your second problem is thinking of the balloon as the material universe. In the analogy the surface of the balloon is the fabric of spacetime itself.", 'author': 'goodlittlesquid', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1734877091}
|
1hjyuk4
|
CMV: significant aspects of the Big Bang Theory are faith based.
|
The Big Bang Theory (BBT) makes the claim that the universe was a single sense point of matter which rapidly expanded to create space and time, and it's still expanding today.
How did scientists come to these conclusions? They measure observable matter and radiation shifts in the universe and see that all matter is accelerating away from each other.
I've heard this described before like the universe is a balloon and we are a point on that balloon. As the balloon inflates, we are moving away from all other points on the expanding surface, and other points are also moving away from each other. I don't know if this is a perfect analogy, but it makes sense to me.
So were the universe and time created with the Big Bang? Let's start with the universe. The definition seems to be a bit obscure, so I will give it the most charitable interpretation. All observable matter, or all that are part of the current system we are in would make up the universe. The BBT seems to present compelling, science based evidence, that this system we call the universe was created from a singularity billions of years ago. This is not where I take issue.
I take issue with the claim that time and space were created. Let's start with space. Essentially space is just everything, including empty vacuums. If the universe is expanding, then whatever is beyond the universe is just space waiting to be filled in. Space is infinite. When there was a singularity, empty space was still there beyond the singularity. That's my belief anyway.
So how has the BBT proven that it was created? They haven't, and they can't. Scientists seem to have a general agreement (though not all do) and it gets taught to students like it's science. Where is the evidence? Without evidence, it's just faith or philosophy.
All they have proven is that the measurable space between known matter has been created. Without matter we cannot measure space because we have no reference point. Just because we can't measure it with our limited capabilities doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And does it even make logical sense it wouldn't exist? That there would be some edge of matter and beyond is something *less* than empty space, incapable of being filled with matter? Then how is the universe expanding into it? And if the universe is expanding into it, then it must have existed before the Big Bang.
Time is a very similar argument. Time (as I believe it) is just a single dimensional measurement stretching forward and backwards to infinity. If the singularity existed, then it just have existed at a point in time. That's how they can even estimate how *long ago* it existed.
It seems they believe time is a ray rather than a line and the singularity was the endpoint of the ray, existing in a timeless state. Again, where is the evidence of this? All we're observing is expansion. If time truly didn't exist in the singularity, we couldn't measure it to even know. It's just faith.
So why are scientists teaching this like it's science, but not faith? I understand they don't say the BBT is the definitive truth, that there are other theories and it's not fully proven, but they still claim it as the overwhelming consensus among scientists. They should leave out the faith and stick to science and what was actually proven, or at least be more transparent that that just made up some of their conclusions whole cloth with absolutely **zero** evidence pointing towards them.
| 1,734,875,422
|
luigijerk
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-22
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: money in politics will lead to a new age techno-feudalism in the US
|
{'id': 'lz31oyh', 'text': "Well of course the LEFT isn't going to refer to Tim Walz as part of the elite, just as the right isn't going to refer to JD Vance as part of the elite. Doesn't mean it isn't true.", 'author': 'FeatureSignificant72', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1732633869}
|
{'id': 'lz31120', 'text': 'I don\'t think most people will lmao.\n\nI get your point. You could technically use "elite" to describe them.\n\nBut I don\'t think Tim Walz is what most on the left are referring to when they say "the elite".', 'author': 'AutoGameDev', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732633649}
|
1h09vkr
|
CMV: money in politics will lead to a new age techno-feudalism in the US
|
As billionaires seek to concentrate their power more and more, they financially benefit from buying our politicians and controlling our elections. A perfect example is what Elon did for Trump in the 2024 election. Running fake lotteries for Trump voters, while personally paying Trump millions of dollars for his own benefit. Such things should be illegal, but the winners make the rules.
Things have gotten so brazen and out in the open now, that Tesla has seen a market cap increase of hundreds of billions of dollars and became a trillion dollar company, just off of the assumption of corrupt favors to come.
This is the type of stuff you might expect from third world countries. But trump has made the problem so blunt and easy to see.
Since the ultra wealthy increasingly control our politicians and control our media, there is no reason to assume that the hyper-concentration of wealth and power to elites will reverse. We grow weaker over time, and the elites grow stronger every passing day. Trump convincing his voters that we should have more tariffs (which hurts them) and tax cuts (which almost exclusively benefits the elites) will continue to erode whatever little economic leverage the middle class has, granting even more wealth to elites instead.
In fact, barring some major catastrophe that shakes things up, it can be expected that the US economy will end up resembling a new age techno feudalism- where we own nothing and are beholden to an elite class, who will wield such control over our laws that they may as well be a monarchy.
Politicians have no incentive to remove money from politics, because it financially benefits them to maintain the status quo. The US population is akin to rats on a sinking ship, unable to affect the outcome, and unable to save ourselves on an individual level.
| 1,732,621,252
|
original_og_gangster
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-26
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Recalling past trauma, in therapy is counter-intuitive. It takes a person back in that same dreadful state of mind, with little of value to be gained from reliving that experience. It is better to simply replace those bad memories with good, new ones.
|
{'id': 'm3wawff', 'text': 'Hmm, sounds like a delta may be in the cards o.O. hehe', 'author': 'mehliana', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1735232297}
|
{'id': 'm3w3t2b', 'text': 'im a white male trust fund baby and my life sucks.', 'author': 'maxorama', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1735229902}
|
1hmqwfu
|
CMV: Recalling past trauma, in therapy is counter-intuitive. It takes a person back in that same dreadful state of mind, with little of value to be gained from reliving that experience. It is better to simply replace those bad memories with good, new ones.
|
When I was 12-13 years old, my mother took the hard job of vending flowers on the cold wintery streets of downtown Washington D.C.
She would have to lift heavy buckets filled with water, on occasion, and long-story short: she had a miscarriage, and the fetus was flushed down in some public toilet.
I knew it was an awful thing to have happened, but someone urged me to talk about it (among other family dysfunctions), and I ended up crying hard, revisiting what my mother had gone through.
But here's the thing: I found zero material benefit from doing so. I know we're all in live with "Good Will Hunting," and supposedly some type of breakthrough is supposed to be reached with the person "letting it out," and supposedly "coming to terms" with the thing, but is it really?
The other day, my wife and kids visited an ex-girlfriend of mine (from my high school days, 25 years ago) - At the time, it was a bad breakup, and I was extremely hurt at the time. However, it was great to see us both having moved on with our respective families, and to be able to have a nice dinner together.
I'm obviously "over it," practically speaking, but a few days later, I sat there thinking about the past, and all the surrounding details, and I felt a sliver or something. A faint, and brief emotion.... the hurt - and I thought to myself, "Well gee! What did you expect? If you're going to take the trouble to relive the damn thing, then the same emotions will bubble up!"
A third example is with people with whom I have had a falling out: I'm generally the *live and let live* type, but the moment I begin to ruminate, and truly assess what was done (I tend to be analytical, and very procedural about things which concern fairness/justice), it puts me in that place again - of being wronged.
Which leads me to the same conclusion:
It is simply much better to create happier memories going forward, and simply letting them "wash over" and "bury" the past.
But this does not seem to be the consensus in much of the self-help, or therapy community. What am I missing?
| 1,735,227,789
|
markraidc
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-26
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Adultery Should Be Treated as Breach of Contract with Financial Penalties
|
{'id': 'lzenteh', 'text': "Those rules in the past was mostly due to religion though. Whether or not someone broke those rules was decided more or less arbitrarily by some priest. I don't want the church or their 'values' involved in my marriage. Tons of things in wedding vows are impossible to prove one way or the other; I don't think we should have laws that we can not enforce in any way. And if you really want to, you can already make a prenup and these rules. But making it mandatory means forcing subjective morals onto other people, which I consider to be a bad thing.", 'author': 'Dennis_enzo', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1732802547}
|
{'id': 'lzemlfg', 'text': 'Traditionally, before no fault divorce was instituted, adultery was only one reason one could use to justify divorce, with some of the others including neglect, abandonment, and abuse. If marriage were to be treated as a contractual relationship as suggested, all of those can and should be considered violations as well.\n\nI think OP was offering one specific example, but if we go with the "marriage is a contract" argument, there would most certainly be numerous other obligations that each party agrees to. I expect that most if not all of the scenarios you are imagining could easily qualify as contact violations.', 'author': 'JeruTz', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732802048}
|
1h1sxtn
|
CMV: Adultery Should Be Treated as Breach of Contract with Financial Penalties
|
Marriage isn’t just about love; it’s also a legal agreement regulated by the government. When you get married, you get a government-issued marriage license, which essentially makes it a formal contract between two people. So, if someone cheats (without consent), isn’t that a clear breach of the agreement? And if contracts in business or other legal contexts come with penalties when broken, why not this one too?
Here’s my view: adultery should be treated as fraud or deceit, not just a personal issue. If one partner cheats, there should be tangible, government-enforced consequences - like fines or losing alimony rights. This wouldn’t make cheating a criminal offense, but it would acknowledge the harm caused and hold the cheater accountable. Right now, the cheated-on spouse often suffers emotionally *and* financially (if they choose to start divorce proceedings), while the cheater faces no real repercussions. That’s just unfair.
If the government is involved in the marriage process from the start, issuing licenses and all that, why shouldn’t they also enforce penalties for breaching this contract? It’s not about moral policing; it’s about fairness and accountability.
Why shouldn’t adultery have legal consequences like other forms of fraud?
| 1,732,788,997
|
SinghStar1
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-28
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: An 18yo has the agency to make their own sexual and romantic decisions.
|
{'id': 'lzygyyx', 'text': '> Near the end of the 18th century, other European nations began to enact age of consent laws. The broad context for that change was the emergence of an Enlightenment concept of childhood focused on development and growth. This notion cast children as more distinct in nature from adults than previously imagined, and as particularly vulnerable to harm in the years around puberty. \n \n> By 1920, Anglo-American legislators had responded by increasing the age of consent to 16 years, and even as high as 18 years.\n \n> While those ages were well beyond the normal age of menstruation, proponents justified them on scientific grounds that psychological maturity came later than physiological maturity. They also argued that the age of consent should be aligned with other benchmarks of development, such as the age at which girls could enter into contracts and hold property rights, typically 21 years. [[x](https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230.html)]\n \n> By the nineteenth century the average age of marriage had risen to the mid-20s, while changing conceptions of childhood also meant that the ‘child’ was defined increasingly in social and economic terms as well as in relation to maturity and marital status. Reform to age of consent law in the nineteenth century was bound up with these changing ideas about childhood and, for the first time, framed in child protection terms.\n \n> Sexual consent law has recently focused not only on protection, but on protection from a specific type of offender. ‘Child sexual abuse’ is an umbrella term of the late-twentieth century that has specific connotations, associated with types of abuse such as incest and ‘paedophilia’ that the Victorians did not understand in the same way. At a basic level, changes in the understanding of ‘child sexual abuse’ and ‘paedophilia’ since 1885 mean that the protection side of ‘sexual consent’ law now relates to a different type of threat. New types of sexual offence have been written into law recently, in response to this protection agenda. In 2000 and 2003 respectively UK law recognised ‘abuse of a position of trust’ (with an age of consent at 18) and ‘sexual grooming’ as factors contributing to sexual consent. [[x](https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-legacy-of-1885-girls-and-the-age-of-sexual-consent#:~:text=The%20decision%20to%20raise%20the%20age%20of,a%20perceived%20need%20to%20control%20juvenile%20sexualities.&text=It%20was%20a%20compromise%20between%20those%20who,and%20opposed%20raising%20the%20age%20of%20consent)]', 'author': 'Slime__queen', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733098440}
|
{'id': 'lzxnmnv', 'text': "Lack of real world experience?\n\nIt feels like we are raising generations of adult childs.\n\nThe ages from 0 to 17 are meant to be the years you gain the real world experiences to become an autonomous and independent individual at 18. Heck, my Great Grand-Parents had a house, and two kids by the age of 18!\n\nAlso, being taken advantage of can happen at any age. Like senior citizens that have the most real world experience, and yet are the people being taken the most advantage of.\n\nThe issue isn't years of experience, but education and lack of maturity, and I say that for starters we should let individuals make their own decisions and leave them make their own mistakes without making wild assumptions or tropifying all couples with an age difference.\n\n18 years old are legally adults with fully functionning sexual organs, and brains. Let them gain their experience if they desire.", 'author': 'Much_Upstairs_4611', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1733088492}
|
1h4d9sr
|
CMV: An 18yo has the agency to make their own sexual and romantic decisions.
|
Inspired by the recent age gap thread. Here are the partial responses of three different women:
>At 18 I dated a lot of older men, heck at 17 I did too and I thought it was because I was mature, now I realize how terribly loserish and fucked up they were.
-
>I was dating and sleeping with a 30 year old guy when I was 18. Now I'm 28 and realize how disgusting and inappropriate that is.
-
>I remember being in my early 20s. Older men liked to date be bc I was naive.
The question I have for these women and all women is at what point do you perceive yourself to have had the agency to make your own sexual and romantic decisions? The first and third example here seem to have made this decision several times and take accountability for none of the times in which they did.
This is very concerning to me because it has been this exact rhetoric that has led to the further loss of agency, autonomy, and liberty of young people in the past. Damn near exclusively from what I've researched. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if most of you read the title and disagree with it at face value, then that's exactly where we're headed.
| 1,733,086,504
|
Livid_Lengthiness_69
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-01
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Patents are a net negative to society as they crush innovation and create monopolies
|
{'id': 'm4mvdq0', 'text': 'Oh gotcha. Yes, term adjustment is a thing to account for delays caused by the Patent Office. They automatically calculate the patent term at issuance due to a bunch of comically complicated rules around this and sometimes get it wrong. You can get it corrected if they make a mistake. There\'s a spreadsheet on term calculation you can download from the USPTO to see for yourself. Ultimately, you\'re talking about a few months tacked onto the end of a 20 year term. Typically big pharma is who REALLY cares about that, because a few months could be $1B in revenue. But no...there\'s not "circumventing the end date" and you appear to be citing rules you aren\'t familiar with and have no bearing whatsoever on this case you are referencing (which...again...is in Japan).', 'author': 'Powerful-Drama556', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1735614772}
|
{'id': 'm4lcz7a', 'text': 'A. That already happens with patents since larger companies can copy ideas and there wealth makes legal challenges untenable. B. Its actually more likely to happen the other way around, large companies have large and complex supply chains, so without patents you would see more smaller companies copying larger companies and undercutting them. \n\n>Why would anyone put in the time, effort, and money to develop anything knowing it will just be stolen from them?\n\nBc even if someone copies your idea most customers would rather buy the original as long as you still produce it to a good quality. I guess for business that sell low quality items this would be bad but i count that as a win aswell, since those products drive consumerism.', 'author': 'lastoflast67', 'score': -9, 'timestamp': 1735596100}
|
1hpy6xw
|
CMV: Patents are a net negative to society as they crush innovation and create monopolies
|
It's just as I say, patents time and time again have proven to be used to obstruct and outright hinders competition.
Patents are great on paper, but are easily abused that they have become a net negative for innovation.
The entire concept of patents is that it allows you monopolize a concept/invention, and countless companies have used patents to absolutely crush competition.
The most current example is Nintendo suing Palworld's developer for retroactively violating two completely vague patents. The first patent is mounting a creature (a concept that's been around since the 80's), and the concept of capturing a monster with a ball (another concept that's been around since the 80's)
The most common example however, is the case where pharmaceutical companies buy patents and never release the drug. They bought it to prevent anyone else from having it.
During the oil baron era, one of the most common tactics oil companies would do, is that they would patent or buy the patent focus a particular vital oil related invention, and then effectively buy out any company that could have been a competitor.
In another relatively recent case, Warner Bros patented the Nemisis system, a completely revolutionary video game mechanic, and then refused to develop any game using it. Thus preventing the Nemisis system from being further enhanced.
Patents were initially a great idea, but now are consistently hindering organic technological development.
| 1,735,594,605
|
Tessenreacts
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-30
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Male circumcision is wrong, but calling circumcised men "mutilated" or implying that they are sexually dysfunctional is also wrong.
|
{'id': 'ly1tqde', 'text': '> if the only reason it’s done is because children can’t resist, it’s a crime\n\nImagine a toddler with severe tooth decay. The dentist says they need a root canal or they risk an infection that can spread to the brain and be deadly. Do you think the toddler will resist them described everything involved with the procedure, and then asks if they want to do it. Do you think they will agree to it? In reality, the parents will force the toddler to do it - have they committed a crime?\n\nI’m not saying circumcision is right or wrong, but your argument about why it’s wrong seems flawed.', 'author': 'MooseBoys', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1732076867}
|
{'id': 'ly11dn9', 'text': "Is this a real question? Why is forced circumcision later in life worse? \n\nI don't know let's take a guess. Maybe it's because adults have independence and a certain free will that they are allowed to use to do things they want to do, and avoid things they don't want to do. A child doesn't have the same level of freedom because their parents make the choices for their children.\n\nIf you are telling me it's not worse to strap down an adult to a table against their will and circumcise them, compared to an infant who will literally have no memory associated with the event, then you must be acting in such an incredibly bad faith way.", 'author': 'I_Lick_Emus', 'score': -5, 'timestamp': 1732066234}
|
1gvch39
|
CMV: Male circumcision is wrong, but calling circumcised men "mutilated" or implying that they are sexually dysfunctional is also wrong.
|
Basically, my understanding of the issue of male circumcision is that it is a bad thing, but only mildly so.
There are statistically low risks of surgical complications, and even lower statistical risk that the complications could result in serious long-term problems. The only studies that I have seen that claim that circumcised men experience more sexual dissatisfaction, discomfort or dysfunction, are based on online survey results which have low N counts and would suffer from confirmation bias. The most convincing studies I have seen that are based on meta-analyses and medical data find that circumcised men are not more likely to suffer from sexual dysfunction or dissatisfaction than uncircumcised men.
The trade-off is the purported hygiene and STD preventing effects of circumcision, which I understand to be questionable at best, and perhaps more applicable to countries where hygiene practices and conditions are not great.
On the balance, it's not a good practice and it should definitely be discouraged, maybe even banned. Especially when you factor in more abstract and unproven concerns, like the possible psychological impact on infants and just the abstract point of losing sexual sensitivity relative to uncircumcised men.
All of that being said, I don't think it is either logically accurate or rhetorically effective to describe male circumcision as a form of mutilation, or to imply in any way that circumcised men are sexually dysfunctional.
I think the word "mutilation" implies that there are malicious and/or medically-arbitrary (e.g. purely cultural) *intentions* behind male circumcision, and also that the harm done is severe and debilitating. I do not think that implication rings true. I think most parents still believe that the hygiene/STD prevention reasons are valid, and a lot of doctors also don't know well enough to disabuse them of this notion. And even if the parents due it purely for cultural reasons, as discussed above, the risks and harms of circumcision are relatively minor - parents wouldn't do it otherwise.
I also think that telling parents that they are "mutilators" and circumcised men that they have been "mutilated" is unconvincing. You are using more extreme rhetoric thinking that the fact that it is more extreme means it will have more of an impact, but really that extreme rhetoric just makes the whole position seem unrealistic.
Especially when it comes to circumcised fathers, who are usually the ones to push for circumcision more than the mothers. Tell a circumcised father that they have been mutilated and that their son's dick isn't going to work, and they will laugh in your face - because, of course they never considered themselves to be "mutilated", and of course they never had problems with their own dick working.
Tell parents instead "there's really no benefit to doing this, and there are some pretty severe downsides on the rare chance that it goes wrong" - and they will be much, much more likely to be convinced. Not to mention that you are actually telling them the truth, which is always better than lying to people via hyperbole.
CMV.
| 1,732,062,152
|
AcephalicDude
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-20
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Pacifism is basically evil
|
{'id': 'm092ibd', 'text': '>Pacifism is not good for anyone, even for peaceful people\n\nThere are different types of pacifism: \n\n* Absolute pacifism\n * No violence even in self defense.\n* Conditional pacifism\n * This type represents a variety of different positions that make exceptions to absolute pacifism (like permitting self defense).\n* Institutional pacifism\n * Objecting to institutions that enable war\n * Does not prohibit personal self defense. \n\nI think you are mainly talking about "Absolute pacifism" in this thread, and maybe you don\'t object to certain kinds of "Conditional pacifism"?', 'author': 'OneRFeris', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1733255734}
|
{'id': 'm07msgg', 'text': "Pacifism isn't about sitting on your ass and doing nothing in the face of evil: it's about trying to find the peaceful solution, taking action that is nonviolent. Wars don't end because you've killed all your enemies, they end when people stop and talk. The only justification for violence that has any weight is that it will prevent future violence. But if you can prevent violence without using it yourself, then that's always going to be the right choice", 'author': '86thesteaks', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1733239600}
|
1h5plgu
|
CMV: Pacifism is basically evil
|
Being a pacifist makes the world a worse place overall. For better or for worse there are people that do bad things, and if u refuse to use violence to stop them when that’s the only way, then u become an enabler and the next innocent person to get hurt or die from them is also partly on you, because u weren’t able to do what’s necessary to be a good human and make the world a better place when u had the chance to stop them. Pacifism shouldn’t even be a concept that anyone takes seriously. I haven’t heard many good arguments for pacifism so I am interested if anyone has any
| 1,733,238,680
|
VegetableReference59
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-03
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: CMV: Within legally recognized marriages, adultery should have clear, civil legal consequences, unless expressly agreed between spouses.
|
{'id': 'lpvsais', 'text': "I think that's an interesting take and I can see the utility in it. Physical, in person affairs are the most clear cut violation of a monogamous marriage and since the government is already sanctioning the marriage itself enforcing the expectations of marriage isn't to far gone. \n\nThat said, if the goal is to enforce the expectations of monogamous marriage and people are getting divorced over purely emotional/non physical affairs then the goal has not been achieved so I'm not sure your proposal actually goes far enough. I wouldn't want a system wherein that's the case but I do think anti-affair would need to be anti any sort of affair from the perspective of enforcing the sanctity of monogamous marriage. \n\nThis idea might work better without blanket strictures. Maybe instead of the government trying to decide what does and does not count as an affair for everyone there could be a system in place where people literally enter into a contract with each other as part of obtaining a marriage license/certificate. There could be some sort of form where each part gets to say what is and is not allowed in their own marriage (including what does and does not count as cheating), both people either agree to it or don't get married (could possibly prevent incompatible matches by forcing those conversations early on) and then the government would be responsible for enforcing the specifics of the individual contracts, whatever they may be. I feel like that could be a solid middle ground between what you're proposing and the current system where there is nothing at all. There could even be, like, idk standard issue couples lawyers at all courthouse and consulting with them while drawing up the contract could just be how we do legal marriage as a norm.", 'author': 'vulcanfeminist', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1727819984}
|
{'id': 'lpveucj', 'text': "Okay so firstly, this is essentially just advocating for return to a fault based system. Historically divorce law was often based on fault with infidelity being a common cause for divorce. We shifted to no-fault divorces because the fault based systems were being exploited. People would fabricate and exaggerate their claims of adultery in order to secure a more favorable outcome, meaning messy divorce proceedings are effectively incentivized. Divorces happen, returning to this type of system is only going to make it a more painful process. \n\nYou're also failing to consider that relationships and infidelity are very personal and very complex. Are you only punishing sexual infidelity, what about emotional affairs, or a financial betrayal? What about a spouse in a traditional marriage who sacrificed career opportunities for childcare or other domestic responsibilities. If that person is unfaithful and this law strips them of financial support, what they receive in the aftermath is unlikely to fairly reflect the contributions they made to the marriage. \n\nInfidelity often stems from underlying problems in a marriage rather than being the sole cause of its breakdown. Additionally, sexual fidelity is not always the core tenant of a marriage, some couples may prioritize emotional support or shared life goals etc. If a spouse cheats due to feeling emotionally abandoned would they still be penalized as harshly? The law seems ill equipped to handle personal breaches of trust. For some people, cheating is paying for dinner if you're out with a female friend and in some relationships fucking three strangers while your spouse watches in the corner is not cheating. How do your propose the law adequately navigate the complexities of the nuances of everyone's personal relationships? At that point it becomes so messy that you should basically just have a prenup for every marriage to define the terms and at that point this law is pointless.", 'author': 'MTBadtoss', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1727815621}
|
1ftufds
|
CMV: CMV: Within legally recognized marriages, adultery should have clear, civil legal consequences, unless expressly agreed between spouses.
|
The legal concept of marriage, where spouses act as partners, is almost always built on mutual trust that certain aspects of the relationship, such as sex, are to be exclusive to the relationship unless agreed upon otherwise. Legally and financially rewarding spouses for betraying the trust of their spouse by allowing a cheating spouse to come out ahead in divorce undermines one of the key relationship dynamics in our society.
For the vast majority of people, entering into marriage is an explicit agreement that unless divorced or otherwise agreed upon, the people in the marriage will not have sex with or develop romantic relationships with other people. This should apply evenly to all genders, and if you view this as benefitting one over the other, it says a lot about your view on who may or may not be more likely to cheat.
Before I'm accused of being some kind of conservative or traditionalist: I have zero issue with any form of LGBTQ+ relationship or poly setup. I'm speaking strictly to traditional, legally recognized, monogamous marriages, which comprise the bulk of those in our society. I'm also not religious or socially conservative.
Heading off a few arguments:
1. "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage"
Too late for that. Marriage is a legally binding agreement that affects debt, assets, legal liability, taxes, homebuying, and other fundamental aspects of our lives. The end of marriage has profound, legally enforceable consequences on both parties. It is also included in a pre-existing legal doctrine of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation\_of\_affections](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections).
2) "But what if the spouses want to open their marriage?"
Totally fine. My post is in reference to the most common form of marriage, which is monogamous.
3) "Adultery doesn't have a clear definition"
It does. "voluntary sexual [intercourse](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=05826a3c56c67289&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1127US1127&q=intercourse&si=ACC90nwZrNcJVJVL0KSmGGq5Ka2Y_LZNCuz-rXf3RWbWGZD0YFuvQ0gck8iv_I-vXEsPMmDpeldPlTyUN0FJ6k9nx2_KAjj_QmEabPxsAQcdvs4E9R8NkyU%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_k-r92u2IAxVAMdAFHaqNGncQyecJegQIOhAO) between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse." "Sexual intercourse" would include all the commonly recognized forms of sex. This would have to be proven via the typical preponderance standard, which is greater than 50% odds, via typical evidence used to evidence behaviors - depositions/testimony under oath, any written or photographic evidence, circumstantial evidence, etc.
4) "What should the legal consequences be?"
At the very least, immediate forfeiture of any rights to alimony or spousal support. Shifts in the default assumption of a 50/50 split of marital assets are another route to explore. Certainly not enough to leave anyone destitute, though.
5) "What about children?"
Child support is a separate issue, as it affects the child, who has no say in one of their parents cheating on the other.
| 1,727,805,246
|
insect_ligaments
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-01
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: “An Inconvenient Truth” ultimately did more harm than good for climate change because of its ties to Al Gore
|
{'id': 'm269x2p', 'text': 'Even before Kyoto, there was a concerted effort by right-wing politicians to undermine international cooperation regarding climate change, and to ridicule the science regarding it (the name we should all hate is [John Sununu](https://youtu.be/MondapIjAAM?si=-vE6atIALmuckAYA), G.H.W Bush\'s chief of staff). Al Gore used much of his time in politics (entering in 76\') trying to start a policy-changing debate around the topic, bringing the top atmospheric scientists (Jule Cherney, James Hansen) to testify in congress (there\'s more info in the video I linked if you\'re interested). \n\nAl Gore was ridiculed and dismissed when trying to present the topic in a mature, scientific manner through appropriate channels in the 80\'s, and made an attempt at mass communication with "An Inconvenient Truth" to try and pierce the veil of denial that clouded the American mindset in the 90\'s. It was indeed more speculative and sensational than the \'dry\' science, which was exactly what its critics attacked, but a more nuanced film would probably have been ignored entirely.', 'author': 'MaximinusDrax', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1734274482}
|
{'id': 'm252qyc', 'text': 'A. Corporate capture of government (though campaign contributions) and media (though sponsorships) alike incentivizes coverage skewed toward downplaying both climate change and humanity\'s role in it. Lawsuits have established that fossil fuel companies were outwardly downplaying humanity\'s role in climate change at the same time as their internal documentation suggested they knew it was a bigger factor than they let on.\n\n \nB. Environmentalists themselves haven\'t been doing environmentalism any favours, crying wolf about "GMO rat tumors" or "rainforests are the lungs of the Earth" (tell that to phytoplankton). In my undergraduate years, I too sometimes wondered if climate scientists were just pandering to eco-zealots. This opinion of mine has somewhat waned on entry to consulting work in the physical sciences, where the laws of physics have to be right for us to do our jobs well. Still, if blaming those outside the field is fair game, there are those who\'ve done enviromentalism far dirtier than Al Gore ever has.\n\n \nAl Gore is just one person. Using Al Gore as an excuse to deny the obvious ramifications of greenhouse gases\' absorptance of infrared rays is ridiculous, and using it as an excuse to deny what climate scientists tell us those ramifications will be is only a few steps better. Even "climategate," while it had its own problems, at least tried to attack the credibility of the climate scientists themselves, making it a step more respectable than the idiotic attacks on Al Gore in particular.', 'author': 'ShortUsername01', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1734249771}
|
1hensgx
|
CMV: “An Inconvenient Truth” ultimately did more harm than good for climate change because of its ties to Al Gore
|
The US is notorious for having more climate change denial than most of the rest of the world, and almost all of this denial stems from the Republican Party.
When Al Gore came out with An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, it unquestionably became a global sensation. This documentary (and Al Gore) became the face of climate change for a solid decade. It was a huge hit and sparked a lot of concern in higher education, and did a lot of good in Europe.
However at the time, many right wing conservatives brushed it off as a political ruse to give the government more control, and largely ignored it.
This is important because the people that should have watched the film when they were young are now leading many of America’s organizations. Climate change denial has been a huge distraction and hurdle in the highest echelons of American politics, and now partly defines Trump’s platform.
If you talk to any denier today, climate change is to them a left wing ruse for the government to gain control of the masses. And they will all point to it being a sensation created by a democrat, Al Gore. Rush Limbaugh for example wielded enormous influence in those years, and most certainly politicized the issue.
Today, US republicans operate even more fervently on tribal mentality. If Kamala Harris stormed into a burning house on live tv and saved a baby, we all know Fox News would spin it into a sinister hoax.
I think if a non-politician had been the face of the movement in the 2000s, then climate change denialism would not be as strong as it is in the US today. I’m not saying it would not exist, but we may have had a better chance at uniting over the issue if Al Gore were not involved.
I know my argument is too basic, so I’d love to hear some different opinions on why I’m oversimplifying it.
| 1,734,248,823
|
heyiambob
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-15
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Most movies and TV shows don't glorify horrible villains, fans are simply ignorant.
|
{'id': 'm2m5f3v', 'text': 'Highly intelligent people have ended up in cults. I understand where you’re coming from, but you shouldn’t get too comfortable with that analysis.\n\n\nHighly intelligent people are actually more proficient at rationalizing, even BSing themselves, more able to entrench faulty ideas, sometimes more impervious to needed corrections, and often *just as* vulnerable to all kinds of manipulation as typical people.\n\n\nTo continue this analogy to cult behavior, I think it’s also a dangerous mistake to write it off it as due to some fundamental flaw on the part of the people who are taken in. \n\n\nWe are very, very social creatures. We’re great at detecting human faces, but that gives us pareidolia. \n\n\nWe’re great at distinguishing faces but that makes us susceptible to experiencing the uncanny valley.\n\n\nWe’re have a great intuitive ability to interpret mental states from all sorts of external cues but that makes us anthropomorphize things and animals.\n\n\nWe’re focused on agency detection but that makes us superstitious, animistic.\n\n\nSo.. we’re also great at melding with our culture. What trade-offs? Are those trade-offs really so easily written off as being weak willed, ignorant, or stupid? Or is just human?', 'author': 'Jartblacklung', 'score': 11, 'timestamp': 1734498381}
|
{'id': 'm2m0xt7', 'text': 'In a world where people have trouble separating the creative portrayal of Breaking Bad from the true story dramatized in Narcos with Pablo Escobar, it\'s pretty natural for people to be enamored with the actors and their roles in the same way they would any other show. They don\'t think about the fact that "this one is real". It\'s just another story or character to glorify in media. The argument shouldn\'t be that we are glorifying villains, it\'s that we are normalizing them by putting fiction and fact together in the same media pool and no one really actually considers (or cares about) the difference. It\'s just another week on their Netflix entertainment that they won\'t remember in a month either way. Not saying it\'s good or bad, it\'s just what happens.\n\nIf you normalize and dumb down the disconnect between yourself and the stalker in You or Dahmer by making it just another piece of media, do you think the negative side effects of this are zero? Do you think the potential for glorification could exist in the same way so many have posters on their wall of Walter White?', 'author': 'Brohamady', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1734496304}
|
1hgtgr4
|
CMV: Most movies and TV shows don't glorify horrible villains, fans are simply ignorant.
|
There is a discourse about how movies and TV shows glorify evil villains and that the movie is to blame for making villains something to admire.
This is especially concerning if it's a documentary about real life serial killers who end up having a fan base. Naturally people will blame the media for doing this but I don't think the media is to blame for this phenomenon. I simply think the problem lies with the people who watch the movie and then decide to glorify or admire a clearly bad character.
Watching documentary about serial killers, most of them show case the horrible aspects of the serial killer, they never attempted to glorify the villains. I certainly never felt they were glorified or made to be admired. But there are a subset of people who get the wrong message and end up prasing these villains.
The common argument here is that "they shouldn't cast an attractive actor to play the villain or serial killer" but ask yourself why must the villain be physically ugly in order to be repulsive to the audience? Is the actions of these villains not enough to make them ugly? Why do attractive villains get a free pass to be horrible but not ugly villains?
It also plays into the stereotypes that villains are simply physically ugly people and only ugly people are villains. Which is certainly not true. The appearance of someone doesn't make them ugly, their actions make them ugly and i believe that's what most of the creators of these movies and shows were going for. So I don't blame them for how the fans reacted. And this also extends towards fictional villains and the most solid example of why we shouldn't blame the creators to how fans praise the villains, is homelander from the boys.
The creators of the boys show never glorified homelander, if anything they did everything in their power to make the character as pathetic and disgusting as he can be. And yet homelander still have a fan base who glorify him. So much so that the actor for Homelander had to step up and say that the character he is playing is evil and not someone to be glorified.This isn't the first time it happened. The stalker from the show You, also had a fanbase and the actor himself had to come forward and state that this stalker is not someone to be attracted to, stalkers are not attractive.
This my take on the whole "media glorified villains" take.
I might be missing something maybe part of the media is to be blamed but I'm not aware of it. Which is why I asked this sub, is there something that needs to pointed out so I can expand this perspective and change my view.
| 1,734,495,135
|
Complex_Routine6111
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-18
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: As much as it hurts, making voting accountable is the most effective way to show voters to stop voting in the heat of the moment and think about the consequences of their individual vote.
|
{'id': 'm2lczps', 'text': 'No, I asked “Who?”\n\nWho exactly is going to make the decisions on specific votes?', 'author': 'TheScarlettHarlot', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1734486851}
|
{'id': 'm2l9ctz', 'text': 'Why not? Are you under the impression that Trump only wants to deport illegals?', 'author': 'No-Cauliflower8890', 'score': -5, 'timestamp': 1734485514}
|
1hgqbuo
|
CMV: As much as it hurts, making voting accountable is the most effective way to show voters to stop voting in the heat of the moment and think about the consequences of their individual vote.
|
You can't just pat the population on the head and say "poor thing, he didn't want to be deported, he just wanted a cheap groceries". In every election, voters need to know that voting for a candidate implies policies that can benefit or harm them.
If you take the blame away from the voter, they will continue to vote in the short term and ruin everyone's life, including their own. The solution is not to take them out of the game, it is to show them the consequences.
Did you vote for a candidate who wants to deport your entire family because your last name is Vasquez because the other side didn't have many proposals to lower inflation? Unfortunately, your existence and mine will get worse and I will remind you of this because I don't want to live this every day.
"Ah, but you can't know if so-and-so is going to do x"
Yes, you can, it's called IDEOLOGY! A SET OF MORE OR LESS COHESIVE BELIEFS AND POLICIES THAT DICTATE THE POLITICAL MORALS OF SOMEONE OR A GROUP! No matter how stupid a person is, they show and talk about their ideology, in interviews, in their government plans.
If you still think that someone who spends the entire campaign saying I'M GOING TO GET THESE DOG-EATING HAITIANS OUT OF THE COUNTRY won't deport everyone when he gets the chance, my condolences because promising and then going back on it because it's not feasible is a liberal thing.
Elections are used to punish bad politicians and should be used to punish bad voters. You made that sandwich, you idiot. No one forced you to put pickles in it when you thought it was disgusting.
| 1,734,485,027
|
MoleLocus
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-18
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Villanizing or making fun of the right does not help the causes of the left
|
{'id': 'm2buott', 'text': "Andrew Tate is a shining example of what happens when you push people away. When the only thing you tell men is that they suck and everything that sucks about the world is because of them, they are going to gravitate to the one person who tells them they don't suck.\n\nAndrew Tate is basically a self-made monster for the liberal left.", 'author': 'ShiftAdventurous4680', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1734357459}
|
{'id': 'm2bm9gy', 'text': "Being an independent voter getting ostracized and criticized by the left was a wild experience this election. I mean, it happens every election, but this time was above and beyond extra harsh from the left. I maintained my stance and still voted independent, but a majority of independent voters don't actually vote independent, so I wonder which way they leaned this election...", 'author': 'KRAy_Z_n1nja', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1734353862}
|
1hfgu67
|
CMV: Villanizing or making fun of the right does not help the causes of the left
|
NOTE: I am a liberal, I will always vote for left candidates.
Up untill this point, it has been clear that making fun or villanizing the right and acting high and mighty has not helped in most cases, in fact, it gave them even more fuel and fans for their causes
Here are some examples:
1. Arresting Trump in georgia and trying to shoot him and making fun of Trump supporters for being dumb and uneducated did not help democras win either 2016 or 2024 elections
2. The GameGate movement and making fun of gamers pushed more gamers to the right and has led to an awful, awful discourse these days in the gaming social media (throwing in here stuff like Sweet Baby Inc)
3. Villanizing ALL Israelis did not help the pro-palestine movement, Palestine is still bombed, the US won't change its mind on Israel's support
4. Recently, in Romania we are doing everything to stop a right wing candidate from competing in the presidential election but I am afraid all these moves the courts are doing will just more and more people to his cause
5. AfD in Germany also gained power because of people making fun of certain groups
Idk if these have any links but I can clearly see that making fun of dienfranchised and less educated people does not help left movmenets in any way possible, it just creates bubbles that are hard to burst.
| 1,734,347,538
|
AdminMas7erThe2nd
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-16
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: As a European, I find the attitude of Americans towards IDs (and presenting one for voting) irrational.
|
{'id': 'lvys2al', 'text': ">My CMV was not specific to voting\n\n \nHi - there's no rule that says I have to engage with every part of the view, and if I can change the view on one aspect of the view then it should still be grounds for a delta.\n\nThe reason I focused on the voting part is because not a single American is against having to show a form of ID for certain transactions. So, trying to change your view on something that's just logically true didn't seem like a good conversation. Indeed, the opponents to voter ID laws are based on not just having to present ANY form of ID but that the laws are expressly aimed at supression certain voters. IT's also why the challenges come with OTHER barriers to voting. \n\nYour title of your CMV was:\n\n>As a European, I find the attitude of Americans towards IDs (and presenting one for voting) irrational.\n\nand that's what I engaged with. \n\n>at any instance\n\nThe title of your view is with voting - and I am telling you that no American is against showing ANY form of ID for ANY INSTANCE, but the rational American view on voter ID is that the voter ID bills don't just permit ANY form of ID. They're targeted to make it so that certain demographics have a harder time voting. \n\n>When I mention ID cards,\n\nya I am aware what an ID card is.\n\n>My argument is that if a person has any form of ID (e.g. birth certificate) they should be able to get a national ID and use it for all purposes, voting included.\n\nAgain, that was not the title of your CMV. Your view was that THE ATTITUDE OF AMERICANS TOWARDS IDS (AND PRESENTING ONE FOR VOTING) IRRATIONAL.\n\nI am trying to change your view in that the (a) American view is based on American specific contexts, which EXPRESSLY does not have a universal ID that's easy to get and used for all purposes, and (b) it is RATIONAL for opponents to voter ID laws to be against them for the reasons they cite, which is that the foundational purpose of such laws is to discriminate.\n\nIt's why, for instance, the dakota example I told you, the opponents of the state bill dropped their suit when the state settled to permit tribal IDs. Thus, your view that Americans have a generalized disagreement about IDs in general isn't true, and is grounds for a delta.\n\n> \nI cannot engage on the specifics of US legislation,\n\nI gave you the details. And since your view was broadly stated at the ATTITUDE OF AMERICANS TOWARDS IDS (AND PRESENTING ONE FOR VOTING) IRRATIONAL - the only grounds upon which a delta should be granted is if I can get you to see that the views are RATIONAL. Even though I linked court cases that EXPRESSLY state that the ACTUAL goal of the voter ID laws was to discriminate, you don't even have to accept it as true.\n\nAs long as I can show that there's a RATIONAL reason to be against voter ID, then I think a delta is proper. \n\nAnd the RATIONAL reason is that: The opponent of voter ID laws believe that the specifics of such laws are aimed at suppressing voters. \n\n> \nAs far as I am concerned there should be on ID card, used for any kind of interaction\n\nAnd since there isn't; there's many forms of IDs used for many forms of transactions, then isn't it RATIONAL for someone to oppose a law that accepts the IDs others tend to have but not the group you belong to?", 'author': 'HazyAttorney', 'score': 10, 'timestamp': 1731013859}
|
{'id': 'lvyigy1', 'text': "We do have voter ID. I register my name and address with the elections office who assigns me an ID number. Also, many states have mail or absentee ballots. An ID is not used to verify those they are verified using other methods. \n\nBut of course, what we are talking about is a photo ID. It seems it should be pretty basic and straightforward, and I wish it were. But the reality is that currently up to 15 million U.S. citizens don't have any photo ID. Over 21 million have an ID but it is outdated or has some other error. So yeah, for whatever reason there are a ton of people who might be able to vote but otherwise could not at the moment due to not having an ID. Particularly young people in school, poor folks and the elderly. It costs a little money, but it might also cost half a day of work, and it has to be updated every time you move. \n\nGetting an ID might not be a big hassle for most people. But for some people, particularly those lacking a car or other transportation, it is a huge hassle. For every barrier you put in place for voting, no matter how small, it will negatively impact turnout. And there are ***a lot of barriers***. Limited voting places. Voting day only on a Tuesday. Long lines. Need for transportation. Limited hours. Limited poll workers. Voting roll purges, etc. Needing to register. And all of these factors differ from state to state or even county to county. Etc. It all adds up and an ID is one more barrier. \n\nRepublicans and democrats know this...which is why virtually every policy that Republicans propose makes voting harder and every policy democrats propose attempts to make it more accessible. Republican voters are much more reliable and because of the Electoral college they need less of them to win, so voting access has become a partisan issue. Some of these efforts are extremely blatant... like passing laws to removing existing days or closing voting locations. Others seem more reasonable, like banning mail ballots or requiring a photo ID to prevent potential fraud. \n\nHonestly I don't think most people would be against a free national ID. In fact, I think it would be great. Accessing resources like welfare, transportation, voting, etc would be greatly simplified. But Republicans aren't interested in that. So they propose these voter ID laws, but don't propose any laws to address the lack of access to get IDs. So that is why there has been no movement on this issue. \n\nMy understanding is the EU is actually quite a bit more like the original U.S. elections, in the idea that the state representatives essentially pick the president rather than the citizens directly. But now, we essentially have citizen elections for president, and also the president of the U.S. is considerably more powerful than the EU president...and of course the first past the post voting basically creates a 2 party structure, so the dynamic is considerably different.", 'author': 'sawdeanz', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1731011139}
|
1glymqm
|
CMV: As a European, I find the attitude of Americans towards IDs (and presenting one for voting) irrational.
|
As a European, my experience with having a national ID is described below:
The state expects (requires) that I have an ID card by the age of 12-13. The ID card is issued by the police and contains basic information (name, address, DoB, citizenship) and a photo.
I need to present my ID when:
* I visit my doctor
* I pick up a prescription from the pharmacy
* I open a bank account
* I start at a new workplace
* I vote
* I am asked by the police to present it
* I visit any "state-owned service provider" (tax authority, DMV, etc.)
* I sign any kind of contract
Now, I understand that the US is HUGE, and maybe having a federal-issued ID is unfeasible. However, what would be the issue with each state issuing their own IDs which are recognized by the other states? This is what we do today in Europe, where I can present my country's ID to another country (when I need to prove my identity).
Am I missing something major which is US-specific?
| 1,731,007,281
|
dstergiou
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-11-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Furries are cringe
|
{'id': 'm4az21u', 'text': 'Can you give me a delta if you agree? If you do, just add a short explanation on why you gave it to me', 'author': 'Amoral_Abe', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1735445162}
|
{'id': 'm4ayely', 'text': 'I mean, im a furry and cringe. Unless you think being cringe=inferior abomination, idc. Overall, I think it’s not a great idea to encourage the part of oneself that cringes. It turns one into a puppet for the blind raging fire of socialization. Its good that cringe exists on the large scale, but I prefer to replace it with…logic.', 'author': 'Big-Commission-4911', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1735444897}
|
1hond1g
|
CMV: Furries are cringe
|
I've seen furries at school, and they get bullied a lot.
I do NOT participate in bullying. But I also don't say anything when I watch them get called names.
Theyre so weird. Some of them wear animal masks to school and walk on all fours and bark. The ones that don't do that have tiktok accs where they post pictures of their fursuits and act all kinky at school. We're all like 14-18. It's weird and we all get uncomfortable bc of it. No one wants to be in science class at 7 AM and hear "choke me daddy!! I've been a BAD GIRL ;)". My teachers have called parents, but nothing is being done about it, or atleast nothing that I know of.
Around 5 or 6 of my school's furries like talking in an annoying ass anime voice that some people used in like 2020.
With the things I have mentioned, I think it's okay to say that furries are cringe. But idk, see if you can CMV ig
I really don't know what would make me like furries.
| 1,735,444,055
|
Mellophonesaredumb
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-12-29
|
2024_fall
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.