claim
string | positive
string | negative
string | post_id
string | post_title
string | post_text
string | post_timestamp
int64 | post_author
string | positive_comment_id
string | negative_comment_id
string | positive_comment_score
int64 | negative_comment_score
int64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMV: Society and culture needs to teach ALL children and adults equally -- regardless of gender -- that violence against anyone is wrong
This view consists of two points. Change either or both for a delta: point 1 is that society stigmatizes violence against females (esp. by males) far more than it stigmatizes violence against males (esp. by females). Point 2 is that society needs to change this. Point 1 is my premise that this exists, point 2 is my argument that it is wrong for it to exist.
Let me explain point 1: there is a general social stigma directed towards male-on-female violence. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing -- but what is a bad thing is the fact that this stigma is nowhere near as strongly as for the reverse scenario. For instance: in schools, I can directly recall that boys bullied by other boys are ordered to shake hands and make up after the bully is dealt with, but a boy bullies a girl he's got hell coming his way. Girls bullying boys was viewed as childish and just a quick counsel session. Violence between two students of the same gender -- esp. if it were between girls -- would be treated far more forgivingly.
And this is reflected in the adult world today. Men are taught to deal with DV and believe that they are wusses if they have a problem with it. The phrase "Hit a woman"/"Hit a girl" has more stigma than "hit another man" or "hit your boyfriend". There's the phrases "men do not hit women" and "don't put your hands on a women" but I've never heard "women do not hit men" or "don't put your hands on your boyfriend". [And you know you can relate to this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/4w63jp/a_guy_can_decline_an_invitation_by_saying_his/)
Even though murder affects men far more than it does women. And from what I remember in school, the same is true for bullying.
This is even reflected (like most societal values) in fiction: men/boys are regularly slapped around by women/girls and it's portrayed as funny, comedic and deserved, while men who do something like grab a wrist and oh god they're satan. DV against women is something fiction has to dance around to avoid being too dark (to keep it family friendly); but DV against men is something *so normalized* that it becomes comedy. Women slapping boyfriend for being a cheater? LOL, righteous! That's portrayed as if it's a good and deserved thing. But men slapping around girlfriend for being a cheater? Bastard who drover her away!
Back to society: domestic violence posters can be found to focus only on women. Take [this for instance](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5evyxb/a_poster_against_domestic_abuse_that_targets_the/). DV posters often talk about women. Just google "domestic violence poster" into Google Images or do a youtube search for "domestic violence PSA".
That's my explanation for point 1; the idea this stuff *does* exist.
Now let me explain point 2, the idea that it shouldn't exist. We need to treat society to condemn all violence, and not factor the attacker/attacked's gender into account. Obviously it is sexism and misandry. We cannot normalize female-on-male violence. That's horrific. Also, fun fact: [did you know that lesbians suffer more domestic violence than straight women according to some surveys?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_lesbian_relationships#Prevalence) Don't those women matter to?
There is very little support for boys and men suffering from abuse. But with women, there's huge concern for stopping it. [I would be seething if my son were to be put through this while my daughter was not.](http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/19/men-are-not-monsters.html) Men are taught not to hit women, but women are not told "not to hit men". My argument is this: **we need to stop teaching boys not to hit girls. Stop teaching men not to hit women. Start teaching all children that all violence, against anyone (outside of self-defense) is wrong.** When you make a PSA about violence, show both a woman abusing a man and a man abusing a woman (or do not focus on a single gender at all). There's concern over men growing up to hit women because they witness their fathers hitting their mothers; I'm also concerned about girls witnessing their mothers mistreat their fathers growing up to think that is normal as well.
Don't teach boys any more than you teach girls. Stigmatize violence between men, between women, male-to-female, female-to-male. Bottom line: **THE GENDER OF THE ATTACKED, AND THE GENDER OF THE ATTACKER, IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY VIOLENT SITUATION!** All violence is to be judged in it's own case based on severity and provocation, the gender of the perp/victim is irrelevant.
Let me give you an analogy. Imagine if I went to a school and forced every black student to go to a workshop telling them not to steal. And then I, on top of this, told them not to steal *from white people*. You get that that would be viewed as offensive and patronizing and normalizing white crime right? Or if I made a PSA that depicted a 5-year old white child crying about her mother, because she, a white woman (visually depicted as white in the PSA), was raped and killed by a black man (again, visually depicted as a crazed black man in the PSA), and the PSA ended with the tagline "end violence against white women by African-Americans". You would be enraged, would you not?
So that's my view. Society needs to remove all gender-related elements from it's stigmatization, and efforts to combat, violence.
To save some time, let me just address the most common thing I hear when this stuff is discussed: the **men are biologically stronger and larger than women** argument. True yes, men are stronger than women. But first of all, this is not a moral excuse for violent women -- in fact, it creates a mindset that their shorter stature makes it okay for them to be violent, and creates another toxic mindset in the men feeling that their larger stature gives them no right to get angry when they are abused. Second of all, women can use blunt objects and weapons to abuse men/boys -- the same way that man used weaponry to dominate bears despite being both slower and smaller than them.
So that's my view.
|
I agree, women should also be told not to hit men or other women. But it's much more important that we stress the need for men not to hit women, and for reasons you seem to understand:
>True yes, men are stronger than women. But first of all, this is not a moral excuse for violent women -- in fact, it creates a mindset that their shorter stature makes it okay for them to be violent, and creates another toxic mindset in the men feeling that their larger stature gives them no right to get angry when they are abused.
I don't think anyone argues that it's a moral excuse for women to hit men. It creates a practical concern about who's more dangerous in a violent situation. Men are far more likely to commit murder and manslaughter because of testosterone. It makes most of us bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than most women, and it means most women are relatively fragile compared to most of us. My girlfriend might loosen my tooth if she caught me off guard, I might kill her if I swung for the fences. If she came after me with a bat I could probably take it from her with only a bruise or two; but I most likely would kill or at least permanently injure her. I have to be *more* cognizant because the consequences of my violence are so much greater than hers.
There's a reason "don't hit girls" has been a western social convention for so long: it has practical value that a more gender neutral message doesn't.
|
Don't we already teach our children not to be violent? It's frowned upon for men to hit men, men to hit women, women to hit men, and for women to hit women. You are correct in your assessment that male on female violence is more stigmatized than other forms of violence, but there are logical reasons for this. First, there is as you mentioned, a dramatic difference between the upper body strength between men and women. [Almost all men are stronger than almost all women] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683) This is a pretty big factor when it comes to portrayals of violence in media. When it comes to portraying violence between children, gender isn't really an issue. Brothers and sisters fighting are pretty common in portrayals of child on child violence, and these scenes are often played for laughs. So clearly, strength differences are an issue. Let's take your romantic comedy example for a moment. When a woman slaps a man with full force, it can be played for laughs. This is because as stated earlier men are much stronger than women. So if a woman slaps a man at full force, it won't hurt that much, he is only going to be stunned for a bit. The damage is less than if he had slipped on a banana peel. If we do this same moment, but with the genders reversed, she's getting knocked to the floor. The result isn't funny anymore and the protagonist doesn't look good in the eyes of the audience. It's also reminiscent of domestic violence. While male victims of domestic violence should not be ignored or silenced by any means, the fact still remains that when it comes to physical abuse in a domestic partnership, female victims often have it worse. [Men are statistically more likely to perpetrate severe physical abuse. On top of that, men often abuse their partners by beating them and strangling them while when women physically abuse their partners it's through kicking, punching, and throwing objects.] (http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/134467/1/Content.pdf) While obviously neither action is acceptable, the impact of these acts of violence on different genders is dramatic. [70% of female victims of domestic violence report being very frightened of their intimate partners while 85% of male victims have no fear of their intimate partners at all.] (http://people.cas.sc.edu/swansc/1.swan_web_articles/2012_CaldwellSwan_GenderDiffIPVOutcomes.pdf)
|
5l86jl
|
CMV: Society and culture needs to teach ALL children and adults equally -- regardless of gender -- that violence against anyone is wrong
|
This view consists of two points. Change either or both for a delta: point 1 is that society stigmatizes violence against females (esp. by males) far more than it stigmatizes violence against males (esp. by females). Point 2 is that society needs to change this. Point 1 is my premise that this exists, point 2 is my argument that it is wrong for it to exist.
Let me explain point 1: there is a general social stigma directed towards male-on-female violence. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing -- but what is a bad thing is the fact that this stigma is nowhere near as strongly as for the reverse scenario. For instance: in schools, I can directly recall that boys bullied by other boys are ordered to shake hands and make up after the bully is dealt with, but a boy bullies a girl he's got hell coming his way. Girls bullying boys was viewed as childish and just a quick counsel session. Violence between two students of the same gender -- esp. if it were between girls -- would be treated far more forgivingly.
And this is reflected in the adult world today. Men are taught to deal with DV and believe that they are wusses if they have a problem with it. The phrase "Hit a woman"/"Hit a girl" has more stigma than "hit another man" or "hit your boyfriend". There's the phrases "men do not hit women" and "don't put your hands on a women" but I've never heard "women do not hit men" or "don't put your hands on your boyfriend". [And you know you can relate to this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/4w63jp/a_guy_can_decline_an_invitation_by_saying_his/)
Even though murder affects men far more than it does women. And from what I remember in school, the same is true for bullying.
This is even reflected (like most societal values) in fiction: men/boys are regularly slapped around by women/girls and it's portrayed as funny, comedic and deserved, while men who do something like grab a wrist and oh god they're satan. DV against women is something fiction has to dance around to avoid being too dark (to keep it family friendly); but DV against men is something *so normalized* that it becomes comedy. Women slapping boyfriend for being a cheater? LOL, righteous! That's portrayed as if it's a good and deserved thing. But men slapping around girlfriend for being a cheater? Bastard who drover her away!
Back to society: domestic violence posters can be found to focus only on women. Take [this for instance](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5evyxb/a_poster_against_domestic_abuse_that_targets_the/). DV posters often talk about women. Just google "domestic violence poster" into Google Images or do a youtube search for "domestic violence PSA".
That's my explanation for point 1; the idea this stuff *does* exist.
Now let me explain point 2, the idea that it shouldn't exist. We need to treat society to condemn all violence, and not factor the attacker/attacked's gender into account. Obviously it is sexism and misandry. We cannot normalize female-on-male violence. That's horrific. Also, fun fact: [did you know that lesbians suffer more domestic violence than straight women according to some surveys?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_lesbian_relationships#Prevalence) Don't those women matter to?
There is very little support for boys and men suffering from abuse. But with women, there's huge concern for stopping it. [I would be seething if my son were to be put through this while my daughter was not.](http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/19/men-are-not-monsters.html) Men are taught not to hit women, but women are not told "not to hit men". My argument is this: **we need to stop teaching boys not to hit girls. Stop teaching men not to hit women. Start teaching all children that all violence, against anyone (outside of self-defense) is wrong.** When you make a PSA about violence, show both a woman abusing a man and a man abusing a woman (or do not focus on a single gender at all). There's concern over men growing up to hit women because they witness their fathers hitting their mothers; I'm also concerned about girls witnessing their mothers mistreat their fathers growing up to think that is normal as well.
Don't teach boys any more than you teach girls. Stigmatize violence between men, between women, male-to-female, female-to-male. Bottom line: **THE GENDER OF THE ATTACKED, AND THE GENDER OF THE ATTACKER, IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY VIOLENT SITUATION!** All violence is to be judged in it's own case based on severity and provocation, the gender of the perp/victim is irrelevant.
Let me give you an analogy. Imagine if I went to a school and forced every black student to go to a workshop telling them not to steal. And then I, on top of this, told them not to steal *from white people*. You get that that would be viewed as offensive and patronizing and normalizing white crime right? Or if I made a PSA that depicted a 5-year old white child crying about her mother, because she, a white woman (visually depicted as white in the PSA), was raped and killed by a black man (again, visually depicted as a crazed black man in the PSA), and the PSA ended with the tagline "end violence against white women by African-Americans". You would be enraged, would you not?
So that's my view. Society needs to remove all gender-related elements from it's stigmatization, and efforts to combat, violence.
To save some time, let me just address the most common thing I hear when this stuff is discussed: the **men are biologically stronger and larger than women** argument. True yes, men are stronger than women. But first of all, this is not a moral excuse for violent women -- in fact, it creates a mindset that their shorter stature makes it okay for them to be violent, and creates another toxic mindset in the men feeling that their larger stature gives them no right to get angry when they are abused. Second of all, women can use blunt objects and weapons to abuse men/boys -- the same way that man used weaponry to dominate bears despite being both slower and smaller than them.
So that's my view.
| 1,483,162,169
|
ShiningConcepts
|
dbtqasa
|
dbtq402
| 22
| 11
|
CMV: The media's use of the words 'exercise' and 'weight loss' are counterproductive to people trying to make healthy decisions
**Title clarification: I'd like to (but can't obviously) change the title to limit it to Vox's usage in this scenario, not to generalize to the media in general. **
I recently saw a lengthy [Vox article](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories) that supposedly summarizes many studies and comes to the conclusion that exercise is not particularly helpful for weight loss.
However, by and large, this article and others like it really describe why '**low/medium intensity cardio** exercise is bad for weight loss. Further, most weight loss as a proxy for *body fat loss* - which is likely the true goal of most of the people who say that they want to 'lose weight'.
My view:
The misuse of these terms causes:
* Over-obsession of weight as a proxy for health (instead of body fat or waistline or something else. Yes, I understand that this is an easy thing to measure. But I think a decreased obsession of this single measure could increase ways to define health by different standards or promote innovations in things like better body fat measurement devices.
* Misleading about exercise. Catabolic and anabolic (over-simplistically cardio v. strength training) have vastly different results for body composition and the media's generalization of 'running doesn't cause weight loss' to 'exercise doesn't cause weight loss' is misleading **and inaccurate**.
* Combined, these factors drive people away from exercise and particularly anabolic exercise which can have massive benefits *whilst also helping people achieve their underlying goal of losing body fat*.
* Additionally, thought the Vox article touches upon it lightly, this turning away from exercise prevents people from attaining the other great benefits of exercise such as decreased risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc.
As an example of the type of positive effects that I feel can get suppressed, a study (link below) found with high significance (1 in 1000 chance that the results were due to chance) that women who did strength training lost body fat while maintaining the same body weight. This doesn't make for a glamorous headline, but I believe is exactly the type of results that people would want.
I understand that part of the headline says "healthy decisions". For the purpose of this let's say that a decrease in body fat is, for most people concerned with this, chances are that a decrease in body fat will increase longevity and quality of life. Additionally, a decrease in risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc. gained as a result of exercising I see as 'healthy'. Arguments that try to attack my definition of "healthy" are unlikely to CMV (but try if you want to).
Study link: http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(98)00094-7/abstract
Edit: Broken link. Can you escape a parenthesis in an embedded link? The study link has a close parenthesis that makes it impossible to link with [](). Thanks!
Edit 2: Bullets.
Edit 3: Title clarification.
|
Most of the coverage I have seen (in the U.K.) has stressed that exercise has many health benefits, however concentrating on exercise as the main method of weight-loss specifically isn't particularly effective compared with eating less.
I don't think the use of the words weight loss in this context is particularly misleading - and neither is the word 'exercise'
|
I think you tried to use bullet points. You have to put a full line ([enter key]) between bullet points for something to work.
|
5m9fnh
|
CMV: The media's use of the words 'exercise' and 'weight loss' are counterproductive to people trying to make healthy decisions
|
**Title clarification: I'd like to (but can't obviously) change the title to limit it to Vox's usage in this scenario, not to generalize to the media in general. **
I recently saw a lengthy [Vox article](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories) that supposedly summarizes many studies and comes to the conclusion that exercise is not particularly helpful for weight loss.
However, by and large, this article and others like it really describe why '**low/medium intensity cardio** exercise is bad for weight loss. Further, most weight loss as a proxy for *body fat loss* - which is likely the true goal of most of the people who say that they want to 'lose weight'.
My view:
The misuse of these terms causes:
* Over-obsession of weight as a proxy for health (instead of body fat or waistline or something else. Yes, I understand that this is an easy thing to measure. But I think a decreased obsession of this single measure could increase ways to define health by different standards or promote innovations in things like better body fat measurement devices.
* Misleading about exercise. Catabolic and anabolic (over-simplistically cardio v. strength training) have vastly different results for body composition and the media's generalization of 'running doesn't cause weight loss' to 'exercise doesn't cause weight loss' is misleading **and inaccurate**.
* Combined, these factors drive people away from exercise and particularly anabolic exercise which can have massive benefits *whilst also helping people achieve their underlying goal of losing body fat*.
* Additionally, thought the Vox article touches upon it lightly, this turning away from exercise prevents people from attaining the other great benefits of exercise such as decreased risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc.
As an example of the type of positive effects that I feel can get suppressed, a study (link below) found with high significance (1 in 1000 chance that the results were due to chance) that women who did strength training lost body fat while maintaining the same body weight. This doesn't make for a glamorous headline, but I believe is exactly the type of results that people would want.
I understand that part of the headline says "healthy decisions". For the purpose of this let's say that a decrease in body fat is, for most people concerned with this, chances are that a decrease in body fat will increase longevity and quality of life. Additionally, a decrease in risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc. gained as a result of exercising I see as 'healthy'. Arguments that try to attack my definition of "healthy" are unlikely to CMV (but try if you want to).
Study link: http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(98)00094-7/abstract
Edit: Broken link. Can you escape a parenthesis in an embedded link? The study link has a close parenthesis that makes it impossible to link with [](). Thanks!
Edit 2: Bullets.
Edit 3: Title clarification.
| 1,483,653,883
|
barrycl
|
dc1vkg6
|
dc1tqk1
| 2
| 1
|
CMV: The mere use of sexist/racist/homophobic slurs is not inherently offensive.
This was inspired by [this exchange](https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/5mox2z/oh_hey_there_satan_and_its_variations_have_got_to/dc6esxg?context=4) I had a little while ago. Specifically, I don't believe that the phrase "you shut your whore mouth" is inherently sexist. This also extends to other similar phrases, like the "Dwight you ignorant slut" joke from the office. I explained it in the above thread, but basically, The reason why both jokes are funny is because the slurs are used in a completely inapplicable context. Dwight isn't 'slutty' by the traditional, sexist definition of a slut. In almost every application of the "shut your whore mouth" joke, the original commenter isn't actually 'whorish'. The joke isn't on the traditional target demographic (i.e. 'slutty'/'whorish' women), it's on the ridiculousness of the insult.
The counterargument from the original thread is essentially "it doesn't matter, just because it's a creative application doesn't make it inoffensive, you can't ignore historical context", which I disagree with. It's not that the delivery is creative, it's that the meaning behind the word is completely different. Whore, in that context, no longer means whore, and slut no longer means slut. That's kind of the point of the joke.
Lastly, at what point can you start deeming a word offensive? Imo the intent behind the word determines the offense (if you mean to offend someone and communicate that intended offense, it's offensive), not just the use of a traditionally offensive word.
I'd like to think I'm just not seeing something I should be and people aren't being overly sensitive, so CMV.
|
>it's that the meaning behind the word is completely different. Whore, in that context, no longer means whore, and slut no longer means slut. That's kind of the point of the joke.
You may have missed something here? To me, the point of the joke is that whore still means whore, and slut still means slut, but it's funny because it's applied to someone who doesn't actually fit those stereotypes.
So maybe it can be found offensive by some people as the words are still offensive words with offensive meanings, it's just that you're directing them at someone unexpected.
|
I'll focus on one thing in particular. Do you know what the word faggot means? Most people like to say it means a bundle of sticks which is only a half truth, it's the sticks used for kindling to burn gay people to death. So when someone calls me a faggot how should I take it. Gay people have been murdered for their existence for a long time. Calling gay people faggots is literally meant as a death threat. There's no other way to take it. it's going to be offensive no matter what.
|
5muu2m
|
CMV: The mere use of sexist/racist/homophobic slurs is not inherently offensive.
|
This was inspired by [this exchange](https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/5mox2z/oh_hey_there_satan_and_its_variations_have_got_to/dc6esxg?context=4) I had a little while ago. Specifically, I don't believe that the phrase "you shut your whore mouth" is inherently sexist. This also extends to other similar phrases, like the "Dwight you ignorant slut" joke from the office. I explained it in the above thread, but basically, The reason why both jokes are funny is because the slurs are used in a completely inapplicable context. Dwight isn't 'slutty' by the traditional, sexist definition of a slut. In almost every application of the "shut your whore mouth" joke, the original commenter isn't actually 'whorish'. The joke isn't on the traditional target demographic (i.e. 'slutty'/'whorish' women), it's on the ridiculousness of the insult.
The counterargument from the original thread is essentially "it doesn't matter, just because it's a creative application doesn't make it inoffensive, you can't ignore historical context", which I disagree with. It's not that the delivery is creative, it's that the meaning behind the word is completely different. Whore, in that context, no longer means whore, and slut no longer means slut. That's kind of the point of the joke.
Lastly, at what point can you start deeming a word offensive? Imo the intent behind the word determines the offense (if you mean to offend someone and communicate that intended offense, it's offensive), not just the use of a traditionally offensive word.
I'd like to think I'm just not seeing something I should be and people aren't being overly sensitive, so CMV.
| 1,483,926,710
|
JayStarr1082
|
dchagu2
|
dc7jfy7
| 1
| -1
|
CMV: It is illogical to believe any religion
Now don't get me wrong, I'm an open-minded person and I will believe in something if it is proven to be true or there is good reasoning behind it, however I struggle to understand why some people manage to fully devote themselves and believe in religions which implore outlandish tales and one or more godly deities who have never actually shown themselves to us in a way that can be proven.
I understand people feel that God speaks to them or other such scenarios but how do they know that is God?
I can also see why in some cases believing in religion allows a person to have faith in something and draw power from their belief to do what they might not have otherwise been able to do, such as motivating themselves.
Anyway, over to you lovely people to see if you can change my view of this or to just give me your own perspective. :)
|
As I think often happens in these scenarios, your claim is that a belief cannot be logically held. Any belief can be logically held provided that the information upon which it is based leads the believer to that conclusion. Nowhere in this is it required that these foundations or their consequent belief accurately reflect reality (i.e. are true) nor that the believer possess perfect knowledge about the universe.
People can be wrong. People can be wrong without knowing they are wrong. People who possess information that does not accurately reflect reality will use that information to logically arrive at beliefs that do not accurately reflect reality. They arrived at the beliefs logically regardless.
When you were a child, you were told Santa Claus exists. All the discoverable evidence pointed to his existence being true: presents appeared under your tree, people talked about him, drew pictures of him, explained how he could exist in a way you couldn't directly perceive. You wrote him a letter and he responded.
Based upon this, you logically arrived at the conclusion that Santa Claus was real. Was this a true belief? Of course not. But you logically arrived at it regardless.
|
Sorry, I should note that I'm not the OP here.
That said, I think you're wrong about burden of proof here. Your first sentence is correct - the burden of proof sits with the person making the claim. But you don't need to prove that the claim is wrong to dismiss it...if those with the burden of proof did not adequately meet it.
The burden of proof on the question of is there a god rests with those who believe a god exists. I don't have to prove that god doesn't exist to say, "based on your lack of proof I can dismiss your claim." The OP never once makes a claim that a god doesn't exist, and so therefore doesn't have the burden of proof.
|
5mxkbq
|
CMV: It is illogical to believe any religion
|
Now don't get me wrong, I'm an open-minded person and I will believe in something if it is proven to be true or there is good reasoning behind it, however I struggle to understand why some people manage to fully devote themselves and believe in religions which implore outlandish tales and one or more godly deities who have never actually shown themselves to us in a way that can be proven.
I understand people feel that God speaks to them or other such scenarios but how do they know that is God?
I can also see why in some cases believing in religion allows a person to have faith in something and draw power from their belief to do what they might not have otherwise been able to do, such as motivating themselves.
Anyway, over to you lovely people to see if you can change my view of this or to just give me your own perspective. :)
| 1,483,967,458
|
Tommy666567
|
dc743kn
|
dc73k6w
| 63
| 3
|
CMV: Gender dysphoria may be a mental disorder... and that's okay.
The transgender experience, referred to as gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) by medical professionals, had been dubbed a mental disorder for decades until recent years.
According to Wikipedia (ha, yes, I know, but it's hard to find unbiased sources on this subject), "GID is classified as a disorder by the ICD-10 CM but was reclassified as gender dysphoria by the DSM-5. Some transgender people and researchers support declassification of GID because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance, reinforces the binary model of gender, and can result in stigmatization of transgender individuals. The official reclassification as gender dysphoria in the DSM-5 may help resolve some of these issues, because the term gender dysphoria applies only to the discontent experienced by some persons resulting from gender identity issues."
I have read studies, articles, and a multitude of opinion pieces on this subject, and I have come to the conclusion that gender dysphoria may in fact be a mental disorder... but that's okay. In fact, it is better for transgender individuals IF their condition is considered a mental disorder. Why? Because due to the new label of "gender dysphoria" and the removal of the term GID from most mental disorder manuals, many insurance companies will no longer pay for medical procedures related to gender dysphoria, as it is no longer classified as a mental disorder, but rather a cosmetic procedure. This is problematic because sex reassignment surgery (SRS) is a very expensive--and a very necessary--procedure for transgender individuals to undergo. Unlike mental disorders such as anxiety, depression, and bipolar depression, therapy and medication have been proven mostly ineffective for treating GID.
Why are medical professionals suddenly against classifying GID as a mental disorder? A few reasons. 1) the social stigma against mental disorders, which can cause stress and depression in transgender individuals, 2) transgender persons' adamant refusal of their condition being a mental disorder, and 3) the fact that much of the stress transgender individuals feel stems from their environment rather than from the condition itself.
In reference to number 3, it is impossible to determine if ALL transgender individuals experience stress purely based on social stigma, especially considering how gender dysphoria is defined by many transgender people: strong and persistent discomfort with one's biological sex. This extreme state of dysphoria would not disappear if gender dysphoria were accepted socially. That is, if the descriptions I have read in articles and on Tumblr are accurate depictions of the experience.
I'm posting this here because believing that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder is controversial, and I'm not sure how popular this belief is anymore. I obviously have no problem with transgender individuals, and I do think that SRS is the best possible treatment for the condition, but I'm adamant to dismiss its categorization of "mental illness" because, unlike, homosexuality, it cannot be observed in nature (since other animals do not perform gender like we do), and it CAN mentally harm the person suffering from it. Whether it's a born or developed trait is irrelevant since other mental disorders can be both born and environmentally shaped.
**EDIT:** Quite a few users have pointed out to me that the terms "gender dysphoria" and "transgender" are not mutually exclusive, and I agree. I had forgotten that "transgender" was now more of an umbrella term to encompass a variety of different mental states and statuses. To clarify my original point, when I say "gender dysphoria" or "transgender" in the context of my argument, I am referring to a person who feels uncomfortable with their biological sex. This can oftentimes result in stress, anxiety, depression, and even suicide. "Mental disorder" refers to "a diagnosis by a mental health professional of a behavioral or mental pattern that may cause suffering or a poor ability to function in life." I feel that the symptoms often described in trans individuals correlate directly to some type of mental health issue, hence my post. It is not "normal" to feel that your mental state of gender contradicts your biological state of sex. Is that inherently wrong or immoral? Of course not. At least not in my opinion. But you cannot deny that it is abnormal, just as depression is considered abnormal. Many transpeople are opposed to the term mental disorder because it carries a negative connotation. I say so what? Let's destigmatize mental illness, and we'll be living in a much better world. We all have issues.
|
Gender dysphoria and being trans ARE synonymous. Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) are medical terms for being transgender.
Gender dysphoria: the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex.
I don't know what else to say to your comment because the very structure of it is rooted in inaccurate terminology.
|
True. But there are some negative effects to thinking your a car or a lizard etc. It's most likely going to severely effect your life because you won't be able to partake in most human interactions successfully. Apart from the social stigma, if I was to think I was a different gender, it's probably not going to effect my life too much. (apart from from an anatomical perspective)
|
5my4j3
|
CMV: Gender dysphoria may be a mental disorder... and that's okay.
|
The transgender experience, referred to as gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) by medical professionals, had been dubbed a mental disorder for decades until recent years.
According to Wikipedia (ha, yes, I know, but it's hard to find unbiased sources on this subject), "GID is classified as a disorder by the ICD-10 CM but was reclassified as gender dysphoria by the DSM-5. Some transgender people and researchers support declassification of GID because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance, reinforces the binary model of gender, and can result in stigmatization of transgender individuals. The official reclassification as gender dysphoria in the DSM-5 may help resolve some of these issues, because the term gender dysphoria applies only to the discontent experienced by some persons resulting from gender identity issues."
I have read studies, articles, and a multitude of opinion pieces on this subject, and I have come to the conclusion that gender dysphoria may in fact be a mental disorder... but that's okay. In fact, it is better for transgender individuals IF their condition is considered a mental disorder. Why? Because due to the new label of "gender dysphoria" and the removal of the term GID from most mental disorder manuals, many insurance companies will no longer pay for medical procedures related to gender dysphoria, as it is no longer classified as a mental disorder, but rather a cosmetic procedure. This is problematic because sex reassignment surgery (SRS) is a very expensive--and a very necessary--procedure for transgender individuals to undergo. Unlike mental disorders such as anxiety, depression, and bipolar depression, therapy and medication have been proven mostly ineffective for treating GID.
Why are medical professionals suddenly against classifying GID as a mental disorder? A few reasons. 1) the social stigma against mental disorders, which can cause stress and depression in transgender individuals, 2) transgender persons' adamant refusal of their condition being a mental disorder, and 3) the fact that much of the stress transgender individuals feel stems from their environment rather than from the condition itself.
In reference to number 3, it is impossible to determine if ALL transgender individuals experience stress purely based on social stigma, especially considering how gender dysphoria is defined by many transgender people: strong and persistent discomfort with one's biological sex. This extreme state of dysphoria would not disappear if gender dysphoria were accepted socially. That is, if the descriptions I have read in articles and on Tumblr are accurate depictions of the experience.
I'm posting this here because believing that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder is controversial, and I'm not sure how popular this belief is anymore. I obviously have no problem with transgender individuals, and I do think that SRS is the best possible treatment for the condition, but I'm adamant to dismiss its categorization of "mental illness" because, unlike, homosexuality, it cannot be observed in nature (since other animals do not perform gender like we do), and it CAN mentally harm the person suffering from it. Whether it's a born or developed trait is irrelevant since other mental disorders can be both born and environmentally shaped.
**EDIT:** Quite a few users have pointed out to me that the terms "gender dysphoria" and "transgender" are not mutually exclusive, and I agree. I had forgotten that "transgender" was now more of an umbrella term to encompass a variety of different mental states and statuses. To clarify my original point, when I say "gender dysphoria" or "transgender" in the context of my argument, I am referring to a person who feels uncomfortable with their biological sex. This can oftentimes result in stress, anxiety, depression, and even suicide. "Mental disorder" refers to "a diagnosis by a mental health professional of a behavioral or mental pattern that may cause suffering or a poor ability to function in life." I feel that the symptoms often described in trans individuals correlate directly to some type of mental health issue, hence my post. It is not "normal" to feel that your mental state of gender contradicts your biological state of sex. Is that inherently wrong or immoral? Of course not. At least not in my opinion. But you cannot deny that it is abnormal, just as depression is considered abnormal. Many transpeople are opposed to the term mental disorder because it carries a negative connotation. I say so what? Let's destigmatize mental illness, and we'll be living in a much better world. We all have issues.
| 1,483,974,383
|
OFGhost
|
dc79b5k
|
dc78eoq
| 18
| 5
|
CMV: It's better to do your laundry in the washing machine with tap water or cold water instead of hot water.
I've been having this small argument with my girlfriend when we wash clothes. It just comes up every time we both do the laundry. She believes hot water is better but can't explain why, says it's how it was at her home and that there must have been a good reason.
I, on the other hand, believe that the benefits outweigh the negative side effects. I went online and found little evidence to the contrary.
Note that I am no expert and that the following may be false. They are my perception. Feel free to correct me, but the ultimate goal if you wish to change my view is to show me that the negative effects of washing with cold or tap water outweigh the benefits.
Benefits:
1. Less electricity needed to heat up more water since the heating water tank won't be involved.
2. Cottons and wool will shrink less than in hot water.
3. I would win the argument with my SO. It's the small things.
4. Seriously, maybe there are more benefits, I'm not sure, but energy efficiency is my main concern.
Negative effects:
1. Maybe the clothes won't be as soft. It's the only argument my SO had. But I use a softener thing like Downy, so I don't think it matters.
2. ???
3. ???
4. ???
Also I know there might be users who think they are really clever and point out that my statement started with "It's better to do your laundry in the washing machine..." and follow it up saying that it's far better to wash clothes by hand or by some technological marvel. You won't win a delta. You will be disqualified. I will sully your grave and your children's graves with my mismatched socks because you are weak, your lineage is weak, and you won't survive the winter. [*Disclaimer before you think I can have an original thought of my own: modified quote about pineapple on pizza from an unknown girl to create a humorous attempt of the contempt I would feel for you should this happen*](https://i.sli.mg/kqbBdC.jpg)
So do your thing Reddit, quell a gentle feud between two humans bound by love and waffles.
|
A lot of weird explanations here.
There is a scientific consensus on hot vs. cold. Here are a few things:
**Why cold?**
- Yes, it saves energy- this is a no-brainer and why I usually use cold water.
- Cold water keeps colors from bleeding- another big one
- Clothes won't shrink as much in cold water, although the dryer basically negates using cold water.
- Cold water won't "set" stains. With hot water, protein based stains like blood, for example, will set. The reason is because hot water breaks those proteins down and virtually binds them with the fabric. It's a bad idea to wash blood, animal fat/grease, poop, or other protein based stains in hot water. The things is, sometime you don't know what has those stains on them, so cold is better.
- A lot of the perception for hot water is this: We bath in hot water, we wash dishes in hot water, we wash our hands with hot water... *hot water must be better at cleaning*. Cold water is slightly less efficient at dissolving, but it still works just fine. Your clothes don't care about the temperature.
- Cold water does not affect the stiffness of the clothes. Whether you hang dry or tumble dry, the temperature of both items will change to either hot (in a dryer) or room temp (hung) before they actually dry.
**Why hot?**
- Hot water is a slightly better solvent. When it comes to things like white clothes, there is no color to bleed and it may help the clothes appear whiter.
- It may help sanitize. Depending on how hot your water gets (mine gets scalding), it could kill some bacteria/germs. The water heater at your house has to maintain a certain temp to keep some microorganisms from growing. So things like white sheets, towels, white underwear (sans poop stains), etc, would be better in hot water.
So when it comes down to it, cold is the better option almost every time. It's not that much worse of a solvent. The hot water also doesn't do a *great* job with sanitizing.
Why don't you all compromise and run it on "warm"? The big benefit there is that it uses less energy than hot and also in most washers, it fills up almost twice as fast. I use warm sometimes for no reason other than it finishes 10 minutes sooner. Just don't use it if suspect something being badly stained.
Then again, I'm not an expert. Just someone who reads weird shit. Maybe someone better informed can correct me.
|
Here's a simple experiment for you.
Wash half of your dishes in cold water, and half in hot (and I'm talking dirty dishes, not just ones with crumbs on them).
You should find that the soap soaps better in hot water, and the food comes off much more easily.
Then there's the fact that [there's a tenth of a gram of poop on your average pair of underwear](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/washing-machines-loaded-bacteria-dirty-clothes/story?id=10751420). Your water needs to be between 140 and 150 degrees to kill germs, otherwise you just spread them between your clothes.
Man up and tell your girlfriend she was right.
|
5mytbe
|
CMV: It's better to do your laundry in the washing machine with tap water or cold water instead of hot water.
|
I've been having this small argument with my girlfriend when we wash clothes. It just comes up every time we both do the laundry. She believes hot water is better but can't explain why, says it's how it was at her home and that there must have been a good reason.
I, on the other hand, believe that the benefits outweigh the negative side effects. I went online and found little evidence to the contrary.
Note that I am no expert and that the following may be false. They are my perception. Feel free to correct me, but the ultimate goal if you wish to change my view is to show me that the negative effects of washing with cold or tap water outweigh the benefits.
Benefits:
1. Less electricity needed to heat up more water since the heating water tank won't be involved.
2. Cottons and wool will shrink less than in hot water.
3. I would win the argument with my SO. It's the small things.
4. Seriously, maybe there are more benefits, I'm not sure, but energy efficiency is my main concern.
Negative effects:
1. Maybe the clothes won't be as soft. It's the only argument my SO had. But I use a softener thing like Downy, so I don't think it matters.
2. ???
3. ???
4. ???
Also I know there might be users who think they are really clever and point out that my statement started with "It's better to do your laundry in the washing machine..." and follow it up saying that it's far better to wash clothes by hand or by some technological marvel. You won't win a delta. You will be disqualified. I will sully your grave and your children's graves with my mismatched socks because you are weak, your lineage is weak, and you won't survive the winter. [*Disclaimer before you think I can have an original thought of my own: modified quote about pineapple on pizza from an unknown girl to create a humorous attempt of the contempt I would feel for you should this happen*](https://i.sli.mg/kqbBdC.jpg)
So do your thing Reddit, quell a gentle feud between two humans bound by love and waffles.
| 1,483,981,321
|
Some_french_canadian
|
dc7dyz6
|
dc7dacq
| 6
| 0
|
CMV: Breaking up with someone or refusing to date them because of their sexual history is perfectly okay
I'm not sure how wide spread this view actually is, so tell me if I'm beating on a straw man.
Let's say a woman had a threesome in college. Years later, she meets a guy and start dating. After a few years in, once they got pretty serious, she shares her experience. He is repulsed and disgusted by the thought, and leaves her. He did not do anything wrong.
Or maybe a girl develops a crush on a guy. She confesses her feeling, but she has a reputation of sleeping around and he doesn't want to date a woman like that.
No one deserves relationships and love. It's not a right. It is an agreement between two people who want to enjoy each other's company. If one person wants to end it for any reason, that is perfectly fine. The other person is not entitled to their affection.
Some people think it is slut shaming. And maybe it is on some level. That woman who is refused because of her past will probably feel shame. But I think the real thing that makes slut shaming bad is malicious intent. Shaming a person for the sole reason of making them feel bad about it is what I disagree with. While there is nothing wrong with the act of casual sex, threesomes, or whatever there maybe still be negative consequences. That's part of life and there is nothing wrong with a person having preferences.
I'm a woman, but I wouldn't want to date a guy with too much of a past. I don't think he did anything wrong, but it would be hard to get over and form the same bond worth him.
Also, this preference can come from insecurity but it doesn't necessarily. It could come from religious values, moral values, or general views on sex.
|
>I'm a woman, but I wouldn't want to date a guy with too much of a past.
I think that's completely your prerogative and is perfectly OK. But if this is a major make-or-break issue, I think that it should be brought up early on. In your first example, you say:
>Years later, she meets a guy and start dating. **After a few years in,** once they got pretty serious, she shares her experience.
If a person's sexual experiences are so important, shouldn't that come up pretty early on? Some people do have red lines that they won't cross - but if that's the case, it's pretty shitty to date someone for *years* before mentioning it and immediately dumping them.
Reminds me of a topic I read before, where a guy wanted to feel justified in ending a three year relationship because his SO asked if he had ever thought of having a threesome. To him, the *mere mention* of having a threesome was grounds for instantly ending a relationship. But if they could never even discuss it without the relationship ending, how would their SO even know that?
That's just poor communication skills, IMO.
|
I don't think there's many people with an issue of someone not dating someone because of their sexual history. The issue is really only when there's a double standard. So, if a man says he won't date a woman who has had sex with 20 guys, but he's had sex with 20 women, then people take an issue with that.
Because he is judging her moral character on a choice he also made and shaming her for doing something that is not really morally wrong.
The same goes for if this was a woman upset over the number of partners a man had, but had the same amount or more.
Also, there's no real reason I can think of to why the number of partners or sexual history as a whole changes the bond you form with someone. It's just another experience that is different. The same goes for people who didn't grow up under the same circumstance or people who have different outlooks on life.
|
5mzu9h
|
CMV: Breaking up with someone or refusing to date them because of their sexual history is perfectly okay
|
I'm not sure how wide spread this view actually is, so tell me if I'm beating on a straw man.
Let's say a woman had a threesome in college. Years later, she meets a guy and start dating. After a few years in, once they got pretty serious, she shares her experience. He is repulsed and disgusted by the thought, and leaves her. He did not do anything wrong.
Or maybe a girl develops a crush on a guy. She confesses her feeling, but she has a reputation of sleeping around and he doesn't want to date a woman like that.
No one deserves relationships and love. It's not a right. It is an agreement between two people who want to enjoy each other's company. If one person wants to end it for any reason, that is perfectly fine. The other person is not entitled to their affection.
Some people think it is slut shaming. And maybe it is on some level. That woman who is refused because of her past will probably feel shame. But I think the real thing that makes slut shaming bad is malicious intent. Shaming a person for the sole reason of making them feel bad about it is what I disagree with. While there is nothing wrong with the act of casual sex, threesomes, or whatever there maybe still be negative consequences. That's part of life and there is nothing wrong with a person having preferences.
I'm a woman, but I wouldn't want to date a guy with too much of a past. I don't think he did anything wrong, but it would be hard to get over and form the same bond worth him.
Also, this preference can come from insecurity but it doesn't necessarily. It could come from religious values, moral values, or general views on sex.
| 1,483,991,100
|
TheChemist158
|
dc7pnhg
|
dc7oovf
| 18
| 2
|
CMV: Fake news is a non-issue. The onus lies with news consumers, not news provider.
There's a romance in the american mythology that every vote should count. To get to that point, it is assumed that the american electorate is capable and informed. By blaming fake news, we are acknowledging that the electorate is incapable and easily misinformed. This is incompatible with the belief that the american people know best. To be clear, i want people to take as a given that the american people do know best. I don't entirely believe that, but it is taken as a given in enough situations to warrant wondering about the implications if true.
In other words, I'd like you to change this opinion: if I believe that the american electorate is ultimately capable of governing itself, fake news shouldn't concern me because the electorate should be able to rise above it and shouldn't need to have its hand held or its mouth censored.
A consequence of this is that there shouldn't need to be a police what news is delivered to people. For example, facebook shouldn't have to be more conscious about its role as a steward of information. It shouldn't even consider itself as a steward of news for the fact that alternative sources of good information are available and easily accessible. It should be very clear that facebook is not the only source of information. For example, people are able to look up the emails or search for whether or not something had been definitely proven as opposed to insinuated. So ultimately, in this case, because people are capable, they should be able to access those better sources of information. In other words, it's mostly their fault for seeing the equivalent of an ad, and buying into the messaging because it flatters their ideology and prior beliefs.
In less words: If you believe in the myth that the american electorate is capable and informed, you cannot blame fake news for the results of this election or any other.
|
There can be and are multiple problems at once. Consumer responsibility is 100% an issue, and I wholeheartedly agree we need to be more conscientious consumers. But that doesn't mean fake news is not also a problem.
There's more information than we can process and vet in this world. It's not great for us to have to fact-check everything for bias, as is becoming increasingly required. It's exhausting. Moreover, you *can't* vet everything, consider confidential sources etc.
A useful parallel is consumer protection laws. One could argue there shouldn't be any such laws, and the consumer should fact-check and test the claims of any product. But that would be exhausting, unrealistic, and we might wind up with real harm if it were required. So we should have certain standards that we can rely on. Of course, you shouldn't be an idiot and believe all the advertisements you see though. The product being peddled as news is equally hazardous when it becomes too far misleading. The solution isn't saying its' all on personal responsibility, but striking a balance between recognizing individual responsibility, and minimum standards.
|
Your analogy to the scientific/medical community isn't accurate though. These communities are made up of experts who are either already aware of these shitty sources or have the knowledge and background to recognize them for what they are immediately.
When it comes to the news consumed by the general public, most of them are not experts in the field that is being discussed in the news that are consuming and are not experts in journalism. Many of them don't have the training or experience when that is required to identify what makes a good source and what doesn't. If they are given two pieces of competing information, they may not be able to immediately tell which is the accurate reliable source and which one is the shit source. Furthermore, most of these people then don't have the time that it takes to track down everything that has been said about these sources in order to determine which is more credible.
People should be able to trust that if they are given something that says "news" on it it, it is actually news.
|
5n2i0w
|
CMV: Fake news is a non-issue. The onus lies with news consumers, not news provider.
|
There's a romance in the american mythology that every vote should count. To get to that point, it is assumed that the american electorate is capable and informed. By blaming fake news, we are acknowledging that the electorate is incapable and easily misinformed. This is incompatible with the belief that the american people know best. To be clear, i want people to take as a given that the american people do know best. I don't entirely believe that, but it is taken as a given in enough situations to warrant wondering about the implications if true.
In other words, I'd like you to change this opinion: if I believe that the american electorate is ultimately capable of governing itself, fake news shouldn't concern me because the electorate should be able to rise above it and shouldn't need to have its hand held or its mouth censored.
A consequence of this is that there shouldn't need to be a police what news is delivered to people. For example, facebook shouldn't have to be more conscious about its role as a steward of information. It shouldn't even consider itself as a steward of news for the fact that alternative sources of good information are available and easily accessible. It should be very clear that facebook is not the only source of information. For example, people are able to look up the emails or search for whether or not something had been definitely proven as opposed to insinuated. So ultimately, in this case, because people are capable, they should be able to access those better sources of information. In other words, it's mostly their fault for seeing the equivalent of an ad, and buying into the messaging because it flatters their ideology and prior beliefs.
In less words: If you believe in the myth that the american electorate is capable and informed, you cannot blame fake news for the results of this election or any other.
| 1,484,017,844
|
DangoDale
|
dc8ambe
|
dc8a7dj
| 11
| 1
|
CMV: I don't think companies should have to hire to people just to meet a quota and provide diversity
This is stemming off from something I saw about Facebook receiving backlash for hiring candidates based off of their resumes and experiences. Link to the story is [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-09/facebook-s-hiring-process-hinders-its-effort-to-create-a-diverse-workforce).
I don't get how this is a bad thing. I'm all for diversity but I feel like it's counter productive to hire people just to fulfill a quota rather than get the people that are the best at the job.
I'm open to hearing other thoughts on this to give me a different perspective on it.
My points for employers shouldn't have to hire employees to diversify the office are:
1. They should be able to hire the best employees for their job openings, if you are a qualified candidate your race or gender shouldn't matter. By doing this it promotes race as the dominant factor in admissions and hiring procedures.
2. It's reverse discrimination. You cannot fix past discriminations with more discrimination, all people are equal under the laws of the United States and should be treated equally. It wasn't fair or right when white men were favored in the past, it isn't fair to favor minorities and women now. Employers should be blind to race and discrimination when choosing employees.
3. Having people of different races or ethnicities does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion.
|
You're misunderstanding what the issue is.
>This is stemming off from something I saw about Facebook receiving backlash for hiring candidates based off of their resumes and experiences. Link to the story is here
Did you read the article? That's not why there's backlash. The backlash is because, at the end of a multi-layered recruitment process, where candidates are considered by teams of different people for multiple qualities, a small team of exclusively white & Asian men make the final hiring decisions. This process (1) is **unique to the engineering department** and is different from all other Facebook hiring processes, and (2) **prioritizes degree prestige and number of existing favorable references within the Facebook company** over things like job experience & capability.
It's not like this team of engineers is sitting around cackling manically while specifically denying blacks and Latinos employment. However, if they keep recruiting from the same school names and the same internal references, they're going to keep getting more of the same; white dudes and Asian dudes. An unbiased hiring process would result in a more diverse workforce. This process is unquestionably (and needlessly) biased. The lack of diversity is a *byproduct* of recruiting from the same tired channels.
>I'm all for diversity but I feel like it's counter productive to hire people just to fulfill a quota rather than get the people that are the best at the job.
In addition, please note that "quotas" are never mentioned anywhere in that article. There are no diversity quotas to speak of. **Diversity quotas are not a part of Affirmative Action and are illegal in the United States.** You've constructed a strawman.
>They should be able to hire the best employees for their job openings, if you are a qualified candidate your race or gender shouldn't matter.
If you're a qualified candidate, where you've gone to school and how many people you know who *already* work at Facebook shouldn't matter. But these are the primary attributes on which this hiring team is focused. When you focus on those attributes primarily, you get a lot of white dudes and Asian dudes.
>You cannot fix past discriminations with more discrimination, all people are equal under the laws of the United States and should be treated equally. It wasn't fair or right when white men were favored in the past, it isn't fair to favor minorities and women now.
Affirmative Action does not aim to favor minorities and women. [Quotas were ruled illegal in 1978 (5th paragraph)](http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/employment-discrimination/affirmative-action.html). It just prohibits employers from specifically discriminating against an individual based on their race. The situation you describe/envision **does not exist in the United States.** In that way, yes, it favors minorities and women by granting them the same immunity that white dudes enjoy when applying for jobs. Equal.
**It's not about 'fixing' past discrimination; it's about ensuring that past systemic discrimination doesn't impact the current outcome.**
>Having people of different races or ethnicities does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion.
It absolutely means diversity of life experience and perspective. Perhaps not on technical, work-related issues, but definitely in terms of the intrapersonal relationships that are formed. Strong relationships are the basis of good teamwork and productive efforts.
EDITS made for readability.
|
Your view makes the assumption that the hiring process is fair and balanced, which isn't the case. We know that those with white sounding names are more likely to get a call back than those with black sounding names, even when the resume is the same. [There was another study that found that when Orchestras used blind auditions females were 11% more likely to move on to the next round.] (http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-“blind”-auditions-female-musicians) specifically targeting a diverse audience is one way to make sure that good people aren't slipping through the cracks because of unconscious biases. When you look at companies who are pushing diversity in the work place those hired out of the push aren't clearly less qualified then those already there.
Another aspect is that making sure the team is diverse can have some very positive effects on the business. A woman or minority likely sees things differently than a white individual and that different perspective can bring ideas and solutions to the table the others may not have thought of. Other times being diverse may be the best way to get the job done. A police department that is diverse will often function much better and be more trusted than those that aren't. If it's diverse everyone feels like they are represented and if you're represented you're more likely to trust them. People may also want to only talk to specific people when reporting a crime. It's not uncommon for women who have just been raped to only want to talk to a women because they feel vulnerable to men and because they feel a women may be better able to relate. In that position the best way to get the information needed to go a successfully prosecute someone may literally be having enough women that one is able to take that call.
|
5n5l9t
|
CMV: I don't think companies should have to hire to people just to meet a quota and provide diversity
|
This is stemming off from something I saw about Facebook receiving backlash for hiring candidates based off of their resumes and experiences. Link to the story is [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-09/facebook-s-hiring-process-hinders-its-effort-to-create-a-diverse-workforce).
I don't get how this is a bad thing. I'm all for diversity but I feel like it's counter productive to hire people just to fulfill a quota rather than get the people that are the best at the job.
I'm open to hearing other thoughts on this to give me a different perspective on it.
My points for employers shouldn't have to hire employees to diversify the office are:
1. They should be able to hire the best employees for their job openings, if you are a qualified candidate your race or gender shouldn't matter. By doing this it promotes race as the dominant factor in admissions and hiring procedures.
2. It's reverse discrimination. You cannot fix past discriminations with more discrimination, all people are equal under the laws of the United States and should be treated equally. It wasn't fair or right when white men were favored in the past, it isn't fair to favor minorities and women now. Employers should be blind to race and discrimination when choosing employees.
3. Having people of different races or ethnicities does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion.
| 1,484,061,793
|
vinniethepooh2
|
dc8t8ae
|
dc8t6g3
| 48
| 6
|
CMV:If Jewish people can't be anti-semitic, then non-whites cannot be racist
America is a White Supremacist country that is slowly reversing. The term race was coined by a European person that justified race as being a a huge biological difference that meant that white people were superior to blacks and gave reason to them being subjugated as slaves in the Americas. That caused racism. It is like saying that anti-semiticism being created by non-Jewish people to discriminate against them can now be turned around to say Jewish people are anti-semitic.
Please don't give me examples of bigotry and hatred committed by minorities in America. The hatred was caused by White Supremacy.
Edit: I don't really understand how criticizing and fighting your own religion is anti-said religion. It's like saying protestants fighting over puritans is anti-Christian. What?
And fighting within your continent over land and resources is not racism, it's tribalism.
Taking land back from invaders is not racism, it's taking land back. If the native Americans were able to kick us out, it's called defending yourself, not racism.
|
Anti-semitism has an explicit target (Judaism and Jewish people), racism without any other descriptors has no such target. Racism could be targeting any given race.
So while you *could* argue that it's impossible to be racist/prejudiced against a group that you yourself belong to (therefore making it impossible for a Jewish person to be anit-semitic) you can't apply that logic to everyone who's not white and unspecified racism. It's trivial to imagine a black person who's racist when it comes to Asian people or vice versa.
Someone better versed in these things will probably come up with a proper name for this logical fallacy, but the point is that you've gone "If A->B then X->Y" where A and X are not a perfect analogy for the relationship you're talking about (neither are B and Y for that matter).
That's not even tackling the idea that an ethnic minority *can* be racially prejudiced against white people in the West.
Nor have we covered the rest of the world. I'm not that well travelled, but if you go to another continent where white people are a tiny minority you might find those prejudiced against white people.
Lastly, let's tackle your premise. All of the above is assuming that Jewish people can't be anti-semitic. Who's actually claiming that? What's the argument there? Have you heard of the concept of [internalised misogyny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_sexism#Internalized_misogyny)? It's not too much of a leap to think that someone might have internalised anti-semitism.
|
You're conflating a single religion with every race. Your claim is closer to "if Jews cannot be anti-smetc or islamaphobic or any other religious-based descrimination then non-whites can't be racist. Judaism is but a single subgroup of religion whereas race can be seen as the broad category instead of merely a small portion.
|
5n813p
|
CMV:If Jewish people can't be anti-semitic, then non-whites cannot be racist
|
America is a White Supremacist country that is slowly reversing. The term race was coined by a European person that justified race as being a a huge biological difference that meant that white people were superior to blacks and gave reason to them being subjugated as slaves in the Americas. That caused racism. It is like saying that anti-semiticism being created by non-Jewish people to discriminate against them can now be turned around to say Jewish people are anti-semitic.
Please don't give me examples of bigotry and hatred committed by minorities in America. The hatred was caused by White Supremacy.
Edit: I don't really understand how criticizing and fighting your own religion is anti-said religion. It's like saying protestants fighting over puritans is anti-Christian. What?
And fighting within your continent over land and resources is not racism, it's tribalism.
Taking land back from invaders is not racism, it's taking land back. If the native Americans were able to kick us out, it's called defending yourself, not racism.
| 1,484,085,731
|
iPissOnRebelGraves
|
dc9e3x1
|
dc9dn1b
| 9
| 7
|
CMV: I am starting to wonder whenever transgenderism is a real thing
So before anyone says anything, I have been spending the last 6 months living as a transgender girl since I believed that I was trans and things started to get better once I accepted it and started to be proactive about it
Being trans has cost me the love of my life, my mental health and has completely broken me. Its turning me into a horrible person who is alienating anyone who cares about me..
Honestly I just want to fuck being trans, I mean I dealt fine for 26 years in the "wrong body" and I am questioning whenever that is more along the lines of general body image issues than having a body with the wrong parts attached to it.
|
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2009.03625.x/abstract
A systematic review of studies showed that 80% had a quality of life increase from transitioning.
As it noted.
>Compared with FM, MF individuals had more remaining gender
dysphoria after the transition.2 Homosexual MF individuals
reported more regrets about the transition than those who were
nonhomosexual.1
So, some proportion of people do regret it, but 80% of people see an improvement in quality of life and are better off.
|
I *think* that your argument should be phrased "I don't think that 'feeling' as if I'm a different gender should be grounds for switching gender roles".
Or *possibly* "I don't think that there's a biological basis for transgenderism".
I mean, people clearly are transgender in that they adopt the other gender's roles and that we call people who do so transgender.
|
5n8jdo
|
CMV: I am starting to wonder whenever transgenderism is a real thing
|
So before anyone says anything, I have been spending the last 6 months living as a transgender girl since I believed that I was trans and things started to get better once I accepted it and started to be proactive about it
Being trans has cost me the love of my life, my mental health and has completely broken me. Its turning me into a horrible person who is alienating anyone who cares about me..
Honestly I just want to fuck being trans, I mean I dealt fine for 26 years in the "wrong body" and I am questioning whenever that is more along the lines of general body image issues than having a body with the wrong parts attached to it.
| 1,484,091,293
|
skyepilotgurl
|
dcbwg8o
|
dca3t3z
| 1
| 0
|
CMV: I want to post revenge p0rn of my last ex-girlfriend.
She was a 10/10. She is pretty, young and hot.
I thought I found my soulmate. I loved her more than anyone else.
She started to live with me. During all this time she told me how hard she wanted to have a family. Because of this we had unprotected sex during months... one day she decided to move back to her parent's for stupid reasons... days later she told me she was pregnat... days later she aborted. I have not children and having one was my ultimate dream because I loved her very much.
Like one month later she posted a pic of her with her newboyfriend... she is a gold-digger I did not want to realize that but she is.
I have pics of her and I want to revenge... I want to posted them and doxxing her... to avoid other people go throug I went.
Please tell me why I am wrong.
|
It is immoral, illegal and you will regret the attention it brings to you. Revenge is only temporary. Regret lasts much longer.
|
well it's a long shot but if you're in california it's illegal now so there's that
edit: [it's illegal in 32 states.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn#United_States)
edit:
> to avoid other people go throug I went.
you're lying to yourself/rationalizing. you don't give a shit about that.
|
5n8p6q
|
CMV: I want to post revenge p0rn of my last ex-girlfriend.
|
She was a 10/10. She is pretty, young and hot.
I thought I found my soulmate. I loved her more than anyone else.
She started to live with me. During all this time she told me how hard she wanted to have a family. Because of this we had unprotected sex during months... one day she decided to move back to her parent's for stupid reasons... days later she told me she was pregnat... days later she aborted. I have not children and having one was my ultimate dream because I loved her very much.
Like one month later she posted a pic of her with her newboyfriend... she is a gold-digger I did not want to realize that but she is.
I have pics of her and I want to revenge... I want to posted them and doxxing her... to avoid other people go throug I went.
Please tell me why I am wrong.
| 1,484,093,002
|
Calmecac
|
dc9ixef
|
dc9ivok
| 55
| 29
|
CMV: Liberalism is superior to conservatism because liberals focus much more on Quality of Life
My claim is that Conservatives don't discuss any form of Quality of Life, and because of this, their worldview is inferior to liberalism when it comes to improving the world. Rather, they prefer to focus on laws that define right vs wrong (pro-life abortion stances), or freedom of choice (gun control). Because the focus is not on Quality of Life, successful implementation will not improve lives for humans in the world.
Conservatives never even discuss the idea, whereas liberal thinkers (like [The Young Turks in this video about Basic Universal Income](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjucF6ecr08), for instance) almost seem to discuss nothing else.
I think it's obvious that wanting to improve lives is a good thing, which is why I'm frequently flabbergasted when conservatives seem hell-bent on making life worse for people they judge as "unworthy" (people who qualify for welfare, for example).
**Edit**: A lot of people are trying to claim that Conservatives actually DO care about Quality of Life. Specifically, people are claiming that a pursuit of liberty and freedom will automatically increase Quality of Life, so by pursuing those ideals, Conservatives are showing their concern for Quality of Life. My CMV is about whether Conservatives ever use the Quality of Life argument to motivate their policies.
**What would convince me**:
I'd like to see a video of a speech by a well-known/public Conservative figure *directly* tying policies to the notion of Quality of Life.
(The implication being that if you make assumptions about what will improve Quality of Life, you will pursue those assumptions, and not actually end up with a better Quality of Life for people. Therefore, the Liberal framing of the problem is better, because they have correctly stated their goal.)
|
> The conservative views rights as their own personal set of tools for pursuing a higher quality of life
I deeply appreciate this thorough and in-depth response, but want to probe you more on this statement. If you can show me a Conservative person (I suppose I should specify that they need to be a "well-known" or "public" figure for me to be satisfied) actually claiming this in a speech, I'll be convinced enough to award you a delta.
My argument is that Conservatives never frame their approach to problems as a way to improve Quality of Life (the implication being that this prevents them from actually improving the lives of people, but I don't need to talk about succeessful implementation or effective policies in this CMV).
|
Give examples
|
5n9505
|
CMV: Liberalism is superior to conservatism because liberals focus much more on Quality of Life
|
My claim is that Conservatives don't discuss any form of Quality of Life, and because of this, their worldview is inferior to liberalism when it comes to improving the world. Rather, they prefer to focus on laws that define right vs wrong (pro-life abortion stances), or freedom of choice (gun control). Because the focus is not on Quality of Life, successful implementation will not improve lives for humans in the world.
Conservatives never even discuss the idea, whereas liberal thinkers (like [The Young Turks in this video about Basic Universal Income](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjucF6ecr08), for instance) almost seem to discuss nothing else.
I think it's obvious that wanting to improve lives is a good thing, which is why I'm frequently flabbergasted when conservatives seem hell-bent on making life worse for people they judge as "unworthy" (people who qualify for welfare, for example).
**Edit**: A lot of people are trying to claim that Conservatives actually DO care about Quality of Life. Specifically, people are claiming that a pursuit of liberty and freedom will automatically increase Quality of Life, so by pursuing those ideals, Conservatives are showing their concern for Quality of Life. My CMV is about whether Conservatives ever use the Quality of Life argument to motivate their policies.
**What would convince me**:
I'd like to see a video of a speech by a well-known/public Conservative figure *directly* tying policies to the notion of Quality of Life.
(The implication being that if you make assumptions about what will improve Quality of Life, you will pursue those assumptions, and not actually end up with a better Quality of Life for people. Therefore, the Liberal framing of the problem is better, because they have correctly stated their goal.)
| 1,484,097,825
|
nemicolopterus
|
dcah4f0
|
dc9o1ih
| 1
| 0
|
CMV: The Burkha is not a choice.
Obviously, you have the societal pressures, e.g family pressure, and social ostracism. But my main argument is that it is not a choice, because the wearer of the Burka has been raised religiously. With little exposure on behalf of the parents, to other aspects of life. The idea that failing to wear the burkha will "displease" Allah is what I am talking about. Being raised your whole life to believe that, and do this, isn't a choice. I think my argument does not apply as much to women in Western secular countries, where exposure to much more liberal cultures is inevitable. However, I still think my view is applicable to many women in western countries. When I say majority, I'm chiefly talking about women who live in Middle Eastern countries.
I wholly understand that this view could be complete folly, and I welcome people to try, and change it, provided I find their arguments adequate.
|
I would argue that it is a "choice", just one where the downsides heavily outweigh the upsides in that particular culture and is therefore unlikely to be chosen. As long as the option is there though, that is still defined as a choice.
You could choose to not wear any clothes in public, for example, you are just heavily discouraged from doing so due to various factors (e.g. legal, comfort, societal, etc.)
Giving a more extreme example, you could choose to repeatedly bang your head on your desk until you died. Again, it's highly unlikely you would do that but you still have the choice to do so.
|
It's less common and often involves violence reactions, but it does happen and I could link to news stories if you like - and some do involve the woman being threatened, hurt, or killed. But that it's a risky and/or bad choice doesn't make it not a choice, is my point.
Think about what you'd have to say if your standard for "not a choice" is that there are pressures against it. If someone breaks into a 7-11, murders their spouse, assaults a police officer, swears at a judge in court, etc. etc., are those not choices just because there are social pressures against such actions, physical risks, and other negative repercussions?
|
5nb9l5
|
CMV: The Burkha is not a choice.
|
Obviously, you have the societal pressures, e.g family pressure, and social ostracism. But my main argument is that it is not a choice, because the wearer of the Burka has been raised religiously. With little exposure on behalf of the parents, to other aspects of life. The idea that failing to wear the burkha will "displease" Allah is what I am talking about. Being raised your whole life to believe that, and do this, isn't a choice. I think my argument does not apply as much to women in Western secular countries, where exposure to much more liberal cultures is inevitable. However, I still think my view is applicable to many women in western countries. When I say majority, I'm chiefly talking about women who live in Middle Eastern countries.
I wholly understand that this view could be complete folly, and I welcome people to try, and change it, provided I find their arguments adequate.
| 1,484,126,786
|
DireSire
|
dca6fmx
|
dca6fi6
| 3
| 1
|
CMV: /r/streetwear is stupid
/r/streetwear seems to be all about spending lots of money on clothes that look like ass as long as they come from an expensive brand. People in the sub get angry that others submit posts of "generic" fits, but all of the popular posts are the exact same deal. A lot of good-looking fits get ignored because there aren't any top brands involved. I thought individuality was supposed to important for streetwear, yet there seems to be no individuality at all as everybody mindlessly picks up the same stuff. Is streetwear supposed to be more of a collectors hobby (picking up rare and valuable items) and not a fashion style?
|
Streetwear is almost like a lowbrow version of modern art. Yes, at a glance it all seems to fit into basic general trends that appear very similar. But the whole appeal lies in the details. It's all about taking the "standard outfit" and turning it on its head in some way. "Ahh, this guy is dressed how we all dress, but with these really goofy shades. Who would wear those? Why would he couple them with that outfit, it makes no sense!" That's how it *does* make sense; that's where the individuality lies.
"Damn, he's dressed like a hypebeast, but with plain-ass adidas instead of Jordans." That's a "statement," "fuck the kicks, I'm fly enough to not need them." To you it might not look like a major difference from the Jordans, but that's the fun of tweaking the look to people in the community. Who can catch each other off guard, while still overall looking cool?
|
This isn't limited to r/streetwear. Every passion or hobby has its own "no true Scotsman" circlejerk of hardcore users that only accept their interpretation. They tend to be the most active, so of course they're going to cast more votes on the content that they like.
The important thing is to look to them and consider what they're doing, but not take it as the definitive way to do that hobby because not everyone has the desire or means to go all out.
|
5nczpg
|
CMV: /r/streetwear is stupid
|
/r/streetwear seems to be all about spending lots of money on clothes that look like ass as long as they come from an expensive brand. People in the sub get angry that others submit posts of "generic" fits, but all of the popular posts are the exact same deal. A lot of good-looking fits get ignored because there aren't any top brands involved. I thought individuality was supposed to important for streetwear, yet there seems to be no individuality at all as everybody mindlessly picks up the same stuff. Is streetwear supposed to be more of a collectors hobby (picking up rare and valuable items) and not a fashion style?
| 1,484,150,979
|
YoloSwag9000
|
dcah2p3
|
dcagxjg
| 15
| 7
|
CMV: Spoons and Forks are better than chopsticks in every aspect.
I've eaten 3 square meals (sometimes more) for the past 22 years every day. That's a lot of food. My parents' own chopsticks and sometimes use them, but I prefer to use a spoon and fork when they're available simply because they are better and more optimal to use. Here's why.
They're intuitive. Each hand either has a spoon or a fork. Stab things with the fork and bring it to your mouth. Scoop things with your spoon and bring it to your mouth. You can also bring combinations of food onto your spoon at the same time as oppossed to chopsticks. Usually you get a clump of rice, *eat, get a clump of meat or whatever, *eat*, repeat process. Not optimal. Yes, you can use chopsticks in one hand while the other hand is free, however you can do the same thing with a spoon or a fork. Except, also people with chopsticks have to use a spoon (I mean usually do, not have to) when eating soups like ramen.
Chopsticks can also roll around if they are not put down on a napkin or towel or something. Forks and spoons don't require a certain surface to remain still when not being used.
This is why spoons and forks are better.
Please provide me with counterarguments and challenge my view.
I have no desire to use inadequate eating utensils if there are other utensils available that make it much easier for me to use.
|
They are booth inferior to the ultimate eating implement: the Spork.
Spork if clearly better than chopsticks for the reasons you mentioned, and it's better than the spoon/fork combination because it can all the same things but with one implement instead of two.
So if you truly have no "desire to use inadequate eating utensils" - you need to switch to sporks.
|
Depends on what you're eating, no?
This might be a silly example but there's a lpt that circulates sometimes saying you should eat cheetoes with chopsticks to avoid cheesy fingers. Neither a fork (cheetoes will crumble) or a spoon (easily slide off) are as effective. And fingers, the original method leaves you with cheese dust fingers.
|
5ndnqx
|
CMV: Spoons and Forks are better than chopsticks in every aspect.
|
I've eaten 3 square meals (sometimes more) for the past 22 years every day. That's a lot of food. My parents' own chopsticks and sometimes use them, but I prefer to use a spoon and fork when they're available simply because they are better and more optimal to use. Here's why.
They're intuitive. Each hand either has a spoon or a fork. Stab things with the fork and bring it to your mouth. Scoop things with your spoon and bring it to your mouth. You can also bring combinations of food onto your spoon at the same time as oppossed to chopsticks. Usually you get a clump of rice, *eat, get a clump of meat or whatever, *eat*, repeat process. Not optimal. Yes, you can use chopsticks in one hand while the other hand is free, however you can do the same thing with a spoon or a fork. Except, also people with chopsticks have to use a spoon (I mean usually do, not have to) when eating soups like ramen.
Chopsticks can also roll around if they are not put down on a napkin or towel or something. Forks and spoons don't require a certain surface to remain still when not being used.
This is why spoons and forks are better.
Please provide me with counterarguments and challenge my view.
I have no desire to use inadequate eating utensils if there are other utensils available that make it much easier for me to use.
| 1,484,157,515
|
markichi
|
dcanvxa
|
dcanfbp
| 15
| 3
|
CMV: The most ethically vegan thing to do is to commit suicide because human population impacts animal life more negatively than eating them.
Animals, in their current state, can be reproduced infinitely, given the resources at this current state in time.
Vegans make a big ethical stance that eating meat is not ethical because it takes away a life and all life is valuable, yet as the population rises, more animals will be pushed out of their homes as land development takes over. It seems to me that the most ethically vegan thing to do is not only mass castration, but mass suicide, you know, for the environment.
We don't fit into the food chain and there doesn't seem to be any meaning for us in nature. Environmentalists are more about sustaining the Earth for the future rather than saving it - they understand that there is no saving it, human presence will either deplete it entirely of its resources and die off or a disaster will occur and we will all die from it. We might as well do the former before the latter. CMV.
|
If vegans had done this instead of forming organizations and exposing cruel farming practices, there would've been a lot less animal rights advocacy. That advocacy has led to more vegans and vegetarians, more ethical and enforced farming standards, and an emerging market for alternatives to meat. None of this would have happened, at least nearly to the same extent, if vegans were wiped off the earth.
Analogously, if all environmentalists had killed themselves to protect the environment, there would've been no one left to advocate for it. Carbon taxes and pollution regulations would have never been adopted. But by influencing companies, policies, and governments, rather than acting solely as individuals, advocates had a much bigger impact on the environment. The recent Paris Accords, for example, will likely help the environment far more than mass suicide would.
In general, systemic change is far more influential than individual change because it can stay in effect long after the individuals who supported it have left. And only vegans who stay alive can advocate for that.
|
>Isn't this the entire reason behind ethical veganism? By not eating animals, you are serving their right to exist.
I'm not saying that no vegan believes that, but I have never seen one that says that. I certainly don't say that. We don't serve animals, we just don't harm them. There's a difference between beating and killing people, and serving them. And ideally we would fall into a middle ground of just not interacting with them.
And on the "right to exist" thing, that also isn't really an accepted part of veganism. We shouldn't killing existing beings, but many vegans (possibly even most, hard to say) would be okay with the population of farm animals (cows, pigs, chickens, ect...) to go down significantly or even go extinct because we would stop breeding them. Those that think they should still exist usually think they should return to their wild state, where we would then ignore them and not aid in their survival.
|
5newhu
|
CMV: The most ethically vegan thing to do is to commit suicide because human population impacts animal life more negatively than eating them.
|
Animals, in their current state, can be reproduced infinitely, given the resources at this current state in time.
Vegans make a big ethical stance that eating meat is not ethical because it takes away a life and all life is valuable, yet as the population rises, more animals will be pushed out of their homes as land development takes over. It seems to me that the most ethically vegan thing to do is not only mass castration, but mass suicide, you know, for the environment.
We don't fit into the food chain and there doesn't seem to be any meaning for us in nature. Environmentalists are more about sustaining the Earth for the future rather than saving it - they understand that there is no saving it, human presence will either deplete it entirely of its resources and die off or a disaster will occur and we will all die from it. We might as well do the former before the latter. CMV.
| 1,484,169,496
|
excesshollywoo
|
dcb0nv9
|
dcazsha
| 34
| 4
|
CMV: Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T's crusade to thwart net neutrality is unjustifiably anti-consumer
Just one year ago, it seemed like net neutrality scored a serious win when the FCC redefined ISPs as common carriers and imposed new rules to safeguard the open internet. Fast forward to today, and net neutrality is in dire straits. The Trump administration will likely kill the neutrality rules, Tom Wheeler is going to step down, Ajit Pai will be in charge, and it seems to me like the open internet as we know it will all but evaporate. Many ISPs now engage in zero-rating schemes, creating an unfair advantage by making their own content free. Worsening the situation, the deployment of meaningful competition has been obstructed time and time again, with AT&T and Comcast threatening to sue townships that try to build out their own municipal broadband ISPs or introduce Google Fiber. In short, the internet is going to hell, big ISPs are having a field day, and I feel utterly powerless to stop it. Are companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T truly this….evil? Can someone please change my view so that I can have at least a glimmer of hope for the next four years?
Edit:
Thanks for the responses. I'm not really asking for an explanation of how companies have a right to make money; I fully understand the concept of fiduciary duty. What I'm asking for is an explanation of how this action might not be as anti-consumer as I believe. Tell me how the actions of these companies could actually BENEFIT consumers, like they've claimed countless times in press releases. Convince me that I should be supportive of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast instead of reviling them
|
> Are companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T truly this….evil?
No. That's silly (and I think you realize that.) They are for-profit corporations doing their best to make their shareholders money. Just like Tesla, EA, and every other company out there.
That being said, I do not think their campaign against internet regulation is necessarily anti-consumer. Capitalism isn't a zero-sum game, and what is good for Comcast is not necessarily bad for you.
For example, allowing providers to charge extreme bandwidth hogs like Netflix and Google extra could potentially lower costs to consumers, and allowing providers to prioritize data based on it's data type could be transformative - critical tasks could be done remotely, safe from lag spikes, for example.
|
I am in that situation where Comcast is my only provider. The possible solution I can see them pitching is that companies will pay the largest providers in order to be zero-rated for the largest population; so at least in Comcast's situation, they could try to argue it as pro-consumer since, as they are the only provider in many areas, companies will pay them to allow consumers to access their sites without using data.
Also, at least in regards to smartphones, there is a fair amount of competition in that area around which some of the zero-rating policies have formed; in most populated areas, provider coverage is pretty similar.
Again with both of these, though, I think you have to focus on the micro-experience to try to believe a pro-consumer stance. For *some* consumers, having DirectTV/Hulu/Spotify/etc zero-rated will benefit them, and many people who benefit from Spotify being zero-rated on their phone a)don't realize it is against net neutrality and b)don't really care because it allows them to listen to Spotify without worrying about data caps.
|
5ng9q8
|
CMV: Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T's crusade to thwart net neutrality is unjustifiably anti-consumer
|
Just one year ago, it seemed like net neutrality scored a serious win when the FCC redefined ISPs as common carriers and imposed new rules to safeguard the open internet. Fast forward to today, and net neutrality is in dire straits. The Trump administration will likely kill the neutrality rules, Tom Wheeler is going to step down, Ajit Pai will be in charge, and it seems to me like the open internet as we know it will all but evaporate. Many ISPs now engage in zero-rating schemes, creating an unfair advantage by making their own content free. Worsening the situation, the deployment of meaningful competition has been obstructed time and time again, with AT&T and Comcast threatening to sue townships that try to build out their own municipal broadband ISPs or introduce Google Fiber. In short, the internet is going to hell, big ISPs are having a field day, and I feel utterly powerless to stop it. Are companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T truly this….evil? Can someone please change my view so that I can have at least a glimmer of hope for the next four years?
Edit:
Thanks for the responses. I'm not really asking for an explanation of how companies have a right to make money; I fully understand the concept of fiduciary duty. What I'm asking for is an explanation of how this action might not be as anti-consumer as I believe. Tell me how the actions of these companies could actually BENEFIT consumers, like they've claimed countless times in press releases. Convince me that I should be supportive of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast instead of reviling them
| 1,484,183,567
|
f0me
|
dccwtrp
|
dcciyk3
| 3
| 2
|
CMV: Doing a good deed out of spite still makes that person a good person.
Let's say there is a father and son. For whatever reason, the father restricts the son from giving money to charities or to any charitable cause for his entire upbringing. Years later, they have a falling out and the son donates a large sum of money to a charity. He doesn't care about the charity or its recipients one bit and is doing this to spite his father. I believe that that still makes the son a good person as the mental state shouldn't have precedence over the real world results.
The real world result is that he helped those in need and that alone makes his attitude and mental state during his donation irrelevant. Basically I'm arguing that the son is tangibly helping someone, thus making him a good individual.
|
Is the opposite true?
A woman is being abused by her husband. One day, she smashes his car with a baseball bat 100 times.
She does a bad deed out of spite. Is she a bad person? Her mental state shouldn't have precedence over the real world results. The real world result is that she destroyed someone else's possession and that alone makes her attitude and mental state during her destruction irrelevant, no?
|
So, your view isn't actually associated with this particular situation. It's going to ultimately boil down to your perception of Outcomes vs Intentions.
Lakes take a different example:
Suppose you live in a nice home, and a desperate burglar has decided to steal from you while you sleep. He's armed.
While you sleep, your appendix is on the verge of rupture and by the time morning rolls around it would have been to late. You are blissfully unaware, because when it kills you it's going to happen all at once very quickly.
The burglar breaks into your home and wakes you up. You summon emergency services on your cellphone and they are en route, but you don't think the burglar is going to give you that much time.
he comes in, he shoots you *intending to kill you* and causes you trauma in your appendix.
The police arrive in the knick of time saving you from the burglar and EMS manages to stabilize you. When you wake up after the removal of the bullet, the doctor goes "If you hadn't been shot tonight you would have died."
Does that make what the burglar did okay? It saved your life but his intent was malicious.
|
5nhdlm
|
CMV: Doing a good deed out of spite still makes that person a good person.
|
Let's say there is a father and son. For whatever reason, the father restricts the son from giving money to charities or to any charitable cause for his entire upbringing. Years later, they have a falling out and the son donates a large sum of money to a charity. He doesn't care about the charity or its recipients one bit and is doing this to spite his father. I believe that that still makes the son a good person as the mental state shouldn't have precedence over the real world results.
The real world result is that he helped those in need and that alone makes his attitude and mental state during his donation irrelevant. Basically I'm arguing that the son is tangibly helping someone, thus making him a good individual.
| 1,484,196,356
|
The69th
|
dcbiugt
|
dcbimj6
| 4
| 2
|
CMV:Cookies and bars don't get enough respect.
Look, I get it. A chocolate souffle is difficult to make well. A layer cake is big and impressive, and can be frosted nicely. Creme Brulee involves a blowtorch, for God's sake. Yeah, there's a lot of great desserts out there.
But if someone asks what your favorite dessert is and you answer "chocolate chip cookies" instead of "flourless bittersweet chocolate torte with raspberry puree and a dollop of creme anglaise" you come across as someone who thinks Olive Garden is fine dining (even WITH the bottomless salad).
But a fresh cookie, warm from the oven, preferably that you've been smelling as it baked, soft with a crispy exterior... damn, that's fine.
Other cookies and bars from oatmeal raisin to brownies to 7-layer bars are all subject to the same bias against baked goods that you can pick up and, god forbid, make at home. It's not like we don't still like them, but once you hit puberty, you are supposed to put away your love of cookies. It's just not right to continue this charade.
My view can be changed if you either:
1. Show that cookies and bars get equal respect as the treats found on dessert menus.
2. Explain why, based on pleasure derived, other desserts deserve their loftier perch in the gastronomic community. (Yes, I understand that there is more effort in making other desserts, but when choosing a favorite movie I don't consider how many hours it took to make, just how much I like it.)
|
>But if someone asks what your favorite dessert is and you answer "chocolate chip cookies" instead of "flourless bittersweet chocolate torte with raspberry puree and a dollop of creme anglaise" you come across as someone who thinks Olive Garden is fine dining (even WITH the bottomless salad).
First of all, this is hilarious, and I love you.
But to answer your question: When people ask you what your favorite ___ is, they are trying to learn some insight about you, spawn some interesting conversation, hear about something new and interesting, etc. The key word is: "Interesting". 'Chocolate chip cookies' as your answer is a very boring answer. At best, the conversation hits a speedbump, and at worst, it seems a little tone deaf to why someone was asking you in the first place.
Hypothesis: If you answer the question in an interesting way, you will not get any sort of negative response.
"Honestly, I've had a lot of great desserts, but I have come to accept that my favorite dessert all time is a chocolate chip cookie. Especially when it's freshly baked. The sound of the oven creaking as it preheats and the sizzle of the butter on the cookie sheet, the smell as it bakes, the anticipation, and finally: the cookie."
"You know that movie, Ratatouille? The climactic scene where the guy takes a bite of the food and they do a dolly zoom out of his eye into his childhood memories? That's how I feel about chocolate chip cookies."
|
>Explain why, based on *pleasure derived*, other desserts deserve their loftier perch in the gastronomic community.
I'd argue that "pleasure derived" isn't the only relevant feature when considering "respect." When considering other examples of high culture or art, skill and complexity are crucial components of what makes them art- and the ability to appreciate them is a reflection on your tastes, which is what determines "respect." If you only ever read Dan Brown novels, nobody's going to respect your literary tastes, even if you really like cheap thrillers more than literary fiction. At most, people are going to be completely indifferent because they don't have a sense of literary taste (or snobbiness, if you prefer), or pleased because you share something in common with them. In no case is there going to be respect accorded to your choices.
The same should apply to cooking. Can cookies and bars meet the standards of quality, skill, and complexity? Can they be more like literary fiction, or are they the genre fiction of desserts? I'd argue that, currently, they don't qualify as a taste worth respecting. Not necessarily because cookies and bars can't be made in such a way that they're haute cuisine, but because they just currently aren't. I don't know whether or not cookies and bars could be- I'm not a chef- but if every video game was Call of Duty, no video games would be art, even when there are definitely games deserving of that label.
|
5nkl7t
|
CMV:Cookies and bars don't get enough respect.
|
Look, I get it. A chocolate souffle is difficult to make well. A layer cake is big and impressive, and can be frosted nicely. Creme Brulee involves a blowtorch, for God's sake. Yeah, there's a lot of great desserts out there.
But if someone asks what your favorite dessert is and you answer "chocolate chip cookies" instead of "flourless bittersweet chocolate torte with raspberry puree and a dollop of creme anglaise" you come across as someone who thinks Olive Garden is fine dining (even WITH the bottomless salad).
But a fresh cookie, warm from the oven, preferably that you've been smelling as it baked, soft with a crispy exterior... damn, that's fine.
Other cookies and bars from oatmeal raisin to brownies to 7-layer bars are all subject to the same bias against baked goods that you can pick up and, god forbid, make at home. It's not like we don't still like them, but once you hit puberty, you are supposed to put away your love of cookies. It's just not right to continue this charade.
My view can be changed if you either:
1. Show that cookies and bars get equal respect as the treats found on dessert menus.
2. Explain why, based on pleasure derived, other desserts deserve their loftier perch in the gastronomic community. (Yes, I understand that there is more effort in making other desserts, but when choosing a favorite movie I don't consider how many hours it took to make, just how much I like it.)
| 1,484,241,423
|
garnteller
|
dccd0j0
|
dccbje0
| 181
| 4
|
CMV: When children display low intelligence, we should be training them to enter low-income jobs, not preparing them for college like everyone else.
This is for the USA in particular. Fact is, there are too many graduates, and a lot jobs we need don't take graduates. If a kid is three grades behind in reading or refuses to do schoolwork or whatever, yeah they should still get the three R's, but the focus should be things like woodshop, welding, plumbing, circuits, motors, cooking, etc. And for the lowest levels, we should be preparing them for factories, fast food, and retail. My city already does this. For the mentally handicapped, ages 18-21, we train them to get a job and function in society. And it's a hugely successful program.
Not every student needs to learn biology, chemistry, US history, Shakespeare, etc. They weren't going to remember it anyway. Of course there's value in those things, but the **opportunity cost** of not teaching the practical subjects is much higher.
This kind of separation should definitely happen in high school, but maybe even start in middle or late elementary. If we net a student who ends up smart, then they will be one of the best d*** practical engineers of their generation, and the fact that we didn't teach them precalculus won't stop them from learning it if it's needed.
Edit: I found a good article showcasing what I'm talking about in the real world [here](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/05/02/the-return-of-vocational-high-schools-more-options-or-the-kiss-of-death).
Edit: Fine. Don't base it off intelligence. Base it off some rubric of chronic underperformance, and the recommendation of many, many teachers. Those students who can't easily succeed in traditional school I think could find better success in the vocations, whether it meshes better with their personality or interests or abilities or whatever. It's not so much because they are stupid (be that as it may), but moreso that they are different. In the reverse, I am sure some students would do poorly in the vocational track, but okay in the college track.
|
College professor here: intelligence is not the ultimate factor in success. I have had many high intelligence students fail my classes because they were too damn lazy or irresponsible to get their shit done. On the other hand, I've had many lower intelligence students he successful because they had a strong work ethic and worked hard to get their shit taken care of.
If given the choice, I would take the second student 10 times out of 10.
|
Seeems like it would just pigeonhole students into miserable futures, regardless of their actual capabilities.
I'm a high school AND college drop out that works as an analyst at a bank making a lot of money, even more so for a mid 20 year old. I outright reject the notion that because I had shitty grades I am unable to become a white collar professional.
|
5nnnrz
|
CMV: When children display low intelligence, we should be training them to enter low-income jobs, not preparing them for college like everyone else.
|
This is for the USA in particular. Fact is, there are too many graduates, and a lot jobs we need don't take graduates. If a kid is three grades behind in reading or refuses to do schoolwork or whatever, yeah they should still get the three R's, but the focus should be things like woodshop, welding, plumbing, circuits, motors, cooking, etc. And for the lowest levels, we should be preparing them for factories, fast food, and retail. My city already does this. For the mentally handicapped, ages 18-21, we train them to get a job and function in society. And it's a hugely successful program.
Not every student needs to learn biology, chemistry, US history, Shakespeare, etc. They weren't going to remember it anyway. Of course there's value in those things, but the **opportunity cost** of not teaching the practical subjects is much higher.
This kind of separation should definitely happen in high school, but maybe even start in middle or late elementary. If we net a student who ends up smart, then they will be one of the best d*** practical engineers of their generation, and the fact that we didn't teach them precalculus won't stop them from learning it if it's needed.
Edit: I found a good article showcasing what I'm talking about in the real world [here](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/05/02/the-return-of-vocational-high-schools-more-options-or-the-kiss-of-death).
Edit: Fine. Don't base it off intelligence. Base it off some rubric of chronic underperformance, and the recommendation of many, many teachers. Those students who can't easily succeed in traditional school I think could find better success in the vocations, whether it meshes better with their personality or interests or abilities or whatever. It's not so much because they are stupid (be that as it may), but moreso that they are different. In the reverse, I am sure some students would do poorly in the vocational track, but okay in the college track.
| 1,484,272,198
|
Nuclear_rabbit
|
dccyr54
|
dccyi19
| 1,498
| 259
|
CMV: As a male living in the USA, my feelings and struggles do not matter to society here.
I am friends with a lot of feminists. I do not have an issue with people disagreeing with him. However, I am a very opinionated person myself and I engage these people on facebook when I disagree with what they are saying. For example, today (and the inspiration for this post) a friend of mine posted a screenshot of a conversation which boiled down to this:
Women are expected to change for men. If a man wants kids and a woman doesn't, the woman is expected to have kids. Man wants X, woman wants Y, man gets X.
I pointed out that men go through this too. I pointed out other inequalities that men experience. I was disregarded as an asshole, as someone who didn't have sympathy for my friend who went through this experience, and as someone who just wanted to hurt people to get his point across.
It didn't matter to her that I felt like my sex was being marginalized by petty nonsense - I pointed out that men are 4 times more likely to commit suicide. I pointed out that men are 3 times more likely to be assaulted in public. I pointed out that men receive longer prison sentences for the same crime, and I pointed out that male domestic abuse victims are not taken seriously. I even provided studies and sources for all of these statistics. None of that mattered. I was an asshole for doing exactly the same thing she did: pointing out an experience that my sex has to go through. Her post was celebrated, my rebuttal was admonished.
My feelings didn't matter, and they never have. That was just one example. It doesn't matter to her, or to society at large that these inequalities against men exist. There are no mens-rights-activists in office, or if there are, they are making their activism public. Yet feminism is still regarded as a proud label and no woman in office would dare deny being a feminist.
CMV.
|
A big problem with these discussions is that we only have your second hand account of what went down. Obviously you are more charitable to your side, and obviously if someone disagreed with you and you maintain disagreement there is a chance you can't represent their objection fairly.
Going on your representation of events only, I think your timing is the issue. Person A posting about a subject is not necessarily looking for a debate about some other related issue. Yeah, you may be right that men also go through something similar, but by bringing it up at that time you're diminishing the feelings and struggles of another, exactly what you find loathsome. The diminishment happens in seeing this as a challenge. Does the fact that men are expected to change XYZ really do anything to counter that women are expected to change XYZ?
By all means, talk about those things. Now imagine you make a post about how bad the male suicide rate is and how you want to help and I barge in as a feminist and say "well actually women get depressed too". It's not helpful, and you are well within your rights to tell me off for trying to derail.
Your last paragraph makes this seem like an argument of MRA vs. Feminism, which is not incompatible. As anti-feminists are gleeful to point out, only 23% of women are feminists. This is hardly a conspiracy.
|
Some of these ideas and concerns are kind of our responsibility.
Men do far more violent crimes then women.
So sure, we are the victims of violent crime, but we also do more of it.
Men are far less likely to seek out counseling services that are available. This is still this tough guy narrative that lots of men buy into.
There is still the idea that if men show certain emotions they are weak and this is usually maintained by other men.
If a man is feeling suicidal and doesn't seek out resources that are available that's different idea than the one that was expressed in your FB example.
The man isn't getting his opinion overruled.
|
5nnsvs
|
CMV: As a male living in the USA, my feelings and struggles do not matter to society here.
|
I am friends with a lot of feminists. I do not have an issue with people disagreeing with him. However, I am a very opinionated person myself and I engage these people on facebook when I disagree with what they are saying. For example, today (and the inspiration for this post) a friend of mine posted a screenshot of a conversation which boiled down to this:
Women are expected to change for men. If a man wants kids and a woman doesn't, the woman is expected to have kids. Man wants X, woman wants Y, man gets X.
I pointed out that men go through this too. I pointed out other inequalities that men experience. I was disregarded as an asshole, as someone who didn't have sympathy for my friend who went through this experience, and as someone who just wanted to hurt people to get his point across.
It didn't matter to her that I felt like my sex was being marginalized by petty nonsense - I pointed out that men are 4 times more likely to commit suicide. I pointed out that men are 3 times more likely to be assaulted in public. I pointed out that men receive longer prison sentences for the same crime, and I pointed out that male domestic abuse victims are not taken seriously. I even provided studies and sources for all of these statistics. None of that mattered. I was an asshole for doing exactly the same thing she did: pointing out an experience that my sex has to go through. Her post was celebrated, my rebuttal was admonished.
My feelings didn't matter, and they never have. That was just one example. It doesn't matter to her, or to society at large that these inequalities against men exist. There are no mens-rights-activists in office, or if there are, they are making their activism public. Yet feminism is still regarded as a proud label and no woman in office would dare deny being a feminist.
CMV.
| 1,484,273,756
|
[deleted]
|
dccy9fr
|
dccxwez
| 31
| 27
|
CMV: A World Government of Some Form Would Solve Most Problems We Face Today.
What Worldwide Problems do we face today?
War/Large Scale Conflict
Most wars and large scale conflicts today are not between countries, but from within, like insurgent groups or militant religious organizations. This is a problem because it places pressure on the host government's resources, diverts assets from assisting people in need, and destabilizes entire nations, which leads to greater pressures on the international community to step in(Afghanistan Invasion) or to send aid.
Poverty/Food Insecurity
These two things are together because they are intrinsically linked. A person's inability to find money or other equivalent prevents him from buying food. He is less able to work, more often hungry, more likely to become criminal, and generally not contributing to a country's overall well-being.
National Disagreements
The South China Sea Island dispute over who owns the islands in the South China Sea(hence the name) is one of several examples of peaceful(mostly) ongoing land disputes in the world. This is problematic because any provocative action taken here could destabilize the region, which is already not super balanced. While there is no present indication of this happening, the mere existence of a dispute suggests that sparks could fly eventually.
How would A World Government solve these problems?
War/Large Scale Conflict
A World Government can mobilize a much larger, more comprehensive, effective fighting force to deal with groups that wish to cause others harm. The government's access to the world's resources makes this task easy. What would be a major concern is governance and control of this large force, as each former nation would surely hold old loyalties.
Poverty/Food Insecurity
There is enough food in the world to feed everyone. it is more about distribution. With a World Government, an agency can be created that subsidizes the cost of procuring an distributing food to places in need. But that is treating the symptoms, not the disease(strong language, but it fits the analogy). How a world government treats poverty is very difficult, because there really isn't a single solution. There needs to be large scale investment in infrastructure and security in parts of the world that do not have sufficient self-sustaining governments. How the world government would do this varies. Providing subsidies only goes so far. A world government would mostly be reliant on the charity of it's citizens to ensure this. Creation of low income jobs, like factory repetitive tasks, is no longer a viable option because of mechanized automation. So the first investment that a world government needs to do is in education. An investment in education is truly an investment in the future of that area.
National Disagreements
Depending on the circumstances of the creation of this world government, there may be some implementations more successful and others not so. The most successful implementations take into account the wealth of each nation, and the power being distributed according both to wealth and population(perhaps a bicameral legislature, like the American Congress)(keep the rich happy, so they don't revolt). This will probably be the hardest, as giving up sovereignty is something that is not taken to lightly.
How would a World Government work?
I propose a system similar to the American system.
An Executive branch, led by perhaps a council of persons(one is none, two is one, etc). This is to ensure that each geographic area gets some representation.
Division by existing geographic boundaries, taking into consideration culture and political past. These divisions would serve as districts from which Representatives would be sent to a Legislative branch. Bicameral, perhaps tricameral, to divide the powers further, because centering power is dangerous, especially on a large scale.
A judicial system, which would mostly serve similarly to the American system. Of course, over time there would be modifications.
The stickiest point is what kind of binding agreement to have. A constitution is to inflexible. Instead, have the legislature make all of the rulings, and have the center of power in the legislature instead of the executive branch to ensure dilution of power. Appeals of actions taken by the legislature can be heard by the judiciary.
The military portion of governance would be controlled by the executive and legislative branch jointly. This is to ensure that no one man/group of men can control the military power.
Ensuring checks and balances and a fair and transparent system will be difficult. To do this, I propose the creation of a fourth branch of government, an Ethics branch, if you please. This branch would have wide-reaching powers to regulate which powers each portion of government possess, the exception being itself. The ethics branch would be led by another representatively elected body, smaller than the Legislature, but large and powerful enough to provide a legal defense against a coup(perhaps not a military one).
I'm open to suggestions.
|
> War/Large Scale Conflict
The solution you propose already exists. It's called the USA
The USA has many times over the pwoer to destroy civilization as we know. They can fight indefinitely against the whole world if necessary. You really don't get any more powerhouse than that
Problem is, that's all useless. Modern modern warfare is about what you might call terrorism. If your proposal was adopted and a full power governemnt took over, anyone who opposes it would be even more extreme, they would literally be banned from Earth itself instead of just a country or culture
>Poverty/Food Insecurity
You're absolutely right we have much more than we need. However, that's not the issue. The issue is that people, real people, relevant people, think that it's fine for some to be miserable while others are filthy rich. If you think like that, distributing wealth is straight up bad and this segment of society isn't irrelevant, they would combat this idea with all their mighty
These are two examples that just bring to attention the real problem with a unique government: people don't agree. There's no thing as "right" or "correct". Different perspectives go as deep as the conception of life itself. You simply cannot bring some people together because they disagree on fundamental concepts
|
I agree in the long run, but, for lack of a better description, the world isn't ready for this yet. There's two major roadblocks, both of which bring too much division to people for this to be possible. They are (keep in mind I'm posting with a Western mindset):
1) Organized religion needs to die or reach a point of toleration. Religion divides people and it often has heavy impact on laws. You simply can't mixed a fucked up country like Saudi Arabia with a Western country. And the religious (specifically in lots of Middle Eastern countries) would push back if they were forced into an essentially secular government. It wouldn't take.
2) Nationalism needs to die or be nothing more arbitrary than a Bostonian bragging about how Irish they are. Very few people would be willing to join a global government, even if it had little impact on their lives. Look at a place like the US, states like Texas talk about leaving. In Canada, Quebec talks about leaving. In the UK, Scotland talks about leaving. And then you consider national pride is strong in most countries (except maybe some of Africa's arbitrarily formed countries). Not only that, but you'd be putting enemies/rivals together. I can guarantee you that most Chinese wouldn't want to be associated with the Japanese that way (and vice versa). Once again, it wouldn't take, even if local customs are protected as much as they can be.
|
5noo5f
|
CMV: A World Government of Some Form Would Solve Most Problems We Face Today.
|
What Worldwide Problems do we face today?
War/Large Scale Conflict
Most wars and large scale conflicts today are not between countries, but from within, like insurgent groups or militant religious organizations. This is a problem because it places pressure on the host government's resources, diverts assets from assisting people in need, and destabilizes entire nations, which leads to greater pressures on the international community to step in(Afghanistan Invasion) or to send aid.
Poverty/Food Insecurity
These two things are together because they are intrinsically linked. A person's inability to find money or other equivalent prevents him from buying food. He is less able to work, more often hungry, more likely to become criminal, and generally not contributing to a country's overall well-being.
National Disagreements
The South China Sea Island dispute over who owns the islands in the South China Sea(hence the name) is one of several examples of peaceful(mostly) ongoing land disputes in the world. This is problematic because any provocative action taken here could destabilize the region, which is already not super balanced. While there is no present indication of this happening, the mere existence of a dispute suggests that sparks could fly eventually.
How would A World Government solve these problems?
War/Large Scale Conflict
A World Government can mobilize a much larger, more comprehensive, effective fighting force to deal with groups that wish to cause others harm. The government's access to the world's resources makes this task easy. What would be a major concern is governance and control of this large force, as each former nation would surely hold old loyalties.
Poverty/Food Insecurity
There is enough food in the world to feed everyone. it is more about distribution. With a World Government, an agency can be created that subsidizes the cost of procuring an distributing food to places in need. But that is treating the symptoms, not the disease(strong language, but it fits the analogy). How a world government treats poverty is very difficult, because there really isn't a single solution. There needs to be large scale investment in infrastructure and security in parts of the world that do not have sufficient self-sustaining governments. How the world government would do this varies. Providing subsidies only goes so far. A world government would mostly be reliant on the charity of it's citizens to ensure this. Creation of low income jobs, like factory repetitive tasks, is no longer a viable option because of mechanized automation. So the first investment that a world government needs to do is in education. An investment in education is truly an investment in the future of that area.
National Disagreements
Depending on the circumstances of the creation of this world government, there may be some implementations more successful and others not so. The most successful implementations take into account the wealth of each nation, and the power being distributed according both to wealth and population(perhaps a bicameral legislature, like the American Congress)(keep the rich happy, so they don't revolt). This will probably be the hardest, as giving up sovereignty is something that is not taken to lightly.
How would a World Government work?
I propose a system similar to the American system.
An Executive branch, led by perhaps a council of persons(one is none, two is one, etc). This is to ensure that each geographic area gets some representation.
Division by existing geographic boundaries, taking into consideration culture and political past. These divisions would serve as districts from which Representatives would be sent to a Legislative branch. Bicameral, perhaps tricameral, to divide the powers further, because centering power is dangerous, especially on a large scale.
A judicial system, which would mostly serve similarly to the American system. Of course, over time there would be modifications.
The stickiest point is what kind of binding agreement to have. A constitution is to inflexible. Instead, have the legislature make all of the rulings, and have the center of power in the legislature instead of the executive branch to ensure dilution of power. Appeals of actions taken by the legislature can be heard by the judiciary.
The military portion of governance would be controlled by the executive and legislative branch jointly. This is to ensure that no one man/group of men can control the military power.
Ensuring checks and balances and a fair and transparent system will be difficult. To do this, I propose the creation of a fourth branch of government, an Ethics branch, if you please. This branch would have wide-reaching powers to regulate which powers each portion of government possess, the exception being itself. The ethics branch would be led by another representatively elected body, smaller than the Legislature, but large and powerful enough to provide a legal defense against a coup(perhaps not a military one).
I'm open to suggestions.
| 1,484,283,937
|
themaskedserpent
|
dcdft4p
|
dcd9d4w
| 3
| 1
|
CMV: I believe the laws of our time should reflect the state of our time
It should of course be our end goal to become a totally tolerant, empathetic, *kind* and forgiving society - Not a brutal one. A society which does not discriminate or harbour prejudice; an all encompassing hot pot which fights for the good of its people no matter their age, gender, race or creed.
In spite of this, I find myself asking - is it morally reprehensible to think that the laws of our time should reflect the state of our time?
As you may have guessed this is in regard to terrorism.
Objectively, closing off our borders entirely to an entire section of humanity is not preferred. But if 99% of deaths from terrorism fall into the hands of Islamic perpetrators; is it so absurd to think our laws should adapt and change to better suit the *realities* of this?
All muslims already living in the country have every right to stay - and so they should. Once they set foot on our soil they are our brothers and sisters. But in regard to the ethics of setting more/full on restrictive access on Islamic immigration as an attempt at subduing further possible attacks - is it wrong?
|
> But if 99% of deaths from terrorism fall into the hands of Islamic perpetrators; is it so absurd to think our laws should adapt and change to better suit the realities of this?
Yes, it's absurd. You'd have to interrogate people about their belief system. Would a terrorist lie about being a Muslim if it meant getting access to a target? Absolutely.
Second, it is counterproductive. It only *helps* us to accept people running from ISIS. It makes us look like the good guys, and it reduces who they can radicalize. If we banned Muslims from entering the US, it would only add fuel for propaganda. They'd grow in numbers and danger.
|
Such laws can only begin to be justified if you can show a clear benefit to the proposal (and even then there are still ethical concerns), and I don't believe you can do that here.
Even if most terrorism deaths are at the hands of Islamic terrorists, the fact remains that it's an incredibly small number of Islamic terrorists. Clamping down on immigration would work if something like 1 in 3 Muslims was a threat, but they aren't. You're talking about isolated individuals who slip through the cracks (and in the process evade several existing laws), and I don't believe you can show that such a crackdown on immigration would do anything to stop those people. They have already shown a clear willingness to circumvent existing measures meant to stop them, so why should immigration be any different?
Meanwhile, in exchange for that lack of any benefit, you've alienated thousands of completely innocent people who've done nothing more to arouse suspicion than you or I have.
|
5nqtw0
|
CMV: I believe the laws of our time should reflect the state of our time
|
It should of course be our end goal to become a totally tolerant, empathetic, *kind* and forgiving society - Not a brutal one. A society which does not discriminate or harbour prejudice; an all encompassing hot pot which fights for the good of its people no matter their age, gender, race or creed.
In spite of this, I find myself asking - is it morally reprehensible to think that the laws of our time should reflect the state of our time?
As you may have guessed this is in regard to terrorism.
Objectively, closing off our borders entirely to an entire section of humanity is not preferred. But if 99% of deaths from terrorism fall into the hands of Islamic perpetrators; is it so absurd to think our laws should adapt and change to better suit the *realities* of this?
All muslims already living in the country have every right to stay - and so they should. Once they set foot on our soil they are our brothers and sisters. But in regard to the ethics of setting more/full on restrictive access on Islamic immigration as an attempt at subduing further possible attacks - is it wrong?
| 1,484,317,028
|
lcPASCAL-
|
dcdod7n
|
dcdo4l4
| 12
| 2
|
CMV: English speakers should stop using either "affect" or "effect".
I'm not an English major. I'm just a lifetime English speaker who's wasted too much time thinking "wait, do I use 'effect' or 'affect' here?" and I realized this morning that I can't think of a good reason for them both to exist.
I'm aware that the two words, "affect" and "effect" have differing definitions, but that doesn't matter. The English language has plenty of words that have multiple meanings discerned from context. "Buffalo" can be a city or an animal and one doesn't need the A changed to an E.
The two words are similar enough that I see no point to having both. I think one word would suffice and cut down on incorrect usage.
Obviously, the English Language Overlords aren't going to see this post and decree the word "affect" stricken from the records. But, I am curious if anyone can tell me why it's a good idea for both of these words to exist.
|
Cause and *effect*. That snapchat filter creates a weird *effect*. How can we *effect* change.
Does this *affect* me? She presented a flattened *affect.* This leads to things like in jest, she *affected* a mocking tone.
Your basic premise isn't necessarily one I disagree with, except I would say the final two examples above argue for retention of affect. Affect as a noun is a specialised psychological term, as such I don't see them as similar enough to merge into a single weird. If we did away with affect, I can't imagine how one would fold all that into effect. Likewise, if we did away with effect in favour affect, wouldn't that make movie magic into "special affects"? That would be super weird.
Let's try it, replacing affect with effect:
* The law of cause and effect.
* This snapchat filter creates a weird effect: my face looks thinner.
* How can I best effect change so my face looks thinner without the filter?
* I know where you're coming from, but I can't help but think how it effects me and our relationship more broadly. You know I'm prone to jealous outbursts, and if you're thinner, it'll only get worse.
* One of the hallmarks of schizophrenia is a flattened effect, whereas heightened effect suggests mania, a possible indicator of bipolar disorder.
* When I effect a lack of interest in your weight loss plans, somehow it makes things even worse.
For me, the last two are problematic. Flattened or heightened effect almost seem to refer to physical characteristics instead of facial appearance, attitude, and responsiveness. The final one could mean "when I create a lack of interest" or "when I pretend a lack of interest."
I'm sure someone else could come up with better examples where context doesn't actually make the meaning entirely clear.
|
First off, the two words have different pronunciations as well; AHH-fect v.s. EE-fect. They're different words with different pronunciations and different meanings. But for purposes of argument, let's call them homophones.
>I'm aware that the two words, "affect" and "effect" have differing definitions, but that doesn't matter. The English language has plenty of words that have multiple meanings discerned from context.
Okay, so are you in favor of all other homophones being congealed into the same word? Some examples;
* to/two/too
* there/their/they're
* pray/prey
* ad/add
* aunt/ant
* blew/blue
* cell/sell
* hour/our
And so on. If you're not in favor of those words being turned into homonyms, then why? What differentiates the affect/effect pair from all of the others?
|
5nrv3a
|
CMV: English speakers should stop using either "affect" or "effect".
|
I'm not an English major. I'm just a lifetime English speaker who's wasted too much time thinking "wait, do I use 'effect' or 'affect' here?" and I realized this morning that I can't think of a good reason for them both to exist.
I'm aware that the two words, "affect" and "effect" have differing definitions, but that doesn't matter. The English language has plenty of words that have multiple meanings discerned from context. "Buffalo" can be a city or an animal and one doesn't need the A changed to an E.
The two words are similar enough that I see no point to having both. I think one word would suffice and cut down on incorrect usage.
Obviously, the English Language Overlords aren't going to see this post and decree the word "affect" stricken from the records. But, I am curious if anyone can tell me why it's a good idea for both of these words to exist.
| 1,484,327,764
|
Jencaasi
|
dcdu27x
|
dcdt0hp
| 17
| 11
|
CMV: You should not be required to visit a primary health care provider for an acute problem.
I have a ruptured eardrum and I had to wait 3 days for an appointment with the VA primary care doctor, who I knew would have to give me a referral to ENT. Sure enough, she said I had a ruptured eardrum and she would refer to me to ENT, which I am now waiting 3 weeks to see. All the while still having no relief of symptoms.
Primary care should be for checkups, preventive care, and health planning. Making PCP's "gatekeepers" for acute issues that need to be quickly resolved by specialists is a waste of time. If a patient can describe an issue over the phone that is obviously going to be a referral, then why make them visit the PCP to confirm that? Over the phone I could have said, "significant loss in hearing, blood tinged discharge coming from ear, occurred while blowing my nose" and they could have referred me immediately based off that description.
|
Being able to immediately schedule an appointment with a specialist would have saved you at most 3 days in the situation you described. They would not have been able to get you in immediately as there is still a large demand for their services. If people were allowed to just schedule things with them immediately it could lead to an even longer wait. While with your case your symptoms make it seem likely that you do have a ruptured eardrum, there's always the small chance that it's not. By seeing a primary care doctor first they are able to make sure that you are seeing the right person and that the specialist isn't getting people who have the actual condition they think they have. That could be the difference between a 3 week wait and a 4 or 5 week wait since allowing patients to immediately schedule with the specialist doesn't change how many people the specialist can actually see in a week.
|
Why don't you just go to the emergency room?
|
5nrxf8
|
CMV: You should not be required to visit a primary health care provider for an acute problem.
|
I have a ruptured eardrum and I had to wait 3 days for an appointment with the VA primary care doctor, who I knew would have to give me a referral to ENT. Sure enough, she said I had a ruptured eardrum and she would refer to me to ENT, which I am now waiting 3 weeks to see. All the while still having no relief of symptoms.
Primary care should be for checkups, preventive care, and health planning. Making PCP's "gatekeepers" for acute issues that need to be quickly resolved by specialists is a waste of time. If a patient can describe an issue over the phone that is obviously going to be a referral, then why make them visit the PCP to confirm that? Over the phone I could have said, "significant loss in hearing, blood tinged discharge coming from ear, occurred while blowing my nose" and they could have referred me immediately based off that description.
| 1,484,328,377
|
NAPALM_SON
|
dcdy2mt
|
dcdxua4
| 30
| 4
|
CMV: Nintendo disappointed massively with their Nintendo Switch Direct yesterday, and proved that they don't know how to appeal to their audience
Before I go into what Nintendo did wrong yesterday, here are some of the positives:
* The Switch will have a March 3rd release date
* Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild looks fantastic and will be a launch title
* Super Mario Odyssey looks like a fresh new take on the Mario franchise (although it's not coming till Holiday 2017)
* The Switch will not be region-locked
* 8-person local multiplayer
* HD rumble and motion sensing
And now here's the bad:
* Nothing about eSports. Are you kidding me Nintendo? It's 2017. eSports is larger than ever. Many teams and companies (Echo Fox, the Miami Heat, etc.) are jumping on the opportunity. It's time for Nintendo to stop ignoring its large and expanding competitive communities like Smash
* Nothing about virtual console. This pains me especially as a Melee player, but I know many others feel the same way. Nintendo could make SO MUCH money off of virtual console. I know I will personally buy the Switch if there is VC. But based on what I saw at the Direct? No way. There are so many people who want to be able to play remastered versions of GameCube games like Super Smash Bros. Melee, Mario Kart Double Dash, Super Mario Sunshine, etc. It's beyond idiotic that Nintendo isn't doing this
* No Smash 5. Smash Bros. is by far one of Nintendo's biggest franchises, so why wouldn't they at least announce it? It would likely make the difference between some people buying and not buying the Switch.
* Splatoon 2, the sequel nobody wanted but everyone knew was coming
* Paid online service. Nintendo has historically had really shitty online service, and now we'll have to pay for it? Ridiculous.
* No Pokemon. There were rumors about a full Pokemon game coming to the Switch, but those appear to be untrue. Again, a huge waste of an opportunity.
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe instead of Mario Kart 9
* No Metroid, Donkey Kong, Kirby, etc.
* The controllers are freaking tiny. It's going to be very easy to lose them.
There are probably some more that I'm not thinking of, but you get the idea. While there were some pros to the presentation, the cons far outweigh them. Nintendo is missing some GOLDEN opportunities. It seems like they just want to appeal to little kids, which is not their entire audience by any means. People call the Wii U a failure? Well the Switch is going to do even worse based on what we've seen so far. For $300 there's no way I'm buying it, and I don't think others will either.
|
> Servers take money to run. I think the fact that they're taking those steps is a good sign.
That's fair, but I don't see how consumers could believe in it without Nintendo's track record.
>And why is the free (well, "bonus") games feature shitty?
Because Games with Gold and PSN offer you a couple free games for month that you get to keep for ever. On the other hand, the Switch version gives you one game per month but it disappears at the end of the month and you don't get to keep it unless you buy it.
>There's also something to be said for the fact that they don't force out a new sequel too often too, just for the sake of having things on the console.
That makes enough sense, but says nothing of the other games people were expecting.
>Remember a while ago when people were extremely upset that they didn't announce a Majora's Mask remake that one E3 after perceived "hints"? Then it was announced just a few months later?
No but from what I can find, that was 4 years ago, and 2 years after the release of the 3DS. We are 2 months from the Switch launch and I still feel as if Nintendo could have generated hype much better.
>Also, Overwatch released eight months ago on the PC, PS4, and xbone. That's a lot more accessible. Splatoon is a year older, and only on the Wii U. Not really a fair comparison.
I mean Overwatch isn't accessible to everyone. It requires at least decent/good computer specs, which many don't have. Also, consider how many people were talking about Splatoon 8 months after release. Nobody.
|
> No but it's generally not considered to be smart business to lose money.
Unless it functions as a loss leader. But that's not really the point. Perhaps the profit isn't enough to be worth it for Nintendo, for example.
> Yeah and I think this was a huge mistake.
Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
> I don't see why they can't appeal to both?
Marketing basically always has to target a segment of the population, especially in terms of branding. That's why tons of products target men **or** women, video games (ironically) an example of this. Why not appeal to both markets and increase the market? Because catering to a female audience means you lose the make one. Halfassing two marketing or branding campaigns means you lose relative to wholeassing one.
> I agree but I don't see how this challenges my view.
Because it's a potential cost to the new market you think they should go after. If they don't feel comfortable changing as much, they won't innovate as much. This is fine if you only care about the competitive market, because not changing much will keep them, but it harms sales elsewhere if your game becomes stale. And innovation in games is something Nintendo takes super seriously.
> But that's not why Nintendo didn't support competitive Melee. It was because Sakurai (the creator of Smash) thought it would remain a very tiny, niche community of basement-dwellers. This is no longer the case. I think the community would appreciate even a little outreach, even if it doesn't go perfectly.
This is largely irrelevant to my point. Why they initially didn't support it has no bearing as to why they don't support it now.
> Which competitive markets are you referring to? If you mean League, CS:GO and Overwatch, aren't they already sponsored by the creator companies?
I don't understand your question on relation to my statement. Who Nintendo targets affects everything from game design to console design and controller setup. They aren't like any of the companies you listed with large, frequent, competitive sponsorships.
|
5nt0o8
|
CMV: Nintendo disappointed massively with their Nintendo Switch Direct yesterday, and proved that they don't know how to appeal to their audience
|
Before I go into what Nintendo did wrong yesterday, here are some of the positives:
* The Switch will have a March 3rd release date
* Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild looks fantastic and will be a launch title
* Super Mario Odyssey looks like a fresh new take on the Mario franchise (although it's not coming till Holiday 2017)
* The Switch will not be region-locked
* 8-person local multiplayer
* HD rumble and motion sensing
And now here's the bad:
* Nothing about eSports. Are you kidding me Nintendo? It's 2017. eSports is larger than ever. Many teams and companies (Echo Fox, the Miami Heat, etc.) are jumping on the opportunity. It's time for Nintendo to stop ignoring its large and expanding competitive communities like Smash
* Nothing about virtual console. This pains me especially as a Melee player, but I know many others feel the same way. Nintendo could make SO MUCH money off of virtual console. I know I will personally buy the Switch if there is VC. But based on what I saw at the Direct? No way. There are so many people who want to be able to play remastered versions of GameCube games like Super Smash Bros. Melee, Mario Kart Double Dash, Super Mario Sunshine, etc. It's beyond idiotic that Nintendo isn't doing this
* No Smash 5. Smash Bros. is by far one of Nintendo's biggest franchises, so why wouldn't they at least announce it? It would likely make the difference between some people buying and not buying the Switch.
* Splatoon 2, the sequel nobody wanted but everyone knew was coming
* Paid online service. Nintendo has historically had really shitty online service, and now we'll have to pay for it? Ridiculous.
* No Pokemon. There were rumors about a full Pokemon game coming to the Switch, but those appear to be untrue. Again, a huge waste of an opportunity.
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe instead of Mario Kart 9
* No Metroid, Donkey Kong, Kirby, etc.
* The controllers are freaking tiny. It's going to be very easy to lose them.
There are probably some more that I'm not thinking of, but you get the idea. While there were some pros to the presentation, the cons far outweigh them. Nintendo is missing some GOLDEN opportunities. It seems like they just want to appeal to little kids, which is not their entire audience by any means. People call the Wii U a failure? Well the Switch is going to do even worse based on what we've seen so far. For $300 there's no way I'm buying it, and I don't think others will either.
| 1,484,338,967
|
ihatedogs2
|
dceip1b
|
dceer6p
| 2
| 1
|
CMV: I can't see why I should have to respect Christianity.
First of all, I want to make a distinction. I am not talking about Christians, I am talking about Christianity as religion. I am ok with Christians, not with Christianity. The reason for the distinction is because I know people will say "but some Christians support gays rights" yes, that's absolutely, but this support come from cherry picking the Bible.
Anyways, to the point. I am a person from the LGBT community. Christianity is not a religion that is respectful of LGBT people at all. I don't think I owe any respect to Christianity (or any religion) that has hate messages against LGBT people. The reason behind that is simple: It hates me. It almost treat me like less than a human being. I mean, why should I respect this:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God ... neither fornicators ... nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind … shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10"
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (NRSV) — Leviticus 20:13"
You see... Christianity and the Bible hates me. Not only for being bisexual, but for being an unbeliever, too. How and why should I have to respect this bigotry and backwardness? Those aren't the only ones hateful and violent messages, but for this CMV, I will let at that.
Also, there's that too: “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
Essentially, the main reason why I have this view is because it doesn't makes sense to respect an ideology that doesn't respect me. It hates me. I can't really call it a good religion.
|
You shouldn't have to respect the rather twisted and distorted version of Christianity, and Christianity's perceptions of the Quiltbag community that you've created here.
But in terms of the actual Christianity, let's delve deeper.
First, there is nothing anywhere in the Bible about hating anyone because of sins. The reason, well it would be rather impractical and dumb. The Bible repeatedly says that everyone has sinned. That no one is righteous, not one. So your justification to argue that Christianity hates you goes right out the window.
Your reference to the death penalty and the law misses the point. Jesus has come to fufil the law, IE to conclude it's ultimate purpose. To give humanity the potential of being viewed as righteous in the eyes of God. We can't do that ourselves, so we needed Jesus to do it for us.
The best example of this is with Jesus's attitude towards the adulterous woman. The people with the stones were right, under the law. If she was an adulterer, she should have been stoned. But Jesus's response was "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Thereby undermining the idea that Jesus supported the law's aspects on things like capital punishment. Jesus didn't undermine the law in the sense of what it said was wrong, since he told the woman to go away from her sin. What he did was make it possible for her to avoid the punishment, thanks to forgiveness.
Second, you argue that Christianity is arguing you should be sent to hell because you're bisexual and unbeliever. The point Christianity makes is that, without God's intervention, we should all be sent to hell because of sin. To be clear, that's not because God hates us, but because he hates what we have done, and because heaven is entirely pure and without sin, nothing impure can go there. Hell isn't about hatred, it's about justice. And Christianity is about release from the ultimate consequence of justice thanks to compassion.
You should respect that because the internal logic is flawless. Nothing impure can enter a realm that is pure without making the realm impure. That's logical. Since we can't make ourselves pure, we needed someone else's help to do it for us. It seems only fair that the same person giving that option is the person who demands purity in the first place.
|
I think you're not making the distinction between the people who blindly follow Christianity and the people who worship. There will always be some reason or another why a group is persecuted. You have to be able to make the distinction that they can't, that you can not attribute the movement as a whole to a person that believes in it.
Another way to say this is that you can be seen as "cherry picking" the LGBT movement. There are some in the LGBT community that would like to tear down religion as an institution. Maybe you do maybe you do not.
Guess my point is that people will disrespect an ideology if they are not open minded. Yes you have no reason to respect the ideology of Christianity as literally stated in the bible, while they have no reason to respect your ideology. It's best for everyone if instead of disrespecting each other's ideologies we respect that we came from different backgrounds and accept that.
|
5nwi2s
|
CMV: I can't see why I should have to respect Christianity.
|
First of all, I want to make a distinction. I am not talking about Christians, I am talking about Christianity as religion. I am ok with Christians, not with Christianity. The reason for the distinction is because I know people will say "but some Christians support gays rights" yes, that's absolutely, but this support come from cherry picking the Bible.
Anyways, to the point. I am a person from the LGBT community. Christianity is not a religion that is respectful of LGBT people at all. I don't think I owe any respect to Christianity (or any religion) that has hate messages against LGBT people. The reason behind that is simple: It hates me. It almost treat me like less than a human being. I mean, why should I respect this:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God ... neither fornicators ... nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind … shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10"
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (NRSV) — Leviticus 20:13"
You see... Christianity and the Bible hates me. Not only for being bisexual, but for being an unbeliever, too. How and why should I have to respect this bigotry and backwardness? Those aren't the only ones hateful and violent messages, but for this CMV, I will let at that.
Also, there's that too: “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
Essentially, the main reason why I have this view is because it doesn't makes sense to respect an ideology that doesn't respect me. It hates me. I can't really call it a good religion.
| 1,484,382,503
|
Hazeringx
|
dcetufb
|
dcetsyl
| 26
| 2
|
CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee.
The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her.
Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say "Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump." That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture.
So, let's say I agree.
Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies.
I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us?
|
>With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture.
Before we start talking about how Bernie could defeat Donald lets dispell the notion of democratic-socialism. What he describes as "socialism", socialism is not. He used Denmark as an example but the [Danish PM tried to explain to him that Denmark does not want to be associated with socialism](http://www.headlinepolitics.com/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-stop-lying-country/)
>nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture.
The US is already a liberal and free culture. Way more liberal than what we are here in Europe. And by liberal i mean open society that protects individual rights, industrial and free market economics and the rule of law. These principles have worked for the American people and they have made the US the one and only global power. Not regional but global.
The American people are deeply tied to this liberal tradition. Even conservatives are really classical liberals ( not all of them but a lot of them. It is the same with liberals. Not all of them are social democrats ). Still talking about individual rights and the rule of law etc. And in order to win an election you need to win not only the vote of one perticular group of people. You need to win the majority of the nation. There is **no way** that a conservative or a libertarian or a sensible liberal would vote for Bernie Sanders. And why is that ?
Socialism is fringe politics. His opponents in the Trump team would focus their campaign on promoting socialist failures ( and they would have plenty of material to work with ) from Cuba to Venezuela. I can already hear you say "yeah but what about Scandinavia ?".
So Scandinavia. Scandinavian countries are free market economics ( [they rank extremelly high on economic freedom](http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) ). They can fund their welfare state for two reasons. One: the US pays for their defence. Two: they generate capital via the free market which is the only sensible way to generate enough money in order to spend on welfare.
So its simple. There is not way that the majority of Americans would ever vote for a self proclaimed socialist. The American way has proven to be successful and the American people understand that and thats why it won't be easy for them to abandon their liberal insitutions for a more centralized socialist way. And remember as i said before you need to win more than the socialists to win the general election. *Trump played the antiglobalization card in order to win the anti free market vote while portaying himself as a businessman to win the free market vote too.*
As far as what Trump did that Sanders and Hillary could not? Trump won the "flyover America". The people that don't care about the so called 1%. All they wanted was for their small communities to be industrious again.
On immigration Sanders has said that ["open borders are a Koch brothers scheme"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0). Is that enough to win the immigration issue voters ? No. Trump took the issue to a new level. There is not a chance that someone could have trumped Trump on immigration. He mobilized people like never before.
A Trump Sanders battle would have been an all populist race. Trump just played the populist card better. He won the moment you locked down the primaries.
|
Bloomberg would have run third party if it had been Sanders vs. Trump. Sane people split their vote between Bloomberg and Sanders, Trump still wins.
|
5nwnd4
|
CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee.
|
The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her.
Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say "Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump." That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture.
So, let's say I agree.
Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies.
I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us?
| 1,484,385,571
|
Cheetuhman
|
dcev90h
|
dcev7nk
| 17
| 12
|
CMV: Western countries shouldn't accept refugees because it is a lot cheaper to house them in secured areas of their country/neighboring country.
I'm talking mostly about refugees from iraq/syria because of the war going on there. There are of course valid reasons why western countries should accept refugees. For example: political refugees, lbgt people being prosecuted in their country etc...
I'd think that one could give a home to multiple refugees in secured areas of iraq and syria for the cost of housing one refugee in a western country, where the cost of living and the population density are a lot higher.
It seems unethical to house refugees in western countries, and give them almost special treatment over the many other refugees. We could have massive increases in aid to the middle east, and improve every refugees quality of life.
We could also fund jordan and perhaps even iran to accept more refugees.
Edit: i made a drawing: http://imgur.com/a/Gj7Qb
Edit2: to the people downvoting comments, please tell me why you are doing so.
Edit3: delta has been awarded, but feel free to keep the discussion going.
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
|
No, seriously, copy and paste a comment that actually does this, and then we can talk about why you think it does adress my issues.
|
Where in your sources does it say that 50% + 1 of the refugees are high-skill?
|
5nx88x
|
CMV: Western countries shouldn't accept refugees because it is a lot cheaper to house them in secured areas of their country/neighboring country.
|
I'm talking mostly about refugees from iraq/syria because of the war going on there. There are of course valid reasons why western countries should accept refugees. For example: political refugees, lbgt people being prosecuted in their country etc...
I'd think that one could give a home to multiple refugees in secured areas of iraq and syria for the cost of housing one refugee in a western country, where the cost of living and the population density are a lot higher.
It seems unethical to house refugees in western countries, and give them almost special treatment over the many other refugees. We could have massive increases in aid to the middle east, and improve every refugees quality of life.
We could also fund jordan and perhaps even iran to accept more refugees.
Edit: i made a drawing: http://imgur.com/a/Gj7Qb
Edit2: to the people downvoting comments, please tell me why you are doing so.
Edit3: delta has been awarded, but feel free to keep the discussion going.
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
| 1,484,397,264
|
Poppejans
|
dcfm317
|
dcfd1io
| 0
| -1
|
CMV: I should unsubscribe from r/The_Donald
I try to read and participate in both American political communities equally - for years, I would get all of my news from NPR on the way to my job as a construction worker. But I've been trying to change that in the past few years by paying attention to sources like Fox, Townhall and the like. I've found that generally, liberal biased sources jive with my larger and more logical ideas on how the world should be, but conservative sites are more reflective of my experience as a (very) lower class blue collar worker and "average" Midwestern American. I identify with liberal logic, but I identify with conservative skepticism and real-world focus, if that makes any sense.
I'm very new to Reddit, less than 3 or 4 months, and with the above in mind, I subscribed to r/The_Donald hoping it would help offset my subscription to r/politics and Reddit's general liberality (this is a word, yes?). Balance in everything and all that.
But there are only so many memes and trains and "cucks" and circle jerking I can handle before I just stop paying attention in a post, and that's mostly what I find in r/The_Donald. The Tucker Carlson AMA was good though. I have the same policy for any Reddit post; I get sick of upvoted pun comments pretty quickly.
Convince me to keep r/The_Donald on my list!
Disclosure: I voted absentee for HRC because I disagree with Trump's protean views on immigration, tax, etc. While I think many of the things he says and does are in poor taste, I think it's irresponsible to vote solely based on how much you like one candidate or another.
|
I never subscribed, but I went to The_Donald pretty regularly for a week or two after the election as part of a genuine effort to try and understand the opposition. Supporting Donald Trump is a such a dangerous irrational position that I have to know *why* people could have voted for him. I needed to know what people are thinking. I had to try to understand them.
I stopped going to The_Donald because it's a wasteland and I mean that in a pretty literal sense. It's a no-mans land of up-voting robots. Posts on there regularly get 20k+ votes and only 40 comments. For "the most active subreddit" almost nobody's there saying anything.
This is a CMV so the opinion that I want you to change is this:
*Do not unsubscribe from The_Donald*, **GET BANNED**.
Get banned! Do it. Post something mild, something tame and *innocuous* in the comments that is not rabid unquestioning support for Donald and get banned! Just do it. Fuck The_Donald. You don't have to be rude or harsh. Just make a vague allusion to the ridiculous double-standards of free speech, Trump's myriad of lies, the silliness of attacking Megan Kelly who was a dyed in the red conservative all her life but had the misfortune of being a woman near Trump, or any other of a thousand different equally preposterous axioms of The_Donald.
Don't unsubscribe, **GET BANNED**. Wear it like a badge of honor.
|
I think the memes and puns will always be a major part of /r/the_donald, so it becomes a question of "is searching for quality posts/comments worth tolerating the joke stuff?" Because with the large amount of activity on the subreddit, it means /r/the_donald has a ton of jokes but is also good at shining a light on stories that many left-leaning media outlets miss or ignore.
What I might also suggest is checking out other right-leaning subreddits (such as /r/Conservative and /r/Republican for general news, or /r/AskTrumpSupporters and /r/AskThe_Donald if you want discussion/Q&As). Those may provide the perspective you're interested in with less of the memes and puns.
|
5nxjyw
|
CMV: I should unsubscribe from r/The_Donald
|
I try to read and participate in both American political communities equally - for years, I would get all of my news from NPR on the way to my job as a construction worker. But I've been trying to change that in the past few years by paying attention to sources like Fox, Townhall and the like. I've found that generally, liberal biased sources jive with my larger and more logical ideas on how the world should be, but conservative sites are more reflective of my experience as a (very) lower class blue collar worker and "average" Midwestern American. I identify with liberal logic, but I identify with conservative skepticism and real-world focus, if that makes any sense.
I'm very new to Reddit, less than 3 or 4 months, and with the above in mind, I subscribed to r/The_Donald hoping it would help offset my subscription to r/politics and Reddit's general liberality (this is a word, yes?). Balance in everything and all that.
But there are only so many memes and trains and "cucks" and circle jerking I can handle before I just stop paying attention in a post, and that's mostly what I find in r/The_Donald. The Tucker Carlson AMA was good though. I have the same policy for any Reddit post; I get sick of upvoted pun comments pretty quickly.
Convince me to keep r/The_Donald on my list!
Disclosure: I voted absentee for HRC because I disagree with Trump's protean views on immigration, tax, etc. While I think many of the things he says and does are in poor taste, I think it's irresponsible to vote solely based on how much you like one candidate or another.
| 1,484,402,562
|
FaulmanRhodes
|
dcf4j8l
|
dcf1ysp
| 25
| 14
|
CMV: My friend think AI assisted music will destroy creativity. I think it's gonna be the opposite, everyone will have access to the gift of music.
I've seen it multiple times, this sort of luddite behavior. For example, people are already saying sampling is just stealing. While it may be true, some people use it very well and skillfully to create something new. It has also made things easier for many people. I've studied a bit of music history and rap wouldn't exist or wouldn't be the same without sampling.
I think the purpose of technology is to make things easier, less tedious, but in my opinion we live in a society where we value hard work instead of smart work... We already see it in school, cheating is considered illegal... I think it's just another way to get to your goal, a risky one and not the most practical one, but when you're out of option, you should consider it.
As for my studies, I love computers and I love making music, so I've enrolled in a course where they both teach a bit of computer science and programming along with music courses such as music theory and music making on computer.
My dream project would be to create some sort of AI that would instantly write a song and make it better and more unique every time someone press the button, because it would learn from the songs it has made, and also songs of other instance of the same AI has made. Of course I'm still in my first year of study so I'm nowhere near that, but I've already begun working on it, for now you can input a melody and it harmonize it for you, respecting different rules of music theory around the world.
In the near future, many people will lose their job because robots do it better and cheaper, so I hope that with my work, I will be able to give them something to do something meaningful. It will create, hopefully, a whole new generation of music maker, a bit assisted yes, but as I stated before, sampling was considered cheating by some people, but many have used sampling in such way that they have create something new out of that technology. Maybe the same will happen to AI assisted music?
So yeah, overall, I think that if robots assisted us in making music, it would create new genres, create new skill, and give the gift of music to everyon, my friends who are "only" studying music think it's gonna destroy music, and that it would be cheating to make music with the assistance of an AI.
|
It won't destroy creativity, but obviously pressing a button and getting music out of it isn't creative. It's just having something else create for you. The creativity was on the part of whoever made that program. And it's also not ... imaginative in the way that people associate with creativity in the context of artistic pursuits.
Music is also in part about bending and breaking rules, surprising the audience. AI(the kind we have at the moment) mostly creates music by rules(syntax/algorithm or whatever) such that most music it will make will likely be fairly bland, lacking in nuance and character, without human input.
I don't think it's going to give everyone the gift of music. The program that creates music will just create the same kind of music for whoever has it, and I think people would quickly bore of that type of music.
Perhaps it'll get more advanced eventually, it's speculation whether or not we're going to be capable of creating AI that can be expressive in the way a human can, but I doubt in the near future AI will come anywhere close to obsoleting human-made music. It may aid in their efforts, but that's already happening to some extent.
|
The problem with A.I. creativity is: What do we program TO?
That is, how do we tell the program "This melody is better than that melody, so make things more like this and less like that?" It's gotta learn, sure, but.... learn what?
That has got to either service someone's idiosyncratic ear or to play to some sort of mass appeal. Playing to mass appeal is exactly not creative, so it can't do what you want.
Playing to a person's individual ear is the only way I see this working out... individual users can input a battery of songs they like and a new song based on them pops out. The problem with that is... what do you do with it now? You've made something for yourself, and you can listen to it, but who else cares?
There's two things about sampling that make it an imperfect metaphor. One is that it came up to be associated with DJ culture, DJ meaning someone who scratches and mixes. There's a level of technical skill and performativity involved in that kind of DJing that has no analogue I can picture with AI music.
Second, even at its VERY best (and speaking as someone who is an avid fan of old-school hip-hop and EDM), sampled music always has had and always will have an element of novelty. What I mean by that is, there's a pleasure in seeing something you explicitly recognize repurposed to a new context in a clever way. Even if you don't recognize it, there's the fun of knowing this loop came from somewhere totally different. I can see some uses of this with AI ("Look how hilarious it is when I train it on both Led Zepplin and Frank Sinatra!") but the end results would be too ambiguously connected to the source material to give that same kind of pleasure.
|
5nym0o
|
CMV: My friend think AI assisted music will destroy creativity. I think it's gonna be the opposite, everyone will have access to the gift of music.
|
I've seen it multiple times, this sort of luddite behavior. For example, people are already saying sampling is just stealing. While it may be true, some people use it very well and skillfully to create something new. It has also made things easier for many people. I've studied a bit of music history and rap wouldn't exist or wouldn't be the same without sampling.
I think the purpose of technology is to make things easier, less tedious, but in my opinion we live in a society where we value hard work instead of smart work... We already see it in school, cheating is considered illegal... I think it's just another way to get to your goal, a risky one and not the most practical one, but when you're out of option, you should consider it.
As for my studies, I love computers and I love making music, so I've enrolled in a course where they both teach a bit of computer science and programming along with music courses such as music theory and music making on computer.
My dream project would be to create some sort of AI that would instantly write a song and make it better and more unique every time someone press the button, because it would learn from the songs it has made, and also songs of other instance of the same AI has made. Of course I'm still in my first year of study so I'm nowhere near that, but I've already begun working on it, for now you can input a melody and it harmonize it for you, respecting different rules of music theory around the world.
In the near future, many people will lose their job because robots do it better and cheaper, so I hope that with my work, I will be able to give them something to do something meaningful. It will create, hopefully, a whole new generation of music maker, a bit assisted yes, but as I stated before, sampling was considered cheating by some people, but many have used sampling in such way that they have create something new out of that technology. Maybe the same will happen to AI assisted music?
So yeah, overall, I think that if robots assisted us in making music, it would create new genres, create new skill, and give the gift of music to everyon, my friends who are "only" studying music think it's gonna destroy music, and that it would be cheating to make music with the assistance of an AI.
| 1,484,415,506
|
[deleted]
|
dcfb09u
|
dcfadzc
| 3
| 0
|
CMV: racism against African Americans will be greatly reduced only when income levels are similar to whites
Different ethnic groups have suffered from overt racism throughout the history of America. Italians, Irish, Chinese, Jews, East Asians, South Asians, and others have all been considered second class citizens at some point. While some of you might still think that racism/xenophobia still apply to these groups, we can say that relatively most if not all of these ethnic groups can succeed in the US and live a good life without fear to be targeted.
For example, even though Asians get called racist names, their plight is not close to African American experience. I never heard regular folks double guessing whether an Asian is an affirmative action hire. Some might not agree but I think that's a reasonable thing to say.
I believe a great way to reduce systemic racism is though wealth creation. All these ethnic groups have over time created wealth for themselves in the US and lowered the barrier of entry for themselves.
I think that African Americans have not unfortunately created enough wealth to get that respect in the US. In fact I think post Martin Luther King Blacks political power should have been invested in creating wealth (maybe they did and I'm wrong). The average income and wealth for Blacks are much lower than the US average. If African Americans were more wealthy, the discrimination towards them as a race would be lower.
Now I admit that some will bring that these ethnic groups are immigrant communities, and there is some self selection. While true, most Blacks in Canada, France, and the UK are immigrants...yet they deal with racism and limited success in their society, albeit at different levels than the US.
Additionally, others might say that it's literally impossible given that the laws are inherently racists. While also true, aren't the laws unwelcoming of all these ethnic groups (especially Jews and Asians) at some point?
I'm assuming a last contention will be that there no path to get there. My solution would have been to invest in education (not stop until Black grades are indistinguishable from whites and Asians), ask congressmen to create financial instruments to support black businesses, create financial instruments to help Blacks getting low rate mortgages, and take affirmative steps to reduce crime in where Blacks live.
A quick note on my background: I am black and actually immigrated in the US - Boston- at 19 (all family moved in). I didn't speak English then. I had a single mother. Went to a community college, then a graduated college, and had the chance to go to a top 10 MBA down the line. I currently work on a "wall-street" bank. I'm asking this question because I'm truly trying to understand how to reduce / eliminate racism.
Thank you.
|
>I believe a great way to reduce systemic racism is though wealth creation. All these ethnic groups have over time created wealth for themselves in the US and lowered the barrier of entry for themselves.
>I think that African Americans have not unfortunately created enough wealth to get that respect in the US. In fact I think post Martin Luther King Blacks political power should have been invested in creating wealth
I think most people would agree with you on this point, but disagree that "post-MLK" hasn't been about creating opportunity in black communities, check out LBJ's "Great Society" legislation.
I think you need to examine why black people are trapped in systematic poverty. Most black people in the US are descended from slaves who even after the end of slavery were never able to amass wealth because they never had the money for initial investments like buying land so they ended up working for the same people that had previously enslaved them, and then being more willing to move to northern cities for factory jobs during the industrial revolution.
This is not true for the US Asian population. People talk about how Chinese people were mistreated during the building of the continental railroad and Japanese internment camps, but the fact is that until the immigration laws were relaxed in the 60s there were not many asian people in the US. The majority of Asian people in the US currently are either economic migrants who came here because they got good jobs or are their descendants. Another important note is that those put in Japanese internment camps received some reparations for the wealth lost during their internment, US slaves never really got their "40 acres and mule".
|
Their income will never be similar to whites, because there are heritable intelligence differences between races. Until gene modification is utilized, there will always be a discrepancy.
This study shows intelligence has a heritability of over 80%.
~~edit: Extra source: https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-polderman.pdf~~
~~http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.3285.html~~
edit: Sorry linked wrong paper. This one: http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/temperament/bouchard.04.curdir.pdf
|
5nz4y1
|
CMV: racism against African Americans will be greatly reduced only when income levels are similar to whites
|
Different ethnic groups have suffered from overt racism throughout the history of America. Italians, Irish, Chinese, Jews, East Asians, South Asians, and others have all been considered second class citizens at some point. While some of you might still think that racism/xenophobia still apply to these groups, we can say that relatively most if not all of these ethnic groups can succeed in the US and live a good life without fear to be targeted.
For example, even though Asians get called racist names, their plight is not close to African American experience. I never heard regular folks double guessing whether an Asian is an affirmative action hire. Some might not agree but I think that's a reasonable thing to say.
I believe a great way to reduce systemic racism is though wealth creation. All these ethnic groups have over time created wealth for themselves in the US and lowered the barrier of entry for themselves.
I think that African Americans have not unfortunately created enough wealth to get that respect in the US. In fact I think post Martin Luther King Blacks political power should have been invested in creating wealth (maybe they did and I'm wrong). The average income and wealth for Blacks are much lower than the US average. If African Americans were more wealthy, the discrimination towards them as a race would be lower.
Now I admit that some will bring that these ethnic groups are immigrant communities, and there is some self selection. While true, most Blacks in Canada, France, and the UK are immigrants...yet they deal with racism and limited success in their society, albeit at different levels than the US.
Additionally, others might say that it's literally impossible given that the laws are inherently racists. While also true, aren't the laws unwelcoming of all these ethnic groups (especially Jews and Asians) at some point?
I'm assuming a last contention will be that there no path to get there. My solution would have been to invest in education (not stop until Black grades are indistinguishable from whites and Asians), ask congressmen to create financial instruments to support black businesses, create financial instruments to help Blacks getting low rate mortgages, and take affirmative steps to reduce crime in where Blacks live.
A quick note on my background: I am black and actually immigrated in the US - Boston- at 19 (all family moved in). I didn't speak English then. I had a single mother. Went to a community college, then a graduated college, and had the chance to go to a top 10 MBA down the line. I currently work on a "wall-street" bank. I'm asking this question because I'm truly trying to understand how to reduce / eliminate racism.
Thank you.
| 1,484,421,173
|
johnniewelker
|
dcfeg7o
|
dcfd5ro
| 6
| -6
|
CMV: Most people don't change their views based on facts and evidence.
I don't even know if this is really controversial. Well, it is, because I've had someone disagree with me on this. But here it goes:
My claim is that the majority of people ─ at least 2/3 ─ does not change their views based on facts and evidence in anything resembling a systematic, reliable way.
A tiny minority (probably less than 1% in the general population, although I'd expect the proportion to be much bigger in this subreddit) are rational people who are willing (even eager) to let go of most or all of their beliefs if presented with objectively sufficient evidence (that is, evidence of comparable strength to what led them to their original belief in the first place). These people won't hold on very long, or at all, to beliefs that are shown to be wrong; they'll tend to actively seek reputable information (often in the form of other rational people) because they **want** to get rid of their wrong views.
The remainder are somewhere in between: they know that they don't know everything and that human minds are fallible, but their application of this knowledge to their own human mind is limited or inconsistent, such that they'll let go of some beliefs very easily but others only with a lot of effort by themselves and the people presenting the contradicting evidence.
In sum, I view mankind as:
* 2/3 or more who will generally cling to their views even in the face of overwhelming evidence;
* 1% or less who will actively try to have others change their views;
* about 30% who are relatively permeable to updating their beliefs, but not in a systematic fashion.
The kinds of delta I think are more likely are changes in these percentages. It could also be that my categorization scheme is wrong, which I'd be glad to award deltas for if corrected.
One assumption I have and that it's pointless to debate here (it could be the subject of another post) is that there exists a single, unified, consistent objective reality; that each of us has a limited and flawed grasp of said reality, in the form of our beliefs; and that the degree of correspondence between one's beliefs and actual reality varies, such that one belief can be more correct than the other. As an example, saying the Earth is spherical is wrong, saying it is flat is wrong, but these wrongs are not the same.
Since this is a fundamental assumption, discussion of it is very unlikely to result in deltas.
|
This Washington Post article cites some studies where people showed willingness to change views --
> Many political scientists tend to think that our beliefs are deep-seated and difficult to change. That’s why the results of an experiment last year, which showed that door-to-door canvassers can reduce prejudice against transgender people, were so stunning. Few expected that such a brief conversation could have an lasting impact on people’s opinions
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/06/if-someone-doesnt-like-immigrants-ask-them-this-question/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.b6100291f5b7
|
you mistake religious views with normal views, most normal views are changed by logic, because there are millions of tiny views that have no emotional attachment
hell what do you think school actually is, its introducing a specific view on reality by facts and evidence
|
5nzsld
|
CMV: Most people don't change their views based on facts and evidence.
|
I don't even know if this is really controversial. Well, it is, because I've had someone disagree with me on this. But here it goes:
My claim is that the majority of people ─ at least 2/3 ─ does not change their views based on facts and evidence in anything resembling a systematic, reliable way.
A tiny minority (probably less than 1% in the general population, although I'd expect the proportion to be much bigger in this subreddit) are rational people who are willing (even eager) to let go of most or all of their beliefs if presented with objectively sufficient evidence (that is, evidence of comparable strength to what led them to their original belief in the first place). These people won't hold on very long, or at all, to beliefs that are shown to be wrong; they'll tend to actively seek reputable information (often in the form of other rational people) because they **want** to get rid of their wrong views.
The remainder are somewhere in between: they know that they don't know everything and that human minds are fallible, but their application of this knowledge to their own human mind is limited or inconsistent, such that they'll let go of some beliefs very easily but others only with a lot of effort by themselves and the people presenting the contradicting evidence.
In sum, I view mankind as:
* 2/3 or more who will generally cling to their views even in the face of overwhelming evidence;
* 1% or less who will actively try to have others change their views;
* about 30% who are relatively permeable to updating their beliefs, but not in a systematic fashion.
The kinds of delta I think are more likely are changes in these percentages. It could also be that my categorization scheme is wrong, which I'd be glad to award deltas for if corrected.
One assumption I have and that it's pointless to debate here (it could be the subject of another post) is that there exists a single, unified, consistent objective reality; that each of us has a limited and flawed grasp of said reality, in the form of our beliefs; and that the degree of correspondence between one's beliefs and actual reality varies, such that one belief can be more correct than the other. As an example, saying the Earth is spherical is wrong, saying it is flat is wrong, but these wrongs are not the same.
Since this is a fundamental assumption, discussion of it is very unlikely to result in deltas.
| 1,484,428,077
|
lalalalalalala71
|
dcfi36a
|
dcfhzm5
| 73
| 10
|
CMV: Incest really shouldn't be a problem if it can be reasonably concluded that no power relationship is at play and that the couple agree not to have children
Edit: View changed, I no longer oppose reproduction. I do think couples should be educated as to the risks, but no authority has the right to stop them from doing so.
So I've said to some people I know a couple times that once lgbt rights and things are secured the next step for de-stigmatising should probably be incest. In most cases this was taken one of two ways; either I was taken as a reactionary using a slippery slope argument, or I was seen as joking. This is not the case. Earlier today I saw a post mentioning how incest was sick, just innately and occuring in a vacuum. Personally, I earnestly think this idea needs to be challenged.
There are of course elements of incestuous relationships which can be problematic. There is the problem of parent/child relationships for example where a clear power structure is in place which could very well be dominating the life of the child, and it can be assumed that they don't actually want to be in that relationship. They are being controlled.
The other factor that makes incest problematic is the topic of reproduction. It is widely understood that incestuous relationships are incredibly bad for the gene pool and, more importantly, can result in children being born with defects that can have a dramatic effect on their quality of life. I have to question the likelihood of this occuring within one generational leap, however, as I am currently (perhaps wrongly) under the impression this would require more than one generation of in-breeding to substantially manifest. Correct me if I'm wrong.
With that said, incest that can be reasonably demonstrated to lack a pre-existing power structure and a desire to reproduce between partners still appears to be equally taboo. I have to question why this is the case, if two people can be said to honestly love each other, why should a blood relation forbid them from marrying and openly living out their life together? It harms nobody and it makes them happy. What justification can there possibly be for keeping these people apart? I simply do not see any reason to object. A brother and sister for example of similar age would be unlikely to hold the other under any kind of power to force them into a relationship and should they acknowledge that it is not a great idea to have kids, what is the problem? Because I don't see one.
|
I'll attack a premise from the title that you likely didn't expect to be attackt:
Why should the relationship not be allowed when they *do* want to have kids? After all, we don't forbid couples with genetic defects like MS to have kids. So either you need to give genetic screening to couples that might be less than perfect and make it illegal for them to have kids (or maybe castrate them?) or you don't have an argument against incestous couples having kids.
Since you're likely not going to go full-Nazi and forbid people with genetically induced disabilities to reproduce, you don't can't really disallow it for siblings.
Maybe I can change your mind in so far as to give siblings in love more freedom as a result.
|
What happens if they do have kids? Children will always been a risk when a man and a woman are having sex. Birth control can fail and vasectomies can reverse themselves. What happens to a couple should a child actually result? What happens if they just lie about not wanting children? Now you've had a child created, which you've stated shouldn't be allowed.
|
5o0onq
|
CMV: Incest really shouldn't be a problem if it can be reasonably concluded that no power relationship is at play and that the couple agree not to have children
|
Edit: View changed, I no longer oppose reproduction. I do think couples should be educated as to the risks, but no authority has the right to stop them from doing so.
So I've said to some people I know a couple times that once lgbt rights and things are secured the next step for de-stigmatising should probably be incest. In most cases this was taken one of two ways; either I was taken as a reactionary using a slippery slope argument, or I was seen as joking. This is not the case. Earlier today I saw a post mentioning how incest was sick, just innately and occuring in a vacuum. Personally, I earnestly think this idea needs to be challenged.
There are of course elements of incestuous relationships which can be problematic. There is the problem of parent/child relationships for example where a clear power structure is in place which could very well be dominating the life of the child, and it can be assumed that they don't actually want to be in that relationship. They are being controlled.
The other factor that makes incest problematic is the topic of reproduction. It is widely understood that incestuous relationships are incredibly bad for the gene pool and, more importantly, can result in children being born with defects that can have a dramatic effect on their quality of life. I have to question the likelihood of this occuring within one generational leap, however, as I am currently (perhaps wrongly) under the impression this would require more than one generation of in-breeding to substantially manifest. Correct me if I'm wrong.
With that said, incest that can be reasonably demonstrated to lack a pre-existing power structure and a desire to reproduce between partners still appears to be equally taboo. I have to question why this is the case, if two people can be said to honestly love each other, why should a blood relation forbid them from marrying and openly living out their life together? It harms nobody and it makes them happy. What justification can there possibly be for keeping these people apart? I simply do not see any reason to object. A brother and sister for example of similar age would be unlikely to hold the other under any kind of power to force them into a relationship and should they acknowledge that it is not a great idea to have kids, what is the problem? Because I don't see one.
| 1,484,437,778
|
EssJayDoubleYew
|
dcfqh5z
|
dcfp84w
| 6
| 1
|
CMV: No one is actually happy
I feel like the modern world has made it seem that everyone is happy but 'you'. Everything on media and everything we see on youtube depicts peoples lives in such a glorious way that when you look at your own you cannot help but feel depressed. Happiness is an emotional experience though, not a state of being. It is a fleeting moment amongst a long life of hardships and trials. So how can anyone claim "they are happy in life". It seems that really what they are saying is "This is one of those fleeting moments in life where I feel content and nothing is going wrong".
The people who genuinely seem the happiest are: 1. really stupid people, and 2. poor people 3. Children
1. Ignorance is bliss: The more I learned about how the world works and my place in it, the more depressed I became. Sociology, psychology and philosophy are fascinating, but ultimately depressing. The less you know about society, the less angry you are at it. The less you know about how your mind works and how it got to the point of where it is, the less self-analytical you are. The less you know about God/universe, the more you can concentrate on your own egocentric life.
2. Poor people, especially ones who live in tribes or areas where the whole population is without resources, depend on one another and develop healthy co-dependant relationships with their community and have increased solidarity as a result. Rich people on the other hand had to do everything for themselves; and it takes lots of selfish pursuits to become rich, often resulting in isolating yourself from others in the process.
3. Children are happy likely because they have not been exposed to the world yet.
Happiness seems like a dream we are all aiming to achieve and it is impossible to do so (at least in the societies we have constructed for ourselves). And everyone I have met that seem extremely happy and care-free on the outside are actually the most miserable on the inside. The only thing that gives me hope is that Children are happy; which makes me think that there is something wrong with the socialization experience/media that we are exposed growing up which creates an unhappy disposition in life.
|
> So how can anyone claim "they are happy in life".
This doesn't mean a person never faces hardship or is never sad. It just means that they feel that either the total happiness in their life exceeds that of sadness, or they are more often happy or content than they are not, or even a mixture of both. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to think that way because it is entirely based on their own subjective view of their life.
> Ignorance is bliss: The more I learned about how the world works and my place in it, the more depressed I became. Sociology, psychology and philosophy are fascinating, but ultimately depressing. The less you know about society, the less angry you are at it. The less you know about how your mind works and how it got to the point of where it is, the less self-analytical you are. The less you know about God/universe, the more you can concentrate on your own egocentric life.
That may be subjectively true for you, but not objectively true for everyone. People who are pessimistic will take negative views in those areas. People who are optimistic will take positive views of them. People who are realists will take neutral views. It's a state of being which is different from person to person.
> Poor people, especially ones who live in tribes or areas where the whole population is without resources, depend on one another and develop healthy co-dependant relationships with their community and have increased solidarity as a result. Rich people on the other hand had to do everything for themselves; and it takes lots of selfish pursuits to become rich, often resulting in isolating yourself from others in the process.
Are we talking super poor, people at or below the poverty line, people who just get by? How are you defining poor? People who are poor are not necessarily happy, nor are they necessarily unhappy. Their happiness would greatly depend on where their values are place and how much money they need to meet those values.
For the rich, it is the same. Are we talking billionaires? Millionaires? People who own a house with a white picket fence and a new minivan? The same can be said of the rich. The difference is that they can actually be even happier for various reasons. [George Lucas](https://youtube.com/watch?v=jGBfiYVyWrg) has his own opinion on happiness, and he seems to genuinely believe it from experience. Peter Singer also seems to find happiness in the idea of effective altruism. Bill Gates seems to find his own happiness as well, especially I assume in being a [Secret Santa](https://www.redditgifts.com/gallery/gift/won-secret-santabill-gates-was-my-santa/). People find happiness in their owns ways.
If you look at a glass of water and only consider it to be half empty, you will never get around to seeing it is also half full, and vice versa. There isn't anything inherently wrong with either of these views, but to say that everyone sees that glass of water the same way you do is overly presumptuous. You are assuming to know how other people think and feel when you can only speak with certainty on what you think and feel.
|
> Happiness is an emotional experience though, not a state of being.
I think here you're confusing joy/excitement with happiness. Happiness is a state of being, the whole idea of being enlightened is based around that largely. I'd argue happiness is satisfaction and in our world it is very hard to feel truly satisfied making happiness difficult to achieve.
|
5o1di4
|
CMV: No one is actually happy
|
I feel like the modern world has made it seem that everyone is happy but 'you'. Everything on media and everything we see on youtube depicts peoples lives in such a glorious way that when you look at your own you cannot help but feel depressed. Happiness is an emotional experience though, not a state of being. It is a fleeting moment amongst a long life of hardships and trials. So how can anyone claim "they are happy in life". It seems that really what they are saying is "This is one of those fleeting moments in life where I feel content and nothing is going wrong".
The people who genuinely seem the happiest are: 1. really stupid people, and 2. poor people 3. Children
1. Ignorance is bliss: The more I learned about how the world works and my place in it, the more depressed I became. Sociology, psychology and philosophy are fascinating, but ultimately depressing. The less you know about society, the less angry you are at it. The less you know about how your mind works and how it got to the point of where it is, the less self-analytical you are. The less you know about God/universe, the more you can concentrate on your own egocentric life.
2. Poor people, especially ones who live in tribes or areas where the whole population is without resources, depend on one another and develop healthy co-dependant relationships with their community and have increased solidarity as a result. Rich people on the other hand had to do everything for themselves; and it takes lots of selfish pursuits to become rich, often resulting in isolating yourself from others in the process.
3. Children are happy likely because they have not been exposed to the world yet.
Happiness seems like a dream we are all aiming to achieve and it is impossible to do so (at least in the societies we have constructed for ourselves). And everyone I have met that seem extremely happy and care-free on the outside are actually the most miserable on the inside. The only thing that gives me hope is that Children are happy; which makes me think that there is something wrong with the socialization experience/media that we are exposed growing up which creates an unhappy disposition in life.
| 1,484,445,894
|
Chewyman11
|
dcfw6i6
|
dcfv5z1
| 9
| 2
|
CMV: People should have to pass a test in order to vote on important issues
So I believe everyone has the right to vote, but also everyone has the right for their vote to be taken seriously. When you have idiots who know nothing about what they are voting for being given the same voting power as people who have thoroughly studied the issue, it is not fair.
I believe whenever there is a big vote, citizens should be made to fill out a quick test with simple questions such as "Which of the following is one of Donald Trump's policies?", or "How many MEPs does the UK have in the EU?", or "what is the name of the current Secretary of defense?"
The answers would have to be unambiguous and easily known by somebody who has even a basic interest in politics. I strongly believe this would both make voting fairer, and also encourage more people to do research and cross reference their facts before they are allowed to participate in democracy. Change my view.
|
A few questions:
What are "simple questions", and what should their relevance to the matter in hand be? A central part of politics is legislation; should you be required to know the legislative process in the US in order to vote? How big part of British legislation that originates in Brussels? Both of these are very relevant question, for the US election and for Brexit, respectively. Should they be included, for instance?
___
Who are going to pick these questions? Unless this person is someone we can trust 100%, there's a real chance the questions will be formed in the favour of one choice, or the questions may be loaded:
>Which of the following is/are among Trump's policies:
>A. Annexing Sudetenland
B. Nuke Japan
C. Build a wall on the Mexican border
>Which of the following is/are among Clinton's policies:
>A. Strengthening relations with the Middle East
B. Sever any non-essential communication with the Middle East
C. Establishing an Office of Immigrant Affair, and granting it $20 000 000
(Note that I am a non-American, so I'm all that into American politics, but from what I could tell from her [page](https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/), *one* of the above is among her policies)
You can see how these questions may influence the results, I hope. The first question is incredibly easy; any voter (Trump or Clinton, informed or ignorant) could have answered that correctly.
The other question, on the other hand, is much more difficult, for voters of both political leanings. The people able to answer *that* question, would most likely be Clinton voters, wouldn't you agree? Asking that question would effectively block most Trump supporters from voting, as well as a lot of Clinton supporters, I imagine.
___
Wasn't this already tried a couple of hundred years back as well? Voting requiring certain reading skills, effectively blocking thousands of (mostly black) Americans from voting. How are we going to prevent a similar situation?
___
How are the answers going to be checked? Take the recent US election, for instance, and how long it took to count the votes. If we add some test to that, the time (and money) spent would increase tenfold.
EDIT: And the time spent in the voting stalls would increase massively as well, even if it's something like 5 questions. Just think about the amount of people who vote, and that every one of those will spend 1-2 minutes extra in there, at the very least.
___
What does fairness mean to you? That everyone (even stupid or uninformed people) have a chance to get their voice heard; or that your political "value", so to speak, is determined by your education, creating a more elitist and class-divided society, although more politically aware?
___
EDIT: some formatting
|
Is there a way for you to ensure that your evaluation mechanism is testing what you want it to test? This is actually a seriously hard problem, so don't brush it off. Just look at the state of evaluative metrics in education. For one thing, in nearly every domain that has evaluations, there's serious controversy as to whether standardized tests use biased metrics that correlate with e.g. socioeconomic class, inborn traits like IQ, or even geographical regions, rather than mastery of any particular material. On top of that, it's very difficult to prove that these metrics actually correlate to educational outcomes, or if standardization simply constrains curriculum and encourages teachers to cheat.
What's more, there are famously huge effects on poll results based on the wording of questions, especially having to do with policy (To name just one famous example, polls vary a lot based on whether you say "Affordable Care Act", "Obamacare", or name specific policies of said legislation)
Even discounting the idea that elected officials may intentionally inject their agenda into whatever particulars of the vetting process are decided upon (which is very hard to prevent, see: Gerrymandering, a problem with this exact sort of granular decision-making authority within the democratic process that everyone has known about for decades but is nonetheless very difficult to root out and fix without upending the entire electoral system as we know it), with every new requirement to vote, you create a new hurdle based on your chosen metric, causing a selection pressure whereby political activism that gives the voters a particular message reaches the minimum requisite keywords to pass a test will gain a huge advantage in getting legislation passed and candidates elected.
Technocracy often sounds great in theory, especially when we get a result like "The majority of the uneducated white male demographic voted for a candidate that seems like a terrible idea," but the devil's in the details, and every indication I've seen from similar problems make it seem like the end result of any proposed implementation of this kind of policy will end up just another way in which the complexity of the process by which laws get made cause people to be less able to represent their own interests meaningfully.
|
5o3ki9
|
CMV: People should have to pass a test in order to vote on important issues
|
So I believe everyone has the right to vote, but also everyone has the right for their vote to be taken seriously. When you have idiots who know nothing about what they are voting for being given the same voting power as people who have thoroughly studied the issue, it is not fair.
I believe whenever there is a big vote, citizens should be made to fill out a quick test with simple questions such as "Which of the following is one of Donald Trump's policies?", or "How many MEPs does the UK have in the EU?", or "what is the name of the current Secretary of defense?"
The answers would have to be unambiguous and easily known by somebody who has even a basic interest in politics. I strongly believe this would both make voting fairer, and also encourage more people to do research and cross reference their facts before they are allowed to participate in democracy. Change my view.
| 1,484,481,011
|
80025-75540
|
dcge13m
|
dcgcpo1
| 21
| 6
|
CMV: Special snowflakes/ special snowflake culture isn't as bad as people make it out to be. In fact, it is a sign of a tolerant and wealthy society.
I often see people online, usually baby boomers but sometimes younger, complaining about the current generation being or becoming one of special snowflakes where people exaggerate themselves and make themselves different just to feel special.
In my opinion this is actually a good thing. Yes I know there are actually a few obnoxious people that do this just to feel special but I think that, for the majority, are doing it because they are finally in a more tolerant society that allows individualism and self expression.
It is also because our society/ culture is a very wealthy one. In poor countries people have to spend the majority of their resources/ time/ energy just trying to survive and as a result there is very little room from any unnecessary expression of individuality that uses up too much time and resources. Because we have many resources at our disposal it allows us to express or individuality in a unique way that has never been possible before.
At least this is what I think. I am open to changing my view however if someone can prove that this is causing a major detrimental effect on our society.
|
I think that treating someone like a 'special snowflake', as you put it, separates them from the rest of society, and perhaps disadvantages them when they go into the real world, where they won't be treated as such. I think the snowflake treatment comes with the presumption that because the given individual is special, they deserve more than someone else. Does this not create entitlement?
I don't know if it actually is detrimental to society. This is just me playing devils advocate.
|
But it being a sign or side effect of something good has little to do with it being good itself.
We can condemn people's entitlement without condemning the reason they are entitled. That may or may not lead to less entitlement without undoing the root cause.
|
5o3kut
|
CMV: Special snowflakes/ special snowflake culture isn't as bad as people make it out to be. In fact, it is a sign of a tolerant and wealthy society.
|
I often see people online, usually baby boomers but sometimes younger, complaining about the current generation being or becoming one of special snowflakes where people exaggerate themselves and make themselves different just to feel special.
In my opinion this is actually a good thing. Yes I know there are actually a few obnoxious people that do this just to feel special but I think that, for the majority, are doing it because they are finally in a more tolerant society that allows individualism and self expression.
It is also because our society/ culture is a very wealthy one. In poor countries people have to spend the majority of their resources/ time/ energy just trying to survive and as a result there is very little room from any unnecessary expression of individuality that uses up too much time and resources. Because we have many resources at our disposal it allows us to express or individuality in a unique way that has never been possible before.
At least this is what I think. I am open to changing my view however if someone can prove that this is causing a major detrimental effect on our society.
| 1,484,481,211
|
The-Author
|
dcgcl3c
|
dcgciwz
| 72
| 68
|
CMV: Light rail is almost always a poor transit choice.
I think that almost all light rail and streetcar projects are boondoggles which cost gobs of money for very little benefit, and would almost universally be better served by busses or heavy rail.
Reasons:
* Busses are much cheaper to set up and operate. Almost the entire capital cost is involved in vehicle purchase, without the necessity of extensive construction. Busses also have similar capacity to light rail trains. For traffic issues in very congested areas, inexpensive infrastructure in the form of [painted bus lanes and enforcement cameras](http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/downloads/pdf/buslane_enforcement_brochure.pdf) can be added.
* Heavy rail is appropriate for areas with large numbers of people needing to move at once. There are many places which need more capacity than busses can provide. But those places need proper trains which are fully grade separated. Light rail, since it's basically bus-sized trains, can't provide the capacity needed in these places.
|
So I think we might be imagining different scenarios here, and it would help to clarify them.
You seem to be talking about rail lines which are doing long distances through lightly populated areas between more densely populated cities and towns. That, to me, is not light rail. Light rail is non-grade separated rail service which is usually used to provide shorter distance transit within a city in a similar manner to a subway, but usually at grade and sharing some road space with cars.
A rail line which is not at all integrated with the road network is a heavy rail line, and I think those are fine. My objection is to light rail networks which are integrated with the road network.
|
I see your point in theory, but based on my experience in San Francisco, the light rail is the worst of all transportation options. Would you say light rail is inappropriate in a dense urban environment?
It seems to me that the major problem light rail has in San Francisco is that, because it is on the street, it is subject to many of the same hazards as traffic. Sure, it has dedicated lanes and lights, but if traffic is bad enough, which it often is, the trains get hemmed in by traffic anyway. When this happens, because the trains can't pass one another (which a bus could do), the whole system gets clogged. Is there a way around this, or is light rail fundamentally better for a suburban-to-urban route? Maybe other cities have addressed this issue, but not San Francisco.
|
5o4mep
|
CMV: Light rail is almost always a poor transit choice.
|
I think that almost all light rail and streetcar projects are boondoggles which cost gobs of money for very little benefit, and would almost universally be better served by busses or heavy rail.
Reasons:
* Busses are much cheaper to set up and operate. Almost the entire capital cost is involved in vehicle purchase, without the necessity of extensive construction. Busses also have similar capacity to light rail trains. For traffic issues in very congested areas, inexpensive infrastructure in the form of [painted bus lanes and enforcement cameras](http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/downloads/pdf/buslane_enforcement_brochure.pdf) can be added.
* Heavy rail is appropriate for areas with large numbers of people needing to move at once. There are many places which need more capacity than busses can provide. But those places need proper trains which are fully grade separated. Light rail, since it's basically bus-sized trains, can't provide the capacity needed in these places.
| 1,484,496,165
|
huadpe
|
dcgoyvv
|
dcgnjts
| 4
| 3
|
CMV: Foreign language classes should be replaced by computer coding classes.
I believe that despite their supposed benefits, foreign language classes are a waste of school pupils' time, and that they should be replaced with something else.
One of the main points I would like to make is that foreign language teaching - at least in the UK, where I live - is abysmal. For example:
*Teachers seem to have a complete lack of understanding of how memory works, and so present vocabulary to pupils without ever reviewing it at a later date, hoping it will just 'stick'. When learning a foreign language, I believe that techniques with scientific backing such as spaced repetition (and a good flashcard software such as Anki) are invaluable.
* Grammar isn't taught anywhere near enough, so students make silly mistakes and the supposed benefits of studying a foreign grammar are not reaped to the same extent.
* Languages are not taught in the context in which they are used. I have been studying French in school now for 5 years. I can talk for ages about the environment, politics, issues concerning young people, etc. But when I went to France this summer and had to speak to real French people, the only thing that saved me was the fact that I had intentionally exposed myself to spoken French during my own personal study of the language (I no longer attend lessons in the subject but teach myself instead).
* Complete failure to get pupils to engage with languages. I overheard a conversation at school last month between two 16 year-old pupils (one of whom had studied French until 15) failing to remember what *je suis* meant. It is simply impossible to brand their foreign language education as anything other than a complete catastrophe.
I would also like to consider the idea that learning foreign languages has cognitive benefits. I don't doubt that, if learnt correctly, foreign languages can have at least some positive cognitive impact on learners. However, many of the studies on this focus on children who grow up as bilingual speakers, or otherwise people who have had a good education in foreign languages and have spent a large chunk of their own time trying to learn them, rather than a few hours a week at school. Moreover, very, very few people leave secondary school being able to 'speak' a foreign language to any reasonable standard, and barely any will continue to use the language(s) they've learnt after school/college, so they'll lose the language along with its supposed benefits.
Moreover, there are fewer and fewer people taking modern foreign languages at university level, showing a lack of engagement. It's also likely that this will add to the teaching shortage already a problem in schools.
This is why I believe it would be beneficial to replace foreign language classes with computer coding classes. These will improve pupils' mathematical skills, whilst also teaching them how computers work at a more fundamental level which is an already-invaluable skill which will become more important as automation becomes more widespread and computers become more sophisticated. Of course it would be difficult to get teachers initially, but this is the case with any new subject and if computer coding is implemented as a school subject, there will evidently be many more teachers in the next generation as a result.
|
It's interesting how most of your post is a complaint against language education. Coding takes a backrow seat, and feels entirely arbitrary. Instead of coding, you could argue any other type of subject with one or two very generic supportive claims.
More importantly, exactly how do you figure the issues you recognize in language classes wouldn't apply to coding as well?
On a side note, I'd ask you to support this claim in particular:
>Grammar isn't taught anywhere near enough
In my experience as a teacher, this is simply wrong. I'd argue *too much* emphasis is put on grammar, especially in foreign language teaching, but we don't have to get into that. What do you mean when you say "isn't taught anywhere near enough", though?
|
I agree that language classes tend not to stick, and I recall Spanish being an utter waste of time for me in high school. This is a problem in more than just language classes though, it's ubiquitous in even core classes that they don't apply practical psychological discoveries about how people learn, and how particularly youth learn at different ages. I wasn't engaged by Spanish, but I wasn't engaged by history either - until later on when I got into philosophy courses online which led to me wanting to understand historical events in relation to ideas of that time. What I remember from my school history classes is lots of rote memorization of dates particular events happened instead.
I think to argue the foreign language has no value on the basis that it's taught poorly doesn't mean that coding should replace it. They might fail at teaching coding in memorable and practical ways as well for all we know.
There are also people who'd find Spanish in particular of more value than coding for job opportunities. French, or other more "romantic" languages, maybe not so much. But I don't think foreign languages are somehow less practical, it depends on the person. Coding jobs aren't everyone's thing, and the use of Spanish at least has pretty broad usefulness in many more social jobs - Chinese probably as well.
It seems to me neither coding or foreign language are *essential* to a good education, and only personal bias that'd lead to conclusion that we should replace one with the other.
|
5o6ctd
|
CMV: Foreign language classes should be replaced by computer coding classes.
|
I believe that despite their supposed benefits, foreign language classes are a waste of school pupils' time, and that they should be replaced with something else.
One of the main points I would like to make is that foreign language teaching - at least in the UK, where I live - is abysmal. For example:
*Teachers seem to have a complete lack of understanding of how memory works, and so present vocabulary to pupils without ever reviewing it at a later date, hoping it will just 'stick'. When learning a foreign language, I believe that techniques with scientific backing such as spaced repetition (and a good flashcard software such as Anki) are invaluable.
* Grammar isn't taught anywhere near enough, so students make silly mistakes and the supposed benefits of studying a foreign grammar are not reaped to the same extent.
* Languages are not taught in the context in which they are used. I have been studying French in school now for 5 years. I can talk for ages about the environment, politics, issues concerning young people, etc. But when I went to France this summer and had to speak to real French people, the only thing that saved me was the fact that I had intentionally exposed myself to spoken French during my own personal study of the language (I no longer attend lessons in the subject but teach myself instead).
* Complete failure to get pupils to engage with languages. I overheard a conversation at school last month between two 16 year-old pupils (one of whom had studied French until 15) failing to remember what *je suis* meant. It is simply impossible to brand their foreign language education as anything other than a complete catastrophe.
I would also like to consider the idea that learning foreign languages has cognitive benefits. I don't doubt that, if learnt correctly, foreign languages can have at least some positive cognitive impact on learners. However, many of the studies on this focus on children who grow up as bilingual speakers, or otherwise people who have had a good education in foreign languages and have spent a large chunk of their own time trying to learn them, rather than a few hours a week at school. Moreover, very, very few people leave secondary school being able to 'speak' a foreign language to any reasonable standard, and barely any will continue to use the language(s) they've learnt after school/college, so they'll lose the language along with its supposed benefits.
Moreover, there are fewer and fewer people taking modern foreign languages at university level, showing a lack of engagement. It's also likely that this will add to the teaching shortage already a problem in schools.
This is why I believe it would be beneficial to replace foreign language classes with computer coding classes. These will improve pupils' mathematical skills, whilst also teaching them how computers work at a more fundamental level which is an already-invaluable skill which will become more important as automation becomes more widespread and computers become more sophisticated. Of course it would be difficult to get teachers initially, but this is the case with any new subject and if computer coding is implemented as a school subject, there will evidently be many more teachers in the next generation as a result.
| 1,484,513,907
|
SatisfactoryLepton
|
dcgxlul
|
dcgxa30
| 32
| 16
|
CMV: As a gay male, I think its better not to get close to Middle-Eastern immigrants I come across.
I live in area with a fair amount of immigrants, and honestly, as a homosexual man, I think its best not to be friends with the immigrants from Middle Eastern and Muslim majority countries. To clarify, I'm referring to the ones who live there their whole lives, not moved when they were really young and are essentially westernized now.
The reason I believe this is because to my knowledge, they are the least accepting of homosexuality; a lot of the countries that punish homosexuality are there, [and most of the ones that have the death penalty for it, are in the Middle East.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory) Also, to my knowledge there are no major LGBT rights movements in this part of the world, and the small movements that do exist, the people are usually considered outcasts. [I gather this opinion due to a Pew Research study I saw,](http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/) and similar studies I've seen on this subject have gotten similar results.
Now, I'm not suggesting that we ban Muslims from entering the country, but I do feel concerned about letting in groups of people who have a culture and religion that has view negative views of homosexuality, and where bias and violence against gays is widely accepted. While I'm not suggesting this ban, I also couldn't force myself to do anything to fight against it, knowing that the majority of these people are probably okay with violence against me, I think I would feel safer with less of them around. But I'm mainly saying it's probably better for me not to befriend them, because when they find out I'm gay (most people say they can't tell I'm gay) they will probably be uncomfortable and want to end the friendship and probably think less of me.
So, because I probably sound bigoted as fuck, CMV
Edit: think you for all of your responses, and Im sorry for not getting back to you because Im at work. But I will get back to the responses tonight. Im really grateful for all of your responses.
|
If your last line is correct and you're mostly just concerned they'd be unaccepting and end the relationship, then none of what you say about violence and the law in other countries is relevant at all. If you think people from these countries are less likely to accept you, THAT'S your view; all that other stuff is just sensationalist.
Anyway, are you already cautious about who you come out to? If not, you've probably already come to terms with people rejecting you for being gay. If so, you probably have behavioral cues you use to judge how likely someone is to accept you. Either way, I can't see what ethnicity adds.
|
If they are intolerant towards homosexuality, do you think they would even be friends with you?
If they were neutral, don't you think that interacting with them would show that you are no more of a threat to society than they are?
If they support the LBGT community, don't you think that you being friends with them would be a good thing as it would be an example of cross-cultural relations and therefore it would be useful in showing neutral and opposing people that gays aren't something to fear?
The idea that you should avoid them only works if you think of them as actively hostile or violent and that you are placed at some sort of risk by interacting with them.
Assuming they are willing to follow the laws of the land, interacting with them holds no drawbacks aside from being insulted or rebuffed.
|
5o7nm3
|
CMV: As a gay male, I think its better not to get close to Middle-Eastern immigrants I come across.
|
I live in area with a fair amount of immigrants, and honestly, as a homosexual man, I think its best not to be friends with the immigrants from Middle Eastern and Muslim majority countries. To clarify, I'm referring to the ones who live there their whole lives, not moved when they were really young and are essentially westernized now.
The reason I believe this is because to my knowledge, they are the least accepting of homosexuality; a lot of the countries that punish homosexuality are there, [and most of the ones that have the death penalty for it, are in the Middle East.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory) Also, to my knowledge there are no major LGBT rights movements in this part of the world, and the small movements that do exist, the people are usually considered outcasts. [I gather this opinion due to a Pew Research study I saw,](http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/) and similar studies I've seen on this subject have gotten similar results.
Now, I'm not suggesting that we ban Muslims from entering the country, but I do feel concerned about letting in groups of people who have a culture and religion that has view negative views of homosexuality, and where bias and violence against gays is widely accepted. While I'm not suggesting this ban, I also couldn't force myself to do anything to fight against it, knowing that the majority of these people are probably okay with violence against me, I think I would feel safer with less of them around. But I'm mainly saying it's probably better for me not to befriend them, because when they find out I'm gay (most people say they can't tell I'm gay) they will probably be uncomfortable and want to end the friendship and probably think less of me.
So, because I probably sound bigoted as fuck, CMV
Edit: think you for all of your responses, and Im sorry for not getting back to you because Im at work. But I will get back to the responses tonight. Im really grateful for all of your responses.
| 1,484,527,668
|
Justdowhatever93
|
dch88e2
|
dch81hy
| 4
| 3
|
CMV: We should invest in nuclear defense
[Currently we have no defense against a nuclear threat](http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/03/20/the-u-s-has-no-defense-against-a-russian-nuclear-attack-really/#1f6200f945e8) and it is only a matter of time until someone crazy enough pulls the trigger. When they do, [it will nearly make the earth uninhabitable for even those away from the conflict](http://www.globalzero.org/blog/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-render-earth-uninhabitable) So why not invest in nuclear defense instead of [Trump's idea for a nuclear arms race](https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-vows-to-expand-u-s-nuclear-capabilities/?client=safari) , not to mention [broken arrows ](http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Brokenarrows_static.shtml) What is your take?
Edit:Changed nukes to nuclear defense.
|
If you're talking about the threat of nuclear missiles, [the US already has a variety of missile defense programs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_missile_defense#Current_NMD_program). Currently we have the [Aegis system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System) on large naval ships, capable of shooting down ICBMs prior to re-entry with a high level of success during test runs. There are currently at least 30 naval ships equipped with this system, projected to grow to 43 by 2019, and there are also land-based installations with successful test runs. In addition, there's also the [GMD system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense), which is a ground-based intercept system with a much larger effective radius than the Aegis system. The US [Missile Defense Agency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agency) also collaborates with our military allies, helping increase missile defense coverage.
In short, that Forbes writer is full of shit. The reason Loren Thompson is so full of shit because he runs the [Lexington Institute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington_Institute), which is basically a think-tank paid for by the defense industry. The reason he's saying these things is because defense contractors are hoping that people will support more nuclear defense, and generate more contracts for them.
Your view isn't necessarily wrong. Nuclear defense might be an important priority. But you were made to believe this particular viewpoint through carefully calibrated lies, paid for by people who stand to profit from you believing their lies.
|
What would you suggest?
The only way to protect against blasts would be
A) Some sort of perpetual active EMP that disabled any nuclear weapons meaning they would turn into 2 tonne radioactive meteors upon entering the affected area.
This doesn't work because it would also send the public back to the 1700s in terms of industry and the power grid.
B) Some sort of impenetrable shield.
This just doesn't exist and if it did it would be too massive. And it would be circumvented by smuggling a bomb in.
C) Completely disarming all nuclear weapons.
This doesn't work because it has already been tried. It is the ultimate result of giving an inch and taking a mile. Nations got a nuke and wanted 2 nukes, then 5. And now that it has nukes it doesn't want to give up because other people have nukes.
Imagine if spent your paycheck on something and then people said "you have to get rid of them".
It also doesn't affect people who don't follow the rules.
As long as people have had nuclear weapons, other people have been trying to find ways of defeating them.
Lead lined bunkers, underground cities, iodine supplements, etc.
|
5o8mai
|
CMV: We should invest in nuclear defense
|
[Currently we have no defense against a nuclear threat](http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/03/20/the-u-s-has-no-defense-against-a-russian-nuclear-attack-really/#1f6200f945e8) and it is only a matter of time until someone crazy enough pulls the trigger. When they do, [it will nearly make the earth uninhabitable for even those away from the conflict](http://www.globalzero.org/blog/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-render-earth-uninhabitable) So why not invest in nuclear defense instead of [Trump's idea for a nuclear arms race](https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-vows-to-expand-u-s-nuclear-capabilities/?client=safari) , not to mention [broken arrows ](http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Brokenarrows_static.shtml) What is your take?
Edit:Changed nukes to nuclear defense.
| 1,484,539,145
|
Deathstroke5289
|
dchk768
|
dchjm6b
| 9
| 2
|
CMV: The only strength of Mandarin Chinese Language is that it is widely spoken.
Mandarin Chinese has the largest number of 1st Language speakers in the world. In my view, this is its only strength. Out of the 4 languages I have some knowledge in, English (fluent), German (Fluent), Norwegian (very basic conversation) and Chinese (learnt for 2 years but now have lost most proficiency), it is the worst in almost every way.
### Succinct list of areas where Chinese is worse than English (expanded reasoning below):
• **Writing:** Logistically its writing system is inferior to the Latin script (looks pretty though)
• **Listening and Comprehension:** Chinese is highly contextual as it only has 413 maximum possible syllables (2065 including tones)
• **Speaking:** Tones make it very difficult to use intonation as we would in European languages.
(N.B in most of my examples I'll be using Simplified Chinese characters, as this is the most widely used script)
# The Chinese Writing System
Chinese characters are beautiful. I once did a course in Chinese calligraphy which made me truly appreciate the artistic nature and rich history of the script, but that's where the positives end.
**Phonetics:**
I wholeheartedly agree that the English spelling system is horrendously lacking (German is best out of what I can speak), however it's at least partially a phonetic spelling system, where most of the time the words have some correlation to actual speech. The characters give you very little clue to proper pronunciation. While there often is a sound component, example: 羊, yáng (sheep) in:
樣, yàng (manner, appearance) 養, Yǎng (to support, to raise)氧, yǎng (oxygen), these still give you no hint what the tone should be. Simplified chinese often removes these sorts of components from characters making this even harder.
**Memorisation:**
Learning Chinese characters is a slog, because when it comes down to it it's just memorising a bunch of different symbols that sometimes have related elements known as radicals (example: 心 'heart' & 您 formal 'you'), but these don't always make sense. Over the millenia characters have taken on completely different meanings, and again simplified makes this even worse.
**Computer Input Problems:**
If you want to input chinese characters into a computer system (phone, laptop, whatever), you have a few options. Obviously you can't put every single character on a keyboard, so you can either use a handwriting recognition system (which is quite fiddly and slow), [pinyin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin) input, or [bopomofo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bopomofo). In my opinion the latin script outshines the chinese character system by a long shot, because I can input my words directly, where as in Chinese you are always choosing from a list of options and relying on text prediction.
**Side point, grammar:**
I have no complaint here, adding in particles instead of changing word order is kinda nice. Bear in mind, I only learnt for 2 years to a basic level, so my knowledge here is lacking.
# **Listening and Comprehension:**
This is where Chinese is at its worst.
**Tones in general:**
While I can't say tones are inherently hard to hear (1st language speakers seem to use them just fine), they do create a system where many words sound very similar.
**Homophones:**
Chinese is a tonal language, which would be bad enough, but is even worse considering the fact there are only [413 maximum possible syllables](http://www.chinahighlights.com/travelguide/learning-chinese/pinyin-syllables.htm) (x5 = 2065 with tones) for the **whole**, **language**. I couldn't find any rock-solid numbers for English, but looking around the number seems to be around 10,000. Now bear in mind, these are the maximum possible, so for each language the most common used would be quite a bit less. This is worse for Chinese because the 1st and 5th (no tone) tones sound quite similar. What you're left with is the realisation that in Chinese, **everything objectively sounds the same.** (Hyperbole, but you get my point)
Think 'their', 'there' & 'they're' and 'your' & 'you're' is bad? Just you wait.
Even if you count the tones as sounding different, a stupidly large number of words will have homophones. Shi ([pronunciation of first tone shī](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUSYF9Z1QY0)) is one of the worst offenders.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of homophones for shī of only the first tone and of only stand-alone words (in other words, shi when only a single-character word):
师 'shī' (teacher; tutor; master)
师 'shī'; 施 'shī' (various surnames. Same sound, different character)
失 'shī' (to lose; lost)
诗 'shī' (poetry, poem, verse)
湿 'shī' (wet, damp, humid)
狮 'shī' (lion)
虱 'shī' (louse)
This is by far not the only example of this, and when tones are factored-in, so much of chinese sounds either exactly the same, or close to another word. What this means is that **chinese is highly contextual** and means using single words out of context is very liable to making no sense at all, other than for common phrases such as 'thank you'.
# Speech:
**Tones:**
Ah tones, you bloody arseholes. Personally, I don't find them that hard to pronounce, but what it means is that you can't use stress in the same way. Hell, there's not even such a thing as question intonation. This makes it much harder to convey sarcasm by tone and you can't emphasis individual words as easily. Instead you have to use particles.
For questions it either has to be part of the sentence (eg. Who, what, when, where, why, how etc..) or you have to place a 吗 'ma' particle, which donotes a question. For suggestions 吧 'ba', for "and you?" questions 呢 'ne' etc, etc, etc. This is but a tiny subset of particles in the Chinese language, which basically replace everything we can just convey by tone in English. You can still emphasise words but it's much more difficult because you can potentially muck up the meaning if you change your tone and not just the volume of a word.
# In conclusion:
It is my opinion that Chinese is worse than English and many other languages in many respects and the only reason it is a language worth learning is because so many people speak it, and nothing more.
|
Your homophone critique is misplaced, because most characters do not correspond to an English *word* but to an english partial word such as a root, suffix, prefix, name etc. (This is an error made by 99% of foreign students learning Chinese).
Learning single characters and their listed meanings is like memorizing a list of Latin/Greek prefixes and suffixes - completely unnecessary unless etymology or a degree in Chinese language is your thing.
"师" doesn't exist in the spoken language - 老师, 师傅 etc do, and it's the latter that are the true words of Chinese, and these word's meanings need just as much (or a same/similar degree) context as any other language to be meaningful. (Even in english, "teacher" and "master" need context for their precise meaning to be known, e.g. is "master" a verb or a noun or someone who installs masts?)
A similar problem you are describing can be likewise felt by a Chinese speaker learning English in the following manner: he goes to the dictionary and types the word "a" and gets the following results: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/a?s=t - hundreds of meanings and results for the single sound/word "a", and all of them only determinable by context!!! How ridiculous he thinks, at least in Chinese we somewhat differentiate those different meanings with different characters!
|
You make little mention of aesthetics, so I assume you want this discussion to focus on ease of use and learning. However, I want to point out that many of the attributes you portray as negative can be considered aesthetically pleasing. For instance, the large number of homonyms is conducive to wordplay and poetry.
As far as ease of use and learning, Mandarin Chinese has the following advantages over English and many other languages:
* **Very simple grammar**- No noun cases, no verb tenses, no genders, no conjugation at all. It's hard to imagine a language with simpler grammar.
* **Small vocabulary**- This is made possible by frequent use of compound words for things that English has unique words for. In English, an ox with certain features can be a calf, a steer, a bull, or a cow. A horse with the same features can be a colt, a gelding, a stallion, or a filly. In Chinese, as I understand it, you just use adjectives.
* **Simple and well-standardized pronunciation**- As you point out, there are only 413 maximum possible syllables. That's a good thing as far as ease of learning. It also removes any ambiguity as far as how words should be pronounced.
So, yes, the writing system of Chinese is a lot to memorize, but it's balanced by the pronunciation, vocabulary, and spelling of English. It's almost enough to make me believe there's some kind of "conservation of complexity" going on with languages.
EDIT: Also, I'm fairly sure you're wrong that stress doesn't exist in Chinese, but my formal education might not be quite up to the task of explaining how it differs from English. However, I know that you can, for instance, emphasize a word by drawing it out longer than others in the sentence.
|
5o9uct
|
CMV: The only strength of Mandarin Chinese Language is that it is widely spoken.
|
Mandarin Chinese has the largest number of 1st Language speakers in the world. In my view, this is its only strength. Out of the 4 languages I have some knowledge in, English (fluent), German (Fluent), Norwegian (very basic conversation) and Chinese (learnt for 2 years but now have lost most proficiency), it is the worst in almost every way.
### Succinct list of areas where Chinese is worse than English (expanded reasoning below):
• **Writing:** Logistically its writing system is inferior to the Latin script (looks pretty though)
• **Listening and Comprehension:** Chinese is highly contextual as it only has 413 maximum possible syllables (2065 including tones)
• **Speaking:** Tones make it very difficult to use intonation as we would in European languages.
(N.B in most of my examples I'll be using Simplified Chinese characters, as this is the most widely used script)
# The Chinese Writing System
Chinese characters are beautiful. I once did a course in Chinese calligraphy which made me truly appreciate the artistic nature and rich history of the script, but that's where the positives end.
**Phonetics:**
I wholeheartedly agree that the English spelling system is horrendously lacking (German is best out of what I can speak), however it's at least partially a phonetic spelling system, where most of the time the words have some correlation to actual speech. The characters give you very little clue to proper pronunciation. While there often is a sound component, example: 羊, yáng (sheep) in:
樣, yàng (manner, appearance) 養, Yǎng (to support, to raise)氧, yǎng (oxygen), these still give you no hint what the tone should be. Simplified chinese often removes these sorts of components from characters making this even harder.
**Memorisation:**
Learning Chinese characters is a slog, because when it comes down to it it's just memorising a bunch of different symbols that sometimes have related elements known as radicals (example: 心 'heart' & 您 formal 'you'), but these don't always make sense. Over the millenia characters have taken on completely different meanings, and again simplified makes this even worse.
**Computer Input Problems:**
If you want to input chinese characters into a computer system (phone, laptop, whatever), you have a few options. Obviously you can't put every single character on a keyboard, so you can either use a handwriting recognition system (which is quite fiddly and slow), [pinyin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin) input, or [bopomofo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bopomofo). In my opinion the latin script outshines the chinese character system by a long shot, because I can input my words directly, where as in Chinese you are always choosing from a list of options and relying on text prediction.
**Side point, grammar:**
I have no complaint here, adding in particles instead of changing word order is kinda nice. Bear in mind, I only learnt for 2 years to a basic level, so my knowledge here is lacking.
# **Listening and Comprehension:**
This is where Chinese is at its worst.
**Tones in general:**
While I can't say tones are inherently hard to hear (1st language speakers seem to use them just fine), they do create a system where many words sound very similar.
**Homophones:**
Chinese is a tonal language, which would be bad enough, but is even worse considering the fact there are only [413 maximum possible syllables](http://www.chinahighlights.com/travelguide/learning-chinese/pinyin-syllables.htm) (x5 = 2065 with tones) for the **whole**, **language**. I couldn't find any rock-solid numbers for English, but looking around the number seems to be around 10,000. Now bear in mind, these are the maximum possible, so for each language the most common used would be quite a bit less. This is worse for Chinese because the 1st and 5th (no tone) tones sound quite similar. What you're left with is the realisation that in Chinese, **everything objectively sounds the same.** (Hyperbole, but you get my point)
Think 'their', 'there' & 'they're' and 'your' & 'you're' is bad? Just you wait.
Even if you count the tones as sounding different, a stupidly large number of words will have homophones. Shi ([pronunciation of first tone shī](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUSYF9Z1QY0)) is one of the worst offenders.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of homophones for shī of only the first tone and of only stand-alone words (in other words, shi when only a single-character word):
师 'shī' (teacher; tutor; master)
师 'shī'; 施 'shī' (various surnames. Same sound, different character)
失 'shī' (to lose; lost)
诗 'shī' (poetry, poem, verse)
湿 'shī' (wet, damp, humid)
狮 'shī' (lion)
虱 'shī' (louse)
This is by far not the only example of this, and when tones are factored-in, so much of chinese sounds either exactly the same, or close to another word. What this means is that **chinese is highly contextual** and means using single words out of context is very liable to making no sense at all, other than for common phrases such as 'thank you'.
# Speech:
**Tones:**
Ah tones, you bloody arseholes. Personally, I don't find them that hard to pronounce, but what it means is that you can't use stress in the same way. Hell, there's not even such a thing as question intonation. This makes it much harder to convey sarcasm by tone and you can't emphasis individual words as easily. Instead you have to use particles.
For questions it either has to be part of the sentence (eg. Who, what, when, where, why, how etc..) or you have to place a 吗 'ma' particle, which donotes a question. For suggestions 吧 'ba', for "and you?" questions 呢 'ne' etc, etc, etc. This is but a tiny subset of particles in the Chinese language, which basically replace everything we can just convey by tone in English. You can still emphasise words but it's much more difficult because you can potentially muck up the meaning if you change your tone and not just the volume of a word.
# In conclusion:
It is my opinion that Chinese is worse than English and many other languages in many respects and the only reason it is a language worth learning is because so many people speak it, and nothing more.
| 1,484,556,900
|
MisterFro9
|
dchstqw
|
dchqrg9
| 81
| 11
|
CMV: The "wealth gap" is always going to be inherently too big or too small for most people.
This is kinda motivated by [the story](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/5o7hry/worlds_eight_richest_people_have_same_wealth_as/) that's all over /r/worldnews at the moment.
People talk a lot about how the "wealth gap"
is always increasing and something should be done about it etc. etc.
However, most of these people (at least in the US and similar countries) still want to keep the concept of "wealth" since the alternative is something like communism. I've always found this a little confusing as, personally, I cannot understand exactly what people want. I think from most people's perspective, we currently have a pyramid-like structure with a few people at the top (the 1%, as they're called) and a few more below them and then a few more after them until you get the bottom lot. People obviously have a problem with this, but they also don't want the opposite, a flat plane where everybody is at the same level. I can understand that, the pyramid model (capitalism) at least gives you something to aspire to, some people call that thing wealth, others call it superiority/elevation over others. In truth, both are right, and I'm ok with that.
My problem comes when you consider the only thing left that these anti-wealth-gap people must want, which is a kind of hybrid-system. Still a pyramid, but flatter. They want to "reduce the wealth gap" but not eliminate it. I think that is not possible, or least not in the long term. Wealth is a foundation for a competitive society, in competition, there are naturally winners and losers, "reducing the wealth gap" is effectively telling the winners to "win less", and they can be forgiven for finding that idea nonsensical. If you win once, you're more likely to win again, this is basic Darwinism and something we've observed in nature as well as many other aspects of our own society (e.g. sports). My point, overall, is that if you "reduce" a wealth-gap, it will naturally grow again, not as a consequence of politics or just one or two clever businessmen, but because of human nature itself. My conclusion is that the kind wealth-gap that most people seem to want can never be stable, and can never exist for long before someone comes along and starts rolling the ball back one way (or the other, anything's possible) and no matter how many laws are implemented to try and keep things stable, people will always find ways around them, things will always tend back to an equilibrium.
I'm posting this here because I hope I'm wrong, this is all quite a depressing thought and not something I personally *want* to be true. I just think that the "levels" and elevations that we see today in society are part of human nature, and not something we can get rid of or control. But I hope I'm wrong.
*EDIT: It has come to my attention that most people are taking this post in a way I did not intend. I do not doubt the ability of society to reduce the wealth gap in a a way that would benefit the majority of the population. My concern is that there is nothing to stop it growing back, once reduced. And I think that, as a consequence of natural human behaviour, it will always grow back. My view is that I don't think there is a way, once the wealth gap is in a state where most people like it, to guarantee that it will stay that way forever.*
|
If your view was that the wealth gap will always be too high or too low for SOME people, I would agree with you.
But one of the benefits of a democracy is that compromise occurs (although not as much, lately) and you do get a system MOST people like.
Right now, most people don't like it, that's why you're hearing so much about it.
If only a few people were talking about it, your odds of hearing about it would likely be close to zero.
So all you have to do is lower it by enough, and most people will be happy.
(For example, if wages were raised to match the increase in productivity over the last several decades, most people would be happy, i think)
Here's a test to see if i can [link](
https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg)
That said, i do want to stress that the system IS self-correcting, at least on the high end.
If a small enough percentage owns almost everything, you get violent revolution. It's not always a communist revolution, but when 99.9% of the population is dirt poor, communism is a very easy sell.
|
I'm posting not because I'm overly knowledgeable in the area, but because I find it strange no one has mentioned Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance.
If you to be born in society, and you didn't know whether you would be poor or rich in this society, what distribution of wealth would you be ok with?
Turns out a lot of people prefer much less inequality than there currently is. Most people also vastly underestimate current inequality. So I disagree with your statement that just because there isn't an "ideal" inequality" ratio means we shouldn't try and get the ratio closer to something that reflects our values.
Another note. Our current inequality level is actually a poor distribution of resources. Our economies would be more adaptive if there was less inequality.
And last note. Welfare states are not in opposition to the free market. Take a look at a list by the Conservative run Heritage foundation of the most capitalist countries.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Notice where Denmark is? One of he happiest countries on earth, a socialist bogeyman to the right, has a market as free as the US.
|
5oav23
|
CMV: The "wealth gap" is always going to be inherently too big or too small for most people.
|
This is kinda motivated by [the story](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/5o7hry/worlds_eight_richest_people_have_same_wealth_as/) that's all over /r/worldnews at the moment.
People talk a lot about how the "wealth gap"
is always increasing and something should be done about it etc. etc.
However, most of these people (at least in the US and similar countries) still want to keep the concept of "wealth" since the alternative is something like communism. I've always found this a little confusing as, personally, I cannot understand exactly what people want. I think from most people's perspective, we currently have a pyramid-like structure with a few people at the top (the 1%, as they're called) and a few more below them and then a few more after them until you get the bottom lot. People obviously have a problem with this, but they also don't want the opposite, a flat plane where everybody is at the same level. I can understand that, the pyramid model (capitalism) at least gives you something to aspire to, some people call that thing wealth, others call it superiority/elevation over others. In truth, both are right, and I'm ok with that.
My problem comes when you consider the only thing left that these anti-wealth-gap people must want, which is a kind of hybrid-system. Still a pyramid, but flatter. They want to "reduce the wealth gap" but not eliminate it. I think that is not possible, or least not in the long term. Wealth is a foundation for a competitive society, in competition, there are naturally winners and losers, "reducing the wealth gap" is effectively telling the winners to "win less", and they can be forgiven for finding that idea nonsensical. If you win once, you're more likely to win again, this is basic Darwinism and something we've observed in nature as well as many other aspects of our own society (e.g. sports). My point, overall, is that if you "reduce" a wealth-gap, it will naturally grow again, not as a consequence of politics or just one or two clever businessmen, but because of human nature itself. My conclusion is that the kind wealth-gap that most people seem to want can never be stable, and can never exist for long before someone comes along and starts rolling the ball back one way (or the other, anything's possible) and no matter how many laws are implemented to try and keep things stable, people will always find ways around them, things will always tend back to an equilibrium.
I'm posting this here because I hope I'm wrong, this is all quite a depressing thought and not something I personally *want* to be true. I just think that the "levels" and elevations that we see today in society are part of human nature, and not something we can get rid of or control. But I hope I'm wrong.
*EDIT: It has come to my attention that most people are taking this post in a way I did not intend. I do not doubt the ability of society to reduce the wealth gap in a a way that would benefit the majority of the population. My concern is that there is nothing to stop it growing back, once reduced. And I think that, as a consequence of natural human behaviour, it will always grow back. My view is that I don't think there is a way, once the wealth gap is in a state where most people like it, to guarantee that it will stay that way forever.*
| 1,484,573,750
|
pm_me_allstuff
|
dci0s7k
|
dci0q9g
| 114
| 12
|
CMV: UBI would not be successful in the United States because of various reasons.
As I see the idea of a Universal Basic Income on the rise among countries in Europe and even some congressmen I started to become startled. As I consider myself a fiscal conservative, I wonder how the cost would be determined and where that money would be obtained. Obviously, the first word that comes to mind is taxes. The second idea that comes to mind is abuse. I have seen and known many people who have taken advantage of the current installments of Government Welfare and different programs. Personally, I believe that people in low income areas may take this and use it as their main income and not be MORE encouraged to work, but less. Also what would motivate people who may have lost their job to pursue a job when they are making a base income although it is low. I know a few people who have gone on unemployment, find out it lasts at least 6 months, and sit on that for 5 months and then start looking for jobs. Another worry that I have is among drug addicts and the use of their UBI for the substance of their choice. There are a few other aspects but these are the most pressing and I would like to believe that this would be beneficial but I feel that people are just too naturally greedy to have this be successful on a national level.
Edit: My view on the abuse and the public health issue has been, rather extremely quickly haha, has been changed and no longer under consideration. I would love for someone to go into an explanation on how the cost would be considered and the effect on taxes. Thanks guys!
|
>Personally, I believe that people in low income areas may take this and use it as their main income and not be MORE encouraged to work, but less.
I think one of the biggest problems UBI is designed to address is that, as automation, globalization, and literacy increase, the total number of jobs required to maintain production levels decreases. It has already decreased A LOT since the 80's, and if trends keep going as they have been, pretty soon there just aren't going to be enough jobs for everyone. Therefore, given this, I would challenge your presumption that less people feeling obligated to work is necessarily a 'bad' thing. If less people are working, the labor pool becomes smaller, and wages will increase to compete for human labor for the remaining jobs, especially for jobs that require more education and/or more specialized skills.
|
In general, very few of the unemployed get welfare, and it tends to be well below their normal earning potential. It's not that easy to abuse government welfare. In terms of unemployment benefits, people tend to submit less job applications and have a better success rate. This is job. We don't want skilled professionals working at McDonalds, we want them doing skilled professional things.
In terms of drug users, would you prefer them knifing people on the street for drugs? I'd prefer them stuck in an apartment getting high over doing crimes.
|
5obia9
|
CMV: UBI would not be successful in the United States because of various reasons.
|
As I see the idea of a Universal Basic Income on the rise among countries in Europe and even some congressmen I started to become startled. As I consider myself a fiscal conservative, I wonder how the cost would be determined and where that money would be obtained. Obviously, the first word that comes to mind is taxes. The second idea that comes to mind is abuse. I have seen and known many people who have taken advantage of the current installments of Government Welfare and different programs. Personally, I believe that people in low income areas may take this and use it as their main income and not be MORE encouraged to work, but less. Also what would motivate people who may have lost their job to pursue a job when they are making a base income although it is low. I know a few people who have gone on unemployment, find out it lasts at least 6 months, and sit on that for 5 months and then start looking for jobs. Another worry that I have is among drug addicts and the use of their UBI for the substance of their choice. There are a few other aspects but these are the most pressing and I would like to believe that this would be beneficial but I feel that people are just too naturally greedy to have this be successful on a national level.
Edit: My view on the abuse and the public health issue has been, rather extremely quickly haha, has been changed and no longer under consideration. I would love for someone to go into an explanation on how the cost would be considered and the effect on taxes. Thanks guys!
| 1,484,581,757
|
Fortinosmx
|
dci22la
|
dci1ko0
| 12
| 2
|
CMV: The choice of a woman to end a casually risked pregnancy is "cheating the system."
I can understand the right of women to refuse the use of their body by having an abortion done. I'm not happy about it, but I can recognize it. However, if a woman intentionally has sex and risks pregnancy, that is her choice and aborting the fetus (or, gods forbid, baby) is irresponsible.
"Safe sex" - use of condoms, etc (I'm not sure what to think about pills) still carries a chance of pregnancy - even if the chance is .001%. If it still happens, you should not get "abortion because oops." If the fetus is not a person yet, he/she ("it" has two X chromosomes or XY) will become one (barring miscarriage) and if you try to "cover your tracks" you're being selfish.
I am not arguing abortion is only okay in cases of rape or incest. I don't know what to believe.
|
Your view really seems to depend upon the idea that the fetus has "some value" (for lack of a better phrase and without going to the extreme of saying that the fetus is a person with rights).
But if the fetus has no value, how can terminating be immoral regardless of how it came into existence? If a person repeatedly gets a tumor and repeatedly has it surgically removed, is that similarly immoral?
|
> You get "abortion because we can't require a woman to grow a parasite inside of her body because her body is hers and no one else's."
That's an argument for why abortion should be legal, not for why it is moral to have one.
It is perfectly possible to believe that abortion is immoral and should be discouraged, but also believe that it should be legal due to reasons of bodily autonomy.
|
5ocfh7
|
CMV: The choice of a woman to end a casually risked pregnancy is "cheating the system."
|
I can understand the right of women to refuse the use of their body by having an abortion done. I'm not happy about it, but I can recognize it. However, if a woman intentionally has sex and risks pregnancy, that is her choice and aborting the fetus (or, gods forbid, baby) is irresponsible.
"Safe sex" - use of condoms, etc (I'm not sure what to think about pills) still carries a chance of pregnancy - even if the chance is .001%. If it still happens, you should not get "abortion because oops." If the fetus is not a person yet, he/she ("it" has two X chromosomes or XY) will become one (barring miscarriage) and if you try to "cover your tracks" you're being selfish.
I am not arguing abortion is only okay in cases of rape or incest. I don't know what to believe.
| 1,484,590,789
|
satyestru
|
dcitul6
|
dcissds
| 4
| 3
|
CMV:I think sex outside of marriage is immoral.
The summary of my argument is:
* Morality exists
* Sexual morality exists
* The function of sex is intimacy
Before I get into explaining my thoughts on sex, I should state that I believe in an objective morality. In other words, I don’t believe that humans created morality as part of our evolutionary development. I believe that morality is inherently a part of the universe as much as math or physics (I know there’s debate about whether math is created or discovered. It’s an interesting question, but it’s obviously not relevant here).
To begin, I think there are some things that we can clearly say are sexually immoral. Rape and pedophilia are two examples of sexual acts that are immoral. No matter what culture or time, rape will always be immoral.
With the recognition that sexual morality exists, the challenge becomes formulating a framework for evaluating the morality of sexual acts. I have read some arguments that say that sex is moral when nobody is taken advantage of (It’s based on Kant’s categorical imperative for any philosophy fans). In other words, rape is wrong because the rapist is using the victim as a means to an end (sexual gratification, feelings of power, etc.) as opposed to treating them as an end in and of itself.
While I think that this is a step in the right direction, I think that it is overly reductionistic about sex. It treats sex as a mere biological appetite, like eating or drinking, that has relational connotations. In other words, it’s a natural desire that one must be cautious to feed as it, as it has the potential to be harmful to the victim.
However, lived experience and psychology seems to suggest that sex is something more. A deeper part of us than a mere appetite. I have a friend who was sexually assaulted and it produced a huge amount of trauma in her. Leading to feelings of worthlessness, and disconnection from those around her. I have also heard that sex inherently forms a relational bond between the two participants. The relational connection makes sense as a strong parental relationship helps to raise a child. Which brings me to my last point, sex makes babies.
In my mind, all of these points seem to elude that sexuality is more than a mere biological appetite, but is a core part of our humanity (I hope that isn’t offensive to asexuals. I don’t know much about that experience, so I can’t speak much about it. However, it remains that sexuality, as in a core part of intimacy for most of humanity, is central to what it means to be human. I don’t believe or want to suggest that asexuality makes you any less human, rather that intimacy looks different for you). Studying the way humans relate to sex and the results of sex, it seems to show that humans are oriented towards sex in a committed, monogamous relationship. When I say marriage in the title, I’m mainly arguing that sex should be within a committed long-term relationship, and marriage is the most common form of that.
Sex is an extremely complicated subject, which is why I’m asking you to change my view. I know the argument has a few weak connections, but I’m trying to keep it short. I hope you can get the thrust of my argument and let me know what you think.
|
Why marriage?
Why not just a commited relationship?
What effect on morality does it have when an office clerk says you now have to pay less taxes, or if a guy with a funny hat and an old book says that he holds the sole power over who can and cannot be in a relationship and/or have sex and that he gives you his blessing?
|
So I'd like to ask one clarification and make one point that I see. The clarification is regarding your statement:
> In other words, it’s a natural desire that one must be cautious to feed as it, as it has the potential to be harmful to the victim.
I'm curious, besides obviously harmful events like sexual assault, what other harm do you think would occur?
As for my point, it's regarding this statement:
> I have also heard that sex inherently forms a relational bond between the two participants. The relational connection makes sense as a strong parental relationship helps to raise a child. Which brings me to my last point, sex makes babies.
I feel like you could argue about the bond thing, but for now I'm going to go with it. Anyways, I feel like the connection would make sense not just in a reproductive context, but also a social one. Humans have attached so much of our social makeup to sex, you could argue it's just as much for cementing or strengthening friendship, intimacy, or trust between individuals.
This isn't to say that sex inside a long-term committed relationship is any less valid, just that it doesn't necessarily need to be within that framework to be beneficial.
|
5od5pf
|
CMV:I think sex outside of marriage is immoral.
|
The summary of my argument is:
* Morality exists
* Sexual morality exists
* The function of sex is intimacy
Before I get into explaining my thoughts on sex, I should state that I believe in an objective morality. In other words, I don’t believe that humans created morality as part of our evolutionary development. I believe that morality is inherently a part of the universe as much as math or physics (I know there’s debate about whether math is created or discovered. It’s an interesting question, but it’s obviously not relevant here).
To begin, I think there are some things that we can clearly say are sexually immoral. Rape and pedophilia are two examples of sexual acts that are immoral. No matter what culture or time, rape will always be immoral.
With the recognition that sexual morality exists, the challenge becomes formulating a framework for evaluating the morality of sexual acts. I have read some arguments that say that sex is moral when nobody is taken advantage of (It’s based on Kant’s categorical imperative for any philosophy fans). In other words, rape is wrong because the rapist is using the victim as a means to an end (sexual gratification, feelings of power, etc.) as opposed to treating them as an end in and of itself.
While I think that this is a step in the right direction, I think that it is overly reductionistic about sex. It treats sex as a mere biological appetite, like eating or drinking, that has relational connotations. In other words, it’s a natural desire that one must be cautious to feed as it, as it has the potential to be harmful to the victim.
However, lived experience and psychology seems to suggest that sex is something more. A deeper part of us than a mere appetite. I have a friend who was sexually assaulted and it produced a huge amount of trauma in her. Leading to feelings of worthlessness, and disconnection from those around her. I have also heard that sex inherently forms a relational bond between the two participants. The relational connection makes sense as a strong parental relationship helps to raise a child. Which brings me to my last point, sex makes babies.
In my mind, all of these points seem to elude that sexuality is more than a mere biological appetite, but is a core part of our humanity (I hope that isn’t offensive to asexuals. I don’t know much about that experience, so I can’t speak much about it. However, it remains that sexuality, as in a core part of intimacy for most of humanity, is central to what it means to be human. I don’t believe or want to suggest that asexuality makes you any less human, rather that intimacy looks different for you). Studying the way humans relate to sex and the results of sex, it seems to show that humans are oriented towards sex in a committed, monogamous relationship. When I say marriage in the title, I’m mainly arguing that sex should be within a committed long-term relationship, and marriage is the most common form of that.
Sex is an extremely complicated subject, which is why I’m asking you to change my view. I know the argument has a few weak connections, but I’m trying to keep it short. I hope you can get the thrust of my argument and let me know what you think.
| 1,484,597,742
|
Spomf
|
dcil4um
|
dcijnqe
| 9
| 3
|
CMV: Polygamy is wrong...sort of.
The Reason I put "Sort of" in the title is because I've been debating this myself as I don't have many reasons for doing so, but here are the reasons I do have. note that I come from a while moderate[Infact, I'm bisexual in spite of keeping my faith, so don't strawman me as some heteronormative crusader.]one, My family is generally christian, and I've always really believed in monogamy & only recently discovered polygamy to be a thing. here are my two other main reasons
1. As I said, I'm bi. and coming from an LGBT Perspective, I find it dumb to dump Polygamy in the LGBTQ+ Groups, and I hate SJWs who consider it a "Progressive" thing, if anything, it's really as progressive as stoning heretics or selling blacks into slavery, and if anything, we've evolved past it culturally. It's quite humorous that some of the most backwards of countries[primairly those in The Middle East] have legalized polygamy for hundreds of years, along with many other things we westerners consider idiotic at best, horrifying at worst. [such as killing 'heretics/infidels' or rape], and according to SJWs, these banana republics are "socially progressive". Next thing you know they'll consider cannibalism progressive.
2. Legalizing Polygamy would just be another "Rich get Richer, Poor Get Poorer" thing. If one rich guy is hogging all the potential dates, wouldn't there be a lot of poor single people? think of all the rich flirtatious people that would benefit, meanwhile all the single poor people that wouldn't. Imagine there would be cities where everyone that someone could date, whether that person is straight, gay or bi, is instead dating Mr. Ivory Tower Mc Rich Asshole.
So, I'm still willing to debate this, CMV
Edit: Another reason I forgot to put in, but just remembered. Polygamy could easily spread disease due to orgies, if one member of the group has it. so as they said in Team America: Everyone has Aids.
Edit 2: I think Ultimately I understand "Polyamory" a bit more, I'm still not Polyamorous[or however you spell it] myself, though I think I can understand it now as to why it is considered among the LGBT groups. I should have personally known about how consent is actually still heavily involved with it, and it ultimately isn't just an excuse to be adulterous, I guess love shouldn't just be restricted to one person.
_____
|
You are bi right? What if I told you being bi is wrong. This is exactly what you are saying. If you don't want people calling your sexual lifestyle 'wrong' maybe you shouldn't think who they choose to sleep with is 'wrong.'
I am assuming you don't want to debate the implication of polygamy in terms of the state regulating multiple marriages as your point relates to LGBTQ.
In terms of STDs, being bi is more high risk as well, but that should not matter. It's your choice to take on that risk.
In terms of the rich getting all dates, most polygamists today are not very rich at all and most people would probably not want to share, so this would limit itself naturally.
|
It may be helpful for you and everyone here to do a little defining of terms first.
Polygamy- the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time
-socially- usually refers to one man having many wives in some sort of religious context (Ex: Cody Brown and family on the TV show Sister Wives, Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints)
Polyandry- One woman having multiple husbands.
-socially- usually talked about in relation to select indigenous tribes that have this practice
Polyamory- the philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.
-socially- used to refer to a person of any gender having multiple romantic relationships with people of any gender where each party is aware of the other(s) and approves of the arrangement. (Ex: The TV show Polyamory: Married and Dating, a 'throuple' or 'triad')
My question is which of these are you against and which do you feel people are labeling 'progressive'. Also, what gives you the idea that all (potential) polygamist are rich? Or that they're even part of the overall more 'mainstream' dating pool?
|
5oeo2x
|
CMV: Polygamy is wrong...sort of.
|
The Reason I put "Sort of" in the title is because I've been debating this myself as I don't have many reasons for doing so, but here are the reasons I do have. note that I come from a while moderate[Infact, I'm bisexual in spite of keeping my faith, so don't strawman me as some heteronormative crusader.]one, My family is generally christian, and I've always really believed in monogamy & only recently discovered polygamy to be a thing. here are my two other main reasons
1. As I said, I'm bi. and coming from an LGBT Perspective, I find it dumb to dump Polygamy in the LGBTQ+ Groups, and I hate SJWs who consider it a "Progressive" thing, if anything, it's really as progressive as stoning heretics or selling blacks into slavery, and if anything, we've evolved past it culturally. It's quite humorous that some of the most backwards of countries[primairly those in The Middle East] have legalized polygamy for hundreds of years, along with many other things we westerners consider idiotic at best, horrifying at worst. [such as killing 'heretics/infidels' or rape], and according to SJWs, these banana republics are "socially progressive". Next thing you know they'll consider cannibalism progressive.
2. Legalizing Polygamy would just be another "Rich get Richer, Poor Get Poorer" thing. If one rich guy is hogging all the potential dates, wouldn't there be a lot of poor single people? think of all the rich flirtatious people that would benefit, meanwhile all the single poor people that wouldn't. Imagine there would be cities where everyone that someone could date, whether that person is straight, gay or bi, is instead dating Mr. Ivory Tower Mc Rich Asshole.
So, I'm still willing to debate this, CMV
Edit: Another reason I forgot to put in, but just remembered. Polygamy could easily spread disease due to orgies, if one member of the group has it. so as they said in Team America: Everyone has Aids.
Edit 2: I think Ultimately I understand "Polyamory" a bit more, I'm still not Polyamorous[or however you spell it] myself, though I think I can understand it now as to why it is considered among the LGBT groups. I should have personally known about how consent is actually still heavily involved with it, and it ultimately isn't just an excuse to be adulterous, I guess love shouldn't just be restricted to one person.
_____
| 1,484,612,618
|
JoeSnakeyes
|
dcisowt
|
dcir5ib
| 2
| 1
|
CMV: I don't think its racist to not want immigrants in my country
I don't think I am racist for liking my country and its people, by and large, the way it is. I don't like walking down the town centre and seeing Muslims in robes and slippers who can barely speak my language and if they could would have little to no desire to associate with me due to being a non-believer. I don't like how Eastern Europeans move in to my area - living 10-12 men a house, not speaking my language and generally littering the streets - they flock to zero-hour contract jobs allowing the local unskilled workforce to be treated like dirt by the unscrupulous employers. I don't like how almost all minorities that come to this country that I meet stick to their self-imposed "ghettos" - for lack of a better term- and have little interaction with the wider society.
Am I racist for noticing that almost all of the terrorism in Europe is caused by the Muslim refugees. Am I racist for believing that immigrants cultures are different from my own and while I respect them I don't want to live in them or near them. I have lived many places in my life but recently have moved next to some Polish neighbours. They keep chickens that makes noises, cook meals of what smells like heavily smoked fish 3-5 times a week and I have never talked to them because they can't speak English.
I turn on the news and all I see in America is people talking about how racist others are, about BLM rioting and about all these race issues you have there and I don't want that for the UK.
So is it racist to not want immigrants, with the desire to keep the UK as it is, as one of the reasons among other issues such as jobs?
|
Your title is 'I don't think it's racist...' and then you evidence for that is literally the definition of racism. You should say 'I'm racist and I think that's ok', and you would be just fine. But saying I don't think it's racist to be racist and then proceeding to describe racism as support for not being racist is just absurd. Now I could care less that you are racist (in fact you aren't even racist as much as ethnicist) but hopefully you can see that there just isn't a logical consistency to your post in the first place.
If you change the title 'I think it's ok to be dislike foreigners because they don't speak the language, raise chickens, and occasionally blow themselves up in our coffee shops, and they took our 'jrebs' we could discuss that further... but what you wrote is just illogical.
|
If an immigrant comes into your country, and (hypothetically) she is able to do the job better and more efficiently than the natives, should we not grant her the right to take that job? For it would certainly benefit her (the immigrant), the company employing her, and the society as a whole ( positive externalities associated with more productive company labor). The only people it would bug are those who, on a psychological level, find the fact that she is *different* to be "off", or "not preferable".
I would not say that the attitude you hold is racist, per say, because being racist entails actually hating said immigrant for no other reason other than her skin color. It is human nature to have a greater affinity for those things we are most comfortable with, and I do not fault you for that. However, you must recognize that these immigrants offer positive benefits to society that, (although their presence may make you personally uncomfortable), the overwhelming utility of their impact on the economy, on the diversity of thought within the nation (although you may not value diversity, there certainly are many of the Left who may very well enjoy immigrant presence) make a strong case for immigrant presence. Furthermore, opening your nation to immigrants grants fairer opportunities for these immigrants to have more enjoyable lives-- at very little cost other than to those who are "uncomfortable" with their presence!
So although you are not racist, your views are selfish insofar as you weigh your personal preferences over a more productive economy and happier people (happier immigrants :D). Can I fault you for being selfish? Not really.
|
5ofcqa
|
CMV: I don't think its racist to not want immigrants in my country
|
I don't think I am racist for liking my country and its people, by and large, the way it is. I don't like walking down the town centre and seeing Muslims in robes and slippers who can barely speak my language and if they could would have little to no desire to associate with me due to being a non-believer. I don't like how Eastern Europeans move in to my area - living 10-12 men a house, not speaking my language and generally littering the streets - they flock to zero-hour contract jobs allowing the local unskilled workforce to be treated like dirt by the unscrupulous employers. I don't like how almost all minorities that come to this country that I meet stick to their self-imposed "ghettos" - for lack of a better term- and have little interaction with the wider society.
Am I racist for noticing that almost all of the terrorism in Europe is caused by the Muslim refugees. Am I racist for believing that immigrants cultures are different from my own and while I respect them I don't want to live in them or near them. I have lived many places in my life but recently have moved next to some Polish neighbours. They keep chickens that makes noises, cook meals of what smells like heavily smoked fish 3-5 times a week and I have never talked to them because they can't speak English.
I turn on the news and all I see in America is people talking about how racist others are, about BLM rioting and about all these race issues you have there and I don't want that for the UK.
So is it racist to not want immigrants, with the desire to keep the UK as it is, as one of the reasons among other issues such as jobs?
| 1,484,620,095
|
Krangatoa
|
dcix2wp
|
dciwqwh
| 7
| 6
|
CMV: Following celebrities and gossip is a very vain activity.
Before starting:
* English is not my first language, so I may seem more formal unintentionally. I really want this to be light-hearted.
* This may be a bit in conflict with rule number 2, so I hope mods can have a bit of leeway with me.
In my life I haven't understood how or why people become obsessed with celebrities. Like the Kardashians or maybe Ryan Gosling to the point of following their every move. And tho I find gossip magazines and shows annoying, I've recently met some people that follow some personalities like Steve-o from jackass and some form where I'm from, in a more light hearted manner. And it seems pretty fun, but I can't find myself googling them done day.
So yeah, what's your point of view?
|
So vain has two meanings, I will address them both.
1. Useless - you think following gossip is useless. I would say it's entertainment and entertainment is useful. Weather you listen to mozart or read Kim Kardashian's tweets to be entertained is your personal preference, just because you don't like Kim, does not make the activity vain.
2. Placing a high importance on appearance, abilities or worth... While this could be seen as vain, it can also bee seen as entertainment. It boils down to your opinion of a particular celebrity. If I follow Bill Gates because he is an interesting person to me and I would like to learn something from his life, that's usually not seen as vain as he is seen as a valuable member of society. But if I do the same thing with Kim K, that can be seen as vain. But if Kim K is my idol and I think she can teach me how to succeed in life (by looking good and acting socially trendy) then is that still vanity?
|
Mod here. Why do you believe your post violates Rule 2?
|
5ofj0s
|
CMV: Following celebrities and gossip is a very vain activity.
|
Before starting:
* English is not my first language, so I may seem more formal unintentionally. I really want this to be light-hearted.
* This may be a bit in conflict with rule number 2, so I hope mods can have a bit of leeway with me.
In my life I haven't understood how or why people become obsessed with celebrities. Like the Kardashians or maybe Ryan Gosling to the point of following their every move. And tho I find gossip magazines and shows annoying, I've recently met some people that follow some personalities like Steve-o from jackass and some form where I'm from, in a more light hearted manner. And it seems pretty fun, but I can't find myself googling them done day.
So yeah, what's your point of view?
| 1,484,622,075
|
JimmyTheWrestler
|
dciy1vb
|
dcixq3n
| 52
| 2
|
CMV: I don't understand people who deny evolution
What about the bacterias? Why do we get sick? Being sick is proof of evolution, you all must be joking, unbelievable that you accept sickness as fact and deny evolution, this is so contradictory. So the virus can interact with us and they have the same elements and molecules as us, the same structures that make disease possible are not enough to justify evolution? Diseases are the most obvious proof of evolution. If evolution was not a fact, thank god! We would never get sick! That would be great, really, not getting sick, no more human parasites, it would be heaven!
TL:DR: Diseases are all the proof of evolution you need.
|
I was raised a creationist. I denied evolution for a variety of reasons:
I was expected to. For those of very conservative faith, it is a litmus test of secularity. You are expected to conform with the beliefs of your community. People that don't conform keep their mouths shut, so as a child I didn't think it was possible to be a good Christian and believe otherwise.
I was in an echo chamber. Evolution was mocked based upon common, false criticisms, including the standard, "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" Kind of nonsense. Alternative views were suppressed and received with criticism while anything agreeing was accepted with open arms and an empty mind.
I was lied to. Creationists are fully willing to keep on repeating the same lies, over and over again. They like to act like they have an effective scientific view of the world, but really it's a matter of overlaying scientific sounding ideas on top of the Biblical myth. The actual history and philosophy of Western science leading up to the formulation of the Theory of Evolution was not taught. The failings of creationism were not taught. It is a very selective viewpoint, that is basically propaganda.
I didn't understand Evolution. Evolution as taught to me made no sense. How could dinosaurs grow wings? Basic questions seemed laughable using Evolution as I understood it. When I finally got away from the home schooled isolation and into the public schools, I still didn't understand, mostly because I wasn't ready to listen and they didn't really teach it. It wasn't until college when I went through a coarse on the history of science and philosophy and saw the ways that Creationism had utterly failed as a paradigm that I was able to take a fresh look at Evolution. And it was beautiful.
|
Okay so I believe in evolution. I believe in it because of our selective breeding of traits in dogs and it isn't a stretch for me to believe that in the random chaos of nature, the same thing happens to all plants and animals.
Importantly I understand that evolution is the theory of why life is so diverse, not the theory of where life came from.
However, when you want to understand people, you need to listen to them, not just silently prepare rebuttals. Being open-minded doesn't mean "believing in what I tell you to believe" it means not shutting yourself off from new views or new information. A bowl is most useful when it is empty.
I mean... this is not the *worst* argument ever made:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfok933_ezo
Rock, flag, and eagle.
|
5ohwa6
|
CMV: I don't understand people who deny evolution
|
What about the bacterias? Why do we get sick? Being sick is proof of evolution, you all must be joking, unbelievable that you accept sickness as fact and deny evolution, this is so contradictory. So the virus can interact with us and they have the same elements and molecules as us, the same structures that make disease possible are not enough to justify evolution? Diseases are the most obvious proof of evolution. If evolution was not a fact, thank god! We would never get sick! That would be great, really, not getting sick, no more human parasites, it would be heaven!
TL:DR: Diseases are all the proof of evolution you need.
| 1,484,657,682
|
Garlicplanet
|
dcjkv56
|
dcjfzgu
| 27
| 1
|
CMV: Many aspects of the LGBTQ community are, while not necessarily intentionally made up, fake and used by straight/cis people who build up normal feelings to the point of thinking them unique
Please, please CMV. For context, I'm a bisexual transman, and I feel absolutely terrible for having this view. I'm starting to experience some exceedingly negative thoughts about my friends over this, and I would love to be able to see the issue from another perspective.
To elaborate on the title, I find myself being unable to wrap my head around a few varying sexualities and gender expressions in the community. I think a lot of them are... Normal, I guess? Like, whenever they're explained to me, it just sounds like how a regular person feels. It gives me the impression that they're focusing so much on these feelings to they point where they think they're abnormal somehow, even though I think most of society relates. I think there are some who do this for attention, because they have a victim complex and want to be part of the community, but I also think there are some who are more innocuous about it. I still respect people's request for pronouns and I don't question them about this stuff, but internally I'm judging them pretty hard. I'll go bit by bit.
> Demisexuality
This is a big one for me. I have never, no matter how many times it's been explained to me, been able to understand demisexuality. I saw this one comic trying to break it down, it had a weird anology about lights in a house being sexual attraction.. And I just didn't get it. Especially when they mentioned that the "time frame" for how long it takes to establish that special connection can be as quick as a few minutes. Is that not completely normal? My view on the matter is, while it differs from person to person in how much overt sexual attraction they have towards strangers, it's so normal and common that it shouldn't be considered a sexuality on its own. It seems like a preference.
> Agender
Genderqueer as a whole is a little confusing to me, but I'm willing to accept that it probably does legitimately exist, even if I can't totally wrap my head around it (If someone could offer an explanation about it, though, I'd appreciate it nonetheless). But agender bugs me. I only know one agender person, and to be fair their behaviors relating to LGBT issues as a whole might be coloring my perceptions a little (Ex: They refuse to refer to other people as anything but "they", even if said person has explicitly asked to be referred to as something else), but the way they describe it sounds.. Well, again, normal. They talk about genderqueer (And trans-nes as a whole) as if it's how you like to present, which made me kinda want to clobber them in the face. My stance is that gender is how you *feel*, not how you like to dress. Not to mention, isn't part of the reason cis people tend to have such a hard time wrapping their head around trans stuff because they don't feel a particular attachment to their gender? They've never had any reason to question it or feel uncomfortable with it, so why would they know what it's like to hate living in your own skin? It just comes across as cis people trying to, for whatever reason, make themselves into a part of the community.
> Pronouns
I know pronoun dysphoria is totally a thing, I've experienced it. And like I've said before, I believe being trans isn't about how you like to dress, it's about how you feel. Still, I can't help but feel kinda.. Shaky, I guess, on some aspects of it. This is probably the thing I feel most guilty about, but if you're requesting that people use different pronouns with you but you have no intention of transitioning in literally any other way... What's the point? My view is that it's just empty words at that stage. What are those words even affirming? I don't think you need to want to seek out medical transitioning to be trans, but I don't understand what the point is of someone being trans when they literally just want different pronouns and nothing else. It seems, frankly, stupid. If you don't have any kind of disconnect from your birth sex whatsoever and don't want *anything* different, not even in a "I'm not necessarily *unhappy* like this, but I'd be happier like xyz", then I feel very strongly that it's, again, cis people trying to make themselves out to be different somehow.
I'm so so so sorry if I upset anyone throughout this, I just really need to have my view challenged here because I feel like such a bigot.
|
**Demisexual**
There often seems to be confusion over it because it's often thought of "Person A doesn't want to have sex with Person B until they have an emotional attachment," to which the response is generally "Yeah, so? Lots of people only want to have sex with people they're close to."
It looks like a better definition of demisexuality has been written below (no *attraction*, not just choice to have sex), so to speak to the opposite - for many people including myself, that is NOT the norm. When I see attractive people, I am attracted to them. I still wouldn't have sex with them - they're strangers - but I can feel attraction on the spot there. And that's generally what demisexual people are missing, and what isn't always clear as the disconnect.
**Agender**
Agender is, yes, a lack of gender. While I'm not agender, I have a few friends who are, and they seem to define their understanding of their gender by being definitively *not* male and *not* female. In the same way that you likely feel uncomfortable if you are called "she" or "girl" (at least I'm assuming you are, I'm a trans guy and that's my experience), agender people are uncomfortable with gendered terms for both binary genders - and also don't really have any relation to some idea of a nonbinary gender other than "no gender." Some agender people may medically transition and some may not, so for some it may be mostly based around social transition and presentation, but I can't say I agree with your friend's opinion that gender is all presentation and I haven't met many other trans people who do either.
To address the point about cis people better, I think you need to think about gender as something like [this](http://pre11.deviantart.net/54bb/th/pre/i/2015/286/4/5/the_gender_spectrum_scale_by_chrystall_bawll-d9d0eiu.jpg) (not perfect, but it gets the point across). The idea is that gender (male, female, something else) varies on one axis, and gender *intensity* varies on another. I'd guess that cis people who don't feel any particular relation to their gender either a) don't think about it because they don't have an issue with it, but would have a much stronger link if something happened to cause them to get dysphoria or b) may be somewhere on the axis edging towards little or no gender intensity. They likely have a stronger connection with their gaab than an agender person does (aka being like halfway down one of the sides of that triangle rather than at the bottom point), but probably aren't as "strongly" male or female as other people of their gender (aka, not in one of the topmost corner). Obviously there's no way to prove this or back this up, but I think it's pretty likely in the same way that a lot of people who are "strictly" gay or straight may have few exceptions.
**Pronouns**
To some degree, I see your point, but I've also very rarely run into people who don *nothing* but change their pronouns. Often, nonbinary people change a name, try to present differently, or sometimes start hormones depending on how they want to present or how they will feel more comfortable. I can definitely see cases where someone would only change pronouns - maybe someone is still closeted and is changing their pronouns in a group where they feel safe, or they have an androgynous name and don't have the budget or inclination to change presentation (because really, presentation doesn't matter that much) - but they're not that common. There are probably also cases where people *are* doing it for attention, but since you can't tell, it's better to just go with it regardless. You don't know how people understand their gender, so there's no point trying to check them to make sure they are trans or aren't.
|
I'm not fully clear on your definition of demisexuality or what you main argument is there so I'll just address the two other main points you made.
Agender from my understanding is someone who identifies themselves as nongendered.
>They talk about genderqueer (And trans-nes as a whole) as if it's how you like to present, which made me kinda want to clobber them in the face.
At the end of the day, your gender is a form of self-expression. You feel your gender and dress accordingly to express that form of yourself socially. That's why presentation is important to some people who are gender nonconforming because it's communicating internal feelings that would otherwise be missed due to what people expect when it comes to gender. When someone sees a person who is biologically male in appearance they assume it's going to follow with a masculine gender, expressed through the way the male presents himself socially. Presentation explains the way people feel about their gender. I'm not sure if you're asking for an explanation for agender or how not having a gender is not "normal". You would also need to define "normal" in this context.
This is all about the relationship of feelings to expression of those feelings. If I feel like a woman but can't afford or chose not to transition that doesn't invalidate who I am inside. I can ask people to refer to me correctly as a way to affirm my internal feelings because I know what I am. If someone referred to be as "him" then, and I felt this way and corrected them, it's still because of those basal feelings of who I am. I'm choosing to express these feelings to represent myself.
|
5olbo1
|
CMV: Many aspects of the LGBTQ community are, while not necessarily intentionally made up, fake and used by straight/cis people who build up normal feelings to the point of thinking them unique
|
Please, please CMV. For context, I'm a bisexual transman, and I feel absolutely terrible for having this view. I'm starting to experience some exceedingly negative thoughts about my friends over this, and I would love to be able to see the issue from another perspective.
To elaborate on the title, I find myself being unable to wrap my head around a few varying sexualities and gender expressions in the community. I think a lot of them are... Normal, I guess? Like, whenever they're explained to me, it just sounds like how a regular person feels. It gives me the impression that they're focusing so much on these feelings to they point where they think they're abnormal somehow, even though I think most of society relates. I think there are some who do this for attention, because they have a victim complex and want to be part of the community, but I also think there are some who are more innocuous about it. I still respect people's request for pronouns and I don't question them about this stuff, but internally I'm judging them pretty hard. I'll go bit by bit.
> Demisexuality
This is a big one for me. I have never, no matter how many times it's been explained to me, been able to understand demisexuality. I saw this one comic trying to break it down, it had a weird anology about lights in a house being sexual attraction.. And I just didn't get it. Especially when they mentioned that the "time frame" for how long it takes to establish that special connection can be as quick as a few minutes. Is that not completely normal? My view on the matter is, while it differs from person to person in how much overt sexual attraction they have towards strangers, it's so normal and common that it shouldn't be considered a sexuality on its own. It seems like a preference.
> Agender
Genderqueer as a whole is a little confusing to me, but I'm willing to accept that it probably does legitimately exist, even if I can't totally wrap my head around it (If someone could offer an explanation about it, though, I'd appreciate it nonetheless). But agender bugs me. I only know one agender person, and to be fair their behaviors relating to LGBT issues as a whole might be coloring my perceptions a little (Ex: They refuse to refer to other people as anything but "they", even if said person has explicitly asked to be referred to as something else), but the way they describe it sounds.. Well, again, normal. They talk about genderqueer (And trans-nes as a whole) as if it's how you like to present, which made me kinda want to clobber them in the face. My stance is that gender is how you *feel*, not how you like to dress. Not to mention, isn't part of the reason cis people tend to have such a hard time wrapping their head around trans stuff because they don't feel a particular attachment to their gender? They've never had any reason to question it or feel uncomfortable with it, so why would they know what it's like to hate living in your own skin? It just comes across as cis people trying to, for whatever reason, make themselves into a part of the community.
> Pronouns
I know pronoun dysphoria is totally a thing, I've experienced it. And like I've said before, I believe being trans isn't about how you like to dress, it's about how you feel. Still, I can't help but feel kinda.. Shaky, I guess, on some aspects of it. This is probably the thing I feel most guilty about, but if you're requesting that people use different pronouns with you but you have no intention of transitioning in literally any other way... What's the point? My view is that it's just empty words at that stage. What are those words even affirming? I don't think you need to want to seek out medical transitioning to be trans, but I don't understand what the point is of someone being trans when they literally just want different pronouns and nothing else. It seems, frankly, stupid. If you don't have any kind of disconnect from your birth sex whatsoever and don't want *anything* different, not even in a "I'm not necessarily *unhappy* like this, but I'd be happier like xyz", then I feel very strongly that it's, again, cis people trying to make themselves out to be different somehow.
I'm so so so sorry if I upset anyone throughout this, I just really need to have my view challenged here because I feel like such a bigot.
| 1,484,692,643
|
CMVLGBT
|
dclk2ir
|
dcl82vt
| 5
| 1
|
CMV: introverts are disadvantaged in the modern North American business world
In the modern North American business world, introverts are disadvantaged. Here's why:
1. They require more alone time to stay mentally healthy. This leaves less time to network. Networking is key to developing business leads and learning about new opportunities.
2. Compared with extroverts, they tend to dislike small talk and/or find it stressful and uncomfortable. This means that they are less likely to socialize at work and in networking environments. Socializing is key to developing and maintaining relationships and relationships are key to business.
3. Compared with extroverts, they find group work uncomfortable. This means that their energy reserves and patience are more quickly eaten up in most business environments, when compared with extroverts. As we all know, team work is essential to business.
4. They often come off as having less leadership potential given their perceived lack of social skills compared with extroverts. When hiring managers, you want someone who can energize and direct a team. Introverts often don't appear to have that charisma, given that they don't speak as often to as many people.
These are all generalizations but they're based in reality.
I get that there are some jobs that introverts are well-suited to in business (such as accounting) but in general, business is a better place for extroverts, especially given the emphasis on leadership and making connections.
EDIT: thank you for all the feedback. It seems like a lot of introverts chimed in to say that they didn't see their traits as causing them disadvantages in their career. Others expanded my argument to state that since many social activities take a toll on introvert energy levels, introverts are at a disadvantage in life, in general. It's an interesting debate.
|
Business people acting overly extroverted can be traced back to Dale Carnegie and other Depression-era self-help writers. At a time when there were so many people trying to sell so many things and make a living out of so many venues (since, ya know, everyone was struggling just to get by), you had to make yourself stand out.
Today, I think it's safe to say that we've become rather numb to this. I know I get annoyed by pushy salesmen.
Besides, just look at some of today's most successful entrepreneurs. Bill Gates is by no means an extrovert, but his intuitive ability has kept Microsoft at the front of the pack. Warren Buffett is well known for reading for at least five hours a day; an extrovert would lose their mind sitting still and not talking to someone for that long. Elon Musk has said he's an introvert.
I think the real quality that makes outstanding business people is an ability to leave a positive impression on others. Intuitiveness goes much farther than small talk.
|
I'm an introvert and a good chunk of my work day for the past 10 years has been running meetings or being vocal in groups of 10-300 people and giving presentations sometimes to thousands. While I'm not always "comfortable" doing it (I occasionally have to go to industry tradeshows where I'll be surrounded by hundreds of customers trying to ask questions or chit chat after a presentation, which I really could do without) I spent a lot of time working on public speaking to make myself better at doing it. After some time the anxiety about it goes way down, and I generally enjoy it now. I know not everyone is the same, but getting out of your shell some is doable if they want to.
|
5oltlk
|
CMV: introverts are disadvantaged in the modern North American business world
|
In the modern North American business world, introverts are disadvantaged. Here's why:
1. They require more alone time to stay mentally healthy. This leaves less time to network. Networking is key to developing business leads and learning about new opportunities.
2. Compared with extroverts, they tend to dislike small talk and/or find it stressful and uncomfortable. This means that they are less likely to socialize at work and in networking environments. Socializing is key to developing and maintaining relationships and relationships are key to business.
3. Compared with extroverts, they find group work uncomfortable. This means that their energy reserves and patience are more quickly eaten up in most business environments, when compared with extroverts. As we all know, team work is essential to business.
4. They often come off as having less leadership potential given their perceived lack of social skills compared with extroverts. When hiring managers, you want someone who can energize and direct a team. Introverts often don't appear to have that charisma, given that they don't speak as often to as many people.
These are all generalizations but they're based in reality.
I get that there are some jobs that introverts are well-suited to in business (such as accounting) but in general, business is a better place for extroverts, especially given the emphasis on leadership and making connections.
EDIT: thank you for all the feedback. It seems like a lot of introverts chimed in to say that they didn't see their traits as causing them disadvantages in their career. Others expanded my argument to state that since many social activities take a toll on introvert energy levels, introverts are at a disadvantage in life, in general. It's an interesting debate.
| 1,484,697,670
|
LittlePugBigSlug
|
dckdg2b
|
dckd7m5
| 61
| 5
|
CMV: Muslim's over-react to Mohammad being depicted in cartoons and such
Okay, so I get why the prophet Muhammad is revered. My step-dad is Muslim and I have been surrounded by the culture almost my whole life.
I also understand why it is disrespectful to make fun of such a figure. However, and this is a big however, what people say and do regarding Jesus is far worse than anything ever said or done about Muhammed. There are billions of memes containing Jesus. Who when compared to Islam, is a figure of MUCH higher status, in fact God-like status; whereas Muhammad is merely a prophet.
Now I realize Christian countries are different and many of them contain freedom of speech allowing such discourse to present itself. Further, in countries with freedom of speech, (USA for example) if they choose to critique another religion on their own soil, this is their right. If muslims get offended, perhaps they should reside where freedom of speech is illegal.
Update: I have awarded some delatas. And at this point I have had my view sufficiently changed. Thanks to everyone for their contributions. Much appreciated
|
For many Muslims it is taboo to create such an image. They aren't alone, the 3rd commandment of the Hebrew bible prohibits depictions of god, Jews don't like pictures of their god either. Christianity is a different religion, it has different rules and ideas. The fact that Jesus is a diety but Mohammed only a prophet shouldn't change how members of those faiths view their holy things. How Christians feel about Jesus and Jesus' prevelence in culture and art has nothing to do with how Muslims feel about their religion. It's worth noting too that Christianity's permissiveness about depictions of Jesus throughout history (and subsequently the creation of some of the best art humans know) may have made the depiction of Jesus more common later in history resulting in billions of modern memes (and other art). Muslim culture hasn't shared this permissiveness and its art has developed differently.
Often, the decision to make a drawing of Mohammed isn't satire or art, it's just a way to provoke a bad reaction from a group from people who don't like Muslims and we often get a one-sided perspective from the media and our echo-chambers. Non-violence doesn't make news but riots sure do. This doesn't justify crimes, threats, or murders but it does shift the conversation a bit and should be grounds for a bit more empathy. There are certainly Christians who fail to turn the other cheek when provoked. There's two other points here. It's wrong to look at a different geo-culture response to a Mohammed cartoon and imply that those reactions represent all Muslims. Many Muslim countries have a different education and value system that's pretty endemic and by any humanist/secularist/liberal/Christian value system would be pretty horrific. Sure those people are Muslims but they're also from a different country--you can't exactly decouple the two. Second, Muslims, like Christians, represent a lot of people with diverse views. If all the information you have about 'how many Muslims are reacting in such a way' is coming from news and media there's a big risk for selection bias and even still, you need a large sample to infer something significant about a group that's >1.5B people.
|
>However, when we have Muslims who were quietly literally born and raised in free countries getting mad over the depictions of Muhammad are out of bounds. This is today's world. We are free now. And as you said, there were times when Christianity abided by similar laws, but again, we are free and now not even Christianity is exempt from heresy.
Have you ever heard of Emile Durkheim? A lot of people consider him kinda one of the fathers of modern social sciences, but one of the biggest insights he ever made, and one that really has proven true time and time again is the the concept of Biding and Winding. That religions bind people together and wind them about itself. So you kinda do have to look at religious groups within a larger culture as subcultures onto themselves. SO yes they may be american but they are also muslims and it's a religious tenet of theirs NOT to depict the prophet or god. So to them yes even the depiction is the equivalent of say taking a shit of a cross in a church during mass. In the lesser cases people will just be offended and not be happy about it. And honestly that's how many Muslims are, but then there are always extremists and zealots.
Think of it in a different way. I consider myself a pretty patriotic guy, I've had a few a few friends who have died for my country, so seeing things like [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwiQpa-tbnc) gets me honestly angry. They have the right to say it and do it all they want, I would kill and die for fellow Americans to have that right. But in turn I have the right to be offended by their actions, and speak out against them. I would never try to restrict their rights to free speech of burning the flag, or saying whatever they want; but some would. Every few years someone tries to pass a flag burning bill or start an amendment to restrict that free speech, and some even threaten violence over it. To muslims that is the same concept.
So yeah I agree we are a part of a free society, but as cliche as it is to say; it's always incredibly true. Freedom isn't free. By being a part of a free society and maintaining it you will always have to fight this fight. The threat is currently just from a different group than it has been last time, but the fight is still the same one.
|
5omc9l
|
CMV: Muslim's over-react to Mohammad being depicted in cartoons and such
|
Okay, so I get why the prophet Muhammad is revered. My step-dad is Muslim and I have been surrounded by the culture almost my whole life.
I also understand why it is disrespectful to make fun of such a figure. However, and this is a big however, what people say and do regarding Jesus is far worse than anything ever said or done about Muhammed. There are billions of memes containing Jesus. Who when compared to Islam, is a figure of MUCH higher status, in fact God-like status; whereas Muhammad is merely a prophet.
Now I realize Christian countries are different and many of them contain freedom of speech allowing such discourse to present itself. Further, in countries with freedom of speech, (USA for example) if they choose to critique another religion on their own soil, this is their right. If muslims get offended, perhaps they should reside where freedom of speech is illegal.
Update: I have awarded some delatas. And at this point I have had my view sufficiently changed. Thanks to everyone for their contributions. Much appreciated
| 1,484,703,107
|
Chewyman11
|
dckk37c
|
dckihba
| 47
| 8
|
CMV: Mia was a terrible person in La la land and a narcissist. (La la land spoilers)
Mia threw away guys one after another. Mia's love was frivolous and was able to justify her poor decisions, or not justify them at all, with disregard for who she was hurting and how she was hurting them. And I do believe that taking a relationship or love lightly and freely tossing them away exemplifies disregard for the people you care about, and the people that cared about you.
The first time her character was revealed to be of poor character was when she tossed her boyfriend away at a serious dinner date just because she forgot that she made plans with this random guy to watch a movie. She is not seen trying to justify this or feel remorse for this action in anyway.
Later of course it seems as she found true love, and causes audiences to forgive her for this initial infraction or character flaw. As the movie develops it shows that Sebastien did indeed love her despite missing one performance. He gave up his own dream for a time just so Mia could tell her parents that she was dating someone important. But of course, this wasn't enough for Mia as he was no longer pursuing her dream, like herself. The feeling of inadequacy for pursuing her own dream and the success of her partner made her unhappy. The inability to be happy for others' success is a strong indicator of narcissism.
Despite this, Sebastien did everything in his power to help Mia pursue her own dream while he sacrificed his just so she could be happy. Even though Mia and Sebastien seemed to be in love, and Mia even says she would always love him, the first time she's away long distance from Sebastien she tosses him aside for someone else, with more success and fame. Despite how Mia tossed Sebastien aside like he was just a cheap boy toy, Sebastien truly loved her and even named his club after him. His one dream in his life was to have a jazz club and he named it after someone he truly cared about.
In the final scene, Mia's fantasy, further reveals how unfaithful she is to the person she's with, no matter how strong of a bond they seem to have. She has a child with her husband yet she is still fantasizing about her ex. We can only assume the fantasy was a watered down version of what her true fantasies were, considering it was rated pg13 after all.
All of these cases show how Mia is of poor character, unfaithful, and narcissistic.
edit: delta awarded to /u/TezzMuffins for convincing me that she is likely not a narcissist, although I still believe her actions were quite terrible preceding and following Seb's relationship with her, and displays some levels of narcissism.
|
Mia can be argued to be a bad person for abandoning her first boyfriend, but I don't think she is anywhere close to a narcissist.
The biggest defense of this is she and Seb, at the end of the movie, have a collective flashback about all the good things that they shared together - clearly excising the fights. It was clear, that both of them had nothing but the utmost love for each other, still. BUT, Mia did not run back to be with Seb, she stayed with her current husband, despite having the financial resources to take the hit of divorce. Certainly this shows a little bit of 'lesson learnt' from the example of the first boyfriend. SHe stays in her marriage for the benefit of her husband and their child.
The second is that Seb knows Mia's dream is twofold: for him to accomplish his dream and for herself to accomplish her own dream. By skipping her performance of her one-woman play SHE WROTE, for a photoshoot that clearly was not of the group as a whole and was only of him in a ridiculous cap, is a serious betrayal. He spends scenes attempting to release her from her insecurity and then abandons her at her most vulnerable moment for a PHOTOSHOOT. What the fuck. There was NO indication that he would have been discarded by the band for this decision, he could have easily defrayed the cost of the photoshoot with his own money.
She helps him with his logo and his branding not so she can get his money but because she wants him to revive his dream and doesn't want nostalgia getting in the way. He helps her write the play and motivate her not because he wants money, but because he wants her to revive her dream and doesn't want nostalgia getting in the way.
I think the cool thing is that they are so incredibly coequal in their relationship. If she were a narcissist she would not have been so alarmed when he starts poking away at a synthesizer with only tangential hints of Jazz. She wants him to be happy. Either he wasnt really accomplishing his dream (not happy), had lied to her about what he wanted from his dream, or was sacrificing his dream for her. I think if she were narcissist she would have been secure about options 1 and 3. But she was not, she wanted him to achieve his dream.
The sadness, in the end, is that their dream also became to be with each other. They missed this in the moment, and I think that was the fundamental tragedy.
|
1) They had a full musical number together, and they went on a date. I think it's pretty clear there was a a lot more between them in even that short amount of time than what we saw between her and the boyfriend. There isn't any evidence that the man she married was superficial either. He seemed like a pretty agreeable dude. He seemed pretty enthusiastic about the jazz bar.
2) "She married someone who ... probably isnt around as much either" this is a baseless claim. Seb's argument wasn't "Im only touring to save up money for the jazz bar", it was "I will be touring for some indeterminate amount of time, this is my job now." To me it sounded like there really was not an end in sight. Mia wasn't happy for his success because a) it appeared as if he had given up his dream b) he was never around.
3) Again, did you want her to never move on? It was pretty blatant that they had decided they could not be together.
4) I think we saw stranger things than that in this movie. Either way, it hardly qualifies as being unfaithful. I saw it more like a shared fantasy. Anyway, the smile at the end would seem to indicate that they are both ok with how things turned out.
|
5on1oy
|
CMV: Mia was a terrible person in La la land and a narcissist. (La la land spoilers)
|
Mia threw away guys one after another. Mia's love was frivolous and was able to justify her poor decisions, or not justify them at all, with disregard for who she was hurting and how she was hurting them. And I do believe that taking a relationship or love lightly and freely tossing them away exemplifies disregard for the people you care about, and the people that cared about you.
The first time her character was revealed to be of poor character was when she tossed her boyfriend away at a serious dinner date just because she forgot that she made plans with this random guy to watch a movie. She is not seen trying to justify this or feel remorse for this action in anyway.
Later of course it seems as she found true love, and causes audiences to forgive her for this initial infraction or character flaw. As the movie develops it shows that Sebastien did indeed love her despite missing one performance. He gave up his own dream for a time just so Mia could tell her parents that she was dating someone important. But of course, this wasn't enough for Mia as he was no longer pursuing her dream, like herself. The feeling of inadequacy for pursuing her own dream and the success of her partner made her unhappy. The inability to be happy for others' success is a strong indicator of narcissism.
Despite this, Sebastien did everything in his power to help Mia pursue her own dream while he sacrificed his just so she could be happy. Even though Mia and Sebastien seemed to be in love, and Mia even says she would always love him, the first time she's away long distance from Sebastien she tosses him aside for someone else, with more success and fame. Despite how Mia tossed Sebastien aside like he was just a cheap boy toy, Sebastien truly loved her and even named his club after him. His one dream in his life was to have a jazz club and he named it after someone he truly cared about.
In the final scene, Mia's fantasy, further reveals how unfaithful she is to the person she's with, no matter how strong of a bond they seem to have. She has a child with her husband yet she is still fantasizing about her ex. We can only assume the fantasy was a watered down version of what her true fantasies were, considering it was rated pg13 after all.
All of these cases show how Mia is of poor character, unfaithful, and narcissistic.
edit: delta awarded to /u/TezzMuffins for convincing me that she is likely not a narcissist, although I still believe her actions were quite terrible preceding and following Seb's relationship with her, and displays some levels of narcissism.
| 1,484,711,062
|
Lmitation
|
dcknvz8
|
dcknusn
| 8
| 2
|
CMV: I believe that I am the only person in this world, and everyone else is a simulation/AI.
I've been going through an existential crisis for a while, and it's started to develop into more complex thoughts. While the thought of the death of my loved ones and unanswerable questions such as "what's after death" "where was I before I was born" etc. used to scare me, now I've started thinking: what if I was the only "real" person here and this world is just a dream/test, and everyone else was created solely for the purpose of this "test". I thought, "what if the reason I don't remember what happened before my birth was that my memory was wiped for this dream/test.
|
Congratulations, you've discovered [Solipsism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism), a conundrum ever since Descartes thought up the [Evil Demon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon) in his second meditation.
Unfortunately, there is no way for me to objectively *prove* to you that other minds exist. Descartes figured that one of the things he could be absolutely sure about was his own existence (well...that and the existence of god, but it was the 1600's and he was a religious man) and from his own thinking justify belief in things outside of his own mind. He, along with many philosophers after him, use Solipsism not to make truth claims about the world but to identify the base starting point for all knowledge. It's a tool for helping us understand what we can *really* know and how we can know we actually know it.
Why is it just a tool and not a useful way of actually thinking about the world? Because it is useless for actually navigating reality (or what appears to us as reality). You can sit there and think that the food you're eating is just an illusion but without it you're still going to get hungry.
So finally I come to this question for you. Illusion or reality, what's the difference? To quote Morpheus from The Matrix, "What if you were unable to wake from that dream?" For me, I would operate as though the dream was real, it's the only reality I have any actual experience of.
You see a chair, you can touch the chair, you can be reasonably sure there is actually a chair there. Sure, it might be an illusion, you might be tricked by some complex machine. But if there isn't a chair there but you still feel like you're sitting - what is the difference from your perspective? The same goes for other minds. We could all automatons walking around in a simulation built specifically for you or we could be real people with thoughts and feelings. But even if we are just simulations, you have no way of actually knowing for sure that is the case. You can only use your own senses and experiences to probe reality.
|
There is no way to test something like this, as well as there being no way to "disprove" this. An argument which there is no way to disprove can [usually be disregarded](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Either way, let's consider the possibilities. You have 2 options:
1. Every other person plays by different rules than you do. Everyone else is "fake".
2. Everything is as it seems, each other person has their own unique consciousness, experiences, beliefs, etc.
Logically, option 2 makes a lot more sense. Why would you be special? Why would you in particular be the subject of this test? It's certainly possible, but extremely unlikely if you consider the billions of other people as having an equal chance at being a test subject as you (unless maybe there really *aren't* billions of people. Either way, what makes you so special?)
Just consider the logistics of such a test. They would have to plan *everything* out. Humans are relatively logical creatures, you'd probably notice at least some inconsistancy in what you experience vs all of these other "test" people, right? Is there anything in your life that has led you to believe that you are somehow different than anyone else?
|
5opc2t
|
CMV: I believe that I am the only person in this world, and everyone else is a simulation/AI.
|
I've been going through an existential crisis for a while, and it's started to develop into more complex thoughts. While the thought of the death of my loved ones and unanswerable questions such as "what's after death" "where was I before I was born" etc. used to scare me, now I've started thinking: what if I was the only "real" person here and this world is just a dream/test, and everyone else was created solely for the purpose of this "test". I thought, "what if the reason I don't remember what happened before my birth was that my memory was wiped for this dream/test.
| 1,484,746,106
|
just_im4gin3
|
dckzopz
|
dckzm9x
| 24
| 3
|
CMV: BBC Sherlock's Moriarty is a terrible, cartoony character
I really like Sherlock. I even liked the season 4 finale.
But I can't stand Moriarty.
He's a cartoon. He's one dimensional, just pure Saturday-morning-villain evil. And I don't buy that he's just the opposite of Sherlock because Sherlock is not one dimensional.
The problem comes from the attempted solution to this problem. The writers try to bury the one dimensionality under a trait I'd call *wackiness*. Says wacky stuff, does wacky stuff.
He's supposed to seem unpredictable.
He's supposed to seem carefree.
He's supposed to seem unstable.
Because of this carefree madness, we're supposed to find him **scary**. But it ultimately just comes out sort of ... *lame*. That's really the crux of my entire dislike of him. He's lame. His dialogue is corny. His actions are hand picked to be "weird" and therefore spooky but end up being corny.
* He listens to *classical music* during a robbery? Wow, what a quirky choice. What a nutter.
* His ring tone is Staying Alive? Wow, disco? He must be off his rocker. Couple this with its ringing in a tense scene (or at least a scene intended to be tense)--the pool. It sort of breaks the tension, but the creators thought, let's break it with something that would be funny if he wasn't so crazy. It's a little heavy handed.
* He goes from conversational tone to screaming "That's what people DO!" Wow, 0-100 real quick. He's unstable. And then 100-0 with "I'll burn you. I will burn the heart out of you." Further instability. And this time with a dark, poetic line the writers were obviously really proud of, considering how much attention they drew to it. A little melodramatic, but the writers feel they can get away with it because their villain is a little melodramatic himself.
But it's all a bit over the top, isn't it? We don't get a chance to evaluate this villain ourselves. The writers are hitting us over the head with a heavy object, saying, "This should scare you. See how creepy and unstable he is? See how everyone in the world finds him scary? You should, too."
|
As I was reading your arguments for why you think Moriarty is lame I couldn't help but agree, but never once, until now had I ever considered him to be anything less than cool and that's because the Moriarty I know, exists in the context of sherlock. I know and like Moriarty not because of what he is individually but the effects he has on sherlock.
That's the magic of storytelling the characters don't have to be interesting by themself they have to be interesting in the story they're in and Moriarty does that quite well. Moriarty leeches off Sherlock, he essentially **makes** Sherlock play with him and that's where Moriarty's charm lies. At Least for me as I watched the show.
* I like Moriarty because sherlock dislikes him and his motivation for disliking him are sound and believable.
* I like Moriarty because sherlock finally has a play mate
* I like Moriarty because I **want** to watch sherlock play
I'm sure if we take the Moriarty from the show and give him a spinoff series it would be bland and essentially characterless because of all his flaws but the Moriarty in the show was not lame because he had an inherent purpose and his character (the personality of it at least) had leverage in the form of sherlock's acknowledgment as a credible rival and this is what legitimizes him and makes me perceive the blatant cliques as well rounded wholesome character.
|
Funny, I think he's the reason the show was good. After his death it went downhill enormously, S04E01 was one of the worst episodes of any series I ever watched, although I think they savaged it more or less for the finale
Now, you'll have to be more specific with "He's a cartoon. He's one dimensional, just pure Saturday-morning-villain evil"
Because the most common type of evil is obviously the ones derivation from real life. That is, people who want money, who want revenge, who want power etc. The "I'm so crazy!" type is a stereotype by now, but it's certainly a modern one. You won't find this type of evil in older stories. Even the prime evils like Lucifer or Hades are evil because of jealously or something of the sort
Now for "He's lame"
He's the only real villain that could match Sherlock. Now his sister was a second one, maybe, not even, but Moriarty was hand-crafted to be Sherlock's nemesis. He doesn't have friends, family or anything, his actions don't make sense, he is extremely competent and intelligent, in order words, he's impossible to read and that's all Sherlock was about. In fact, Sherlock could only win by killing himself. In fact, Moriarty was such a good opponent that the writers had to pull one out of their asses to save Sherlock (that is, Sherlock fake death)
He might be one dimensional, but the dimension he had was mastercrafted to oppose Sherlock
|
5oq7k0
|
CMV: BBC Sherlock's Moriarty is a terrible, cartoony character
|
I really like Sherlock. I even liked the season 4 finale.
But I can't stand Moriarty.
He's a cartoon. He's one dimensional, just pure Saturday-morning-villain evil. And I don't buy that he's just the opposite of Sherlock because Sherlock is not one dimensional.
The problem comes from the attempted solution to this problem. The writers try to bury the one dimensionality under a trait I'd call *wackiness*. Says wacky stuff, does wacky stuff.
He's supposed to seem unpredictable.
He's supposed to seem carefree.
He's supposed to seem unstable.
Because of this carefree madness, we're supposed to find him **scary**. But it ultimately just comes out sort of ... *lame*. That's really the crux of my entire dislike of him. He's lame. His dialogue is corny. His actions are hand picked to be "weird" and therefore spooky but end up being corny.
* He listens to *classical music* during a robbery? Wow, what a quirky choice. What a nutter.
* His ring tone is Staying Alive? Wow, disco? He must be off his rocker. Couple this with its ringing in a tense scene (or at least a scene intended to be tense)--the pool. It sort of breaks the tension, but the creators thought, let's break it with something that would be funny if he wasn't so crazy. It's a little heavy handed.
* He goes from conversational tone to screaming "That's what people DO!" Wow, 0-100 real quick. He's unstable. And then 100-0 with "I'll burn you. I will burn the heart out of you." Further instability. And this time with a dark, poetic line the writers were obviously really proud of, considering how much attention they drew to it. A little melodramatic, but the writers feel they can get away with it because their villain is a little melodramatic himself.
But it's all a bit over the top, isn't it? We don't get a chance to evaluate this villain ourselves. The writers are hitting us over the head with a heavy object, saying, "This should scare you. See how creepy and unstable he is? See how everyone in the world finds him scary? You should, too."
| 1,484,755,766
|
PM_UR_H0PES_N_DREAMS
|
dclbcw7
|
dcl9ql9
| 286
| 29
|
CMV: I believe that no major is worthless
I feel like you can major in whatever the hell you want and can be successful in life. In my opinion it's what that person does with his major that will ultimately help him/her in the future. If a person is passionate about his/her major and does study abroad programs, internships, networking etc. then they can major in whatever they want. A foreign language major can be more successful then an engineering major. I know a person who has an engineering degree from a respective university and it's been a year now and he is still unemployed but guess what? He did no internships, no networking, no nothing. All he does is play video games and sit around. So let's hear it change my view!!
|
Worth, by definition, means there is value attached to it. And the university will assign what it believes that value is in the form of tuition, books, etc. So if a degree in 17th Century French Literature from Harvard costs $250,000 after all is said and done, and that degree qualifies you for a job that pays $65,000/yr, which is $5k more per year than the median income for people with *any* college degree. Then your degree is worth $5k per year. And $250,000 divided by $5k is 50 years of employment before that degree pays for itself. Hence, it is worthless because it is unlikely you'll work long enough to ever see a return on that investment.
|
could, but then you first have to have people who want to learn it, then people who don't already have a teacher, and if you were in a class with a dozen more students you also need to be better then the other 12,
because while one might find a job that way there is simply no place for 12 Russian lit teachers, not to mention that if there is a teacher of it that means that before and after you graduated there is already competition in place
not to mention knowing stuff and educating others are separate skills.
|
5ot7c9
|
CMV: I believe that no major is worthless
|
I feel like you can major in whatever the hell you want and can be successful in life. In my opinion it's what that person does with his major that will ultimately help him/her in the future. If a person is passionate about his/her major and does study abroad programs, internships, networking etc. then they can major in whatever they want. A foreign language major can be more successful then an engineering major. I know a person who has an engineering degree from a respective university and it's been a year now and he is still unemployed but guess what? He did no internships, no networking, no nothing. All he does is play video games and sit around. So let's hear it change my view!!
| 1,484,784,549
|
BradBrady
|
dclxgia
|
dclx11j
| 19
| 1
|
CMV: Social Darwinism is the logical conclusion of evolution.
The weeding out of the weak and burdensome is a natural result of biological evolution. As the weeding out continues, the species elevates itself, to the point where consciousness, as incredibly complex as it is, is possible in humans. Given this, why would the following **not** be consistent with what every species does already, by default?
* Eugenics
* Letting the disabled and elderly perish when they become too great a drain on society.
* Wars of Conquest/Colonization
By anticipation, I foresee the objection that such permissiveness could lead to mass extinction of the species, thereby defeating the purpose. But from the perspective of all life forms, this may not be such a bad thing. Humans will no longer bother them :), and since we are dealing in hypotheticals, in itself such destruction may lead to some other more resilient lower life forms which, over millenia, surpasses our current phase.
Edit: My summary of the objections, which have changed my view: Social darwinism is not consistent with evolution because social darwinism is for some purpose or goal, and evolution has no purpose or goal
I have a stronger grasp on evolution now, thanks!
|
> The weeding out of the weak and burdensome is a natural result of biological evolution.
Incorrect. Perhaps you're talking about evolution via natural selection (as natural selection is one mechanism of evolutionary change, see: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_16). But even, that's incorrect. Natural selection has nothing to do with "weak" or "burdensome", especially not as you're construing it to mean, it's about organisms that are more likely to survive to reproduce being more likely to pass on their genes than organisms that are less likely to survive to reproduce.
There are no prescriptions here regarding what "should" happen. Only an observation of what does happen.
> As the weeding out continues, the species elevates itself, to the point where consciousness, as incredibly complex as it is, is possible in humans. Given this, why would the following not be consistent with what every species does already, by default?
No. There's no "elevation" of "the species", merely a change in allele frequency within a population that selective pressures are operating on. Consciousness is not an inevitability.
> Eugenics
From an evolutionary standpoint, eugenics is a terrible idea. Populations with larger genetic diversity are better able to respond to future, unknown, selective pressures. If you understand evolution, you really can't make the case for eugenics based off of evolution. Since this is a common fallacious creationist claim when arguing against evolution, see: www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html and www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html and I'll throw in a list of "Evolutionists" against eugenics pre-1945 as well for good measure www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov00.html
This does relate to your anticipated objection, which I'll address later.
> Letting the disabled and elderly perish when they become too great a drain on society.
Except "keeping" elderly members of society around can and does increase the fitness of a species such as our own, in terms of sharing knowledge, caring for young, etc. This is even (and perhaps, especially) the case for elderly members of society who cannot reproduce, such as post menopausal women.
> By anticipation, I foresee the objection that such permissiveness could lead to mass extinction of the species, thereby defeating the purpose.
Correct, this does defeat the purpose of Social Darwinism. But, that's a pretty big objection. (And also, Evolution does not lead to Social Darwinism... which is the biggest issue here)
> But from the perspective of all life forms, this may not be such a bad thing. Humans will no longer bother them :), and since we are dealing in hypotheticals, in itself such destruction may lead to some other more resilient lower life forms which, over millenia, surpasses our current phase.
Makes zero sense as it relates to Social Darwinism; the entire idea behind Social Darwinism is to "improve" the fitness of our species by (mis)applying biological concepts regarding natural selection. The fitness of our species is infinitely decreased should we become extinct.
And the part about other lower life forms over time surpassing our current "phase" suggests (along with the rest of your post), that you have very little grasp of anything related to what evolution actually is. May I suggest: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
|
> Eugenics
This depends on what is meant by this word. I would say it is safe to assume you just mean removing harmful genes such as ones that cause various diseases, malformities, etc. which are clearly undesirable. It is when we get to other kinds of eugenics that we face problems, such as the idea of building a purely Aryan race, for obvious reasons.
> Letting the disabled and elderly perish when they become too great a drain on society.
This is more tricky. See, we have the ability to care for all elderly and disabled people to a great extent without it being a great burden on society. The problem is that we still use an economic system which does not make it easy and that we have absolutely horrible logistics with regards to that system. We make more than enough food around the world for us to feed everyone who is alive today, yet still people go hungry.
We value our sense of humanity and empathy though, as that is part of what makes us human. So, the fact that we can feel good about caring for those weaker than ourselves becomes reason enough to continue, as it makes us feel better.
> Wars of Conquest/Colonization
Mutually assured destruction. That is all that really needs to be said about that. We live in a world where the human race can essentially annihilate itself and almost all life on this planet simply because someone is a sore loser in a dick measuring contest. War is now at a point where it is becoming ever more dangerous to our survival than it is in preserving it.
> Humans will no longer bother them :), and since we are dealing in hypotheticals, in itself such destruction may lead to some other more resilient lower life forms which, over millenia, surpasses our current phase.
The goal of almost any life form (some humans excluded) is ensure it's own survival and the survival of its offspring. My concern is not about whether or not some cephalopod in a future far from now will be able to surpass us, my concern is whether or not I, my offspring, and my fellow mankind will continue to survive. We do not know whether any life will surpass us now, nor do we know with any certainty if there is any life in the universe which ever will (though clearly the odds are in favor of such occurring). What we do know is that humans exist now and they want to continue to thrive. That is enough to try and ensure humans do so.
|
5oufxq
|
CMV: Social Darwinism is the logical conclusion of evolution.
|
The weeding out of the weak and burdensome is a natural result of biological evolution. As the weeding out continues, the species elevates itself, to the point where consciousness, as incredibly complex as it is, is possible in humans. Given this, why would the following **not** be consistent with what every species does already, by default?
* Eugenics
* Letting the disabled and elderly perish when they become too great a drain on society.
* Wars of Conquest/Colonization
By anticipation, I foresee the objection that such permissiveness could lead to mass extinction of the species, thereby defeating the purpose. But from the perspective of all life forms, this may not be such a bad thing. Humans will no longer bother them :), and since we are dealing in hypotheticals, in itself such destruction may lead to some other more resilient lower life forms which, over millenia, surpasses our current phase.
Edit: My summary of the objections, which have changed my view: Social darwinism is not consistent with evolution because social darwinism is for some purpose or goal, and evolution has no purpose or goal
I have a stronger grasp on evolution now, thanks!
| 1,484,798,859
|
ArtAndFilmAccount
|
dcma9rp
|
dcm6xe4
| 15
| 3
|
CMV: Donald Trump's Twitter comments are primarily-intended to produce controversy to acquire Twitter followers
I think that Donald Trump's Twitter comments have no real purpose other than to generate controversy, to generate mention in other media, and thus to help build his Twitter following.
Like many people, I find his messaging -- which is very different from that of Obama -- to be confusing. I have a hard time determining how much credence to assign any of his statements. I have had a hard time trying to understand why he's made some statements.
I've been going over possible alternate reasons, but I feel like at this point, it's been narrowed down to simply wanting to generate controversy. I would like a critique to see if anyone has alternate explanations or if they feel that I've erred.
Here's a list of what I've gone over and feel like I've ruled out.
**The Twitter messages are an honest reflection of Trump's views, and Trump simply feels compelled to place them in the public eye.**
I think that this is essentially impossible, for a number of reasons.
Trump is at least reasonably media-savvy. He has been in the media eye for a long time. He understands how to build an image.
Even if he weren't, he has a communications team that is certainly media-savvy. That team should absolutely be at least as competent and in-control of the Trump campaign as any other effort.
Trump might make a mistake from time to time. But the view that he is unaware of the number of factual errors (e.g. promoting the F-18 as a replacement for the F-35 should not remotely be technically viable) or politically-harmful statements that he's made does not seem plausible. If he had made a number of statements that contained incorrect information, his communications team would have had him vet material via them. I'm dubious that *any* candidate would go into a campaign seriously intending to blindly Tweet thoughts disconnected from his communications team.
**Trump is subject to some sort of Russian influence, and is intentionally making statements that are not in US interests for the purpose of harming the US**.
This is also extremely implausible. Trump will hold an office that is, in nearly every sense, significantly-more powerful than that that Russia's leadership holds. Trying to blackmail one of the few people who would be in a position to have Putin killed or Russia severely-damaged is simply not realistic. The main people who are raising the idea that Trump is somehow compromised are politically-opposed to Trump.
If Russia *could* exert influence, the most-important thing that its leadership would want would be sanctions to be removed, and for this to be done quietly, without controversy. Russia *has* been publicly politely and repeatedly raising the issue, and Trump has made vague and non-commital statements.
There are a few similarities -- Trump has advocated that US mass media that criticizes him should not be trusted and Russia's state propaganda outlets, Sputnik and RT, have also claimed that US mass media should not be trusted. But I'd call this a coincidence. Trump links to BreitBart and politically-allied news sources. He does not link to RT or Sputnik, and does not do things that would shift viewers onto their newsfeed.
Trump constantly says that Putin is nice. But this is, again, guaranteed to be controversial, to cause other news media to link to him in outrage...and thereby feed more subscribers into his Twitter feed. Russia doesn't want Trump to say that Putin is nice. Russia wants sanctions to end, with as little controversy as possible.
Trump's cabinet picks are not particularly pro-Russian. A number of the most-influential-on-foreign-affairs members, including [Kelly](http://freebeacon.com/national-security/trump-homeland-secretary-warned-iran-infiltrating-southern-border/), [Flynn](http://lobelog.com/lt-gen-michael-flynn-ret-has-it-in-for-iran/), and [Mattis](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500) are exceptionally hostile to Iran, Russia's most-important ally. Any conflict between public statements and actual appointments would cause me to strongly favor the appointments as a source of information as to real positions.
**Trump has some political goal in mind other than controversy with his messages**
These don't seem to follow any kind of cohesive pattern or set of political views other than that there is a constant flow of controversial statements.
Trump does say that media critical of him is full of lies...but he doesn't seem to show much interest in actually seriously undermining them. He doesn't try to seriously argue that what they're writing is false -- he just asserts it. In fact, he promptly links directly to their Twitter feeds, which sends people reading his feed to their feed. This doesn't cut users off from them, but rather generates a high-profile Twitter drama as they respond, an action which simply generates more coverage of any statements and more coverage of his Twitter feed.
Trump has contradicted himself, made politically-incorrect statements, and made logic errors in his feed. That generates links to his feed as those critical of him then link to these statements.
My belief is that Trump's team is aware that controversial statements is likely to produce Twitter followers, and that Twitter subscribers can be used as a potent, ongoing political mechanism -- anything that his communications team writes can show up without modification from this day forth on the computers and smartphones of many, many million people. In the long term, this Twitter feed will be used in a more-conventional matter, to promote more "normal" political messages and bypass the media for his future messaging.
**The controversial statements will continue without transitioning to regular messaging**
I don't see any way that Trump benefits from simply making controversial statements alone. Sure, a few people who agree with him will nod their heads. But he's not really trying to make serious arguments. He's not going to sell new people.
The only benefit that I can see that making controversial statements has is that people tend to subscribe to his feed to see what crazy thing he's likely to say next. But having people on that feed isn't helpful unless one then promotes talking points or rallies supporters.
Change my view, Reddit. My position is that Trump is making Twitter statements for their controversial nature to generate Twitter followers. In the future, he will shift to more-conventional political messages using that now-established channel.
|
I think he's absolutely playing a character to a large extent. If you watch some of his old interviews from the 80s and 90s, he is much more composed, even tempered, and intelligent sounding. He probably is frustrated and angry about the way things have been going, but I think his persona he puts forth now is more acting as a reflection of how he thinks many common people that support him would act... Which is angry and ready to poke someone's eyes out. A vast geographical majority of our country has been neglected for the benefit of people living in small, consumption oriented, urban areas.
If that's the case, it really is manipulation of people for votes... but hey, that's politics. I think he does actually care for making things better for our country and has a few good ideas that are with investigating.
|
I believe he uses twitter to by-pass mostly left-leaning national media. The only way to do that is to get click bait and hard comments do that . If you look at more local media you'll notice more right leaning but those views are not shared by city dwellers.
They also are a great bargaining tool. Aim stupid high and end up getting the deal you really wanted at the start. unpredictable is his mission as gets better deals. But will this work in a globalized world still remains to be seen.
|
5ovgnc
|
CMV: Donald Trump's Twitter comments are primarily-intended to produce controversy to acquire Twitter followers
|
I think that Donald Trump's Twitter comments have no real purpose other than to generate controversy, to generate mention in other media, and thus to help build his Twitter following.
Like many people, I find his messaging -- which is very different from that of Obama -- to be confusing. I have a hard time determining how much credence to assign any of his statements. I have had a hard time trying to understand why he's made some statements.
I've been going over possible alternate reasons, but I feel like at this point, it's been narrowed down to simply wanting to generate controversy. I would like a critique to see if anyone has alternate explanations or if they feel that I've erred.
Here's a list of what I've gone over and feel like I've ruled out.
**The Twitter messages are an honest reflection of Trump's views, and Trump simply feels compelled to place them in the public eye.**
I think that this is essentially impossible, for a number of reasons.
Trump is at least reasonably media-savvy. He has been in the media eye for a long time. He understands how to build an image.
Even if he weren't, he has a communications team that is certainly media-savvy. That team should absolutely be at least as competent and in-control of the Trump campaign as any other effort.
Trump might make a mistake from time to time. But the view that he is unaware of the number of factual errors (e.g. promoting the F-18 as a replacement for the F-35 should not remotely be technically viable) or politically-harmful statements that he's made does not seem plausible. If he had made a number of statements that contained incorrect information, his communications team would have had him vet material via them. I'm dubious that *any* candidate would go into a campaign seriously intending to blindly Tweet thoughts disconnected from his communications team.
**Trump is subject to some sort of Russian influence, and is intentionally making statements that are not in US interests for the purpose of harming the US**.
This is also extremely implausible. Trump will hold an office that is, in nearly every sense, significantly-more powerful than that that Russia's leadership holds. Trying to blackmail one of the few people who would be in a position to have Putin killed or Russia severely-damaged is simply not realistic. The main people who are raising the idea that Trump is somehow compromised are politically-opposed to Trump.
If Russia *could* exert influence, the most-important thing that its leadership would want would be sanctions to be removed, and for this to be done quietly, without controversy. Russia *has* been publicly politely and repeatedly raising the issue, and Trump has made vague and non-commital statements.
There are a few similarities -- Trump has advocated that US mass media that criticizes him should not be trusted and Russia's state propaganda outlets, Sputnik and RT, have also claimed that US mass media should not be trusted. But I'd call this a coincidence. Trump links to BreitBart and politically-allied news sources. He does not link to RT or Sputnik, and does not do things that would shift viewers onto their newsfeed.
Trump constantly says that Putin is nice. But this is, again, guaranteed to be controversial, to cause other news media to link to him in outrage...and thereby feed more subscribers into his Twitter feed. Russia doesn't want Trump to say that Putin is nice. Russia wants sanctions to end, with as little controversy as possible.
Trump's cabinet picks are not particularly pro-Russian. A number of the most-influential-on-foreign-affairs members, including [Kelly](http://freebeacon.com/national-security/trump-homeland-secretary-warned-iran-infiltrating-southern-border/), [Flynn](http://lobelog.com/lt-gen-michael-flynn-ret-has-it-in-for-iran/), and [Mattis](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500) are exceptionally hostile to Iran, Russia's most-important ally. Any conflict between public statements and actual appointments would cause me to strongly favor the appointments as a source of information as to real positions.
**Trump has some political goal in mind other than controversy with his messages**
These don't seem to follow any kind of cohesive pattern or set of political views other than that there is a constant flow of controversial statements.
Trump does say that media critical of him is full of lies...but he doesn't seem to show much interest in actually seriously undermining them. He doesn't try to seriously argue that what they're writing is false -- he just asserts it. In fact, he promptly links directly to their Twitter feeds, which sends people reading his feed to their feed. This doesn't cut users off from them, but rather generates a high-profile Twitter drama as they respond, an action which simply generates more coverage of any statements and more coverage of his Twitter feed.
Trump has contradicted himself, made politically-incorrect statements, and made logic errors in his feed. That generates links to his feed as those critical of him then link to these statements.
My belief is that Trump's team is aware that controversial statements is likely to produce Twitter followers, and that Twitter subscribers can be used as a potent, ongoing political mechanism -- anything that his communications team writes can show up without modification from this day forth on the computers and smartphones of many, many million people. In the long term, this Twitter feed will be used in a more-conventional matter, to promote more "normal" political messages and bypass the media for his future messaging.
**The controversial statements will continue without transitioning to regular messaging**
I don't see any way that Trump benefits from simply making controversial statements alone. Sure, a few people who agree with him will nod their heads. But he's not really trying to make serious arguments. He's not going to sell new people.
The only benefit that I can see that making controversial statements has is that people tend to subscribe to his feed to see what crazy thing he's likely to say next. But having people on that feed isn't helpful unless one then promotes talking points or rallies supporters.
Change my view, Reddit. My position is that Trump is making Twitter statements for their controversial nature to generate Twitter followers. In the future, he will shift to more-conventional political messages using that now-established channel.
| 1,484,814,111
|
nounhud
|
dcn1n6z
|
dcmej7e
| 1
| -1
|
CMV: Suicide is neutral and thus should never be fought against. Respect those decisions! We need more respect in this world!
If someone decides to take their own life, that is their decision. Respect that, people! It really sucks to realize so many people want to force other people, brainwash them to keep them living for their own satisfaction and pleasure. And this IS something I never understood, how can be people so selfish, to the point of not being able to accept that some people just don't want to live anymore and that some people just don't like living? Respect to be respected, that would make the world a better place to live in. I am unconvinced it is not all for selfish reasons, those people fighting against the decision of suicide. I know this is an unpopular view, but the right to decide is sacrosanct to me. SURE, if someone is depressed, talk them out of it, I see nothing wrong, but the moment they mention something extreme as suicide, you accept their decision, it means they don't value life anymore, that is their decision. ----- TL:DR: Talking someone out of depression is fine, talking someone out of suicide is not, it is extreme selfishness and lack of respect instead. The moment someone talks about suicide is the moment we should respect their right to die and let them go.
|
I too agree people should be able to kill themselves without interference from society.
But i dont see any problem with the people they tell trying to talk them out of it.
If your friend tells you he is going to commit suicide, and you don't want him to, tell him. Be honest. At this point the stakes couldn't be higher.
My problem is when society at large gets involved. In most places in America, suicide is illegal, if such a thing even makes sense. Even were it's legal, there are a bunch of hoops to jump through, so you end up asking permission, with some stranger deciding if you can kill yourself.
That's insane. Only I get to decide.
There is a legitimate issue, though. A LOT of people who try to kill themselves but don't, end up glad they didn't die.
So lets set up something - maybe part of the healthcare system- to help people talk through it. But if at the end, thr still want ti die, its their choice.
But it all starts with everyone initially accepting that no one has a say on how people treat their own body, even if they want to kill it.(thats a weird turn of phrase, but you know what i mean)
|
How do you define "neutral" in a scenario where the (intended) action strongly benefits one person?
I'll grant you that suicide ought to be a personal choice, but that's not to say people shouldn't "fight against it" in a number of instances. This is the problem with your post, it's almost completely void of any caveats or nuances that move the claim in your CMV to the realm of what's reasonable. I really think you should think about this more (and more clearly).
>how can be people so selfish,
This is a complaint that goes both ways, doesn't it? There is absolutely no merit in using this as an argument for *or* against suicide.
>SURE, if someone is depressed, talk them out of it, I see nothing wrong, but the moment they mention something extreme as suicide, you accept their decision, it means they don't value life anymore, that is their decision.
This leaves room for the obvious contradiction: what if people are only suicidal *because* they're depressed? Implicit in saying "It's fine to help the depressed" is the notion that depression is undesirable, but when that depression is taken to its extreme consequence, that suddenly becomes something people ought to respect? That's weird.
|
5ow21d
|
CMV: Suicide is neutral and thus should never be fought against. Respect those decisions! We need more respect in this world!
|
If someone decides to take their own life, that is their decision. Respect that, people! It really sucks to realize so many people want to force other people, brainwash them to keep them living for their own satisfaction and pleasure. And this IS something I never understood, how can be people so selfish, to the point of not being able to accept that some people just don't want to live anymore and that some people just don't like living? Respect to be respected, that would make the world a better place to live in. I am unconvinced it is not all for selfish reasons, those people fighting against the decision of suicide. I know this is an unpopular view, but the right to decide is sacrosanct to me. SURE, if someone is depressed, talk them out of it, I see nothing wrong, but the moment they mention something extreme as suicide, you accept their decision, it means they don't value life anymore, that is their decision. ----- TL:DR: Talking someone out of depression is fine, talking someone out of suicide is not, it is extreme selfishness and lack of respect instead. The moment someone talks about suicide is the moment we should respect their right to die and let them go.
| 1,484,825,177
|
Garlicplanet
|
dcmmvey
|
dcmkcpg
| 12
| 3
|
CMV: Femininity promotes societal sexism
Firstly I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just trying to be accurate and I don't sugarcoat things. Now, I am a female, but I do not understand femininity. I don't wear clothes from the women's section, wear make up, or have a women's hairstyle. All of these things would be impractical, and if they're not done for practicality they are done to garner approval. Nobody puts make up on in the morning and wears it on their skin all day (which is uncomfortable by the way) AND doesn't care what others think. Nobody spends an hour fixing their hair and doesn't want approval. Nobody wears a shirt that drapes uncomfortably halfway across one shoulder and then layers something else on top simply for convenience (and spends a shit ton of money on these clothes). They might as well write "I'm insecure" across their foreheads instead. So, with women blatantly craving the attention of men for self-validation, men will naturally value them based on nothing but how attractive they are. They will not see them as people but as "other", only there to serve men. If women didn't present feminine, men could treat them like they usually treat me - as one of the guys, or an equal. Please change this view. Having toxic views towards women while being categorized as one degrades my own self esteem.
|
I think you're looking at one side of the picture & comparing it to the result. In general the thesis seems to be *'Women go out of their way for to be seen as attractive, and therefore are responsible for the byproduct'*. Let's consider men:
Men (often) work hard on their appearance as well. Even if appearance isn't as important for men to keep up, we might work on other things for the sole purpose of attracting a woman. Sometimes that means working towards a goal that does little for us other than to attract women. We (largely) do wildly reckless & stupid things which put us in a lot of danger for no other reason than to get attention. To meet women, many men go to dance classes or social events which are not at all fun (at least at first). Much of it isn't easy or fun. But you probably wouldn't judge men as harshly as you're judging women for going out of our way in the same manner.
While both requests are obviously very different, the situation is the same. (In a heteronormative dynamic) Men give women what they want & women give men what they want. What we each happen to want is *different*. Also, what we want *for ourselves* is different. As a man, I'm not altogether interested in being seen as the prettiest guy she's ever known. It's just not that important. But in contrast, if a woman thought I were defenseless in a fight, it might crush my ego.
If we were to take your thesis & apply it to men: If women are responsible for social sexism as a result of putting effort into beauty, then you might equally make the argument that men are responsible for all wars as a result of focusing on the appearance or the reality of being able to defend a group. To which I'd respond (a) it's obviously a lot more complicated than that & (b) even if that extreme view were accurate, your complaints of women are fairly benign in contrast & not worth the toxicity.
|
I think your heart is in the right place but you're attacking the wrong target.
Firstly, I take issue with your notion that women are to blame for shitty attitudes towards them. Do you really think the answer to societal sexism is to force women to dress and act in a specific way? Why can't society be the one who changes? Why shouldn't a woman, or anyone for that matter, be allowed to present however they damn well please? It seems a bit rich for you to decry women dressing in a specific way for other people while at the same time demanding that they dress in a specific way for *you*.
Let's get one thing out of the way here, almost everyone, on some level, cares about what the other humans we interact with think. Our brains are highly aware of facial expressions, tones of voice, and general attitudes towards us. You know it if your boss or a family member is upset with you about something. And so those of us who care will act or present in a way that nets us the type of attention we want. Humans are social creatures, we care a lot about those other humans we spend time with.
I worked at a job where I regularly wore a tie. I didn't wear it because it was comfortable, or because it was convenient. I wore it because I knew the owner of the company considered men wearing ties to be the epitome of professional dress. When I was doing this would you argue that I was craving her attention? Was I making a statement that my value is only tied to my attractiveness? I definitely cared about what my boss thought.
To that end I think we can make a distinction between "caring what others think" and "craving the attention of [people]" because there's a huge difference there. I'll agree that women dress a certain way and spend time going for a certain look because of others, but I disagree that it is solely for men and I disagree that it is promoting the idea that their value is only attached to their attractiveness.
There are things we should be doing to combat the sexism pervasive in society. Telling women how they can and cannot dress is not one of those things. Why don't we raise awareness of the problem and decry the notion of society judging women solely on looks instead? That way women are free to choose their own style.
|
5owanp
|
CMV: Femininity promotes societal sexism
|
Firstly I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just trying to be accurate and I don't sugarcoat things. Now, I am a female, but I do not understand femininity. I don't wear clothes from the women's section, wear make up, or have a women's hairstyle. All of these things would be impractical, and if they're not done for practicality they are done to garner approval. Nobody puts make up on in the morning and wears it on their skin all day (which is uncomfortable by the way) AND doesn't care what others think. Nobody spends an hour fixing their hair and doesn't want approval. Nobody wears a shirt that drapes uncomfortably halfway across one shoulder and then layers something else on top simply for convenience (and spends a shit ton of money on these clothes). They might as well write "I'm insecure" across their foreheads instead. So, with women blatantly craving the attention of men for self-validation, men will naturally value them based on nothing but how attractive they are. They will not see them as people but as "other", only there to serve men. If women didn't present feminine, men could treat them like they usually treat me - as one of the guys, or an equal. Please change this view. Having toxic views towards women while being categorized as one degrades my own self esteem.
| 1,484,829,021
|
oneirology1
|
dcmjlkd
|
dcmjbq7
| 20
| 9
|
CMV: The Holodomor was not a "deliberate act of genocide", but a combination of kurkul sabotage, political mismanagement and extremely unfortunate weather conditions
I write this because my knowledge of the subject is not that of an expert, but what I have read tells me that there were many factors that came into play that caused the Soviet Famine, many of which had nothing to do with Stalin and much of which was unavoidable by his government. Core among these is the weather conditions: scholars seem to widely agree that the weather of the period was exceptionally bad, yet still I still even on supposedly unbiased sources such as Wikipedia I see weighted language that almost takes it on assumption that Stalin was out to eradicate the Ukranians. By the same token I've seen a lot of agreement that many of the more affluent peasants - particularly in the Ukraine - had actively revolted against the socialist movement, yet again "kurkul/kulak sabotage" is regularly shrugged off as "Soviet disinformation propaganda". I acknowledge that there were occasions that the Soviets made key mistakes that likely led to many deaths (for instance, not acting quickly enough when crops began to go to waste under laws that prevented farmers from taking their yield for themselves), but widely I get the sense that the West would like to downplay every other possible factor and simply label this as a Holocaust-like genocidal campaign by Stalin, "worse than Hitler", using every single death due to starvation as a part of his "kill-count".
To me this feels like an unprecedented tragedy with many factors completely out of government control (or something the government explicitly tried to deal with), so it feels unfair for people to tally it up on "Stalin's kill count" or "Deaths due to communism". I would be interested to see if people would be willing to do the same thing with the USA, tallying up every death that could have possibly been avoided with better, more accessible healthcare, tallying up every death from mass shooting, and then adding them to "Obama's genocidal killcount". Over a million Americans died in a war initiated by Abraham Lincoln, yet I never hear the phrase "Abraham Lincoln killed over a million of his own citizens".
Totally willing to have my opinion changed here, as like I said before I am by no means an expert on the subject. This is simply a result of what I have personally gleamed from my layman's research into the subject.
|
>scholars seem to widely agree that the weather of the period was exceptionally bad,
Weather is often bad in russia. Czarist famines were still relatively rare, and vastly less deadly than soviet.
>particularly in the Ukraine - had actively revolted against the socialist movement, yet again "kurkul/kulak sabotage" is regularly shrugged off as "Soviet disinformation propaganda".
The anti-kulak campaign started in 1918. It's not illegitimate to revolt against people calling for your liquidation.
>for instance, not acting quickly enough when crops began to go to waste under laws that prevented farmers from taking their yield for themselves)
They didn't "not act quickly enough". They [denied](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty) there was a famine, [refused international aid](https://books.google.com/books?id=eFn_CwAAQBAJ&pg=PP14&lpg=PP14&dq=Theodor+Innitzer+holodomor&source=bl&ots=hZsSrQ44Yf&sig=XH_v0J1r5DBP-Cg6XPeJ8kg67e0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjryqSP6c7RAhVP4mMKHc0yA4QQ6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=Theodor%20Innitzer%20holodomor&f=false), and shot the people who tried to leave the famine areas. they reacted very quickly.....to make sure no one knew about the famine.
>Over a million Americans died in a war initiated by Abraham Lincoln,
the death toll for the civil war is traditionally accounted at about [600,000](http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/). I mention this not out of pedantry, but to point out how wildly misinformed the sources you are reading probably are.
If you take a farmer's harvest and his seed grain, then don't feed him, you are starving him to death, pure and simple. you are leaving him with no food, and no means of getting food. You are as responsible for his death as if you shot him. Unless you see the american government forcing people not to go to the doctor at gunpoint, the situations are in no way comparable.
|
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B005G37SBK/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 This covers it in fairly good depth. p42 onwards, book by a Yale Historian, and Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow, a book by an Oxford educated Historian.
In terms of Gulag and execution stuff, Balytskyi claimed to discover a "Ukrainian Military Organization" and used that as an excuse to kill local leaders and send them to a gulag as he wished. Sending someone to the Gulag involves sending soldiers to them to pick them up and transport them, it's a violent process.
If you owned land and had a number of people working under you, you were a suspected capitalist, and thus subject to execution and imprisonment, so the more successful farmers were endangered.
They did kill many who refused to share their grain.
We know they knew about the famines and kept collecting grain. The Ukraine locals repeatedly pled to Moscow for aid, till they got executed or imprisoned as dissidents.
|
5owfm4
|
CMV: The Holodomor was not a "deliberate act of genocide", but a combination of kurkul sabotage, political mismanagement and extremely unfortunate weather conditions
|
I write this because my knowledge of the subject is not that of an expert, but what I have read tells me that there were many factors that came into play that caused the Soviet Famine, many of which had nothing to do with Stalin and much of which was unavoidable by his government. Core among these is the weather conditions: scholars seem to widely agree that the weather of the period was exceptionally bad, yet still I still even on supposedly unbiased sources such as Wikipedia I see weighted language that almost takes it on assumption that Stalin was out to eradicate the Ukranians. By the same token I've seen a lot of agreement that many of the more affluent peasants - particularly in the Ukraine - had actively revolted against the socialist movement, yet again "kurkul/kulak sabotage" is regularly shrugged off as "Soviet disinformation propaganda". I acknowledge that there were occasions that the Soviets made key mistakes that likely led to many deaths (for instance, not acting quickly enough when crops began to go to waste under laws that prevented farmers from taking their yield for themselves), but widely I get the sense that the West would like to downplay every other possible factor and simply label this as a Holocaust-like genocidal campaign by Stalin, "worse than Hitler", using every single death due to starvation as a part of his "kill-count".
To me this feels like an unprecedented tragedy with many factors completely out of government control (or something the government explicitly tried to deal with), so it feels unfair for people to tally it up on "Stalin's kill count" or "Deaths due to communism". I would be interested to see if people would be willing to do the same thing with the USA, tallying up every death that could have possibly been avoided with better, more accessible healthcare, tallying up every death from mass shooting, and then adding them to "Obama's genocidal killcount". Over a million Americans died in a war initiated by Abraham Lincoln, yet I never hear the phrase "Abraham Lincoln killed over a million of his own citizens".
Totally willing to have my opinion changed here, as like I said before I am by no means an expert on the subject. This is simply a result of what I have personally gleamed from my layman's research into the subject.
| 1,484,830,975
|
lackingsaint
|
dcmy8ig
|
dcmofcc
| 7
| 6
|
CMV:Having a vegan diet seems pretty pointless.
I love meat, especially beef, but I can see the argument for becoming a vegetarian. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), vegetarians don't buy or eat meat products because it supports the industry of slaughtering animals for their meat. That makes sense, even though I don't share their concerns. What doesn't make sense to me is that vegans avoid animal products altogether. That includes cheese, milk, yogurt, eggs, ice cream, butter, milk chocolate, etc. Now, the way I understand it (again, please correct me if I'm wrong), the reason vegans avoid buying or eating animal products is because it's taking food from innocent and/or helpless animals. This seems like strange reasoning because it's not like it hurts a chicken to take its unfertilized eggs or a cow to take its milk to turn into butter or cheese. The chicken will continue to lay eggs weather we collect them or not, and a cow will keep producing milk as long as we keep taking it.
EDIT: I see now that I should have considered factory/industrial farming. I was mostly thinking about small to medium scale farming when I originally wrote this post. The argument about animal cruelty/abuse in industrial farms is a pretty good one and I can see now why someone would become a vegan.
|
In my sort-of-uninformed opinion, the moral argument is not the only one that exists for either vegetarianism or veganism. I share your viewpoint that a person not buying the products doesn't really make a dent in the industry itself.
But I'd gladly go vegetarian if it was convenient to do so right now (just finished high school, still living with parent). Why? Because there's also a personal argument to be made.
-A *planned and monitored* vegetarian diet visibly provides health benefits across the board, such as less risk of stroke, obesity, diabetes, drastically reduced cholesterol, and overall healthier appearance and even the mitigation of random, seemingly unrelated conditions, such as psoriasis and acne. Processed meat, on the other hand, has been declared by the WHO as a literal carcinogen.
-It's much easier to improve productivity for crops than it is for livestock. Intensive animal farming often includes the abuse of hormonal medication, antibiotics, fattening substances just to be marketable; and on the other hand, GMO research has made it so you can induce plants to yield more, be healthier, tastier, and grow faster, all at the same time, without potentially leaking industrial chemicals, hormones and low-end cattle medication developed during the 80s into the end consumers' guts. Not to mention disease.
Everything that gets in an animal's body spends time there, sometimes years, and it doesn't magically go away once its dead, butchered and served on your table. Neither does it do that when its in your stomach. Some have compared eating meat on a daily basis to unprotected sex with random strangers, which, although extreme, doesn't really stray far from reality.
-Advances in nutritional science have made it so you literally don't need meat at all as an exclusive source of protein. You could go further and say you don't need meat at all *for anything*, considering the wide varieties of supplements available in the market.
If you want to obtain them naturally, then you'd find being a Pescetarian (Like being vegetarian, but excluding fish from the list of things you can't eat) gets you completely covered. Many Asian countries have subsisted on such a diet for centuries, and as a result, often have a far lower incidence of disease and vitamin deficit than westerners.
Fish can easily become tainted too, however, but I'd wager it's rare to see a fisherman literally shoving hormones and medications down a fish's throat, throwing it down to the sea, and then scooping it back up a few months later when its become fattened enough to be sold.
And it's easy to make the jump from health-oriented vegetarianism to health-oriented veganism. Cheese, milk, yogurt, eggs, ice cream, butter, and milk chocolate are all things that can be easily replaced by healthy alternatives, and most of those have low nutritional content.
In the end, it boils down to personal preference. The health benefits are obvious, so the health argument stands, and even the moral argument isn't 'pointless'; absolving yourself from guilt and boycotting a cruel industry can make people feel better, and if it does make them feel better, there was a point.
|
I'm not vegan, but regarding milk from cows, the argument can include the fact we are filling them with hormones and anti-biotics, the conditions the animals are kept, etc.
None of these are good. So, they have an argument from that position.
There may be additional arguments that the sources we use can be found elsewhere and thus the animal isn't needed to live in such conditions.
Some think vegan diets are healthier though, being someone that has a deficiency in something, and checking diets and nutrients and everything, vegan diets are always included with a * as the diet is so poor that is just constantly has to monitor the deficiency issues they may encounter.
So, from a position of cruelty, the conditions the animal is kept, the fact it "didnt choose," etc. is one argument. Another is health but it's not back by any scientific proof.
|
5owx9k
|
CMV:Having a vegan diet seems pretty pointless.
|
I love meat, especially beef, but I can see the argument for becoming a vegetarian. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), vegetarians don't buy or eat meat products because it supports the industry of slaughtering animals for their meat. That makes sense, even though I don't share their concerns. What doesn't make sense to me is that vegans avoid animal products altogether. That includes cheese, milk, yogurt, eggs, ice cream, butter, milk chocolate, etc. Now, the way I understand it (again, please correct me if I'm wrong), the reason vegans avoid buying or eating animal products is because it's taking food from innocent and/or helpless animals. This seems like strange reasoning because it's not like it hurts a chicken to take its unfertilized eggs or a cow to take its milk to turn into butter or cheese. The chicken will continue to lay eggs weather we collect them or not, and a cow will keep producing milk as long as we keep taking it.
EDIT: I see now that I should have considered factory/industrial farming. I was mostly thinking about small to medium scale farming when I originally wrote this post. The argument about animal cruelty/abuse in industrial farms is a pretty good one and I can see now why someone would become a vegan.
| 1,484,837,070
|
TougherLoki26
|
dcmpcf5
|
dcmorc7
| 21
| 0
|
CMV: "Stopping power" isn't really that important in self-defense scenarios.
I'll use Wikipedia's definition: Stopping power is the ability of a firearm or other weapon to cause enough ballistic trauma to a target (human or animal) to immediately incapacitate (and thus stop) the target.
There's a lot of debate over what cartridges provide the best stopping power and what is optimal for a self defense situation. My view is that the importance of stopping power isn't really that important for an average citizen in a self defense scenario. A police officer is more likely to get into a confrontation with a determined attacker who might be under the influence of PCP or some other drug that would keep them moving after being shot. Simply having a gun and being confident in it's use will put you head-and-shoulders above most people to begin with. A .22lr will still kill a person if the shot is placed correctly. A .380 might not kill someone as quickly as a .45acp but I sure as hell wouldn't want to get shot with one! I think having *any* kind of firearm is enough to ward off most people who intend to do you harm. What are the odds that some 6 foot tall body builder on PCP is going to attack you? Most people will never even use their guns so why place so much emphasis on having the absolute best tool for the job? If you're more comfortable with a small caliber weapon then you will be more effective with it than something that makes you flinch/hurts your hand when using it. Also, a smaller caliber weapon often holds more ammo and you can take quicker follow-up shots. Stopping power doesn't really matter if you can shoot the person multiple times very quickly. I recently purchased a .380 that holds 16 rounds and I feel it's more than adequate for a defense situation.
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
|
There is some minimum stopping power required. For instance, a BB gun wouldn't do the job. 22lr is probably the bare minimum people would consider as it at least has some potential for incapacitating injury.
>A .22lr will still kill a person if the shot is placed correctly.
Can you place that shot correctly under life and death stress? Your margin for error there is quite high. If I need to place a shot in a 3 inch hole, in the dark, against a moving, charging attacker then my odds of successful engagement are slim.
So going up the caliber scale helps to turn a non-stop into a stop even if you miss that critical mark. It gives you more room to screw up and still come out on top.
>What are the odds that some 6 foot tall body builder on PCP is going to attack you?
Why wouldn't you prepare for a worst case? A .45 stops scared bad guys and determined bad guys equally. But a .22 will not. Seeing as I'm not going to carry multiple guns for multiple occasions, I want a tool that can do everything I need it to do.
>Most people will never even use their guns so why place so much emphasis on having the absolute best tool for the job?
Because your life and the lives of others hinges on your abilities and tools in this scenario. I wouldn't want to apologize to my spouse in the hospital because I deliberately cheaped out on my gun.
>If you're more comfortable with a small caliber weapon then you will be more effective with it than something that makes you flinch/hurts your hand when using it.
True. There is a maximum caliber size as well. Else everyone would be throwing 20mm cannon shells everywhere. However there are minimums to do the job. Honestly, something between 9x19 and .45 is going to suit you just fine. The question is what can you hit with?
>Also, a smaller caliber weapon often holds more ammo and you can take quicker follow-up shots. Stopping power doesn't really matter if you can shoot the person multiple times very quickly.
Shooting takes time. Shooting accurately takes more time and you're accountable for every bullet. If your time is short, you want the first bullet to do the job because that may be all you get off. If you must make follow up shots fine. I think 7+1 in a 1911 is more than enough to take on an attacker. If you need to throw 16 bullets at someone to stop them, something may be wrong. If you feel like you're going to take on a half dozen attackers, I recommend bringing friends to bring more guns.
|
The best home defense/self defense weapon is what is safest and most comfortable for you to use. However, stopping power is a side benefit to whatever you choose, but can be important in some scenarios and should be taken into account.
When evaluating what I use for home defense, I've prioritized the following:
1). Safety:
I need something that is easially accessible if I need it but can be stored safely and securely. Also, since my neighbors' houses are fairly close to mine, I want to make sure whatever I'm shooting stays in this house and cannot penetrate through the walls. I'm also thinking through how I would be using the weapon. Long range isn't a concern, however short to medium range is.
2). Comfort and familiarity:
I want to use something that I'm extremely familiar with shooting, understand the operation of, and can safely operate in a potentially stressful or confusing situation. In addition, I'm also prioritizing multi-use. I'm personally unlikely to shoot something all that often that I would own solely for defense. I would want something that works well for hunting and sport shooting as well, also taking into account that those activities increases my familiarity and skill with the specific weapon.
3). Stopping power
Now while you are correct that a .22lr is extremely lethal, it isn't necessarily the best option personally either taking #1-2 into account. For some it will be. My concern here is risk mitigation. I'm less concerned about a carry weapon and more from home defense, so I'm in a situation where I really don't know what I'm going up against in case that unlikely scenario occurs. While I live in a really safe area, there are problems with break-ins, and locally the common motivator for break-ins is to steal goods to sell for drug money. I don't know what these people are on if they're in my house, and to mitigate risk I want to fire a shot and know that was enough to stop the threat. The thought of needing additional rounds to stop the threat raises the risk of not stopping the threat or making a mistake while trying to empty my weapon at center mass in closed quarters situations.
For this reason I just choose a 12-gauge shotgun I use for duck and goose hunting as it meets the 3 main criteria. Others will make different choices for equally good reasons, but the stopping power of that 12-gauge along with my needs for 1-2 fits the bill perfectly.
|
5oxca1
|
CMV: "Stopping power" isn't really that important in self-defense scenarios.
|
I'll use Wikipedia's definition: Stopping power is the ability of a firearm or other weapon to cause enough ballistic trauma to a target (human or animal) to immediately incapacitate (and thus stop) the target.
There's a lot of debate over what cartridges provide the best stopping power and what is optimal for a self defense situation. My view is that the importance of stopping power isn't really that important for an average citizen in a self defense scenario. A police officer is more likely to get into a confrontation with a determined attacker who might be under the influence of PCP or some other drug that would keep them moving after being shot. Simply having a gun and being confident in it's use will put you head-and-shoulders above most people to begin with. A .22lr will still kill a person if the shot is placed correctly. A .380 might not kill someone as quickly as a .45acp but I sure as hell wouldn't want to get shot with one! I think having *any* kind of firearm is enough to ward off most people who intend to do you harm. What are the odds that some 6 foot tall body builder on PCP is going to attack you? Most people will never even use their guns so why place so much emphasis on having the absolute best tool for the job? If you're more comfortable with a small caliber weapon then you will be more effective with it than something that makes you flinch/hurts your hand when using it. Also, a smaller caliber weapon often holds more ammo and you can take quicker follow-up shots. Stopping power doesn't really matter if you can shoot the person multiple times very quickly. I recently purchased a .380 that holds 16 rounds and I feel it's more than adequate for a defense situation.
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
| 1,484,841,484
|
[deleted]
|
dcmtd9j
|
dcmsejz
| 7
| 1
|
CMV: Israel should have kicked out the Palestinians after the 6 day war.
Israel is one of the only countries in the region that does not persecute Jews, and is under constant threat by regional superpowers, namely Saudi Arabia and Iran. They have to exist to protect their people. Although I do feel bad that the Palestinians would be forced to leave their homes, they were the ones who declared war on Israel, and were very quickly destroyed and had their land conquered in only 6 days. If Israel had deported them to Jordan then, Palestinian citizens would not be dying at 10-1 rates, [according to this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Fatalities_1948.E2.80.932011) . Although they would initially be upset, they would have better futures for them and their children in Jordan. And although they may fight from Jordan for Jerusalem, it would be much easier to keep terrorists out of Israel and in Jordan, than to try to find them inside Palestine/Israel.
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
|
Forced removal of an ethnic group from a territory has a name: "ethnic cleansing". This term has come about because ethnic cleansing has been tried a number of times. It has never worked out well, fifty or a hundred years on I can't think of any society that is glad they committed an act of ethnic cleansing.
Ethnic cleansing is regarded, for good reason, as one of the more evil atrocities a state can commit against people under its power, and for that reason it is considered one of the most serious war crimes, one that demands immediate and forceful international intervention.
Consider the changes that cruel policies like this force upon the *holders* of those policies, as well. What would Israel be like if it became, only a few years after the Holocaust, little better than that society which so many of Israel's citizens had just fled? Would it have ever enjoyed the sort of widespread Western support that has allowed it to flourish culturally and economically? An ethnic nationalist state would never have been able to ally with the Soviet Union or other communist powers, and Israel has no oil to speak of or other natural resources with which to bargain for critical defense needs as a non-aligned power.
|
Once your argument for Israel becomes a religious one, it is no more or less valid than the one being made by Palestine. Any legitimate claim to the land must be made with a secular argument if support from America is to be expected. Israel is the only democracy in the region, and democracy is something America should try to support wherever possible (and wherever our help is requested). But simply being the only place that doesn't persecute Jews in the area isn't enough.
|
5oydf5
|
CMV: Israel should have kicked out the Palestinians after the 6 day war.
|
Israel is one of the only countries in the region that does not persecute Jews, and is under constant threat by regional superpowers, namely Saudi Arabia and Iran. They have to exist to protect their people. Although I do feel bad that the Palestinians would be forced to leave their homes, they were the ones who declared war on Israel, and were very quickly destroyed and had their land conquered in only 6 days. If Israel had deported them to Jordan then, Palestinian citizens would not be dying at 10-1 rates, [according to this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Fatalities_1948.E2.80.932011) . Although they would initially be upset, they would have better futures for them and their children in Jordan. And although they may fight from Jordan for Jerusalem, it would be much easier to keep terrorists out of Israel and in Jordan, than to try to find them inside Palestine/Israel.
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
| 1,484,851,426
|
Ichigowins
|
dcn06gp
|
dcmznmg
| 25
| 7
|
CMV: Joking about tragedy is cruel and insensitive and makes you look very unsympathetic, even if you actually are underneath.
I honestly believe that joking about tragedy is mean-spirited. Joking is a good thing because humour brings happiness, but if you are joking about an event that cut innocent lives short, you are laughing at the deaths of people and in doing so, mocking them. It makes you look unsympathetic, even if you believe you are. This may seem judgemental, but it's hard not to be so.
Take, for example, a joke about the Sandy Hook shooting. If you make a joke about it, or laugh at one, you are finding a school shooting humorous. A room full of dead children is bringing you joy in some form, and that's messed up. No matter how funny you think the joke is, you are, in a way, supporting the tragedy by reducing such an atrocity - something that should make you feel naturally uncomfortable - to something that makes you happy. How is that not a bad thing? Why do you need to find happiness in tragedy when it's not meant to exist within it? Obviously you wouldn't point and laugh if you witnessed a murder; you'd be horrified. So why is it suddenly a "funny" situation when made into a joke?
And even if you really are sympathetic and require a dark sense of humour as a "coping mechanism", it's still wrong because you very likely weren't directly affected by it. I can understand people who were affected by a tragedy making jokes because their lives have been likely shattered and need to find ways to move on and be happy again. It isn't your loss, so the jokes are uncalled for. It also implies that you don't understand the full extent of how horrible it must feel to have a loved one taken away, and that is why people judge those that joke about tragedies. You are making yourself look very unkind if you make these jokes.
Furthermore, when tragedy occurs, if the first thing you do is think of the darkest joke you can where the punchline is "Lol, people died! XD", you are deliberately distancing yourself from others showing sympathy. You can't mourn the victims of a terrorist incident one day and that laugh about it the next day - that's a contradiction. You either think that innocent people dying was a sad event, or a funny event; joking about tragedy replaces mourning and vice versa.
These jokes don't unite people against those that wish to do harm against us. Showing sympathy and solidarity does that. If a member of your family or a friend died, would you want people to laugh at their deaths? Of course not. I do not understand how mocking the dead with tragedy jokes is seen as a good thing these days. It's selfish and insensitive, and it's what makes murderers/terrorists thrive.
Change my view.
|
Dark humor isn't for everybody, but calling someone unsympathetic for enjoying it is completely off the mark. Dark humor derives it's humor from things that are supposed to make you uncomfortable. If it's about something that isn't discomforting, then it isn't as funny. The humor from a dark joke doesn't come from the fact that people died, but rather the absurdity of a person making a ridiculous claim about a tragedy. Dark humor also helps with coping. One can only experience so much tragedy and sometimes you need joy, even if that involves laughing at tragedy. For example, I have made several suicide attempts and as a result I find suicide jokes especially funny.
|
What of the power of humor as a coping mechanism?
That SNL guy is never not making jokes about his dads death on 9/11 and he seems to justify it well.
|
5ozzff
|
CMV: Joking about tragedy is cruel and insensitive and makes you look very unsympathetic, even if you actually are underneath.
|
I honestly believe that joking about tragedy is mean-spirited. Joking is a good thing because humour brings happiness, but if you are joking about an event that cut innocent lives short, you are laughing at the deaths of people and in doing so, mocking them. It makes you look unsympathetic, even if you believe you are. This may seem judgemental, but it's hard not to be so.
Take, for example, a joke about the Sandy Hook shooting. If you make a joke about it, or laugh at one, you are finding a school shooting humorous. A room full of dead children is bringing you joy in some form, and that's messed up. No matter how funny you think the joke is, you are, in a way, supporting the tragedy by reducing such an atrocity - something that should make you feel naturally uncomfortable - to something that makes you happy. How is that not a bad thing? Why do you need to find happiness in tragedy when it's not meant to exist within it? Obviously you wouldn't point and laugh if you witnessed a murder; you'd be horrified. So why is it suddenly a "funny" situation when made into a joke?
And even if you really are sympathetic and require a dark sense of humour as a "coping mechanism", it's still wrong because you very likely weren't directly affected by it. I can understand people who were affected by a tragedy making jokes because their lives have been likely shattered and need to find ways to move on and be happy again. It isn't your loss, so the jokes are uncalled for. It also implies that you don't understand the full extent of how horrible it must feel to have a loved one taken away, and that is why people judge those that joke about tragedies. You are making yourself look very unkind if you make these jokes.
Furthermore, when tragedy occurs, if the first thing you do is think of the darkest joke you can where the punchline is "Lol, people died! XD", you are deliberately distancing yourself from others showing sympathy. You can't mourn the victims of a terrorist incident one day and that laugh about it the next day - that's a contradiction. You either think that innocent people dying was a sad event, or a funny event; joking about tragedy replaces mourning and vice versa.
These jokes don't unite people against those that wish to do harm against us. Showing sympathy and solidarity does that. If a member of your family or a friend died, would you want people to laugh at their deaths? Of course not. I do not understand how mocking the dead with tragedy jokes is seen as a good thing these days. It's selfish and insensitive, and it's what makes murderers/terrorists thrive.
Change my view.
| 1,484,865,897
|
TT454
|
dcndmyj
|
dcnd7jx
| 19
| 1
|
CMV: Donald Trump has a Reddit account and frequently posts positive things about himself.
Now, a lot of people will initially find this idea ridicolous. But, there are some things we need to consider: a while back, Donald Trump did an AMA, which proves that he knows that Reddit exists at least.
Now, the reason that I think that he has a reddit account and posts positive things about himself is his behavior on all other forms of media: he really enjoys congradulating himself. Like, a lot.
Add that to the relative annonymity of Reddit, and I believe that Donald Trump definately would use his account (if he had one) to advertise and congradulate himself.
The biggest hole that I could see in this theory is I doubt Trump would be able to resist the temptation to out himself. Like if someone posted an anti-Trump news story, he might get caught in a fit of rage and respond to it with his real name. (That and the only real evidence is his behavior on twitter).
CMV!
|
From watching Trump over this election cycle I wouldn't put it past him to engage in this type of covert self-endorsement.
However, you are making a truth claim. In order to believe "Donald Trump has a Reddit account and frequently posts positive things about himself" - there must be evidence.
Any truth claim must come with commensurate evidence to justify that claim. It seems you only have speculation based on how you percieve Trump and what his actions would be given the platform reddit supplies.
At best, all you can say is either:
1. Donald Trump is the type of person to use reddit for covert self-endorsement.
or
2. It is possible that Trump uses reddit for...
But a declarative statement such as - Donald Trump has a Reddit account and frequently posts positive things about himself - cannot be justified based on the evidence you've provided.
|
> The biggest hole that I could see in this theory is I doubt Trump would be able to resist the temptation to out himself.
Everything about him suggests that this is the only reasonable way to look at him. He has an ego the size of a large nation (like Russia, for example), so there is no way that he would be able to keep himself anonymous. He doesn't just want public attention, he craves for and may even need it in order to keep his own opinion of himself high. If he had a Reddit account that he regularly used, he would absolutely make sure everyone knew exactly who he was.
|
5p0yos
|
CMV: Donald Trump has a Reddit account and frequently posts positive things about himself.
|
Now, a lot of people will initially find this idea ridicolous. But, there are some things we need to consider: a while back, Donald Trump did an AMA, which proves that he knows that Reddit exists at least.
Now, the reason that I think that he has a reddit account and posts positive things about himself is his behavior on all other forms of media: he really enjoys congradulating himself. Like, a lot.
Add that to the relative annonymity of Reddit, and I believe that Donald Trump definately would use his account (if he had one) to advertise and congradulate himself.
The biggest hole that I could see in this theory is I doubt Trump would be able to resist the temptation to out himself. Like if someone posted an anti-Trump news story, he might get caught in a fit of rage and respond to it with his real name. (That and the only real evidence is his behavior on twitter).
CMV!
| 1,484,876,154
|
Fishb20
|
dcnl8dt
|
dcnkrl4
| 10
| 2
|
CMV: I have no sympathy left for Americans who refuse to adapt to new socioeconomic realities but voted Trump in.
Let me start off with a little background about me, which helps give you some context as to how I formed my opinions on this topic:
My parents are undocumented immigrants; they immigrated from Mexico due to poorer economic opportunities following the Mexico peso crisis of 1994. They were poor to begin with already, but the crisis and many other economic factors exacerbated their situation. They reluctantly arrived in the United States with little formal education and no specialized skills, away from the place they call and still remain to call home. They were in a sink or swim situation; they had to work low-paying, labor inducing cyclical jobs in addition to side jobs whenever they were given the opportunity. I was born two years later, cementing their stay in the United States. Going back to Mexico to visit relatives, for a party celebration, a vacation, a want to cure their homesickness, or a funeral was not an option. Going back would mean they'd have to stay back in Mexico due to increasing border security, and that would mean their child would face the same lack of opportunity that they faced, despite my American citizenship (thanks jus soli). Twenty years later, my family is pretty well-off living in a lower-middle class neighborhood. We still face hardships in our day-to-day life; the threat of deportation despite their twenty plus years here as law-abiding, hard-working people is on our minds every day because of our immigration status. My parents' job opportunities are still very limited, but they get paid well and not below minimum wage because of their work ethic. Yet they still aren't fluent in English. Then there's me. My parents might not have an education, but they insisted on education as a path to a better life. I took that philosophy to heart, and studied hard for my high SAT scores, my twelve AP tests, and high GPA, which allowed me to attend a high-ranking university with minimum federal loans (shoutout to r/humblebrag).
So where do American blue-collar workers come in?
Donald Trump's victory is widely attributed to dissatisfied people living in the Rust Belt and in "Coal Country" who feel that Trump is the answer to their socioeconomic plight. Globalization and external economic factors such as trade liberalization and the rise of developing countries have moved manufacturing to Asia and Latin America. The demand for coal from the East Coast has decreased, as overall global demand for coal has decreased and the competition with West Coast, more easily extractable coal has not helped with domestic demand. But these factors are not new. Coal country had been diminishing since the mid 20th century and Rust Belt manufacturing decreasing since the 1970s. Yet despite these new realities, they believe Donald Trump will bring their idealized old way of life. Instead of adapting to these new realities, they refuse to do so. They don't migrate to other parts of the country with better employment opportunities, they don't learn new skills, they don't get a higher education. They're American citizens. They speak English. They have a free education up to high school. Community college is not expensive. State universities are possible to attend with grants and federal loans. Many private universities are willing to pay for their education if they're accepted. They demand those manufacturing or coal jobs that weren't very good to begin with. They want to retain that small town way of life. They don't want to move to major cities because it's a different social environment (more diverse, more anonymous, more liberal, more densely populated, etc.) Instead, they vote for a candidate who I believe lies to them, or at the very least gives them false hope. A man who will probably do more harm for them than good. A Republican controlled government bent on dismantling unions, minimum wage laws, employment regulations, etc.
Why should I have any sympathy for them anymore? They voted for the hyperbole candidate. The candidate who threatens my family with deportation. They don't take steps to adapt to new realities and instead latch on to false hope. How is it that immigrants are willing to adapt and move to a new country but they don't move within their own country? I don't despise them, don't get me wrong. It was my first election which I'm glad I took a part of. But I've been disheartened and discouraged as a liberal-leaning citizen and political active citizen to advocate for America's "forgotten" people when they sealed their own fate.
(hope i got my point across).
|
One difference I'd like to point out between you and Rust Belt people is that you were groomed from birth to seek education. I'm not saying you had it easy, but at least you had what sounds like a support network. I'm not sure what other privileges or luck you had but I'd urge you to think on what other factors led you to where you are.
As for former factory workers and miners, they have been coasting along with their middle class jobs until suddenly, through no fault of their own, the jobs were pulled away and their lives were upended. Without an education, they simply cannot respond with the adaptability that you are able to muster. Why don't they move? Well, many have moved, resulting in a brain drain from rural towns into wealthier cities/suburbs, further exacerbating problems back home.
One last thing I want to mention is that when immigrants move to a new country, they tend to stick together. It's hard and sometimes impossible to fully assimilate. It takes generations. In the meantime, immigrant communities form powerful social bonds (everything from babysitting to providing jobs and loans) that help in-group members take on new challenges.
Unfortunately rural whites who want to become urban migrants to make some more cash don't really have a ready-made community to align themselves with. It's hard to do something like that all on your own. True, they enjoy certain privileges by virtue of simply being white in a white-majority nation, but starting over is a tall order to ask from anybody.
Instead, (I would argue) white working class people actually did seek a shared identity in their rural isolation, and that identity was molded on cable news channels and talk radio. That passion united them in their frustration and paved the way for powerful men to take advantage of them. But that's a whole different topic I'm getting into.
|
You can have sympathy for bad people. [I feel sympathy for Hitler because he had to poison his dog.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blondi#Death_of_Blondi_and_other_dogs) The reality of the world is that people like you are taking over, and people like them are in decline. Losing something valuable is something everyone can relate to. You can simultaneously feel like someone deserves their fate, but also sympathize with their sense of loss.
The thing about sympathy is that pretty much everyone has some sympathy for everyone. You'd need a psychiatric illness such as antisocial personality disorder (sociopathy or psychopathy as the general public calls it) not to have some sympathy at least. You don't seem to have that illness, so you almost certainly have at least some sympathy left buried somewhere in your heart. It's a mark of how good a person you are to have sympathy for someone, not how deserving they are of your concern.
|
5p271q
|
CMV: I have no sympathy left for Americans who refuse to adapt to new socioeconomic realities but voted Trump in.
|
Let me start off with a little background about me, which helps give you some context as to how I formed my opinions on this topic:
My parents are undocumented immigrants; they immigrated from Mexico due to poorer economic opportunities following the Mexico peso crisis of 1994. They were poor to begin with already, but the crisis and many other economic factors exacerbated their situation. They reluctantly arrived in the United States with little formal education and no specialized skills, away from the place they call and still remain to call home. They were in a sink or swim situation; they had to work low-paying, labor inducing cyclical jobs in addition to side jobs whenever they were given the opportunity. I was born two years later, cementing their stay in the United States. Going back to Mexico to visit relatives, for a party celebration, a vacation, a want to cure their homesickness, or a funeral was not an option. Going back would mean they'd have to stay back in Mexico due to increasing border security, and that would mean their child would face the same lack of opportunity that they faced, despite my American citizenship (thanks jus soli). Twenty years later, my family is pretty well-off living in a lower-middle class neighborhood. We still face hardships in our day-to-day life; the threat of deportation despite their twenty plus years here as law-abiding, hard-working people is on our minds every day because of our immigration status. My parents' job opportunities are still very limited, but they get paid well and not below minimum wage because of their work ethic. Yet they still aren't fluent in English. Then there's me. My parents might not have an education, but they insisted on education as a path to a better life. I took that philosophy to heart, and studied hard for my high SAT scores, my twelve AP tests, and high GPA, which allowed me to attend a high-ranking university with minimum federal loans (shoutout to r/humblebrag).
So where do American blue-collar workers come in?
Donald Trump's victory is widely attributed to dissatisfied people living in the Rust Belt and in "Coal Country" who feel that Trump is the answer to their socioeconomic plight. Globalization and external economic factors such as trade liberalization and the rise of developing countries have moved manufacturing to Asia and Latin America. The demand for coal from the East Coast has decreased, as overall global demand for coal has decreased and the competition with West Coast, more easily extractable coal has not helped with domestic demand. But these factors are not new. Coal country had been diminishing since the mid 20th century and Rust Belt manufacturing decreasing since the 1970s. Yet despite these new realities, they believe Donald Trump will bring their idealized old way of life. Instead of adapting to these new realities, they refuse to do so. They don't migrate to other parts of the country with better employment opportunities, they don't learn new skills, they don't get a higher education. They're American citizens. They speak English. They have a free education up to high school. Community college is not expensive. State universities are possible to attend with grants and federal loans. Many private universities are willing to pay for their education if they're accepted. They demand those manufacturing or coal jobs that weren't very good to begin with. They want to retain that small town way of life. They don't want to move to major cities because it's a different social environment (more diverse, more anonymous, more liberal, more densely populated, etc.) Instead, they vote for a candidate who I believe lies to them, or at the very least gives them false hope. A man who will probably do more harm for them than good. A Republican controlled government bent on dismantling unions, minimum wage laws, employment regulations, etc.
Why should I have any sympathy for them anymore? They voted for the hyperbole candidate. The candidate who threatens my family with deportation. They don't take steps to adapt to new realities and instead latch on to false hope. How is it that immigrants are willing to adapt and move to a new country but they don't move within their own country? I don't despise them, don't get me wrong. It was my first election which I'm glad I took a part of. But I've been disheartened and discouraged as a liberal-leaning citizen and political active citizen to advocate for America's "forgotten" people when they sealed their own fate.
(hope i got my point across).
| 1,484,891,297
|
IrateWanderer
|
dcnx3su
|
dcnwgdm
| 43
| 13
|
CMV: Immigrants take jobs which would otherwise go to low-skilled Americans
I've been shown a lot of statistics that supposedly disprove this, but what I haven't heard is a convincing argument for HOW it can be that way.
Consider the situation. There is a large influx of low-skilled people into the country, but since the majority of them are not entrepreneurs, the number of jobs does not significantly increase.
Examining the workforce, we can see that certain jobs usually tend to have very few Americans in them. Some people use these statistics as evidence that immigrants do jobs Americans do not want to do. However, all it necessarily shows to me are the preferences of those doing the hiring; many poor immigrants are willing to work for less. If the wage rates were not being pulled down, Americans could do those jobs.
Once again, I've seen plenty of statistics. What I would need is an argument for WHY the situation the statistics supposedly are showing, exists.
|
> Consider the situation. There is a large influx of low-skilled people into the country, but since the majority of them are not entrepreneurs, the number of jobs does not significantly increase.
This implies that the creation of jobs is dictated by an influx of job creators (entrepreneurs), but this isn't true. Job creation is dictated by at least two relevant economic agents, both of which are people in this scenario.
Over the past few decades, the Mexican population has noticeably increased. Let's name my city Emigratopolis. 30 years ago, Emigratopolis' name was ironic because it had very few immigrants overall, a mere 100. But a few waves of immigration came through and the city saw a large influx of low skilled workers. Suddenly, the city has thousands upon thousands of immigrants.
First, let's ignore what jobs these immigrants get and just look at what this immigration does to the city and its economy. The obvious part is that there is a bigger population now, and that means it takes more to manage the city. More people means more police needed, more garbagemen, higher water usage, more public transportation usage (so more buses or whatever), businesses are busier with more customers, so they hire more help, etc. More kids in the school means more schools and/or more teachers. And it often means more ESL teachers in my experience, as well.
More people also means more homes, which means more people to service for things like cable, Internet, other services. More people to service for a plumber or an electrician. It means more houses that need to be built for construction workers or more tenants to landlords.
There's also the specialized job creation that comes from different immigrants. Emigratopolis now has a large Spanish speaking populace, they have to find people to meet that need. The hospital now has Spanish translators on call, as does 911, as do numerous services.
Emigratopolis also got a bunch of Mexican markets and Mexican restaurants operated by and catering to the new immigrant population.
The immigrants created a need for these thing in the general sense, by being humans with basic needs and also created different jobs based on their differences in culture and language. This won't be one for one, but an influx of immigrants certainly does create some jobs, at least. This is just on account of immigrants being consumers.
Then there is the immigrant from another perspective: labor. The city had a finite number of workers before the immigrants came. (It still does, but it did then, too.) 100 factories competed for 15000 workers at $20 an hour. 50 more factories would like to enter the market, but if they did, it would drive wages higher than the $20 it's at, and the companies there can't afford that. If a new factory opens, they'll just take the workers from another factory that can't pay more than the $20 and that factory won't be able to maintain production. There's simply a cap at how many factories can be in the city due to the limited work force, and that cap seems to be the 100.
But then Emigratopolis gets its immigration wave and gets a few thousand more workers. This raises the cap of factories the city can have because more labor is available. 20 new factories open up and take that new labor without needing to raise wages to compete. What originally capped the number of factories, lack of labor, is now higher so more factories can exist. Thus more jobs are created.
This is obviously extremely simplified, but it's just to illustrate that immigrants can lead to job creation.
|
Your primary issue doesn't seem to be denying that it *is* happening but rather not understanding *why*, is that correct?
If you haven't already, consider that the Americans in this scenario (a) simply don't want to work those jobs because the income is not worth it to them, and that they are able to make this choice because (b) they possess support systems that illegal immigrants do not that allow them to make a choice in the matter... those support systems being (1) family and (2) social services from the government.
|
5p2q6l
|
CMV: Immigrants take jobs which would otherwise go to low-skilled Americans
|
I've been shown a lot of statistics that supposedly disprove this, but what I haven't heard is a convincing argument for HOW it can be that way.
Consider the situation. There is a large influx of low-skilled people into the country, but since the majority of them are not entrepreneurs, the number of jobs does not significantly increase.
Examining the workforce, we can see that certain jobs usually tend to have very few Americans in them. Some people use these statistics as evidence that immigrants do jobs Americans do not want to do. However, all it necessarily shows to me are the preferences of those doing the hiring; many poor immigrants are willing to work for less. If the wage rates were not being pulled down, Americans could do those jobs.
Once again, I've seen plenty of statistics. What I would need is an argument for WHY the situation the statistics supposedly are showing, exists.
| 1,484,899,661
|
Ian3223
|
dco57o2
|
dco4lgg
| 8
| 6
|
CMV: "Homework", Daft Punk's debut album, which hit its 20th anniversary earlier this week, is not good.
I don't think it's bad, either. It has plenty of good songs on it, [Around The World](https://youtu.be/dwDns8x3Jb4?t=3m11s) and [High Fidelity](https://youtu.be/JXWkKO4eplY?t=31s) being two of my favorites. (I linked to my favorite parts, Around The World for its harmonization and High Fidelity for the most creative sampling I've ever seen.) But most of the album is very forgettable, and some of the songs are downright annoying. For instance, [Rollin'](https://youtu.be/q27KtfR1ESA?t=1m18s) & [Scratchin'](https://youtu.be/q27KtfR1ESA?t=3m14s), [Rock'n Roll](https://youtu.be/ZW7WfdTuth8?t=2m42s), and [Burnin'](https://youtu.be/E2lGIsrhlGA?t=1m13s) all have really unlistenable hooks, although now that I listen back I think I'm somehow enjoying them anyway. Also, [Wdpk 83.7 FM](https://youtu.be/OzZAHvq_UqI) is a really dumb gimmick, [Teachers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yq-NFiEywo) (a list of the Robots' inspirations) should not be a song, and [Funk Ad](https://youtu.be/YqUyNvGsM9s) is just 50 seconds of "Da Funk" played backwards, and it's the worst album closer I've ever heard. Not to mention that the entire album, at least to my pop-music tuned ears, is always twice as slow (if not slower) than I expect it to be, but that's double edged because it makes the good moments last longer as well as the bad ones. (And I don't blame them for doing that, as a bedroom DJ I can appreciate an artist working to make their music more easily loopable.)
But almost everyone I've heard talk about the album hails it as a classic, and Daft Punk's followup album, Discovery, is my favorite album of all time (and is also hailed as a classic), so I really want to know why people enjoy listening to Homework.
**Edit:** I have gained more respect for the innovative and genre-defining production of the album, and I retract my criticism of "Funk Ad".
|
It's always very difficult to assess the early work of artists that actually create/popularize new genres like Daft Punk.
This is because it sounds dated and cliched to our modern ear... which has been informed by decades of sounds literally *created* by Daft Punk and copied and extended by their own later works and those of others.
There are a lot of people that think The Beatles early work sounds like a cheap Beatlemania copy for this very reason.
It's almost like you can't win for losing (does anyone know what that saying actually means? :-).
Yes, it sounds like a bad copy of a dozen other EDM-funk bands... which exist only because they were copying Daft Punk's earlier sounds.
One other point: regarding Funk Ad... I suspect that they, as I do, found it surprising that one of their signature hits sounded almost as good backwards as forwards. That's... really unique. Most backwards music just sounds like noise. I'm not sure exactly what it means, but psychologically, it "unwinds" the album, which I find satisfying.
|
Taken from my post in the Daft Punk subreddit:
The album is a classic, but that doesn't mean it's flawless. It's the most essential album when it comes to talking about the progression of the French house scene. Daft Punk paved the way for so many incredible artists because of how progressive they were in the 90s. A song like Rollin' and Scratchin', while incredibly dissonant and downright gritty is a masterclass in creative production techniques (feeding a synth through a distortion pedal).
The biggest issue that I have with Homework is its flow, or lack thereof rather. However Homework was actually never conceived from the beginning to even be an album. Daft Punk wanted to release a series of singles over the course of the 90s but in the end they thought that the material they had recorded was good enough to collate into an album. So with that in mind, listen to the record as if it were an anthology of tracks produced by Daft Punk in the 90s, similar to Aphex Twin's 'Selected Ambient Works' album.
Homework is definitely a product of its time but it demonstrates how varied and progressive Daft Punk have been throughout their careers. When people talk about Daft Punk being some of the most innovative and talented producers on the planet, Homework was the seed that eventually catapulted them to that status. For that reason, Homework should without a doubt be considered a classic album. If you don't believe me, you can look no further than the countless numbers of people who still to this very day still spin and groove out to the slickly produced tunes that Homework has to offer.
|
5p49m0
|
CMV: "Homework", Daft Punk's debut album, which hit its 20th anniversary earlier this week, is not good.
|
I don't think it's bad, either. It has plenty of good songs on it, [Around The World](https://youtu.be/dwDns8x3Jb4?t=3m11s) and [High Fidelity](https://youtu.be/JXWkKO4eplY?t=31s) being two of my favorites. (I linked to my favorite parts, Around The World for its harmonization and High Fidelity for the most creative sampling I've ever seen.) But most of the album is very forgettable, and some of the songs are downright annoying. For instance, [Rollin'](https://youtu.be/q27KtfR1ESA?t=1m18s) & [Scratchin'](https://youtu.be/q27KtfR1ESA?t=3m14s), [Rock'n Roll](https://youtu.be/ZW7WfdTuth8?t=2m42s), and [Burnin'](https://youtu.be/E2lGIsrhlGA?t=1m13s) all have really unlistenable hooks, although now that I listen back I think I'm somehow enjoying them anyway. Also, [Wdpk 83.7 FM](https://youtu.be/OzZAHvq_UqI) is a really dumb gimmick, [Teachers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yq-NFiEywo) (a list of the Robots' inspirations) should not be a song, and [Funk Ad](https://youtu.be/YqUyNvGsM9s) is just 50 seconds of "Da Funk" played backwards, and it's the worst album closer I've ever heard. Not to mention that the entire album, at least to my pop-music tuned ears, is always twice as slow (if not slower) than I expect it to be, but that's double edged because it makes the good moments last longer as well as the bad ones. (And I don't blame them for doing that, as a bedroom DJ I can appreciate an artist working to make their music more easily loopable.)
But almost everyone I've heard talk about the album hails it as a classic, and Daft Punk's followup album, Discovery, is my favorite album of all time (and is also hailed as a classic), so I really want to know why people enjoy listening to Homework.
**Edit:** I have gained more respect for the innovative and genre-defining production of the album, and I retract my criticism of "Funk Ad".
| 1,484,923,672
|
thecnoNSMB
|
dcoeup6
|
dcoemfk
| 8
| 6
|
CMV: Moving around small green pieces of paper is the best way to increase happiness
As Douglas Adams said in Hitchhiker's Guide:
>Most of the people living on [Earth] were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small, green pieces of paper, which is odd, because on the whole, it wasn't the small, green pieces of paper which were unhappy.
Putting aside the contentment of the paper itself (or the paper's modern electronic equivalent), it does seem that in most situations, the application of money will make things better (or at least not worse).
No, money can't buy you love, but it will get you a date which could lead to love. "Health is the greatest gift", but health can be improved by the liberal application of cash.
To change my view, either convince me that there's something better than money that can be generally applied to improve happiness, or that the the happiness of the small green pieces of paper enter into this somehow.
|
Studies have shown that money can improve happiness, up to about $75K, which means that a lack of money can decrease happiness, but "moving small green pieces of paper" doesn't increase happiness. Sure, if you are too poor to go to a movie or out for dinner, it is *really* hard to get a date, but even homeless people have relationships.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3579575/
To be *really* happy studies have shown that relationships are the most important factor. While you can claim that money will increase your chance of getting a date, the fact is close friends and family have nothing to do with wealth. Poor people can have very tight relationships in friendship and love without any money.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/the-secrets-to-a-happy-life-from-a-harvard-study/
So- 1) More money can be a factor, but only to a point. and 2) The *most* important factor in happiness is relationships, which are money agnostic.
|
If money was making you happy, spending it would make you sad as you would lose the source of your happiness and as such it would be better to remain sick than to spend money improving your health.
Money is just a tool you use to acquire the things that make you happy.
|
5p4ail
|
CMV: Moving around small green pieces of paper is the best way to increase happiness
|
As Douglas Adams said in Hitchhiker's Guide:
>Most of the people living on [Earth] were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small, green pieces of paper, which is odd, because on the whole, it wasn't the small, green pieces of paper which were unhappy.
Putting aside the contentment of the paper itself (or the paper's modern electronic equivalent), it does seem that in most situations, the application of money will make things better (or at least not worse).
No, money can't buy you love, but it will get you a date which could lead to love. "Health is the greatest gift", but health can be improved by the liberal application of cash.
To change my view, either convince me that there's something better than money that can be generally applied to improve happiness, or that the the happiness of the small green pieces of paper enter into this somehow.
| 1,484,923,961
|
garnteller
|
dcoako4
|
dcoa2d7
| 9
| 2
|
CMV: In Hockey, The Opposing Team Should be Able to Defer Enforcement of Penalties in the Last Two Minutes of the Period
This is an idea I had while watching a hockey game recently. If a team receives a minor penalty in the final two minutes of a period, then I think the opposing team should be given the option to delay enforcement until the start of the next period.
In theory, it would work like this: 1) A player on team A receives a 2-minute penalty for tripping. There is currently 00:23 left in the first period. Their opponents, team B, are given the option of having that player serve the penalty immediately (as they do now), or delay its enforcement until the beginning of the second period. I don't think this rule should apply for major penalties (5 mins).
The reason I think this is a good idea is because I believe the period break causes a decrease in the effectiveness of the power play, so I feel like team on the power play isn't getting the full benefit.
To change my view, you can show that power plays over period breaks are just effective statistically as those that aren't, or some other reason why the idea of delayed enforcement would make the game worse in some other way.
|
I think the biggest concern is how to address multiple penalties in the final 2 minutes - whether one (or more) by both teams, or 2 (or more) by one team. A few scenarios you might consider are below:
* Team A commits a penalty at 18:10 in the period. Team B chooses to enforce the penalty immediately. Team B proceeds to commit a penalty at 18:40. Team A chooses to defer the penalty to the next period, giving themselves 1:50 of man advantage, compared to the :30 they would receive currently (in exchange for an additional 1:20 of being a man down). This advantages the team better on powerplays.
* Mostly the reverse of situation 1. Team A commits a penalty at 18:10 in the period. Team B chooses to delay the penalty until the next period. Team B proceeds to commit a penalty at 18:40. Team A chooses to defer the penalty to the next period, preferring 2 minutes of 4-on-4 to 1:20 of powerplay each (0:30 each under current rules). This advantages the team with worse powerplays.
* Finally, team A commits a penalty at 18:10 in the period. Team B chooses to delay the penalty until the next period. Team A proceeds to commit another penalty at 19:40. Team B chooses to defer the penalty to the next period, resulting in 2 full minutes of 5v3, rather than 30 seconds (+3 minutes 5v4) under current rules.
It might be the case that these situations aren't too unbalancing (I'm not a big fan of hockey), but it's something to consider if you haven't already.
|
>And that's their call to make. You choose what you think most benefits your team.
So what happens if they chose to delay into OT and they end up losing? No penalty on the scoresheet?
>I'm not sure I agree with this point. Plenty of sports have a ton of decision making by coaches. For example, bullpen management in baseball, or all the decisions that football coaches make on a regular basis (to challenge a call, to go for 2, decline a penalty, to punt or not on 4th down, etc). I don't think that hurts football, but it might just be personal opinion.
Most of those football calls are usually non-risk, non-game breaking decisions, with the exception of 4th downs. Challenges only result in a lost time-out. You only go for 2 when the numbers work out in your favor. Declining a penalty is usually pretty obvious. And they all don't really affect the outcome of the game. One football example similar to our discussion would be in overtime when the coach decides to go on offense or defense first. That is a game-breaking decision and is high-risk/high-reward. If the coach says play defense first, and they allow a TD, the game is over. Boom, fans are distraught at the coach. I would think the same reaction would occur if a coach delayed a PP into OT and then lost in regulation. Overall, I don't like the idea of a coach being able to make a major decision like that to change the game.
|
5p4oob
|
CMV: In Hockey, The Opposing Team Should be Able to Defer Enforcement of Penalties in the Last Two Minutes of the Period
|
This is an idea I had while watching a hockey game recently. If a team receives a minor penalty in the final two minutes of a period, then I think the opposing team should be given the option to delay enforcement until the start of the next period.
In theory, it would work like this: 1) A player on team A receives a 2-minute penalty for tripping. There is currently 00:23 left in the first period. Their opponents, team B, are given the option of having that player serve the penalty immediately (as they do now), or delay its enforcement until the beginning of the second period. I don't think this rule should apply for major penalties (5 mins).
The reason I think this is a good idea is because I believe the period break causes a decrease in the effectiveness of the power play, so I feel like team on the power play isn't getting the full benefit.
To change my view, you can show that power plays over period breaks are just effective statistically as those that aren't, or some other reason why the idea of delayed enforcement would make the game worse in some other way.
| 1,484,928,045
|
cacheflow
|
dcoxikn
|
dcom6m1
| 2
| 1
|
CMV: Mad Max Fury Road Takes Place In a Mythic Realm
Ostensibly, MMFR is post-apocalypse Australia, but I consider this to be an almost irrelevant assertion that has little to no bearing on what the film depicts. The story is essentially in the vein of Hero myths (only in a future/sci-fi milieu rather than a past/fantasy milieu) and is best understood in that context.
I have several reasons:
1) despite ostensible scarcity of water, guzzoline, and bullets, the society depicts that the warlords have plentiful supplies and merely control access and trade. Moreover, there is profligate waste of these resources. The Honest Trailers review of the movie points out that *everyone* wastes water, and the methods of distributing it make no sense. My view is that it doesn't have to, it's not even intended to make rational sense.
2) There is no identifiable geography that indicates the story takes place in the real world. There is no indication of how far in the future the story takes place, just as in past-oriented myths there is no indication of how long ago were the labors of Hercules or the Aboriginal Dreamtime.
3) Ostensibly, the old-model cars are the only ones still operational due to the collapse of the maintenance infrastructure that modern computerized cars depend on, but I don't buy it. It's one thing to have an obsolete gas-guzzler, but after massively increasing the weight by fusing two or three additional gas-guzzlers together, strapping on additional engines, turbochargers, etc, you'd be getting about six inches to the gallon, and that's before other absurdities such as spraying fuel directly into the air intakes and building flamethrowing guitars atop massive iron behemoths which serve no purpose except to provide thumping diegetic rock music to get your War Boyz pumped up.
4) The characters themselves seem to be mythic caricatures. Immortan Joe, The People Eater, and The Bullet farmer are overtly monstrous (The latter is basically a blind half-tank machine-gun centaur by the end). They don't act like warlords managing armies and ruling kingdoms, they act like dragons who have had their hoards plundered by dwarves and hobbits. I think Joe's mask is designed to evoke an overtly dragon-like aspect. Likewise, Joe's Wives are angelic creatures by post-apocalyptic standards. Furiosa and Max are demigod heroes in comparison to the wretched state of Joe's serfs and the goblin-like War Boyz. The naming conventions are also larger-than-life: in addition to the warlords, names like The Splendid Angharad, Toast The Knowing, Cheedo The Fragile, The Organic Mechanic, Corpus Collossus, Rictus Erectus, The Valkyrie, and The Keeper of Seeds indicate that we're not dealing with ordinary people, we're dealing with mythic characters with specific attributes for their role in the story.
|
I think I can break this down point by point.
1a) The only "profligate waste" we see of gasoline is due to a very specific inciting event. We don't know how active vehicles are on a regular basis, but I would assume that they aren't being regularly used the way they were when chasing down Furiosa. Even if they are, they're probably producing a hell of a lot more gasoline than you are giving them credit for.
Let's assume that they have only 1 oil well functioning. An average oil well can produce about 20 barrels of oil per day. One barrel of crude oil makes about 31 gallons of gasoline. That means that one oil well and refinery could produce over 600 gallons of gasoline every day, and they could sustain those levels for upwards of 50 years. And remember, that's just one oil well. It is definitely possible that there are multiple.
1b) The only "profligate waste" we see of water is in a single dictatorial address to the wretched masses. It seems clear that water is generally hoarded, and most of it is used to grow plants and make milk.
Let's assume that they only have that one well. Underground reservoirs are absolutely MASSIVE sources for fresh water, and are by far the most common way that water reaches people. There are entire municipalities that derive 100% of their water from underground sources, and there is more water present as groundwater than there is in the entirety of normal surface water. When we're dealing with populations as low as what we see in Mad Max, I could see a single groundwater source providing SIGNIFICANTLY more water than they could ever use by normal means.
1c) While you could easily argue that there was some "profligate waste" of bullets, I think you'll find that the reality is much closer to my last two points. First, most people aren't using guns. There are clearly individuals that make consistent use of firearms, but a vast majority of combatants use explosive javelins, hand-crossbows, and general melee weapons.
Let's assume that the Bullet Farm is the only place where bullets are being produced, and let's assume it is just an average ammunition production facility. A single plant provides 99% of ammunition for the United States Armed Forces, and generally produces around 2 billion rounds per year. During World War II, that was closer to 20 billion rounds in a year. Even if we assume that there are fewer resources to make bullets with, you could still have millions upon millions of bullets being made in a year, and when you're talking about only a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) people regularly using guns, that is way more bullets than will ever get used, no matter how much they "waste" them.
2) Just because you can't identify it doesn't mean that it is "unidentifiable". If I were to plop you into the middle of a forest or desert, do you think you could reasonably identify where you are? Take a look at [this game](https://geoguessr.com/), and tell me how accurate you are. How often are you even on the same continent? Also, why does the year that it takes place in matter at all? If it takes place 10 years after the apocalypse, or 100 years, it makes no difference. The details of our setting are not important. Where and when they are is meaningless when contrasted with what is going on.
3) You realize that all of the cars depicted in Mad Max are real cars, right? They literally built all of those vehicles, and they actually run. That tanker with like 3 engines? It actually exists. The Gigahorse that Immortan Joe drives around in? You can take a ride in it for real. They also get better gas mileage than several inches per gallon. Even if it is pretty bad, like 10 miles per gallon, that is still within the realm of reason given the rest of what we know about the setting. Having one big musical platform for soldier morale doesn't seem outrageous, either. There is only one, and it has a justifiable purpose.
4) Honestly, I don't really understand your points here. Weird nicknames and titles? That happens in real life. Warlords being highly eccentric? That's basically a pre-requisite. Joe's mask being purposefully designed to be intimidating? That seems pretty normal. Beautiful women being hoarded by a despotic warlord? That's probably the most realistic out of all of these things. They're "angelic by post-apocalyptic standards" because they are literally in a post-apocalyptic environment and they happen to be beautiful and well-manicured. What is mythical about that? Immortan Joe specifically looked for girls that were already attractive, then simply ensured that they would stay that way.
Everything that happens in that movie is totally within the realm of possibility. Romanticized? Stylized? Absolutely. But mythical? Not in my mind.
|
1) These items are scarce and that is why the rulers have monopolies over them. Immortal Joe has enough water for ten lifetimes so when he wastes water he couldn't care less. In fact, he pours it from his source freely to prove to the people that he has enough to give them and waste along the way thus reinforcing his power over them. Who else wastes water besides the wives who have grown up with the same access to endless potable water from the kingpin?
2) The geography of Australia would appear different after a global nuclear holocaust or so the minds behind the concept of the movie thought. It is shot in Africa but the notion that a desert in Australia which already exists becomes a geographic wasteland with minimal resources and typhoon-like storms at its borders isn't totally insurmountable.
3) Gastown is a derelict oil refinery ruled by a dictator. If gasoline from one refinery, which supports the vehicles of the local masses today, were to be used frivolously by two or three quasi-kingdoms where maybe 100 each are actually driving, it isn't as far-fetched as it seems. These people are still of average intelligence so there are mechanics and drillers alike. The three resources (bullets, gas, water) are used as currency between the three kingdoms.
4) That's supposed to be because they are past their prime and basically on life support in one way or another, just not in our current hospital standard. The costumes and names are meant to be intimidating because they are warlords and there is no civilization left to mock them into toning it down. Names like The Organic Mechanic are indicative of that person's trade which isn't unlike how many people got their last names in the past. Do you know anyone with the last name Farmer, Miller, or Smith? The MM names are flashier but again there is no civilization left to mock the grandiose.
|
5p4vls
|
CMV: Mad Max Fury Road Takes Place In a Mythic Realm
|
Ostensibly, MMFR is post-apocalypse Australia, but I consider this to be an almost irrelevant assertion that has little to no bearing on what the film depicts. The story is essentially in the vein of Hero myths (only in a future/sci-fi milieu rather than a past/fantasy milieu) and is best understood in that context.
I have several reasons:
1) despite ostensible scarcity of water, guzzoline, and bullets, the society depicts that the warlords have plentiful supplies and merely control access and trade. Moreover, there is profligate waste of these resources. The Honest Trailers review of the movie points out that *everyone* wastes water, and the methods of distributing it make no sense. My view is that it doesn't have to, it's not even intended to make rational sense.
2) There is no identifiable geography that indicates the story takes place in the real world. There is no indication of how far in the future the story takes place, just as in past-oriented myths there is no indication of how long ago were the labors of Hercules or the Aboriginal Dreamtime.
3) Ostensibly, the old-model cars are the only ones still operational due to the collapse of the maintenance infrastructure that modern computerized cars depend on, but I don't buy it. It's one thing to have an obsolete gas-guzzler, but after massively increasing the weight by fusing two or three additional gas-guzzlers together, strapping on additional engines, turbochargers, etc, you'd be getting about six inches to the gallon, and that's before other absurdities such as spraying fuel directly into the air intakes and building flamethrowing guitars atop massive iron behemoths which serve no purpose except to provide thumping diegetic rock music to get your War Boyz pumped up.
4) The characters themselves seem to be mythic caricatures. Immortan Joe, The People Eater, and The Bullet farmer are overtly monstrous (The latter is basically a blind half-tank machine-gun centaur by the end). They don't act like warlords managing armies and ruling kingdoms, they act like dragons who have had their hoards plundered by dwarves and hobbits. I think Joe's mask is designed to evoke an overtly dragon-like aspect. Likewise, Joe's Wives are angelic creatures by post-apocalyptic standards. Furiosa and Max are demigod heroes in comparison to the wretched state of Joe's serfs and the goblin-like War Boyz. The naming conventions are also larger-than-life: in addition to the warlords, names like The Splendid Angharad, Toast The Knowing, Cheedo The Fragile, The Organic Mechanic, Corpus Collossus, Rictus Erectus, The Valkyrie, and The Keeper of Seeds indicate that we're not dealing with ordinary people, we're dealing with mythic characters with specific attributes for their role in the story.
| 1,484,929,951
|
grimwalker
|
dcots62
|
dcomd1q
| 3
| 1
|
CMV:The only real way to deal with bullies is through physical violence.
Throughout my life, I have observed a lot of bullying. I’ve seen it in schools, in the streets, and in parks. I’ve even been bullied myself. I thought ignoring the bully would work but it doesn’t. Being passive makes the bully target you more. I feel that bullies in this world need to be disciplined by physical violence because it’s the only way they’ll learn.
Elementary school was the first time I first had a taste of bullying. It wasn’t that bad, it was elementary after all. The bully wasn’t hitting me, just name-calling. I told the teacher and she made the kid apologize. Although it’s pretty tame, as I got older, I’ve witnessed much worse. When I got to middle school, I’ve seen kids bullied so much that they started crying and stopped coming to school for a long period of time. The bullies were suspended, but once they came back, the cycle repeated all over again. Schools are incapable of stopping bullying. I went to a pretty bad high school; lots of students were troublemakers. They would talk back to the teacher, disrupt the class, made a commotion for nothing, and left right in the middle of class. During lunch, I remember a student smacking another student in the back of the neck extremely hard. The student who got his neck slapped, tackled the other student to the ground and fought him. I was impressed, it wasn’t the first I’ve seen a fight but rather the first time that someone did that to a bully. As high school progressed, people who had been picked on stood up for themselves and fought the bullies. This made me believe that the only way to disciple bullies was through physical violence.
Outside the school environment is a completely new set of rules. If you’re bullied, how are you going to stand up for yourself? Let me give you an example, there this park that I used to frequently visit, however there’s always the same group of troublemakers. These people don’t just pick on one person. They pick on everybody. They go out of their way to cause trouble for everyone. They won’t listen to reason and adults don’t want their children to go near them, as a result they are never confronted and they think that they’re the baddest kids in the park. Even the young kids terrorize the adults. They don’t fear authority; they act like their actions have no repercussions. You know the saying “There’s always someone bigger than you”? Who’s big enough to stop bullies and troublemakers who don’t fear authority or consequences?
|
Being hit in crotch is one of the worst pains you can feel. How could you forgive someone that "created a culture of kicking you in the balls"?
|
He reads my reddit so I'd rather not disclose that. I will say it was not monetary.
|
5p653j
|
CMV:The only real way to deal with bullies is through physical violence.
|
Throughout my life, I have observed a lot of bullying. I’ve seen it in schools, in the streets, and in parks. I’ve even been bullied myself. I thought ignoring the bully would work but it doesn’t. Being passive makes the bully target you more. I feel that bullies in this world need to be disciplined by physical violence because it’s the only way they’ll learn.
Elementary school was the first time I first had a taste of bullying. It wasn’t that bad, it was elementary after all. The bully wasn’t hitting me, just name-calling. I told the teacher and she made the kid apologize. Although it’s pretty tame, as I got older, I’ve witnessed much worse. When I got to middle school, I’ve seen kids bullied so much that they started crying and stopped coming to school for a long period of time. The bullies were suspended, but once they came back, the cycle repeated all over again. Schools are incapable of stopping bullying. I went to a pretty bad high school; lots of students were troublemakers. They would talk back to the teacher, disrupt the class, made a commotion for nothing, and left right in the middle of class. During lunch, I remember a student smacking another student in the back of the neck extremely hard. The student who got his neck slapped, tackled the other student to the ground and fought him. I was impressed, it wasn’t the first I’ve seen a fight but rather the first time that someone did that to a bully. As high school progressed, people who had been picked on stood up for themselves and fought the bullies. This made me believe that the only way to disciple bullies was through physical violence.
Outside the school environment is a completely new set of rules. If you’re bullied, how are you going to stand up for yourself? Let me give you an example, there this park that I used to frequently visit, however there’s always the same group of troublemakers. These people don’t just pick on one person. They pick on everybody. They go out of their way to cause trouble for everyone. They won’t listen to reason and adults don’t want their children to go near them, as a result they are never confronted and they think that they’re the baddest kids in the park. Even the young kids terrorize the adults. They don’t fear authority; they act like their actions have no repercussions. You know the saying “There’s always someone bigger than you”? Who’s big enough to stop bullies and troublemakers who don’t fear authority or consequences?
| 1,484,941,568
|
ThePr1meEvil
|
dcovqhg
|
dcosx28
| 3
| 2
|
CMV: I shouldn't learn more advanced vocabulary if barely anyone would understand me.
I've always been told that I should read and learn big words to become smarter but how is this going to ever help me in life? Why should I use fancy words that barely anyone understands if I'd get my message across faster by using normal, day-to-day language? Not only this but it just seems very elitist to me too. I've always been told that I should read and learn big words to become smarter but how is this going to ever help me in life? Why should I use fancy words that barely anyone understands if I'd get my message across faster by using normal, day-to-day language? Not only this but it just seems very elitist to me too.
I understand that it would help me "express myself better", but that wouldn't help very much if nobody understood what I was expressing, would it?
|
You learn bigger words and more complex language so you have the tools to speak to anyone in any context, not just to the masses. Language is used to convey ideas and the more specific words you have at your disposal, the more accurately you can convey your message to others, the better. Being able to deliver your message quick, concisely, yet accurately, and with all of the more precise tones and connotations is something that is made far easier by using an esoteric vocabulary.
But the bane is that most people don't know esoteric words, by definition, right? But it's still useful, because that means that when you can identify an audience that knows the more precise and more effective language, you'll be able to speak to them most efficiently.
I adjust my vocab based on what I think my audience knows, but I can only do so because I know the words. But also, not all media is aimed towards the masses. Not everything uses common tongue. Knowing the words also means I can consume wider forms of media, it means I'm not restricted. Have you ever tried reading Leo Tolstoy or James Joyce with a limited vocab? It's hard, hard as fuck. And looking up every other word makes it 3 times as long.
In short, expanding your vocab means you're always prepared to be most effective. Can I speak most effectively to this person? Yes, I know their language. Can I read this book? Yes, I know the language. Do I know what this person is saying? Yes, I know the language. Limiting your vocab is limiting your preparedness.
Is it the end of the world if you don't learn the biggest of words? No, certainly not, you'll get by just fine on common English depending on what you want to do. But it does help to always know what something means, to always be in your element.
|
>I've always been told that I should read and learn big words to become smarter but how is this going to ever help me in life?
You shouldn't. What you perceive as "advanced smarty words". Are words that are commonly used in specialized fields, commonly viewed to be held by smart people.
>Why should I use fancy words that barely anyone understands if I'd get my message across faster by using normal, day-to-day language?
They won't, but if you attempt to talk about subjects where specialized words are the norm. With a someone who is familiar with the words. You will sound like a moron.
>Why should I use fancy words that barely anyone understands if I'd get my message across faster by using normal, day-to-day language?
If you define it as useless then there is no point. However there is a huge chance that it's only your miss conception that the words are understood by "barely anyone". Maybe it's the other way around. The words are the norm, since most people have slightly more advanced knowledge in certain fields, and thus it provides faster and more accurate discussion. But you don't understand it, hence you assume most people don't.
|
5p6u8k
|
CMV: I shouldn't learn more advanced vocabulary if barely anyone would understand me.
|
I've always been told that I should read and learn big words to become smarter but how is this going to ever help me in life? Why should I use fancy words that barely anyone understands if I'd get my message across faster by using normal, day-to-day language? Not only this but it just seems very elitist to me too. I've always been told that I should read and learn big words to become smarter but how is this going to ever help me in life? Why should I use fancy words that barely anyone understands if I'd get my message across faster by using normal, day-to-day language? Not only this but it just seems very elitist to me too.
I understand that it would help me "express myself better", but that wouldn't help very much if nobody understood what I was expressing, would it?
| 1,484,948,768
|
Clrkami
|
dcoyker
|
dcoy7yg
| 14
| 3
|
CMV: All politicians should be fined a percentage of their campaign funds for lying during public speeches and campaign ads when running for office
5% of the politician's public campaign finances should be charged for every lie a politician tells, administered by a bi-partisan committee in the Federal Election Commission. The politician will have 30 days to pay the IRS or be disqualified from the race.
Think of it this way. Companies can be sued for false advertisement, and you can be charged with fraud for scamming people, so why should politicians be held to a different standard? Plus, democracy itself will work better and more fairly with a more informed public.
**Edit:** to answer a few questions being asked:
1) This applies only to public speeches and campaign ads during the course of the campaign; Not random conversations they might have with other individuals.
2) This applies only to verifiable true/false statements at the time it was said; Not campaign promises
3) Honest mistakes are treated the same as lies. If you're running a slander campaign you should vet those statements or advertisements before making them.
|
1) Whoever determines official truth and differentiates between mistakes and lies will be heavily politicized and open to corruption.
2) This creates a perverse incentive to hide campaign funds (reducing the cost of lying) which would ultimately increase corruption.
3) The adjudication process that occurs in both false advertisement and scam investigations would be extraordinarily disruptive to a campaign and would give advantage to whoever could afford the most robust legal defense.
|
This is a very troubling idea.
Firstly, this goes against pretty much all free speech rights in the U.S. You're essentially saying that people need to be held financially liable for their words.
Second (and depending on how you look at it is perhaps the larger problem), how do you define a lie? Is a mild obscuring of the truth as much of a lie as well? What about something that turns out to be false, and it's unclear whether the political figure knew or not?
The lines get blurred quickly, theres too much room for interpretation.
The way you deal with politicians lying is by calling them out on it, and by making sure to hold your media accountable when they dont report what you believe to be the honest truth.
|
5p7lgl
|
CMV: All politicians should be fined a percentage of their campaign funds for lying during public speeches and campaign ads when running for office
|
5% of the politician's public campaign finances should be charged for every lie a politician tells, administered by a bi-partisan committee in the Federal Election Commission. The politician will have 30 days to pay the IRS or be disqualified from the race.
Think of it this way. Companies can be sued for false advertisement, and you can be charged with fraud for scamming people, so why should politicians be held to a different standard? Plus, democracy itself will work better and more fairly with a more informed public.
**Edit:** to answer a few questions being asked:
1) This applies only to public speeches and campaign ads during the course of the campaign; Not random conversations they might have with other individuals.
2) This applies only to verifiable true/false statements at the time it was said; Not campaign promises
3) Honest mistakes are treated the same as lies. If you're running a slander campaign you should vet those statements or advertisements before making them.
| 1,484,957,122
|
RainingBeer
|
dcp4w47
|
dcp4uho
| 11
| 3
|
CMV: It's perfectly acceptable to talk at full volume in a movie theatre when the lights are down but ads (not trailers) are playing
At most movie theatres (at least in Canada and the US) there are kind of 3 stages to the pre-show. First the lights are on and ads or promotional videos play, second the lights go down and more ads (usually for cars) play, then trailers play, then the movie finally begins. It's generally acceptable to talk at full volume during the first phase, people are just strolling in but once the lights go down there's a cue to be quiet and watch the screen. At this point, I feel strongly that the audience should continue to talk at full volume to deny attention from these higher paid ads.
Trailers are generally enjoyed by everyone and it's respectful to be quiet for them but the middle ads are the same as the earlier ones, the only difference is better production and no lighting in the theatre (and the fact that these ads seem to always be for cars). I see this as an attention scam and strongly dislike it. I feel I am vindicated in continuing a normal volume conversation throughout this portion of the pre-show and do not need to respect the wishes of the advertisers, the theatre, or other patrons to reduce my speaking volume and defer attention to the advertisement (again, I do not feel this way about the trailers, trailers are alright). Change my view.
Edit: Got some great responses and interesting views, thanks! A good point from u/PaztheSpaz was that my CMV should really be modified to: "theatres shouldn't dim the lights to give precedence to certain commercials", I respect other patrons right to attend a movie in peace. I don't respect the right of theatres to push advertisements on patrons in a compromising social position.
|
This is ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing excusing disrespecting fellow patrons. A movie theatre is a social collaboration that allows many people to watch a movie in great conditions at an affordable price. As such, if one of those people wants to watch the ads and you keep yammering on and disturbing them, it's disrespectful.
A simple solution would be for you to wait outside while the ads are playing, and only enter once the trailers are playing.
By all means feel free to protest, but against those responsible, without inconveniencing people who may want to enjoy their movie.
Finally, this is change my view, not tell me I'm right so I can brag, please try to open your mind before replying.
|
If everybody talked at normal volume the theater would be so loud you'd all miss the trailers. Trailers wouldn't be enjoyable if their not as immersive, so people would keep talking through them, and then you'd need some kind of a signal to let people know that the movie's about to start.
So the issue is, we need a clear signal about when to start quieting down.
The lights going down is that signal, and it gives people time to make the transition.
_______
If that argument doesn't work for you, consider that some people enjoy those commercials. Should your desire to talk and not have to hear the commercials take priority over their desire to not have to hear you talk about whatever you're talking about?
|
5p8hrv
|
CMV: It's perfectly acceptable to talk at full volume in a movie theatre when the lights are down but ads (not trailers) are playing
|
At most movie theatres (at least in Canada and the US) there are kind of 3 stages to the pre-show. First the lights are on and ads or promotional videos play, second the lights go down and more ads (usually for cars) play, then trailers play, then the movie finally begins. It's generally acceptable to talk at full volume during the first phase, people are just strolling in but once the lights go down there's a cue to be quiet and watch the screen. At this point, I feel strongly that the audience should continue to talk at full volume to deny attention from these higher paid ads.
Trailers are generally enjoyed by everyone and it's respectful to be quiet for them but the middle ads are the same as the earlier ones, the only difference is better production and no lighting in the theatre (and the fact that these ads seem to always be for cars). I see this as an attention scam and strongly dislike it. I feel I am vindicated in continuing a normal volume conversation throughout this portion of the pre-show and do not need to respect the wishes of the advertisers, the theatre, or other patrons to reduce my speaking volume and defer attention to the advertisement (again, I do not feel this way about the trailers, trailers are alright). Change my view.
Edit: Got some great responses and interesting views, thanks! A good point from u/PaztheSpaz was that my CMV should really be modified to: "theatres shouldn't dim the lights to give precedence to certain commercials", I respect other patrons right to attend a movie in peace. I don't respect the right of theatres to push advertisements on patrons in a compromising social position.
| 1,484,968,547
|
galacticsuperkelp
|
dcppkni
|
dcpiqsy
| 32
| 1
|
CMV: Capitalism is a psuedo-Feudalism
I think I'm wrong because I don't really understand economy and capitalism and feudalism. But I learned that the best way to get the right information on the internet, is to post the wrong one, and it is my current view anyway, out of ignorance, so here I go. For every single statement that I'm about to write, please add "to the best of my limited knowledge."
In Feudalism, the landlord owns a capital and the worker works on the lord's capital. The product of the capital + labor, is then shared between the landlord and the laborer, although somewhat unfairly. The "winner" is the landlord who gets surplus without doing anything.
In Feudalism, to win, you have to, somehow, become a landlord.
In Capitalism, the share holder of a company owns capital. However, the company itself is managed by a CEO. The CEO oversees the worker who works on the capital. The product of management + capital + labor is production, which is shared between the share holder, and the CEO and the worker. The "winner" is the shareholders who gets surplus without doing anything.
In Capitalism, to win, you have to get enough capital to earn yourself enough passive income to support yourself.
**Thus, Capitalism is a psuedo-Feudalism**
Of course it is different because it is easier to become a shareholder than a landlord. But it is still very hard, and it is not possible for everyone to be a passive shareholder and no one is working. Moreover, the power gap between a landlord vs peasant is larger than a company vs employee, although it still exist. The threat of elimination endangers the employee much more than it endangers the company.
EDIT: to CMV, show that my understanding of capitalism/feudalism/economy is wrong, and what's the right one.
_____
Thank you for the replies. I have not read all of them. I didn't expect to get so many replies.
I'm not American, so I have no idea about the pervasiveness of 104k and IRA. Therefore, capitalism is NOT psuedo-Feudalism in USA. However, I still think that psuedo-Feudalism could still exist within capitalism. The bigger question is of course, will those psuedo-feudalism slowly diminish as market develop, or will it persist?
As for myself, I'm leaning towards co-op.
|
>The basic difference between capitalism and feudalism is individual rights
I understand that very much, however, my main point is that there are still 2 caste of people, the capital owner, and the worker. Show me that, there are no 2 caste in capitalism.
>And btw, shareholders are not always "winners".
Yes, being feudal lord is also risky, I presume, you have to keep your people, or at least your knights, happy. Being powerful has always been, and will always be risky.
|
Your definition of feudalism isn't really accurate. Feudalism isn't so much about ownership as it is about the hierarchy. There is a king, served by dukes, who in turn are severed by earls, barrons, knights, commoners, etc. The actual number of ranks and what they are called varies, but that each owes loyalty and obedience to someone in a higher rank. There's no such hierarchy in capitalism; you can trade your labor freely to anyone who wishes to buy it.
|
5p9a5d
|
CMV: Capitalism is a psuedo-Feudalism
|
I think I'm wrong because I don't really understand economy and capitalism and feudalism. But I learned that the best way to get the right information on the internet, is to post the wrong one, and it is my current view anyway, out of ignorance, so here I go. For every single statement that I'm about to write, please add "to the best of my limited knowledge."
In Feudalism, the landlord owns a capital and the worker works on the lord's capital. The product of the capital + labor, is then shared between the landlord and the laborer, although somewhat unfairly. The "winner" is the landlord who gets surplus without doing anything.
In Feudalism, to win, you have to, somehow, become a landlord.
In Capitalism, the share holder of a company owns capital. However, the company itself is managed by a CEO. The CEO oversees the worker who works on the capital. The product of management + capital + labor is production, which is shared between the share holder, and the CEO and the worker. The "winner" is the shareholders who gets surplus without doing anything.
In Capitalism, to win, you have to get enough capital to earn yourself enough passive income to support yourself.
**Thus, Capitalism is a psuedo-Feudalism**
Of course it is different because it is easier to become a shareholder than a landlord. But it is still very hard, and it is not possible for everyone to be a passive shareholder and no one is working. Moreover, the power gap between a landlord vs peasant is larger than a company vs employee, although it still exist. The threat of elimination endangers the employee much more than it endangers the company.
EDIT: to CMV, show that my understanding of capitalism/feudalism/economy is wrong, and what's the right one.
_____
Thank you for the replies. I have not read all of them. I didn't expect to get so many replies.
I'm not American, so I have no idea about the pervasiveness of 104k and IRA. Therefore, capitalism is NOT psuedo-Feudalism in USA. However, I still think that psuedo-Feudalism could still exist within capitalism. The bigger question is of course, will those psuedo-feudalism slowly diminish as market develop, or will it persist?
As for myself, I'm leaning towards co-op.
| 1,484,979,870
|
BeatriceBernardo
|
dcpicvy
|
dcpfm0o
| 81
| 24
|
CMV: Competitiveness has no inherently positive modern function.
Here are the modern settings I can think of in which competition is utilized:
* Sports/Games
* War
* Politics
* Capitalism
In sports and games, many men are taught that competitiveness is a healthy male trait. Everyone can have some fun playing competitive games (though I personally think that co-op board and video games are the most fun), but competitiveness quickly becomes the purpose instead of having fun. I've known many, many boys and men who can't have fun playing games anymore because they're so concerned with winning or losing. This is also seen in professional sports, in which we've turned games into politics.
Of course war requires a sort of competitiveness. This might be the most understandable use, as it's literally life and death, echoing the evolutionary function of the trait.
Politics should not be competitive. Unfortunately, it attracts people who are power-hungry, necessitating anyone else interested to become cut-throat to "play the game." I'm also including nationalism here. "America first" does not have positive outcomes, even for the US, when it supersedes cooperation and peace-seeking.
Capitalism often requires competition, but I don't see that this is necessarily a positive thing. It again can easily become about power, and monopolies develop.
I understand that competitiveness has an evolutionary function. As I mentioned above with war, it used to be about pure survival. This is likely why men tend to be more susceptible to it as well. And, yes, I understand that sports can be a form of psychological sublimation, allowing a funnel for baser instincts, I just think we can be mature enough not to center our lives around it. If competition trumps fun, you're doing it wrong.
Edit: /u/Havenkeld made me realize I should clarify that I mean competitiveness as a mindset / way of life being the problem. I'm not saying competition has no place.
Conclusion: being competitive isn't bad in and of itself. It's just one tool that can be used in moderation. It's just not helpful as a default way of life.
|
And competitiveness in education and research?
Putting students/postgrads in a situation where they have to compete for grants has in turn created some of the greatest advancements ever.
I think you're ignoring the gains from competition and only focusing on the actual act of competition? Competitiveness, in most cases, weeds out mediocrity.
|
Monopolies, by definition, have no competition. Comcast has a de-facto monopoly in many parts of the country, and since they're the only provider they don't have any incentive to improve their quality. Without competition, pretty much everything would be like Comcast.
|
5pba2d
|
CMV: Competitiveness has no inherently positive modern function.
|
Here are the modern settings I can think of in which competition is utilized:
* Sports/Games
* War
* Politics
* Capitalism
In sports and games, many men are taught that competitiveness is a healthy male trait. Everyone can have some fun playing competitive games (though I personally think that co-op board and video games are the most fun), but competitiveness quickly becomes the purpose instead of having fun. I've known many, many boys and men who can't have fun playing games anymore because they're so concerned with winning or losing. This is also seen in professional sports, in which we've turned games into politics.
Of course war requires a sort of competitiveness. This might be the most understandable use, as it's literally life and death, echoing the evolutionary function of the trait.
Politics should not be competitive. Unfortunately, it attracts people who are power-hungry, necessitating anyone else interested to become cut-throat to "play the game." I'm also including nationalism here. "America first" does not have positive outcomes, even for the US, when it supersedes cooperation and peace-seeking.
Capitalism often requires competition, but I don't see that this is necessarily a positive thing. It again can easily become about power, and monopolies develop.
I understand that competitiveness has an evolutionary function. As I mentioned above with war, it used to be about pure survival. This is likely why men tend to be more susceptible to it as well. And, yes, I understand that sports can be a form of psychological sublimation, allowing a funnel for baser instincts, I just think we can be mature enough not to center our lives around it. If competition trumps fun, you're doing it wrong.
Edit: /u/Havenkeld made me realize I should clarify that I mean competitiveness as a mindset / way of life being the problem. I'm not saying competition has no place.
Conclusion: being competitive isn't bad in and of itself. It's just one tool that can be used in moderation. It's just not helpful as a default way of life.
| 1,485,014,818
|
Meriwether_R
|
dcptnc9
|
dcptl6d
| 5
| 1
|
CMV: Transgendered people still should be considered as having a psychological disorder.
**[Edit: I need to make a revision here (made Jan 21 @ 10:35pmEST). I'd like to change the term "psychological disorder" into the term I truly meant now that I've been taught the true definition of a disorder in physhological terms: mental illness. Mental illness is defined as:** *"...a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors."* **That sounds a lot more fitting, and will cease the nitpicking of my exact choice of terminology. The rest of what I said still stands.]**
---
Anyone here remember when it was called gender dysphoria? I do.
I treat a man telling me he truly feels he's a woman and a man telling me he truly feels like he's a moth as equally crazy claims. A growing number of transgender~~ed~~ people routinely claim things that fly in the face of science and our understanding of biology, seemingly pathologically, to normalize their most definitely not normal behaviour (e.g. Saying that male and female doesn't exist, watch The Agenda with Jordan Peterson and you'll see a "transgender~~ed~~ studies" "professor" explain this). That's not to say homosexuality is not normal behaviour in the same way, because it's not scientifically impossible for a dude to go suck off another dude. He still thinks he's a dude.
[Edit: RIP my karma..]
---
**3 hours in, my conclusion as per what's been discussed so far:**
Most people trying to change my view have agreed that gender dysphoria is indeed a mental disorder, which is the only point I'm making. I have been informed of one thing I didn't know (which I gave delta for), which is that the brain of a transgender person starts to take on more qualities or the gender they believe they are. That, to me, gives transgender people more credibility, but I was never saying they lack any credibility just for being transgender or conducting themselves as the gender they believe they are. My problem still lies with the ignorance to the fact that they are experiencing gender dysphoria, and that gender dysphoria is considered a mental disorder, and even worse, that it will soon be a hate crime fo me to say so.
I want to make this clear: I am not against sexual reassignment surgery. I am not against hormone therapy. People can do what they want to their bodies. I am against it being forced upon the populace to forget that biological sex exists, and I am against the fact that it should be a hate crime for me to refer to someone by their biological sex. I've even been accused of spreading hate speech in the comments section for saying the very true fact that a transgender male is a woman biologically.
I am leaving for work, and will return around 11pm Eastern to reply to the imminent plethora of messages in my inbox that I'll inevitably come back to.
---
[Jan 22 2:52am EST] Okay, 14 hours worth of discussion on this topic is long enough for me. Here's my conclusion.
**Things I've changed my stance on:**
* Transgender people that are at terms with being transgender do not / no longer have a mental disorder.
* There is evidence to suggest that someone is born with the predisposition to be transgender / are trans from birth. It is not definitive, but is something I did not take into consideration, and is a very good point.
**Things I haven't:**
* Transgender people who claim and pathologically believe that biological sex is a myth have a mental disorder, even by the DSM's definition, as they are pathologically lying to themselves to cope with their situation.
* Other people that identify as non-binary genders (trans male and trans female not included) have a mental disorder. Otherkin and gender fluid fall into this category. If you are trying to tell me that you believe you are truly an earthworm, even when you are looking at your own human form in the mirror, you have a mental illness. If you believe that you are sometimes both and sometimes neither male nor female, you have a mental illness. You are lying to yourself to cope with how you feel inside, instead of coming to terms with it; the very definition of a mental disorder.
I'm obviously going to come back to this here and there for any new comments, I'm still getting them in my inbox, but I can't guarantee I'll answer. I've been on this topic all day, it gets tiring.
Thank you all for this adult, respectable, informed and healthy discussion and debate. It's getting hard to find that these days.
|
Correct means true. A male having two X chromosomes is not true. It is impossible.
|
In many cases, it is. And a gender reassignment surgery and living life as the opposite sex is a medically accepted treatment for such a disorder.
|
5pbu8n
|
CMV: Transgendered people still should be considered as having a psychological disorder.
|
**[Edit: I need to make a revision here (made Jan 21 @ 10:35pmEST). I'd like to change the term "psychological disorder" into the term I truly meant now that I've been taught the true definition of a disorder in physhological terms: mental illness. Mental illness is defined as:** *"...a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors."* **That sounds a lot more fitting, and will cease the nitpicking of my exact choice of terminology. The rest of what I said still stands.]**
---
Anyone here remember when it was called gender dysphoria? I do.
I treat a man telling me he truly feels he's a woman and a man telling me he truly feels like he's a moth as equally crazy claims. A growing number of transgender~~ed~~ people routinely claim things that fly in the face of science and our understanding of biology, seemingly pathologically, to normalize their most definitely not normal behaviour (e.g. Saying that male and female doesn't exist, watch The Agenda with Jordan Peterson and you'll see a "transgender~~ed~~ studies" "professor" explain this). That's not to say homosexuality is not normal behaviour in the same way, because it's not scientifically impossible for a dude to go suck off another dude. He still thinks he's a dude.
[Edit: RIP my karma..]
---
**3 hours in, my conclusion as per what's been discussed so far:**
Most people trying to change my view have agreed that gender dysphoria is indeed a mental disorder, which is the only point I'm making. I have been informed of one thing I didn't know (which I gave delta for), which is that the brain of a transgender person starts to take on more qualities or the gender they believe they are. That, to me, gives transgender people more credibility, but I was never saying they lack any credibility just for being transgender or conducting themselves as the gender they believe they are. My problem still lies with the ignorance to the fact that they are experiencing gender dysphoria, and that gender dysphoria is considered a mental disorder, and even worse, that it will soon be a hate crime fo me to say so.
I want to make this clear: I am not against sexual reassignment surgery. I am not against hormone therapy. People can do what they want to their bodies. I am against it being forced upon the populace to forget that biological sex exists, and I am against the fact that it should be a hate crime for me to refer to someone by their biological sex. I've even been accused of spreading hate speech in the comments section for saying the very true fact that a transgender male is a woman biologically.
I am leaving for work, and will return around 11pm Eastern to reply to the imminent plethora of messages in my inbox that I'll inevitably come back to.
---
[Jan 22 2:52am EST] Okay, 14 hours worth of discussion on this topic is long enough for me. Here's my conclusion.
**Things I've changed my stance on:**
* Transgender people that are at terms with being transgender do not / no longer have a mental disorder.
* There is evidence to suggest that someone is born with the predisposition to be transgender / are trans from birth. It is not definitive, but is something I did not take into consideration, and is a very good point.
**Things I haven't:**
* Transgender people who claim and pathologically believe that biological sex is a myth have a mental disorder, even by the DSM's definition, as they are pathologically lying to themselves to cope with their situation.
* Other people that identify as non-binary genders (trans male and trans female not included) have a mental disorder. Otherkin and gender fluid fall into this category. If you are trying to tell me that you believe you are truly an earthworm, even when you are looking at your own human form in the mirror, you have a mental illness. If you believe that you are sometimes both and sometimes neither male nor female, you have a mental illness. You are lying to yourself to cope with how you feel inside, instead of coming to terms with it; the very definition of a mental disorder.
I'm obviously going to come back to this here and there for any new comments, I'm still getting them in my inbox, but I can't guarantee I'll answer. I've been on this topic all day, it gets tiring.
Thank you all for this adult, respectable, informed and healthy discussion and debate. It's getting hard to find that these days.
| 1,485,021,337
|
hippz
|
dcq8iuf
|
dcq5oc0
| 3
| 0
|
CMV: If you can't lose weight, you just don't want to badly enough
I understand that food addiction exists. I understand that not everyone knows how to or can afford to prepare healthy meals, and that high-calorie food is cheaper and often far more convenient than low-calorie food. I'm a 5'2" woman, and my cooking abilities end with the microwave. Unless I go out to eat or my parents invite me over to have dinner (Which happens a lot) 98% of my food is cereal, wal-mart desserts, pizza, and fast food. BUT I know when to stop. If I eat 3 frozen chocolate pie slices I know that adds up to ~900 calories, so I can only eat ~400-500 more calories total that day. If that doesn't nourish me or makes me feel tired or hungry, too damn bad. I shouldn't have eaten three pies in a row. I don't often make very good choices. Sometimes I'm tired. Sometimes I'm hungry for 3 or 4 hours during the day. But I'm not fat.
What I honestly think it comes down to is that overweight people just plain don't want to stop eating. They aren't physically dependent on their "addiction" to entire boxes of doughnuts. Not in the same way that an alcoholic or heroin addict is to their drug of choice. They just aren't willing to either buy more nourishing food, or go hungry some of the time. They should really just admit that rather than citing addiction, and stop pretending the choice is out of their hands because it isn't and it never has been.
And yet, if it really were as easy as "force yourself to eat less come hell or high water", wouldn't most people have done it already?
|
> And yet, if it really were as easy as "force yourself to eat less come hell or high water", wouldn't most people have done it already?
Because that "easy" task is much more difficult for some people than you seem to believe. For example, the kind of food one can eat (ramen noodles, bulk cereal, dollar cheeseburgers) is **conducive to weight gain** even if you limit your intake, and a lot of people simply do not have the inclination to take time to manage that intake with the myriad burdens of work and/or family on their minds.
It is *technically* true that they "just don't want to badly enough", but there are a lot of **needs** that end up taking precedence over that want. Our food system is not conducive to it, our advertisement is not conducive to it, and our lifestyles are not conducive to it - the deck is stacked against the average person. There's a very good reason obesity is a problem in particularly America, considering the prevalence of HFCS and the massive budget of food advertisers.
|
I am a healthy weight because I run and have learned to adapt to my sugar addiction. You say you acknowledge food addiction, so let me try to frame it for you that way.
The compulsion to eat is primal, hormones in your body drive you to eat. An overweight person can't just go 'cold turkey' and quit eating like other addictions so the addiction stimuli cannot be removed.
At the same time, overweight people don't eat junk simply because they are hungry; their brain is looking for a hit of sugar ...and broccoli just doesn't deliver. Would you suggest an alcoholic satisfy their compulsion to drink with a soda or a drug addict to take a Tylenol? They can't stop at one piece of pie like you, they eat until they hate themselves and then onlymore sugar eases that pain.
I understand where you are coming from - I look at my son and wonder how any drug addict parent would choose drugs over the best interest of their child. It seems like they should just stop. Unfortunately addiction doesn't have a simple off switch.
|
5pczop
|
CMV: If you can't lose weight, you just don't want to badly enough
|
I understand that food addiction exists. I understand that not everyone knows how to or can afford to prepare healthy meals, and that high-calorie food is cheaper and often far more convenient than low-calorie food. I'm a 5'2" woman, and my cooking abilities end with the microwave. Unless I go out to eat or my parents invite me over to have dinner (Which happens a lot) 98% of my food is cereal, wal-mart desserts, pizza, and fast food. BUT I know when to stop. If I eat 3 frozen chocolate pie slices I know that adds up to ~900 calories, so I can only eat ~400-500 more calories total that day. If that doesn't nourish me or makes me feel tired or hungry, too damn bad. I shouldn't have eaten three pies in a row. I don't often make very good choices. Sometimes I'm tired. Sometimes I'm hungry for 3 or 4 hours during the day. But I'm not fat.
What I honestly think it comes down to is that overweight people just plain don't want to stop eating. They aren't physically dependent on their "addiction" to entire boxes of doughnuts. Not in the same way that an alcoholic or heroin addict is to their drug of choice. They just aren't willing to either buy more nourishing food, or go hungry some of the time. They should really just admit that rather than citing addiction, and stop pretending the choice is out of their hands because it isn't and it never has been.
And yet, if it really were as easy as "force yourself to eat less come hell or high water", wouldn't most people have done it already?
| 1,485,033,765
|
AdloraOfSolitude
|
dcrf51q
|
dcqqyko
| 10
| 2
|
CMV: Psychiatry is near worthless.
Hello all,
Please tell me what I do wrong if I do it. Fairly new to reddit.
I'll try to keep it short so there might be a lack of nuance. Ok, here we go.
Psychiatry seems vague and super subjective. Lets split it in two, diagnosis and experimenting.
Diagnosis: 1. If I take DSM and go through the checklists I would score at least 20 conditions. 2. To my knowledge brain scans are rarely used to label someone, and even if, what the scan says is still not very much understood (The scan is not psychiatry itself, but a tool). So I figure that opens the window for confirmation bias without consequence (except for the patient).
Experimentation: People lie and are influenced by so many things almost every experiment is doomed. Nutrients, lighting, general mood, personal mood, spirit of age etc etc influence the experiment.
I read someone liked OP to tell what might be needed to change view. I'm not sure, I'm not even sure if I have a skewed view and am damaged by experience or that I'm rightfully skeptic. If I could tell what info I needed to change view I'd google it. I will however promise to listen and not be a dick.
Someone asked if I could expand the damaging part, I'll keep it short again, else it would be a biography.
You can skip it if it doesn't matter to your argument.
In which case this is it.
At age 8 I was a dreamy child with a large vocabulary, the low concentration combined with the my odd behavior lead to me being examined (My 2 older brothers were already labeled since my oldest brother was depressed at age 10), the examination lead to this sentence in my dossier: "Soft signs for asperger".
In later examinations the soft signs part is neglected and from there on I had asperger according to whomever had to "treat" me.
I had education far under my capabilities (admitted by professionals, not my skewed vision) because I had this label which led me through a boring life spiced up by interesting older friends (bad company in hindsight) and soft-drugs (not blaming psychiatry on that one, just my background).
At one point (age 15) the situation at school was impossible to maintain for reasons too long to explain.
I have the duty to maintain in school till age 18 here so I had to go to a school, I was sent to a special school which dented my ego very much. There I was simply the smartest kid at school, which isn't an exaggeration nor was it fun.
The reason this was possible was a new law that made it possible for catagory 4 (psychiatric problems) people to be sent to schools for catagory 2 and 3 people (2: deaf or speech related problems 3: Mentally impaired).
On the first day I sat next to a guy who was 18 and had to learn to tell time, no offense to him but being placed in his league was crushing to my self esteem.
Many years later I had a thorough examination where they pointed out that asperger was never truly diagnosed and several intelligence tests came out with a very split result of scoring an equivalent of IQ 90 and 140 depending on what part.
To put it simple my memory and speed are very slow but language and spatial awareness are very good (I could put it more eloquently in my native language ;) )
And I can't put to rest the thought that my full potential is damaged by being pampered and more importantly that I'm not alone, that people can become simple or plain insane by the one thing that is made to help them.
But yea, that's the damaged part, in no way do I mean that psychiatry is evil.
|
1. you are educated sufficiently to diagnose via DSM. If you were to similarly go through medical textbooks when you have a headache you'd also likely find you match literally hundreds of conditions. Unless you're a psychiatrists or a doctors these aren't the books for you.
2. Psychiatry _does_ however work on _very hard problems_ and it's far from perfect. But, is our treatment of cancer perfect? Of course not. Medicine generally isn't perfect. We often think of our current state of medicine like all disease is like a bacterial infection, but the reality is that most diseases are only "managed".
3. We have a horribly misuses of terms from psychiatry into general population. But, this also happens in general medicine as well. Are you gluten intolerant? No, but people say they are a lot. The term "anxiety", or "depressed" gets thrown around in non-technical ways a lot by non-experts.
4. While I have a lot of sympathy for your _personal experience_, we can't damn psychiatry from it anymore than we can damn oncology for the person who is either misdiagnosed, or who doesn't respond to treatment, etc. There is plenty of evidence of the efficacy of many psychiatric treatments. For your anecdotal experience there are others like yours, but also many whose lives have been tremendously improved by psychiatry.
|
How, precisely, would "brain scans" be helpful? What kinds of scans? In general, how would you prefer diagnosis be handled?
|
5pd515
|
CMV: Psychiatry is near worthless.
|
Hello all,
Please tell me what I do wrong if I do it. Fairly new to reddit.
I'll try to keep it short so there might be a lack of nuance. Ok, here we go.
Psychiatry seems vague and super subjective. Lets split it in two, diagnosis and experimenting.
Diagnosis: 1. If I take DSM and go through the checklists I would score at least 20 conditions. 2. To my knowledge brain scans are rarely used to label someone, and even if, what the scan says is still not very much understood (The scan is not psychiatry itself, but a tool). So I figure that opens the window for confirmation bias without consequence (except for the patient).
Experimentation: People lie and are influenced by so many things almost every experiment is doomed. Nutrients, lighting, general mood, personal mood, spirit of age etc etc influence the experiment.
I read someone liked OP to tell what might be needed to change view. I'm not sure, I'm not even sure if I have a skewed view and am damaged by experience or that I'm rightfully skeptic. If I could tell what info I needed to change view I'd google it. I will however promise to listen and not be a dick.
Someone asked if I could expand the damaging part, I'll keep it short again, else it would be a biography.
You can skip it if it doesn't matter to your argument.
In which case this is it.
At age 8 I was a dreamy child with a large vocabulary, the low concentration combined with the my odd behavior lead to me being examined (My 2 older brothers were already labeled since my oldest brother was depressed at age 10), the examination lead to this sentence in my dossier: "Soft signs for asperger".
In later examinations the soft signs part is neglected and from there on I had asperger according to whomever had to "treat" me.
I had education far under my capabilities (admitted by professionals, not my skewed vision) because I had this label which led me through a boring life spiced up by interesting older friends (bad company in hindsight) and soft-drugs (not blaming psychiatry on that one, just my background).
At one point (age 15) the situation at school was impossible to maintain for reasons too long to explain.
I have the duty to maintain in school till age 18 here so I had to go to a school, I was sent to a special school which dented my ego very much. There I was simply the smartest kid at school, which isn't an exaggeration nor was it fun.
The reason this was possible was a new law that made it possible for catagory 4 (psychiatric problems) people to be sent to schools for catagory 2 and 3 people (2: deaf or speech related problems 3: Mentally impaired).
On the first day I sat next to a guy who was 18 and had to learn to tell time, no offense to him but being placed in his league was crushing to my self esteem.
Many years later I had a thorough examination where they pointed out that asperger was never truly diagnosed and several intelligence tests came out with a very split result of scoring an equivalent of IQ 90 and 140 depending on what part.
To put it simple my memory and speed are very slow but language and spatial awareness are very good (I could put it more eloquently in my native language ;) )
And I can't put to rest the thought that my full potential is damaged by being pampered and more importantly that I'm not alone, that people can become simple or plain insane by the one thing that is made to help them.
But yea, that's the damaged part, in no way do I mean that psychiatry is evil.
| 1,485,035,381
|
Rhubarbariana
|
dcq8til
|
dcq8o69
| 12
| 3
|
CMV: I believe that Trump is Fascist.
In the following CMV, I have defined what I believe Fascism to be, used the Umberto Eco 14 points of Fascism, and cited a source that has compiled many of the Fascistic things that Trump has done. At the end, I have listed my requirements for what would change my view, namely, counter-examples where Trump does not act similar to a Fascist, a political ideology which defines Trump's political ideology better than Fascism, or a modification of the definition I have proposed. Without further ado:
**Definition(s) of Fascism:** a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (marriam webster)
[Umberto Eco 14 points on Fascism](http://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html) fits very well with [Trump's movement](http://lithub.com/umberto-eco-on-donald-trump-14-ways-of-looking-at-a-fascist/#) I would list them all out here, but the first link does a great job of describing it. I believe Trump fits into every single point, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to point that out.
List of all many of the Fascist statements and actions Trump has made from redditor u/marisam7 about 6 months ago. [link here](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is_a/) I don't believe the list is current, since 6 months have passed, and many more things have been done since then. Overall, I think it builds an overwhelming case in favor of this CMV. From standing in front of an audience telling them I can shoot someone and not lose support, to not denouncing the KKK, to wanting more nuclear warheads and asking why we cannot drop a nuclear bomb, and lastly, him stating in the third debate that we should no longer even hold elections, and we should just give the election to him. These all fit the mold of a fascist, among the many other things in the compiled list.
In conclusion, the above sources (and sources within those sources) are what I am basing my opinions off of, plus general reading on Hitler/Mussolini I'd done in the past. But I've seen many people disagree with the fact that Trump is a fascist, namely his supporters, so I am very interested to hear those views, and potentially modify/change my position.
|
Fascism is one of the most poorly defined political ideas in the Western lexicon. You can tell this because whenever we ask if someone or something is fascist (apart from Mussolini), the arguments for and against all hinge on what exactly fascism is. Almost nobody calls themselves a fascist as they might if they were a capitalist or a socialist, so we're left with an essentially pejorative term that's applied to anything that echoes any element of those agreed-upon examples of fascism.
The Nazis had massive rallies full of awe-inspiring nationalistic spectacle. Does that mean such rallies are inherently fascist? How then do we explain similar displays in self-described communist countries?
More to the point, the points are divorced from the actual negative consequences and effects of fascism. It's pointless to say that these things constitute fascism and fascism is bad, ergo this is bad. You need to connect what is being done directly to its potential negative consequences, and focusing on the fascist label hinders that.
The 14 points are essentially a Rorschach Test; an attempt to take a fingerprint of fascism based on 14 imprecise points and match that fingerprint to any movements or persons. The problem is that depending on your perspective, nearly any government could conceivably match those points. For example:
* 1) Is the veneration of tradition. This is arguably present in all societies and governments and virtually all conservative political movements. Highly liberal governments in Europe retain hereditary monarchs for what amounts to preservation of tradition, does that make monarchs characteristic of fascism?
* 2) Is the rejection of modernism (in the philosophical sense, not just new things). Determining whether someone is being rational or rejecting modernity is often closely tied to your perception of their correctness. If you think they're wrong, they're being irrational. If you think they're right, they couldn't possibly be more rational.
* 3) Is the veneration of action for its own sake. It's easy to find someone guilty of this if you disagree with and dismiss out of hand the reason they give for action.
I could go on, but I think the point is made. The 14 points are more effectively used as a means of pejoratively branding an opposing ideology as fascist than actually identifying fascism or the negative consequences of certain policies.
One final note: Trump arguably can't be a fascist because he hasn't done much with his power yet. His public positions and statements are infamously changeable, so judging whether or not he's a fascist would at the very least require some evidence of what he actually intends to do with power.
|
One of my theories is that Trump is just not a politician. Maybe he wanted to become president just for the sake of being president, maybe he wanted to get back at Obama for making jokes about him, maybe he just wants to increase his personal wealth and power. I don't think his ideology goes far beyond that.
|
5pd8f0
|
CMV: I believe that Trump is Fascist.
|
In the following CMV, I have defined what I believe Fascism to be, used the Umberto Eco 14 points of Fascism, and cited a source that has compiled many of the Fascistic things that Trump has done. At the end, I have listed my requirements for what would change my view, namely, counter-examples where Trump does not act similar to a Fascist, a political ideology which defines Trump's political ideology better than Fascism, or a modification of the definition I have proposed. Without further ado:
**Definition(s) of Fascism:** a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (marriam webster)
[Umberto Eco 14 points on Fascism](http://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html) fits very well with [Trump's movement](http://lithub.com/umberto-eco-on-donald-trump-14-ways-of-looking-at-a-fascist/#) I would list them all out here, but the first link does a great job of describing it. I believe Trump fits into every single point, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to point that out.
List of all many of the Fascist statements and actions Trump has made from redditor u/marisam7 about 6 months ago. [link here](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is_a/) I don't believe the list is current, since 6 months have passed, and many more things have been done since then. Overall, I think it builds an overwhelming case in favor of this CMV. From standing in front of an audience telling them I can shoot someone and not lose support, to not denouncing the KKK, to wanting more nuclear warheads and asking why we cannot drop a nuclear bomb, and lastly, him stating in the third debate that we should no longer even hold elections, and we should just give the election to him. These all fit the mold of a fascist, among the many other things in the compiled list.
In conclusion, the above sources (and sources within those sources) are what I am basing my opinions off of, plus general reading on Hitler/Mussolini I'd done in the past. But I've seen many people disagree with the fact that Trump is a fascist, namely his supporters, so I am very interested to hear those views, and potentially modify/change my position.
| 1,485,036,385
|
NicolasName
|
dcqbb2g
|
dcqa1ew
| 56
| 21
|
CMV The Women's March and modern day protests are not productive.
I stayed home with my two daughters to support my wife to attend a local march today and I am really struggling to understand the purpose of protesting.
The Women's March about page explicitly mentioned women, black, brown, and Muslims. It specifically left out whites, males, and Christians. I could not pull at any clear message that would tie all these demographic groups. To me, the march felt like a protest against white christians and not accepting our president and the will of our democratic elections.
I can't find any productive goal behind these protest and seem minuscule compared to the legitimate earlier protest for voting and civil rights this present cause seems insignificant. I hope we dont follow the foot steps of the 60s and use these protests/riots as a way to divide us even farther and ruin sections of our cities.
I am actually starting to doubt the value of contemporary protests since they echo out a radical minority that divides us further, often lead to riots and more anger with out positive actions. I also find it hypocritical that the anti war protests have ceased under the last 8 yrs of Obama eventhough he was the first president history to be engaged in combat operations through both terms.
I am sad that in 2017 we are still letting the establishment (both parties) brainwash and divide us along gender, sexual, religious, and racial lines.
I also don't think it is responsible or fair for parents to bring their children to political and racial protests. And I especially think it is wrong when they post pics of this to facebook.
|
I don't think it's fair to classify this protest as a radical minority. The March on Washington during the Civil Rights Movement was estimated around 250,000 people. The Women's March estimates I'm hearing for DC right now are consistently around 500,000 (not including protests in other cities).
Protests aren't meant to make you like the protesters, they are designed to be in the way so you can stop ignoring things are you are comfortable with. I understand that we are going to disagree about politics but protests often do affect the social conversations taking place, they bring visibility to issues or problems people have.
Republicans may be in power now and we may have no choice to go along with their decisions. But for any democracy to function properly, it's important for people to voice their opinions. People do not fall in line with the government in a democracy, the government falls in line with the people.
|
All of those people (with the exception of Supreme Court justices) are elected officials. They work for the people, and protests are a way for the people to let their representatives know what course of action they support or don't support. If enough people protest, these officials start to care because they depend on people for reelection.
There is also the philosophical point to make. Trump has tried to marginalize certain groups of people. He has tried to silence them. Now, these people are standing up and saying "no". Whether it results in policy effects or not, it's important to have your voice heard.
|
5pe6bq
|
CMV The Women's March and modern day protests are not productive.
|
I stayed home with my two daughters to support my wife to attend a local march today and I am really struggling to understand the purpose of protesting.
The Women's March about page explicitly mentioned women, black, brown, and Muslims. It specifically left out whites, males, and Christians. I could not pull at any clear message that would tie all these demographic groups. To me, the march felt like a protest against white christians and not accepting our president and the will of our democratic elections.
I can't find any productive goal behind these protest and seem minuscule compared to the legitimate earlier protest for voting and civil rights this present cause seems insignificant. I hope we dont follow the foot steps of the 60s and use these protests/riots as a way to divide us even farther and ruin sections of our cities.
I am actually starting to doubt the value of contemporary protests since they echo out a radical minority that divides us further, often lead to riots and more anger with out positive actions. I also find it hypocritical that the anti war protests have ceased under the last 8 yrs of Obama eventhough he was the first president history to be engaged in combat operations through both terms.
I am sad that in 2017 we are still letting the establishment (both parties) brainwash and divide us along gender, sexual, religious, and racial lines.
I also don't think it is responsible or fair for parents to bring their children to political and racial protests. And I especially think it is wrong when they post pics of this to facebook.
| 1,485,046,932
|
vetlegacyldr
|
dcqiryt
|
dcqi95w
| 47
| 7
|
CMV:I think I should register as Green Party in 2020
I am a socialist libertarian which means I believe in economic socialism and social libertarian-ism I campaigned for Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. At the moment I am at a dilemma to me at the moment there are five options, 3 of which seem valid 1 of which seems reasonable the other one I would never do.
The three that seem the most reasonable to me are; taking the bernie sanders route and going independent, changing the democratic party from within, going green and refusing to join the dems again until they fix there corruption. The other route that seems reasonable to me is going libertarian I agree with the libertarians socially and on foreign policy but their economic views repulse me. Though I am disgusted by the democrats corruption I could never go republican.
Though people may say going green will spoil future elections I am in California were Clinton won by 4 millon votes and yes if I were in a swing state I would either not vote at all or vote for the democrats. I also believe that we need [Ranked Choice Voting](http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits) which eliminates the spoiler effect. For more information on my views here are my [Spekr quiz results](https://gyazo.com/34b0f083685c3000fc95a4d15fad6e98) (which is pretty similar to the pollitical compass quiz
So atm I am leaning to registering green but I am also seriously considering registering as independent or democrat. But I am willing to change my view
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
|
For context, I'm a social democrat, and I have been independent since I registered to vote. While I'm open to supporting third-party candidates in local races, I intend to support Democratic candidates at the national level, and I may even register as a Democrat to work within the party for reform.
The Green Party platform is explicitly [anti-nuclear](http://www.gp.org/ecological_sustainability_2016/#esNuclear)—I don't know where you stand on nuclear power, but it could be a cause for concern—and despite the fact that references to alternative medicine were recently removed from the platform, a large portion of the base is anti-GMO or anti-vaccine, which forces Green candidates to either hold or pander to their unscientific views.
I was originally going to try to keep Jill Stein out of this post, but I just don't see a way to divorce her from the party. For better or worse, she is their poster child, and there's a lot to question about her. Jill Stein [believes that Wi-Fi is harmful to children's health](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQjaSJP2Xg), [appears to prefer Trump to Clinton](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/31/1589308/-Yes-the-Green-Party-has-Endorsed-Trump-Over-Clinton), [dines with Vladimir Putin](http://www.tabletmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jillsteinputin1.jpg), wants a [moratorium](https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/08/18/green-presidential-candidate-stein-calls-for-moratorium-on-gmos/) on [75+% of processed food in America](http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/about-ge-foods), and on and on and on. This woman is simply not a good candidate for President, and she represents the current state of the party pretty well, in my view.
For me personally to consider supporting the Green Party, I'd at least like to see them expel the anti-science conspiracy theorists, return more to their Naderite roots, and find significantly better leadership. I'd also like to see them grow more before I consider joining them, but I recognize that my argument there is terribly self-defeating. As a social democrat, I'm also uncomfortable with their outright rejection of capitalism, but that's not an issue for you.
None of this is to say that the Democratic Party isn't corrupt, or that there aren't good things about the Green Party (I appreciate, like you do, that they're essentially the only ones calling for alternative voting systems). However, considering what we're currently up against, I think you'd be better off siding with the party with the most resources and organization on the national scale. And that's the Democratic Party.
And I'm just throwing this one out there: you might want to register as Working Families, if they're active in your state, which sends the message that you're interested in Democratic candidates who lean further left without incurring the threat of (ugh) FPTP vote-splitting.
But here's another thing: if you're going to register as Green at all, don't wait until 2020. Just do it now. Think of how much more work could be done, especially at the local level, in these four years.
|
Ancap here ( http://imgur.com/a/Ir3qB ), but here's my feelings on here:
> taking the bernie sanders route and going independent
The problem with "independents" is that its very hard to quantify properly. That is, if you register as an independent, there's no way for political parties/the media to determine what qualifies as "independent" so it really doesn't show your real political leanings.
> changing the democratic party from within
How well do you think that's going to work? The corruption runs deep. While an idealistic goal, I simply don't think its possible based on the revelations provided by WikiLeaks and others.
> going green and refusing to join the dems again until they fix there corruption
See, I think this is probably your most reasonable option because it actually "counts" for what you are. Whenever parties and the media look at voter registration, they'll show that theres a potentially "untapped" market by appealing to green voters
> The other route that seems reasonable to me is going libertarian I agree with the libertarians socially and on foreign policy but their economic views repulse me.
Then you're probably not a Libertarian :)
|
5pek8c
|
CMV:I think I should register as Green Party in 2020
|
I am a socialist libertarian which means I believe in economic socialism and social libertarian-ism I campaigned for Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. At the moment I am at a dilemma to me at the moment there are five options, 3 of which seem valid 1 of which seems reasonable the other one I would never do.
The three that seem the most reasonable to me are; taking the bernie sanders route and going independent, changing the democratic party from within, going green and refusing to join the dems again until they fix there corruption. The other route that seems reasonable to me is going libertarian I agree with the libertarians socially and on foreign policy but their economic views repulse me. Though I am disgusted by the democrats corruption I could never go republican.
Though people may say going green will spoil future elections I am in California were Clinton won by 4 millon votes and yes if I were in a swing state I would either not vote at all or vote for the democrats. I also believe that we need [Ranked Choice Voting](http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits) which eliminates the spoiler effect. For more information on my views here are my [Spekr quiz results](https://gyazo.com/34b0f083685c3000fc95a4d15fad6e98) (which is pretty similar to the pollitical compass quiz
So atm I am leaning to registering green but I am also seriously considering registering as independent or democrat. But I am willing to change my view
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
| 1,485,051,500
|
J3Tisgod
|
dcqmnrb
|
dcqlvt9
| 3
| 0
|
CMV: The fact that people are making a big deal about the "peaceful transition of power" is extremely alarming, and I think that the peaceful transition of power is something the US and other developed countries SHOULD take for granted.
Hello CMV, I hope you are all doing well.
I have noticed that "peaceful transition of power" has become a buzzphrase recently, and this is something I have never noticed before during a POTUS transition period.
All my life I have taken for granted that the transition of power in the US is peaceful - It has been since Washington left office, hasn't it? The US has never been subject to military coup or non-peaceful transition of power.
This buzzphrase sounds to me like a veiled threat by an increasingly authoritarian right wing. Of course the transition of power is peaceful. The implication of the alternative is the implication of the threat of treason, coup, or revolution.
Yes, we all know Trump was elected according to the process as outlined by the Constitution, as well as federal and state laws. He is, without question, the President of the United States of America.
We also all acknowledge, regardless of your political leaning, that Trump is a president unlike any other. He is, if I may take a fairly innocuous jab at him, "unpresidented" (unprecedented).
Also unprecedented is this notion that the peaceful transition of power is something unique to this election, and unique to the US. And here is where I think the danger lies.
Peaceful transitions of power are not exclusive to the United states. Even the most oppressive dictatorships can feature peaceful transitions of power. There was no civil war or coup when Kim Jong Un took his father's position as the deified Supreme Leader. North Korea has demonstrated, twice, that they are capable of peaceful transitions of power, yet they are possibly the most oppressive dictatorship on the face of the planet.
Peaceful transitions of power have taken place even in the United States' most dire times. Abraham Lincoln was elected on the cusp of civil war, and took power peacefully. The American Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with succession - it was about secession (which itself was about one thing in particular but that is NOT what this CMV is about so let's not go there in this thread if we can help it).
The very fact that "peaceful transition of power" is a buzzphrase as Donald Trump takes office suggests that there is an alternative to a peaceful transition of power. And given Trump's definite authoritarian leanings, I think that sets a very bad precedent for a nation-state that has ONLY ever seen peaceful transitions of power.
Please change my view. I fear that my view here is cynical, and I want to take pride in the fact that the transition of power in my country is peaceful.
|
I think you are ignoring the context of the statement. The "peaceful transition of power" is indicative of our politicians acquiescing their positions with grace and dignity (ideally). Since the US has a two-party system, that sometimes means you have to hand the keys to the kingdom over to someone diametrically opposed to you on key social, economic, foreign, and domestic policies.
The "peacefulness" highlights despite disagreeing with your political enemies, you acknowledge the will of the people and you acknowledge the fair and due process of our nation's politics. That phrase is not meant to be applied to totalitarian regimes such as those seen in Russia and Putin's election.
I would point to [Gambia](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/yahya-jammeh-gambia-exile-adama-barrow/) as a recent example of a non-peaceful transition of power. People literally fleeing the capital and a military coalition pushing on a country's borders to eject a man from office who refused to leave. Could you imagine that happening in the US? The kind of disruption that would bring?
Peaceful transitions of power in a nation as diverse in opinion and ideology as the US *is* something to be proud of. It represents that despite disagreeing with each other we are still united as a nation (theoretically).
|
The "peaceful transition of power" is a buzzword that gets thrown about in all US elections to compare the American Republic with other systems.
For example, Obama stepped down voluntarily, this is in contrast with The Gambia where their president who was defeated in an election is refusing to give up power ( http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/18/africa/gambia-jammeh-barrow/ )
In a historical context, compare this to the transfer of power to the French Revolution or other historical European transfers of power involving much bloodshed.
The US has never really had a "bloody" transfer of power (although you might argue that the Union's invasion of the Confederate States might count) and the US has a very long streak of peaceful transfers of power.
I don't think any of this should be alarming because its not about "is this election different?" as much as the difference between the American Republic and other countries.
|
5pelrh
|
CMV: The fact that people are making a big deal about the "peaceful transition of power" is extremely alarming, and I think that the peaceful transition of power is something the US and other developed countries SHOULD take for granted.
|
Hello CMV, I hope you are all doing well.
I have noticed that "peaceful transition of power" has become a buzzphrase recently, and this is something I have never noticed before during a POTUS transition period.
All my life I have taken for granted that the transition of power in the US is peaceful - It has been since Washington left office, hasn't it? The US has never been subject to military coup or non-peaceful transition of power.
This buzzphrase sounds to me like a veiled threat by an increasingly authoritarian right wing. Of course the transition of power is peaceful. The implication of the alternative is the implication of the threat of treason, coup, or revolution.
Yes, we all know Trump was elected according to the process as outlined by the Constitution, as well as federal and state laws. He is, without question, the President of the United States of America.
We also all acknowledge, regardless of your political leaning, that Trump is a president unlike any other. He is, if I may take a fairly innocuous jab at him, "unpresidented" (unprecedented).
Also unprecedented is this notion that the peaceful transition of power is something unique to this election, and unique to the US. And here is where I think the danger lies.
Peaceful transitions of power are not exclusive to the United states. Even the most oppressive dictatorships can feature peaceful transitions of power. There was no civil war or coup when Kim Jong Un took his father's position as the deified Supreme Leader. North Korea has demonstrated, twice, that they are capable of peaceful transitions of power, yet they are possibly the most oppressive dictatorship on the face of the planet.
Peaceful transitions of power have taken place even in the United States' most dire times. Abraham Lincoln was elected on the cusp of civil war, and took power peacefully. The American Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with succession - it was about secession (which itself was about one thing in particular but that is NOT what this CMV is about so let's not go there in this thread if we can help it).
The very fact that "peaceful transition of power" is a buzzphrase as Donald Trump takes office suggests that there is an alternative to a peaceful transition of power. And given Trump's definite authoritarian leanings, I think that sets a very bad precedent for a nation-state that has ONLY ever seen peaceful transitions of power.
Please change my view. I fear that my view here is cynical, and I want to take pride in the fact that the transition of power in my country is peaceful.
| 1,485,052,003
|
PM_ME_YOUR_PM_PHOTOS
|
dcqlbrz
|
dcql2io
| 28
| 5
|
CMV: I should invest my student loans
This opinion is a bit different than other CMVs because it applies to my personal situation, but nevertheless it's a view I believe in but people in r/personalfinance and r/investing disagree with. They disagreed, but hardly gave any arguments. I'm now trying to get more arguments because I understand my view may be flawed (because they're telling me so) but I can't really see why yet.
I'm from the Netherlands, currently 19 y/o, in university, I've got a study that will last about 2,5 more years. I'm getting pretty much all my credits first try, I should have no issue finishing the study, I'm 1,5 years in. I'm not getting any loans, my parents pay for my study and I work for all other expenses.
I can get about 800 euros per month of personnel loans, rent-free. I would be free to spend that loan on anything I like, most students waste it on beer and partying. If I were to get the loan and put it in the bank I would get some profit from it, about 0.03%. This would be nice, not only because of the 0.03%, but because it's a cheap loan. I have 30 years to pay it back after my study, which means I could use it as a very cheap mortgage when buying a house (I would still be able to get a mortgage, but it would be smaller).
But I think there's more potential to that loan than simply putting it in the bank. I think I can invest it into ETFs to profit from it. For those that don't know, ETFs are basically funds that try to follow the market trend by simply buying a lot of shares from a LOT of different companies. It does not have too much risk, because it cant just crash to zero, unlike shares themselves. Of course, it's possible the whole market crashes (with another crisis), but it would still go gradually. I will sell the ETFs if I were to get 4000 euro losses. I understand this is quite the opposite of 'buy low sell high' but the odds of losing 4000 is very small but not too big of a problem, 4000 can be made back quite easily over the 30 years I have to pay it off.
I have some experience with ETFs, I put in 1500 euros of my savings about 8 months ago. It's at 1750 euros now. Obviously, this is not a lot, but it's not really in-depth investing, it's just following the trend. Even if I'm not putting it into the best ETFs (lowest cost), I should still have a higher expected returns than expected losses.
The expected returns are greater than the expected losses. A part of the returns are from investing, the other part is the cheaper mortgage. The maximum loss I can get with this plan is 4000 euros. Due to the nature of ETFs I can't really lose more than 4000, I will check the value of the ETFs daily. I'll keep loans and personal money strictly separate, and not spend any loans on other stuff.
Please change my view. To change your view you would probably have to convince me why the **risk** is not worth the **reward**.
|
When I got student loans, I invested the surplus.
From a personal perspective - it's great. I had the taxpayer pay my interest on the loans for me, while I made a profit off the investments. And if the market would have crashed, or I couldn't get a job, I could get the taxpayer to pay my interest for years.
That said - from a moral and ethical perspective - it's "bad". I didn't think of this at the time, but in retrospect, I wouldn't do it again.
My scheme privatized my profits, but effectively socialized my losses.
|
I do not know about your country but in the US student loans are not given to the student, they are paid directly to the school you are attending and you only get the surplus (if there is any) at the end of the semester. So what you are suggesting is not possible here.
If it is possible in your country then go for it. But check to make sure the loan is not earmarked to only be spent on going to school. If it is then spending it on investments may be illegal.
|
5pggv0
|
CMV: I should invest my student loans
|
This opinion is a bit different than other CMVs because it applies to my personal situation, but nevertheless it's a view I believe in but people in r/personalfinance and r/investing disagree with. They disagreed, but hardly gave any arguments. I'm now trying to get more arguments because I understand my view may be flawed (because they're telling me so) but I can't really see why yet.
I'm from the Netherlands, currently 19 y/o, in university, I've got a study that will last about 2,5 more years. I'm getting pretty much all my credits first try, I should have no issue finishing the study, I'm 1,5 years in. I'm not getting any loans, my parents pay for my study and I work for all other expenses.
I can get about 800 euros per month of personnel loans, rent-free. I would be free to spend that loan on anything I like, most students waste it on beer and partying. If I were to get the loan and put it in the bank I would get some profit from it, about 0.03%. This would be nice, not only because of the 0.03%, but because it's a cheap loan. I have 30 years to pay it back after my study, which means I could use it as a very cheap mortgage when buying a house (I would still be able to get a mortgage, but it would be smaller).
But I think there's more potential to that loan than simply putting it in the bank. I think I can invest it into ETFs to profit from it. For those that don't know, ETFs are basically funds that try to follow the market trend by simply buying a lot of shares from a LOT of different companies. It does not have too much risk, because it cant just crash to zero, unlike shares themselves. Of course, it's possible the whole market crashes (with another crisis), but it would still go gradually. I will sell the ETFs if I were to get 4000 euro losses. I understand this is quite the opposite of 'buy low sell high' but the odds of losing 4000 is very small but not too big of a problem, 4000 can be made back quite easily over the 30 years I have to pay it off.
I have some experience with ETFs, I put in 1500 euros of my savings about 8 months ago. It's at 1750 euros now. Obviously, this is not a lot, but it's not really in-depth investing, it's just following the trend. Even if I'm not putting it into the best ETFs (lowest cost), I should still have a higher expected returns than expected losses.
The expected returns are greater than the expected losses. A part of the returns are from investing, the other part is the cheaper mortgage. The maximum loss I can get with this plan is 4000 euros. Due to the nature of ETFs I can't really lose more than 4000, I will check the value of the ETFs daily. I'll keep loans and personal money strictly separate, and not spend any loans on other stuff.
Please change my view. To change your view you would probably have to convince me why the **risk** is not worth the **reward**.
| 1,485,084,049
|
ShrekisSexy
|
dcr49vf
|
dcr0lv8
| 15
| 3
|
CMV: Trump's inauguration is worse than or at least as bad as 9/11 (Hear Me Out)
So my friends and I have been arguing over this. I think the above and they all vehemently disagree with me. I kinda see that I'm wrong but I need it explained to me by someone with more info than I in order to change my view.
I'd like to start by saying I don't mean the actual act of Donald Trump holding an inauguration and going from President-Elect to President is worse than 2996 deaths on 9/11, but rather the fallout and impact from each event considered, Trump's inauguration is worse.
I also need to state that I am a left-wing liberal from Ireland and so that will definitely factor into my opinion.
Reasons I believe 9/11 was bad:
• 2996 deaths on the day(along with family's grief caused directly by this).
• Many US citizens became fearful of planes and Muslims for a time. Also due to this, airline travel was used less for a while, leading to a slightly worse economy.
• Potentially the Iraq war only started because of 9/11 (I do not know enough about this and based on the little that I do know, it would have happened regardless).
• The patriot act was brought in by a frightened US and led to many oversteppings on privacy etc.
Reasons I believe Trump's Inauguration is bad: (For this I have to of course be speculative)
• Trump's rise to power has given a voice to the violent and dangerous fringes of society like the KKK and has made racism and hate crimes against minorities appear slightly more reasonable by the ppl who support him. (I know 9/11 probably caused increased hate crimes too but surely not on this level).
• The immensely negative effects of having a world superpower led by a climate change denier flanked by Oil CEOs and other climate change deniers for 4 years. The effects of this will not be seen for years and years until mass migration is caused by global warming worsened by Trump.
• Under Trump, income inequality will almost certainly rise a lot which I believe to be a terrible thing. He will scrap Obamacare which, while far from perfect, was a good first step towards proper free healthcare for all.
• He will have a rly strict stance on immigration and ruin the lives of millions of potential immigrants.
So in summary, once you factor out the Iraq war(which I think would have happened anyway based on what little understanding I have of it - it being due to the oil and already worsening relations there), I think that the rising income inequality, worsened global warming, increase in hate crimes, and strict immigration stance will have a worse effect on the US and the world as a whole than the 2996 deaths, the fears by some Americans of Muslims and planes for a while, and the patriot act.
I understand how ridiculous and speculative this arguement even is but if debates on the quality of Harry Potter's magic system can make it to the top here, I hope this is the right place for this post.
Thank you!
|
Your argument is flawed in that you are placing things that actually happened with hypotheticals. Despite you feeling very strongly about these hypotheticals coming true, they haven't happened. And the best argument is I don't think income inequality will continue to rise throughout Trump's presidency, I don't think legal immigrants will suffer under Trump, etc etc.
However, 9/11 was a terrible thing. That's subject is supported because bad things happened and bad things resulted as a consequence. There is no need for hypotheticals to argue 9/11 was bad.
|
> But I am not talking about things that I without reason believe will happen.
Everyone has a reason to think the way they do. Any statement can have a "reason" to think its the truth. And you can have a "reason" to think the opposite of the statement.
Its so subjective what you think Trump will do in the next 4 years and how the outcome will rank historically and in hindsight to 9/11.
> the Iraq war would have happened anyway and thus cannot be considered a direct outcome of 9/11
This could be a View by itself.
|
5pgpf8
|
CMV: Trump's inauguration is worse than or at least as bad as 9/11 (Hear Me Out)
|
So my friends and I have been arguing over this. I think the above and they all vehemently disagree with me. I kinda see that I'm wrong but I need it explained to me by someone with more info than I in order to change my view.
I'd like to start by saying I don't mean the actual act of Donald Trump holding an inauguration and going from President-Elect to President is worse than 2996 deaths on 9/11, but rather the fallout and impact from each event considered, Trump's inauguration is worse.
I also need to state that I am a left-wing liberal from Ireland and so that will definitely factor into my opinion.
Reasons I believe 9/11 was bad:
• 2996 deaths on the day(along with family's grief caused directly by this).
• Many US citizens became fearful of planes and Muslims for a time. Also due to this, airline travel was used less for a while, leading to a slightly worse economy.
• Potentially the Iraq war only started because of 9/11 (I do not know enough about this and based on the little that I do know, it would have happened regardless).
• The patriot act was brought in by a frightened US and led to many oversteppings on privacy etc.
Reasons I believe Trump's Inauguration is bad: (For this I have to of course be speculative)
• Trump's rise to power has given a voice to the violent and dangerous fringes of society like the KKK and has made racism and hate crimes against minorities appear slightly more reasonable by the ppl who support him. (I know 9/11 probably caused increased hate crimes too but surely not on this level).
• The immensely negative effects of having a world superpower led by a climate change denier flanked by Oil CEOs and other climate change deniers for 4 years. The effects of this will not be seen for years and years until mass migration is caused by global warming worsened by Trump.
• Under Trump, income inequality will almost certainly rise a lot which I believe to be a terrible thing. He will scrap Obamacare which, while far from perfect, was a good first step towards proper free healthcare for all.
• He will have a rly strict stance on immigration and ruin the lives of millions of potential immigrants.
So in summary, once you factor out the Iraq war(which I think would have happened anyway based on what little understanding I have of it - it being due to the oil and already worsening relations there), I think that the rising income inequality, worsened global warming, increase in hate crimes, and strict immigration stance will have a worse effect on the US and the world as a whole than the 2996 deaths, the fears by some Americans of Muslims and planes for a while, and the patriot act.
I understand how ridiculous and speculative this arguement even is but if debates on the quality of Harry Potter's magic system can make it to the top here, I hope this is the right place for this post.
Thank you!
| 1,485,088,737
|
killianm97
|
dcr79ek
|
dcr40wc
| 4
| 3
|
CMV: I'm just not getting the controversy around the possibility of defunding Planned Parenthood
I don't disagree with anything PP does, or think they aren't providing an essential service.
What I don't get is the logic that any company that provides an essential service should be funded by the government. Aren't there literally thousands of companies providing essential services that don't get funded by the government?
Just a super simple example. Toothpaste. Toothpaste is an essential product, and as far as I know there isn't a company producing it that gets funded by the government. If the government did fund them, it could be sold at a much lower cost. Why isn't there outrage over the government not funding toothpaste companies?
It's the general logic I don't understand. If one feels that PP is an essential service, and thus should be paid for with taxpayer dollars, why would this begin and end with just PP? Shouldn't there be a list containing hundreds of essential products and services that should all be funded by the government too? What about charities, why aren't they important too? I don't get what's so special about PP in particular.
|
The reason you don't get the controversy is because the media has never stopped dancing around the real reason its being defunded. The Hyde Amendment prevents taxpayer funds from being used to fund abortions unless the mothers life is at risk or in cases of rape or incest. Some of the hardliners in Congress do care about them providing abortions, but they are few and far between. Planned Parenthood's real "sin" is the aggressive lobbying they do against Republican candidates to the tune of 10s of millions of dollars. The real goal is to decrease their notoriety and reach through defunding. Whether or not you believe they should be defunded likely comes down to whether you hold liberal or conservative views, its simply a partisan issue.
Also, the money they receive is not "free money" gifted to them, its medicaid and Title IX money they get for performing medical services on poor patients, its not a government handout. The government is subsidizing poor peoples healthcare by paying for their treatment at Planned Parenthood. If that same poor person were to go to another clinic other than Planned Parenthood, the government would still be on the hook for the bill incurred, so the money is being spent either way; its simply a preference of where the government wants that money spent.
Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=Planned%20Parenthood
|
I think to split hairs PP provides wellness services i.e; making sure you're not harboring cancer causing STD is a little different from a skin tag. I agree with the notion that cosmetic fixes may help one feel better about their appearance and therefore help self esteem but even if you have insurance in this country chances are, depending on your policy they may not pay at all. To be fair if you go to PP to look at a skin issue, if they'll probably try to help if they can. BTW as stated above the government does fund charities based on grant money and if you think those grants are politically neutral, look again
|
5ph9mz
|
CMV: I'm just not getting the controversy around the possibility of defunding Planned Parenthood
|
I don't disagree with anything PP does, or think they aren't providing an essential service.
What I don't get is the logic that any company that provides an essential service should be funded by the government. Aren't there literally thousands of companies providing essential services that don't get funded by the government?
Just a super simple example. Toothpaste. Toothpaste is an essential product, and as far as I know there isn't a company producing it that gets funded by the government. If the government did fund them, it could be sold at a much lower cost. Why isn't there outrage over the government not funding toothpaste companies?
It's the general logic I don't understand. If one feels that PP is an essential service, and thus should be paid for with taxpayer dollars, why would this begin and end with just PP? Shouldn't there be a list containing hundreds of essential products and services that should all be funded by the government too? What about charities, why aren't they important too? I don't get what's so special about PP in particular.
| 1,485,096,450
|
ZeusThunder369
|
dcr6m9i
|
dcr6iwq
| 826
| 9
|
CMV: To suggest that the Monty Hall problem has a solution better than 50% is the Gambler's Fallacy.
To share my mindset with you, as I believe it will be imensly important; I know I'm wrong, but I don't know why.
Gambler's Fallacy: The assertion that previous results will have an impact on independent future results
i.e that if you flip heads on a coin n times in a row, then next flip your make will have better odds of landing tails.
Monty Hall Problem: A gameshow where a contestant at random choses one of 3 doors. 2 door have Zonks behind them (Or just crap, something you don't want), and one has a prize such as a brand new car. Once the contestant has made their selection, one door they did not choose is revealed to be a Zonk and the contestant is given the opportunity to switch or stay. Most mathematician sentiment dictates that switching will yield a 2/3s chance in winning while staying will only yield a 1/3s chance.
Here's where my thought process diverges; you start with a 1/3s chance to pick the car, so you likely will pick a Zonk. One the field is narrowed down, you essentially have a new problem. Instead of looking at it as switch or stay, just look at it as a second choice. The second choice has 2 options, necessarily meaning that the odds are 50/50 To assert that the previous choice has any bearing on this 50/50 choice would fall under Gambler's Fallacy.
I look forward to understanding why I'm wrong :)
|
This took me so long to get too. The key thing is that the second choice is *not* independent of the first. Monty knows where the car is. I feel like this explanation works best visually, so I'm going to attempt to lay it out that way. We'll see how well that goes with Reddit formatting. (Edit: not well. scratch that idea.)
Let's say you have the following scenario: A=zonk, B=zonk, C=car
You pick Door A. Monty now has to open a door to eliminate it. But he's not going to open C, because that's where the car is. He's also not going to open A, because that's the door you picked. So he has to open B. This means your second choice--to switch or stay--is influenced by which door you chose the first time.
Let's go back to not knowing where the car is. You've got three doors. You pick Door A. The odds that the car is behind Door A are 1/3. The odds that the car is *not* behind Door A are 2/3. Monty then removes Door B, *knowing that's not where the car is.* You now have to decide to switch or stay. It looks like there's a 50/50 chance, but there's not, because the door Monty eliminated was influenced by both your first choice and where the car actually is. The odds you guessed wrong the first time are still 2/3, so you should switch.
Another way to look at it is that if you switch, the only way you can lose is if you picked the car the first time. If you picked a zonk the first time, then the door that gets left to switch to is definitely a car. If you picked the car the first time, then the door that gets left is definitely a zonk. There's a 1/3 chance you picked the car the first time, and a 2/3 chance you picked a zonk. So it's more likely the other door is a car.
|
So let's start with this point first
> The second choice has 2 options, necessarily meaning that the odds are 50/50
That's only true if we're working with two random choices, but in this case we're not. I'm sure you can think of plenty of scenarios where there are two possibilities but they're not equally likely. The contestant's pick was random but the host knows where the prize is and he's not allowed to eliminate the prize.
> Here's where my thought process diverges; you start with a 1/3s chance to pick the car, so you likely will pick a Zonk. One the field is narrowed down, you essentially have a new problem. Instead of looking at it as switch or stay, just look at it as a second choice.
Here's the fascinating thing about the Monty Hall problem. It works exactly the same even if the host never opens the third door. The host isn't allowed to eliminate the prize, so once you pick a door and the host picks a door, you already know from the rules of the game that the third door is empty. When the host opens the third door, he's only giving you the illusion of new information to make it look like the odds have changed.
The easiest way to have it make sense is to expand the scenario to 100 doors. You randomly pick 1 door out of 100. The host non-randomly eliminates all but 1 from the remaining 99. The host knows which door has the prize and isn't allowed to eliminate it, so the only way the prize isn't behind the host's door is if you randomly picked the correct door from the start.
|
5phvhg
|
CMV: To suggest that the Monty Hall problem has a solution better than 50% is the Gambler's Fallacy.
|
To share my mindset with you, as I believe it will be imensly important; I know I'm wrong, but I don't know why.
Gambler's Fallacy: The assertion that previous results will have an impact on independent future results
i.e that if you flip heads on a coin n times in a row, then next flip your make will have better odds of landing tails.
Monty Hall Problem: A gameshow where a contestant at random choses one of 3 doors. 2 door have Zonks behind them (Or just crap, something you don't want), and one has a prize such as a brand new car. Once the contestant has made their selection, one door they did not choose is revealed to be a Zonk and the contestant is given the opportunity to switch or stay. Most mathematician sentiment dictates that switching will yield a 2/3s chance in winning while staying will only yield a 1/3s chance.
Here's where my thought process diverges; you start with a 1/3s chance to pick the car, so you likely will pick a Zonk. One the field is narrowed down, you essentially have a new problem. Instead of looking at it as switch or stay, just look at it as a second choice. The second choice has 2 options, necessarily meaning that the odds are 50/50 To assert that the previous choice has any bearing on this 50/50 choice would fall under Gambler's Fallacy.
I look forward to understanding why I'm wrong :)
| 1,485,102,796
|
ckuwiy2
|
dcraeu0
|
dcra5fz
| 30
| 4
|
CMV: CMV: Why do people defend ILLEGAL immigration…
…especially when there are avenues to immigrate legally. I have recently read about people defending being undocumented and attending state funded colleges, etc. Doesn’t an unregulated immigrant stream erode our social welfare programs by flooding the system with people who are not accountable for paying into our tax structure? Form how I understand it, allowing even a small amount of illegal immigration is unsustainable. Also, I know this is tough issue that brings out some fervent emotions for some people, please be respectful.
|
The idea that you can come into the country illegally and have free services for everything is largely a myth. People coming here don't get the on board the gravy train. It's harder for them to get services than it is for someone with an SSN and a birth certificate. They most often come to this country trying to escape a bad situation.
Undocumented immigrants pay taxes. Everything from income taxes to sales and property taxes. The US gets over 11 billion dollars in tax revenue from such people.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/maria-teresa-kumar/how-much-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes/
But you asked why be an advocate:
There are many problems with treating people who came into the country illegally as criminals.
It sets up an exploitation scheme. If you do not have documentation, your employer can abuse you financially. You can be paid substandard wages and be put to work in unsafe or illegal conditions. You cannot go to the authorities for help, as those authorities will treat you like a criminal, arrest you, and you'll sent back to whatever situation that you are fleeing. Possibly even splitting up your family in the process.
Being "tough on immigration" makes this abusive cycle worse.
Those who advocate for rights for undocumented immigrants are trying to break this abuse cycle, the end goal for advocates is amnesty and an easier path to legal immigration.
|
There are several factors. There are many people who came here as small children and have considered themselves American all of their lives often not even knowing the language of their homeland. There are people who overstayed their visa (which is not even a crime) decades ago. There is also the case of deporting parents who young children are American. So that is the humanitarian angle.
There is also the labor angle. When Alabama cracked down on illegal aliens produce rotted in the fields because they couldn't find anyone willing to to the backbreaking work. The restaurant industry would be crippled without illegal labor. Anthony Bourdain has said that some of the best chefs he has ever worked with were Mexican illegals. So there is the labor and spending power of the illegal population.
I don't claim it is a simple issue, but it would be a major economic and humanitarian issue to remove all illegals at once. Obviously it makes sense to deport illegals who are criminals (and I mean what we commonly think of as criminals not people who have managed to break a minor law once). I don't have a perfect solution, but I hope that this opens your mind to some of the issues.
|
5pjz67
|
CMV: CMV: Why do people defend ILLEGAL immigration…
|
…especially when there are avenues to immigrate legally. I have recently read about people defending being undocumented and attending state funded colleges, etc. Doesn’t an unregulated immigrant stream erode our social welfare programs by flooding the system with people who are not accountable for paying into our tax structure? Form how I understand it, allowing even a small amount of illegal immigration is unsustainable. Also, I know this is tough issue that brings out some fervent emotions for some people, please be respectful.
| 1,485,121,997
|
JasperPennybottom
|
dcrqix5
|
dcrq63c
| 48
| 1
|
CMV: If taxation is theft, being rich is murder.
If an ambulance drove past a man dying on the street, it would be murder. If you have the ability and resources to save someones life, and don't, then you are responsible.
Likewise, we know that poverty kills. [The super rich could end poverty four times over.](http://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-developing-countries-wealth/super-rich-could-end-poverty-four-times-over) I believe the same principle applies.
When I hear right wing libertarian people talking about how taxation is theft it disgusts me. These people are not for liberty. Liberty is something that should be afforded to everyone.
EDIT:
A common argument so far has been that the middle and lower classes also live in excess. I agree, and believe that most people could do more than they do already. I do not think it is inconsistent to point the finger at the super rich, though. Again, as I stated: we could end poverty four times over. That means if every member of the 1% gave away 25% of their income they would still have loads of money!! Whereas, for the average person their contribution would still be a drop in the ocean. Remember, [8 people own half the worlds wealth.](http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/01/21/new-report-determines-that-the-worlds-8-richest-people-have-as-much-wealth-as-half-the-human-race/). I honestly don't know how those people can sleep at night.
|
> If an ambulance drove past a man dying on the street, it would be murder. If you have the ability and resources to save someones life, and don't, then you are responsible.
murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. (I will ignore the fact that a libertarian would claim murder is murder regardless of what the law says)
kill: cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).
Now, it should be obvious why "if an ambulance drove past a man dying on the street," it is not murder. The dying man is not dying because of a positive action (they did something) by those driving the ambulance. He is obviously dying of some other cause. Now, I won't say that it is *right* for the ambulance to drive past. They are, after all, in a situation to help him, and I believe it would be morally right to do so. But think of it this way: if the ambulance had not driven by, the man's situation would be no different than if it drives by and doesn't pick him up. The ambulance drivers have not "caused the death of" the dying man. If they did, then as others have pointed out, you are responsible for all pain and suffering that you had the chance to prevent.
> Likewise, we know that poverty kills. The super rich could end poverty four times over. I believe the same principle applies.
Yes, scarcity is a problem in this world, and it causes pain and suffering. It's disingenuous to claim that the "super rich" are responsible. Their activities such as investing in building factories, producing food, innovation, and others actually allow us to use our resources more effectively and decrease the negative effects of scarcity. The wealth calculations used in the Oxfam "report" are not only [hypocritical](https://mises.org/blog/oxfams-hypocrisy-private-wealth) and [absurd](https://fee.org/articles/oxfam-uses-absurd-metrics-and-gets-absurd-results/), but its assumptions about inequality are [wrong](https://mises.org/blog/inequality-doesnt-create-poverty) and its conclusions that confiscating wealth from "the rich" would "end poverty four times over" are completely [misguided](https://fee.org/articles/oxfam-is-wrong-about-how-to-alleviate-poverty/). That assumes not only that you could immediately liquefy their assets (most of their wealth is in business ownership; to confiscate their money would mean selling off their stakes in the companies they own), but also that giving it to the poor would not lead to increased prices across the board due to higher demand. It also assumes that entrepreneurs would make the same decision next time.
> When I hear right wing libertarian people talking about how taxation is theft it disgusts me.
That is a completely different discussion. I'm not sure why you threw it in with your claim that "being rich is murder." I'll give you a simple answer though: the government coerces you to give them your money, just as a highway robber does. If you don't comply, they will punish you. This is a positive action (the government is *doing* something) and infringes your right to do what you want with your property.
> These people are not for liberty. Liberty is something that should be afforded to everyone.
Liberty is not something that's bought. Glory2Hypnotoad explained that libertarians think only negative rights exist. Something cannot be a human right unless it pre-exists other people and the government. If you are alone on an island, and no one is around, you cannot claim that your rights are being violated. It takes another person to violate your liberty-- you are, in fact, as free as one could possibly be. You seem to think that "necessities" (however you care to define that) are rights. However, such "rights" would necessarily infringe on other individuals' rights to their own property. If a right conflicts with a right, it's cannot truly be a right, can it?
|
Why not just argue that being rich is murder, given that it's in no way contingent on whether taxation is theft?
The libertarian principle at play here is that only negative rights exist, which means that the only rights are rights against things being done to you rather than things anyone must do for you. That is liberty being afforded to everyone, it's just that liberty alone is still compatible with countless horrible fates. A person alone in a desolate wasteland would lack for countless things but still have liberty in spades.
|
5pkhm4
|
CMV: If taxation is theft, being rich is murder.
|
If an ambulance drove past a man dying on the street, it would be murder. If you have the ability and resources to save someones life, and don't, then you are responsible.
Likewise, we know that poverty kills. [The super rich could end poverty four times over.](http://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-developing-countries-wealth/super-rich-could-end-poverty-four-times-over) I believe the same principle applies.
When I hear right wing libertarian people talking about how taxation is theft it disgusts me. These people are not for liberty. Liberty is something that should be afforded to everyone.
EDIT:
A common argument so far has been that the middle and lower classes also live in excess. I agree, and believe that most people could do more than they do already. I do not think it is inconsistent to point the finger at the super rich, though. Again, as I stated: we could end poverty four times over. That means if every member of the 1% gave away 25% of their income they would still have loads of money!! Whereas, for the average person their contribution would still be a drop in the ocean. Remember, [8 people own half the worlds wealth.](http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/01/21/new-report-determines-that-the-worlds-8-richest-people-have-as-much-wealth-as-half-the-human-race/). I honestly don't know how those people can sleep at night.
| 1,485,126,797
|
meur123
|
dcry4em
|
dcruii7
| 19
| 4
|
CMV: Supposing that the "ticking time bomb" scenario is real, torturing terrorists is ethical
I will start off by saying that I don't actually believe the ticking time bomb scenario accurately describes the real situation.
However, I think that torture, used to gain vital information and save innocent lives, could be ethical, provided that there was no reasonable doubt of the person's guilt, and that torture in general had been proven to actually be effective. Once again, I don’t really think this is how real situation is, but I’m not necessarily talking about reality. I'm saying that we could consider torture to be ethical in a hypothetical situation which actually matched what supporters of torture believe exists.
I don't understand the logic some of the opponents use. People constantly talk about how using torture is "not who we are" and is something of which only our enemies should be capable. They fail to take situational ethics into consideration, acting like using torture against an evil person to achieve a moral purpose is the same as torturing some random person who hasn't committed any crime, and is not morally superior to blowing up a building to advance your religion. What if we applied the same logic to simply killing terrorists? To doing anything not normally considered ethical? In an extreme situation, extreme measures can ethically be taken.
Life does not ask what we want, it presents us with choices. We must choose the best option from among the ones which are presented to us, not hold on to principles that we have formed some kind of predetermined notion should never be compromised. How would torturing an incredibly evil person to save innocent lives make the world a worse place? How does that decrease the overall happiness of the human race? These are the questions we have to answer.
Usually, the ethical arguments I hear are essentially that causing pain for another human being is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. It’s basically, “torture is wrong because it’s torture”. Often, no one attempts to provide an actual valid argument that weighs the two options – potentially allowing innocent people to suffer a terrible fate, or torturing an evil person – and explain WHY the first one is superior to the latter one.
Once again, maybe you don’t think that torture is effective, etc. But what I want to know is, what if we presume certain factors to be true, creating the hypothetical situation where torture could most easily appear justified?
Basically, if you don’t think the ticking time bomb scenario could be real, then what if, merely hypothetically, it WERE real? What if a nuclear bomb was about to go off, and 1,000 people were going to die, and there was only one way to stop it? The person who you think knows where the bomb is, beyond any remotely reasonable doubt is guilty and possesses the information you're looking for. It is YOUR loved ones' lives that are at stake. Would I be wrong for reasoning that the most ethical decision would be torture, regardless of how validly we can apply this situation to real life?
|
You specifically set the stage of this torture as one where we both know the subject is guilty and we also have above current realistic certainty that we would get reliable intelligence from them. These set the bars for torture pretty low and yet I feel they are still not low enough.
The first thing we need to consider is, "will this information lead to more information, or less?" One of the fundamental flaws in torture for information is, at what point does the threat of torture equal the actual pressure resultant from torture? If people have a really good certainty that we can torture information out of them, when do they start to give up before torture even starts?
When people start giving up right away how do we know their information is true rather than fake stuff designed to make us not torture them? See the thing is even with 100% effective torture, you'll end up torturing people who either already gave up what they knew, or truly don't know anything. And you will never know until the information has either been discredited or acted on (successfully or not).
So at "best"(morals set to very low) you'll waste money torturing someone who has already given all they could and at "worst"(if you're an actual human) you've tortured someone who truly didn't have anything to help you with.
|
Why would torture would work against someone willing to die for their cause?
He *already* thinks he's going to die- and how would he rather die? Knowing his plan worked, or not?
He's never going to tell you the truth, not even to stop the torture, because he can win AND stop the torture.
The ticking time bomb is actually the worst scenario to suggest torture, because it comes with a built in time limit.
Lets say the bomb is going off in an hour. The bomber sees you pull out the fingernail pliers, and then says he gives up - don't torture him, and he'll tell you.
Then he gives you a fake location two hours away.
You're halfway there when the real bomb goes off.
You can't even use the threat that if what he says is false you will kill him, because he knows that one, you wouldn't anyway, because you would still need the info, and two, he knows you aren't going to get to the bomb in time.
And THAT is the fundamental problem with torture- you can't tell a correct answer from incorrect answer.
A devoted enemy just wont give in. He will either die, or just give you fake answers. And innocent people of course only give fake answers.
So the only ones it would work on are people not TOO devoted, but also who somehow know the info you need.
And if you start torturing them you might just push then into the devoted category.
|
5pmg3h
|
CMV: Supposing that the "ticking time bomb" scenario is real, torturing terrorists is ethical
|
I will start off by saying that I don't actually believe the ticking time bomb scenario accurately describes the real situation.
However, I think that torture, used to gain vital information and save innocent lives, could be ethical, provided that there was no reasonable doubt of the person's guilt, and that torture in general had been proven to actually be effective. Once again, I don’t really think this is how real situation is, but I’m not necessarily talking about reality. I'm saying that we could consider torture to be ethical in a hypothetical situation which actually matched what supporters of torture believe exists.
I don't understand the logic some of the opponents use. People constantly talk about how using torture is "not who we are" and is something of which only our enemies should be capable. They fail to take situational ethics into consideration, acting like using torture against an evil person to achieve a moral purpose is the same as torturing some random person who hasn't committed any crime, and is not morally superior to blowing up a building to advance your religion. What if we applied the same logic to simply killing terrorists? To doing anything not normally considered ethical? In an extreme situation, extreme measures can ethically be taken.
Life does not ask what we want, it presents us with choices. We must choose the best option from among the ones which are presented to us, not hold on to principles that we have formed some kind of predetermined notion should never be compromised. How would torturing an incredibly evil person to save innocent lives make the world a worse place? How does that decrease the overall happiness of the human race? These are the questions we have to answer.
Usually, the ethical arguments I hear are essentially that causing pain for another human being is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. It’s basically, “torture is wrong because it’s torture”. Often, no one attempts to provide an actual valid argument that weighs the two options – potentially allowing innocent people to suffer a terrible fate, or torturing an evil person – and explain WHY the first one is superior to the latter one.
Once again, maybe you don’t think that torture is effective, etc. But what I want to know is, what if we presume certain factors to be true, creating the hypothetical situation where torture could most easily appear justified?
Basically, if you don’t think the ticking time bomb scenario could be real, then what if, merely hypothetically, it WERE real? What if a nuclear bomb was about to go off, and 1,000 people were going to die, and there was only one way to stop it? The person who you think knows where the bomb is, beyond any remotely reasonable doubt is guilty and possesses the information you're looking for. It is YOUR loved ones' lives that are at stake. Would I be wrong for reasoning that the most ethical decision would be torture, regardless of how validly we can apply this situation to real life?
| 1,485,147,744
|
Ian3223
|
dcsbks9
|
dcsavt0
| 11
| 3
|
CMV: Regardless of left or right, EVERYONE should be worried about 3 of Trump's policies.
Really want honest opinions. I try to keep an open mind about political stuff, and I know how easy it is to get sucked into media hysteria. But I feel that policy statements from the Trump administration are as close as we can get to evidence of what's actually to come, and I can't understand how people on both sides of the party lines aren't nervous about these items. Nothing from NYT, just pulled from the updated whitehouse.gov:
"The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own... The Trump Administration is also committed to clean coal technology, and to reviving America’s coal industry, which has been hurting for too long."
(My take: In order for this policy to be upheld on a federal level, this implies subsidies and/or tax breaks for these industries. Federal lands that the american people own includes National Parks? No mention is made in the policy of investments in renewable energy. More coal for America?)
[SOURCE](https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy)
"In 2015 alone, federal regulations cost the American economy more than $2 trillion. That is why the President has proposed a moratorium on new federal regulations and is ordering the heads of federal agencies and departments to identify job-killing regulations that should be repealed."
(My take: Such regulations include the highly fought-for Net Neutrality rulings by the FCC, other consumer protection regulations, and many environmental protections such as the Endangered Species Act, if an argument can be made that it inhibits job growth. This would be up to the discretion of the department/agency leaders, which include many of the recent cabinet picks.)
[SOURCE](https://www.whitehouse.gov/bringing-back-jobs-and-growth)
"The Trump Administration is committed to reducing violent crime... Our country needs more law enforcement, more community engagement, and more effective policing. Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter."
(My take: A solid message, but this suggests new laws which would limit protester's rights and/or enable law enforcement to take expanded action against protesters, on either side of the party line. Note that the increased militarization of police forces was a major factor in instances such as the Dakota Pipeline protests.)
[SOURCE](https://www.whitehouse.gov/law-enforcement-community)
TL;DR - Do we really need more fracking/coal? Would less regulations mean goodbye Net Neutrality? Is the right to protest under fire? Or has it all be politicized beyond recognition?
Sick of echo chambers, want honest, intelligent discourse. Should I be less worried, or are others not worried enough?
|
I was actually quite surprised by the policies you chose to bring up, there are some that I would consider much worse.
Many of the issues you have with these policies seems more based on possible interpretations of what these policies could mean than on the actual content of the policies themselves. Every policy document ever released promises to be tough on crime and reduce harmful over regulation, sure that could be interpreted as creating a nightmarish capitalist police state, but the former statements merely being in a policy document don't provide any support for the latter.
[Consider the 1996 Bill Clinton policy document](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29611) , on the issue of regulation he states:-
"The American people have a right to demand that responsibility is the order of the day in Washington. The mission of today's Democratic Party is to expand opportunity, not bureaucracy. We have worked hard over the last four years to rein in big government, **slash burdensome regulations**, eliminate wasteful programs, and shift problem-solving out of Washington and back to people and communities who understand their situations best. "
On energy:-
"Clean, affordable energy. Clean, abundant, and reliable energy is essential to a strong American economy. We support investment in research and development to spur domestic energy production and enhance efficiency. New technologies -- natural gas, energy efficiency, renewable energy -- developed in partnership with American industries and scientists are increasing productivity and creating jobs. **We believe America should reduce its dependence on foreign energy sources.** "
And most of all, on crime:-
"We believe that people who break the law should be punished, and people who commit violent crimes should be punished severely. President Clinton made three-strikes-you're-out the law of the land, to ensure that the most dangerous criminals go to jail for life, with no chance of parole. We established **the death penalty** for nearly 60 violent crimes, including murder of a law enforcement officer, and we signed **a law to limit appeals**."
These policies would be easy to interpret in much the same way as you have the Trump policies. Would you consider the Clinton administration to have been a massive step backward?
Edit:-
A quick bonus one, I know you didn't mention this, but I felt it made my point too well to pass up.
Clinton on immigration :-
"Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. **Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.** "
|
> wouldn't a healthy balance of putting existing infrastructure to use while easing those jobs into renewables be the best long term solution?
That's nice and good in theory, but the 45 year old coal miner would prefer his job back to support his family right now rather than try to retrain for a new industry that's "about to come". Only to later be outcompeted by younger people and then, again, not being able to support his family.
Imagine if this was the other way around. Someone told you that you being an engineer for 20 years doesn't matter anymore and we need more farmers, so you should abandon everything you learned and done in your life and start learning to do a job you don't want, not good at, and there's a very likely chance that industry wouldn't even want you after you're done.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with them but I still see their pain. It's true, the world should be going towards renewable energy but this means that old energy workers would be hurt in that transition, there's just no way of avoiding that. Moreover, the way the conversation about renewable energy was framed until now was simply "old energy industry is shutting down, and renewable energy is being introduced, deal with it", which, to someone who used to work there is basically like saying "you lost your job, career, skillset and livelihood, deal with it".
|
5pmkc7
|
CMV: Regardless of left or right, EVERYONE should be worried about 3 of Trump's policies.
|
Really want honest opinions. I try to keep an open mind about political stuff, and I know how easy it is to get sucked into media hysteria. But I feel that policy statements from the Trump administration are as close as we can get to evidence of what's actually to come, and I can't understand how people on both sides of the party lines aren't nervous about these items. Nothing from NYT, just pulled from the updated whitehouse.gov:
"The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own... The Trump Administration is also committed to clean coal technology, and to reviving America’s coal industry, which has been hurting for too long."
(My take: In order for this policy to be upheld on a federal level, this implies subsidies and/or tax breaks for these industries. Federal lands that the american people own includes National Parks? No mention is made in the policy of investments in renewable energy. More coal for America?)
[SOURCE](https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy)
"In 2015 alone, federal regulations cost the American economy more than $2 trillion. That is why the President has proposed a moratorium on new federal regulations and is ordering the heads of federal agencies and departments to identify job-killing regulations that should be repealed."
(My take: Such regulations include the highly fought-for Net Neutrality rulings by the FCC, other consumer protection regulations, and many environmental protections such as the Endangered Species Act, if an argument can be made that it inhibits job growth. This would be up to the discretion of the department/agency leaders, which include many of the recent cabinet picks.)
[SOURCE](https://www.whitehouse.gov/bringing-back-jobs-and-growth)
"The Trump Administration is committed to reducing violent crime... Our country needs more law enforcement, more community engagement, and more effective policing. Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter."
(My take: A solid message, but this suggests new laws which would limit protester's rights and/or enable law enforcement to take expanded action against protesters, on either side of the party line. Note that the increased militarization of police forces was a major factor in instances such as the Dakota Pipeline protests.)
[SOURCE](https://www.whitehouse.gov/law-enforcement-community)
TL;DR - Do we really need more fracking/coal? Would less regulations mean goodbye Net Neutrality? Is the right to protest under fire? Or has it all be politicized beyond recognition?
Sick of echo chambers, want honest, intelligent discourse. Should I be less worried, or are others not worried enough?
| 1,485,149,051
|
OhNoDinos
|
dcsi1h5
|
dcshc0q
| 21
| 9
|
CMV: People who can't afford to have kids shouldn't be allowed to have them.
I had a long discussion about that topic with my sister and my dad the other day and I would be interested to hear what other people might have to say, since their arguments couldn't convince me.
Having a child is a huge responsibility and costs a lot of money. Some people just don't have the necessary resources to take care of a child. There's a good reason that you're not allowed to adopt a child if you can't afford to pay for the stuff the child needs (childcare, food, christmas presents, etc), so why should you be allowed to make a new child of your own?
My sister and dad said, that having children is a deep rooted and fundamental need for humans, just like food, water and shelter. I beg to differ, since there's tons of people who don't ever want to have children, thus it can't be an fundamental human need to have them. In my opinion, having children is a luxury that should be limited to the people that can afford it.
A poor person without a job can't go to a bank and get a 200k loan to buy a nice house for themselves, but they can go ahead and make a child that will cost about that much in the span of 20 years without even thinking? I think that's just stupid.
"But what if they are using contraceptives and still get pregnant?" - Well, there's still abortion and adoption, so there's that.
Why should people who can't afford children be allowed to have them anyway?
Edit: I see that people are downvoting my replies in the comments. You might disagree with my points, but that's not a reason to downvote my comments. Let's have a discussion instead, okay?
Edit 2: Alright, I have to go now. I've awarded a couple of Deltas for changing my mind in specific points. The main view remains the same for me. Thank you for the interesting discussions!
Edit 3 (8 hours after posting): I just engaged in some more discussions, but I feel like now it's starting to move in circles. I'll disengage now, since I don't have unlimited time to discuss and I never imagined that my thread would get this kind of attention. I appreciate all of your arguments, some of which managed to change my view regarding certain aspects (see Deltas). Thanks for the discussion and have a great day, y'all!
|
It's already done.
If a family can't take care of a child, CPS can have the child removed from that home. Whether it's because they're economically unable, are abusive to the child, or other reasons.
If a family can take care of a child, despite being poor, then what's the problem?
To me it seems the best solution possible: not overly intrusive and results based. No arbitrary wage cutoffs or anything of the sort, but based on whether you actually manage to do what's needed with your resources.
|
1) It's simply impossible to stop people from having children. Having children is a desire for most people as is the desire to have sex. You can't prevent poor people from having sex.
2) This would only work if you are advocating mass sterilization of the poor, which is simply inhumane. People aren't pets to be spayed and neutered. You also cannot legally force someone to undergo a surgical procedure. It's a violation of one's own civil liberties.
3) What makes a child living in a foster system any better off than being raised in a poor family?
4) What do you do with families that weren't poor to begin with, but hit rock bottom? Lots of poor families didn't start out that way, it could happen to anyone.
|
5pngt4
|
CMV: People who can't afford to have kids shouldn't be allowed to have them.
|
I had a long discussion about that topic with my sister and my dad the other day and I would be interested to hear what other people might have to say, since their arguments couldn't convince me.
Having a child is a huge responsibility and costs a lot of money. Some people just don't have the necessary resources to take care of a child. There's a good reason that you're not allowed to adopt a child if you can't afford to pay for the stuff the child needs (childcare, food, christmas presents, etc), so why should you be allowed to make a new child of your own?
My sister and dad said, that having children is a deep rooted and fundamental need for humans, just like food, water and shelter. I beg to differ, since there's tons of people who don't ever want to have children, thus it can't be an fundamental human need to have them. In my opinion, having children is a luxury that should be limited to the people that can afford it.
A poor person without a job can't go to a bank and get a 200k loan to buy a nice house for themselves, but they can go ahead and make a child that will cost about that much in the span of 20 years without even thinking? I think that's just stupid.
"But what if they are using contraceptives and still get pregnant?" - Well, there's still abortion and adoption, so there's that.
Why should people who can't afford children be allowed to have them anyway?
Edit: I see that people are downvoting my replies in the comments. You might disagree with my points, but that's not a reason to downvote my comments. Let's have a discussion instead, okay?
Edit 2: Alright, I have to go now. I've awarded a couple of Deltas for changing my mind in specific points. The main view remains the same for me. Thank you for the interesting discussions!
Edit 3 (8 hours after posting): I just engaged in some more discussions, but I feel like now it's starting to move in circles. I'll disengage now, since I don't have unlimited time to discuss and I never imagined that my thread would get this kind of attention. I appreciate all of your arguments, some of which managed to change my view regarding certain aspects (see Deltas). Thanks for the discussion and have a great day, y'all!
| 1,485,161,023
|
Xisthur
|
dcsh411
|
dcsg8mj
| 152
| 47
|
CMV: There should be no freedom of religion.
Throughout history, there has too often been a conflict between religious and secular interests.
A common result is that worldly rulers take over some religious functions (like almost all monarchs in history) or that religions propagate government and are a --as a wise man said-- false to the wise, true to the stupid and useful to the politican. I suspect that religious governors that made policies based on superstitions and senseless laws were less effective than cold-blooded cynics (e.g. some religious rulers would not allow interest rates). Overall there seem to have been less and less theocracies over time, especially in Europe.
If we agree those are undesirable and that religion and state should be separated, the question is how much religion should be allowed. In the past, religions hostile to government were wiped out and there were heavy sanctions for refusal to bow to state authority.
Thus in Western countries we are mostly left with moderate religions and conclude that these are harmless when in truth we crippled them in the past so only the conforming cults survived. For instance, the Catholic church vehemently resisted all porgressive ideas of the Enlightenment, but was forced into moderation. Eventually it even accepted democratic governments, which it traditionally opposed. If religions are less moderate, it is partly the result of religous freedom: In America where freedom of religion has existed for centuries the Amish and Mormons could spread what would have been hardly impossible in Europe due to persecution.
I suggest that freedom of speech and thought be preserved, but there should be no freedom of religion because that always entails some actions (which may or may not be tolerated, see genital mutilation for instance) and large communities may use their freedom while taking it from everybody else as soon as they can (early Christianity destroying all pagan temples is a great example).
There are at least some bad outcomes of religous freedom:
* Rather than religious moderates, it helps religious extremists who will be the most enthusiastic about spreading their ideas. Imagine you would have granted religious freedom in a medieval city. It would have collapsed quickly since all the religious lunatics of Europe would have been drawn there like flies. Something like that even happened in Munster.
* It splits a society into various fractions. Religion is the worst form of tribalism humans ever came up with. Nothing comes close to the cohesion of religious communities, especially if they only marry people of the same faith. Both political ideologies and races can hardly compete. Of course, once a religion has wiped out the others, there will be sects and infighting too.
* It will discriminate against atheists, who have no nonexistent authorities to argue and little violence to threaten society with. But if your prophet demanded something a few centuries ago and enough people are convinced, governments will allow you to ignore laws or adjust them in your favour.
* Once you abandon pure reason and embrace superstition, there can also be no rational argument. Only violence and appeals to authority (my prophet is the true one) remain.
* The enormous suffering religion has brought onto the world and that there can be little to no good from having a worldview that is false and unscientific.
|
Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion, and that the government can't take sides in religious matters. I think that's a pretty great thing.
It also seems like this is pretty WEIRD-focused. For example, Japan has freedom of religion, but it doesn't have the split up into religious factions and the discrimination against atheists.
And to counter your point about religious extremists: Article 20 (of the Japanese constitution) covers freedom of religion, but after the sarin gas attack Aum lost their protected religious status and had many of their assets seized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack#Aum.2FAleph_today
So nothing about the freedom of religion inherently means that dangerous radicals need to be ignored or protected. It’s all in how different societies interpret Freedom of Religion.
|
I can make the exact same argument about pretty much any general enough subject. Technology, culture, ideals, politics, anything. They all have been used as excuses for terrible behavior. You know the saying, "hate the player, don't hate the game"
It's funny you mention the "Enlightenment". You must realize the Enlightenment was a movement created to precisely oppose religion because people thought just like you, smart people. Then it ended up with Nazism and WWII. You can read more [here](https://culturalstudiesnow.blogspot.com.br/2013/12/theodor-adorno-and-max-horkheimer.html), I can't vouch for this particular text, it's just the first google result, but you can easily find more material on it, it's one of the most famous texts of the last century
|
5poub4
|
CMV: There should be no freedom of religion.
|
Throughout history, there has too often been a conflict between religious and secular interests.
A common result is that worldly rulers take over some religious functions (like almost all monarchs in history) or that religions propagate government and are a --as a wise man said-- false to the wise, true to the stupid and useful to the politican. I suspect that religious governors that made policies based on superstitions and senseless laws were less effective than cold-blooded cynics (e.g. some religious rulers would not allow interest rates). Overall there seem to have been less and less theocracies over time, especially in Europe.
If we agree those are undesirable and that religion and state should be separated, the question is how much religion should be allowed. In the past, religions hostile to government were wiped out and there were heavy sanctions for refusal to bow to state authority.
Thus in Western countries we are mostly left with moderate religions and conclude that these are harmless when in truth we crippled them in the past so only the conforming cults survived. For instance, the Catholic church vehemently resisted all porgressive ideas of the Enlightenment, but was forced into moderation. Eventually it even accepted democratic governments, which it traditionally opposed. If religions are less moderate, it is partly the result of religous freedom: In America where freedom of religion has existed for centuries the Amish and Mormons could spread what would have been hardly impossible in Europe due to persecution.
I suggest that freedom of speech and thought be preserved, but there should be no freedom of religion because that always entails some actions (which may or may not be tolerated, see genital mutilation for instance) and large communities may use their freedom while taking it from everybody else as soon as they can (early Christianity destroying all pagan temples is a great example).
There are at least some bad outcomes of religous freedom:
* Rather than religious moderates, it helps religious extremists who will be the most enthusiastic about spreading their ideas. Imagine you would have granted religious freedom in a medieval city. It would have collapsed quickly since all the religious lunatics of Europe would have been drawn there like flies. Something like that even happened in Munster.
* It splits a society into various fractions. Religion is the worst form of tribalism humans ever came up with. Nothing comes close to the cohesion of religious communities, especially if they only marry people of the same faith. Both political ideologies and races can hardly compete. Of course, once a religion has wiped out the others, there will be sects and infighting too.
* It will discriminate against atheists, who have no nonexistent authorities to argue and little violence to threaten society with. But if your prophet demanded something a few centuries ago and enough people are convinced, governments will allow you to ignore laws or adjust them in your favour.
* Once you abandon pure reason and embrace superstition, there can also be no rational argument. Only violence and appeals to authority (my prophet is the true one) remain.
* The enormous suffering religion has brought onto the world and that there can be little to no good from having a worldview that is false and unscientific.
| 1,485,179,829
|
Ontrus
|
dcsqxtb
|
dcsnzzo
| 8
| 2
|
CMV:I don't think cultural appropriation is a real issue
So, I actually get a good amount of hate for this, especially since I'm a liberal teen who regularly browses sites with political/economic views similar to mine, but this is one issue that I just don't understand. Why is 'cultural appropriation' such a horrible thing to do? If a guy wants to wear a feathered headdress that's Native American-looking because that's part of goth culture, why is that so offensive? (reference to a singer that does that exact thing) Why do we want to separate everyone based on the culture they come from? I understand that this can be a sensitive issue, but please be respectful, I really want to understand.
|
Edit: Before anyone else responds to this, I'd like to clarify. I don't personally hold the view that non-black people, or even just white people, should never wear dreadlocks or any other black hairstyle, or adopt something from any other culture. As a black person who shares an experience of growing up black in the US with some people who do hold this view, I am trying to explain the reasoning behind their view.
I also am clarifying that when I say "The West" I'm referring to Western beauty standards, but this issue is largely an issue unique to the United States.
-----
So many people have already answered the headdress example; I'd like to chime in on the "dreadlocks" example which is considered by many to be ridiculous. I'd like to provide some perspective from a black girl's point of view. This isn't about dreadlocks in particular, but about the "cultural appropriation of black hair" in general, which would include dreadlocks. I know black people aren't the only people historically to have worn their hair in dreadlocks. I'm only trying to explain the basis behind the view.
In the West, white women are considered the epitome of beauty by most standards. This leads a lot of black women to struggle with how they look. Skin-bleaching is an issue, but the more obvious is hair-straightening (along with wearing wigs and hair extensions to "mimic" non-afro hair). There's this whole idea of "good hair" that's pressed on little black girls (and boys too), where having kinky hair is seen as ugly, and having loose curls, wavy, or straight hair is seen as "good". Their own mothers will force them to get perms it's seen so unacceptable among black people alone.
Now, obviously, white people aren't the only race with straight, or loose-curly hair, but white women are the Western beauty standard, and that is usually the type of hair that they have. Hair can matter a lot to young girls. I can't say for me personally if I found myself more stressed about hair or skin-tone, but it's an experience me, my sisters, my cousins, and most if not all black girls and women I've known have been through living in the West (the US in particular).
Natural hair has been becoming more popular lately (meaning black women [and men] wearing their hair in afros, braids, dreadlocks, or other styles). It's either seen as "exotic" by non-black people -- "Wow, may I touch your hair? It's so cool!" -- or it's seen as weird, messy, dirty, and especially, unprofessional. My mother used to wear her hair straight, then "went natural", and received negative comments from white co-workers/bosses/clients about it. So she either straightens it with a hot comb/flat iron, or pulls it back in a bun, but never wears a full afro.
I believe the backlash and accusations of cultural appropriation come from black women and men who, when they wore their hair natural, were either singled out or admonished, suddenly see white women and men wearing the style, and because white women and men are the epitome of beauty, it suddenly becomes cool, trendy, and most of all, acceptable. That leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the people who were put down for wearing their hair the way it naturally grows. I don't know much about dreadlocks, but as far as I understand it, because of the kinky texture of black people's hair (and when I say black people, I'm mostly referring to African-Americans) makes it easier to naturally dread, while people with straighter, less coarse hair usually backcomb or do something special to make the texture more "frizzy" and "rough" so it can form dreadlocks easier.
An argument I see against it is that "But black women straighten their hair/wear wigs or extensions to look like white women all the time!". The point is, black women felt pressured to, either directly in professional environments or just because they wanted to feel beautiful in a society where they didn't fit the beauty standard, a similar reason to why some women get breast implants or, less dramatically, wear makeup (Not saying all women wear makeup for that exact reason, but it's a reason for many).
So basically the crux of the argument leans on whether or not non-black people wearing dreadlocks are mimicking historical dreadlock styles from [ancient cultures or Hindu Sadhu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadlocks), or are wearing them because they saw African-Americans (in the case of the US) wearing them, and thought they were cool. And I'm sure it's a case-by-case thing.
So I don't necessarily think "cultural appropriation" is the most accurate term for the dreadlocks issue--though I'm sure many would disagree with me--but it's basically offensive because in the eyes of some, they (the white people wearing dreadlocks) took something that was once considered "ugly", "dirty", "unprofessional" and made it "trendy", "cool", and "pretty" because of their privilege of being the standard of beauty in the West.
It's sort of a more historically painful version of how nerds used to be bullied, put down and considered social outcasts, but now being nerdy is considered "cute", "trendy" and "cool". It's, I imagine, bewildering and frustrating to people who *used* to be considered nerds, as they were literally treated as lesser because of it, and NOW it's cool and okay?
One could say, "Oh, you should be thankful! Now you can wear it/do that thing/ act that way without fear of being teased or bullied!" But that really doesn't erase the harm that's already done.
With the hair thing, I imagine there would be a similar backlash if there was a trend of non-black people in the West with naturally straight/loose-textured hair wearing afros. Probably even more so.
In some cases, accusations of cultural appropriation is more like, "You took this thing that was culturally significant, even ritualized or a symbol of honor, and made it a silly costume, and stripped it of its value, or even desecrated it".
In others it's more like, "You took this thing that was considered unacceptable, that I was put down for, and made it acceptable just by the nature of your privilege (of being the beauty standard), which means my expression of this thing holds no value while yours does, which makes me feel lesser".
I hope that helped.
|
Cultural appropriation is an issue because you're taking an element of a culture while disrespecting the people who created that culture. It's also important to recognize that majority groups often get positive reactions to using those elements. So, a white lady dreads her hair and is told how cool and edgy she looks. It's part of a "connect with nature" hippie kind of look for her. Meanwhile, black people with dreads are still looked upon as having dirty or unkempt hair. Black people in general face a lot of societal pressure to straighten their hair and/or otherwise make it look more like white people's. All this when black people are the ones who invented dreadlocks in the first place *because that's something their hair does.*
It's not that culture can never be shared. It should be shared. My Indian aunts had a field day when they got to wrap my white grandmother up in a sari. It was fun for everyone, but it's important that there was sharing going on, not taking. It's appropriate for my white grandmother to wear a sari in India, or among my Indian relatives, or at an Indian event. But it would be an asshole move for her to walk around her mostly white retirement community in a sari, getting praised for being so fashionable by the same people who make snide remarks about the damn immigrants.
|
5ppmx6
|
CMV:I don't think cultural appropriation is a real issue
|
So, I actually get a good amount of hate for this, especially since I'm a liberal teen who regularly browses sites with political/economic views similar to mine, but this is one issue that I just don't understand. Why is 'cultural appropriation' such a horrible thing to do? If a guy wants to wear a feathered headdress that's Native American-looking because that's part of goth culture, why is that so offensive? (reference to a singer that does that exact thing) Why do we want to separate everyone based on the culture they come from? I understand that this can be a sensitive issue, but please be respectful, I really want to understand.
| 1,485,187,631
|
BlackWingedWolfie
|
dct1x59
|
dcszzpm
| 603
| 53
|
CMV: Climate change and the extinction of species is not as bad as people make it to be. Genetical engineering will make up for it.
I have heard many people freaking out about the environment, saying that the future generations will hate us, but how are you so certain? The future generations will have a technology we cannot even dream of, they will be able to genetic engineer new species and new things at an unprecedented rate. We are the ones who will suffer, death is upon us. Do I hate the past generations for the deforestation they did? Not a lot, because I am not an ungrateful bastard, I recognize that they had no knowledge and no technology, I accept the sadness of deforestation and all the sad fate of the species that went extinct since the humans first appeared on Earth, but I don't hate the people of the past, because that would make me an ungrateful bastard, I am a privileged human, THIS IS THE HIGHEST PRIVILEGE THERE IS (you talking about privilege? there is no higher privilege than being born later, white privilege, wealth privilege, all is small talk compared to the privilege of being born later!), having more technology and knowledge just because I was born later. And the people of the past didn't even know atoms and bacteria existed... and you will hate them and curse them? See? This is why I hate self-hating people, people who hate humanity for selfish reasons, that is the vibe many of the self-proclaimed climate change adepts give to me, they are so blind to the toughness of life itself and the struggles of the people of the past, just hating them on... blind to their death and will hate the people of the past and even themselves, ignoring the PRIVILEGES the future generations will have, all a hyperbole to draw attention, this is what climate change feels to me... Don't forget the people of the future will have genetic engineering and will be able to create any plant or animal that they so desire... Never forget the people of the future will be able to see things so small, they will see an entire universe we never saw, they are so privileged, and just because they were born later.... in the meanwhile we will all be long dead and forgotten, while they happily laugh with the technology and knowledge we never had, but with only our contributions and the contributions of all the past generations it was made possible for them, the privileged ones...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TL:DR: There is no worse argument about climate change than the one: "The future generations will hate us!" Ah, yeah, those privileged people will hate us, ungrateful bastards if they do so! Also, how do you know they are ungrateful bastards by asking such a stupid and angry inducing question, most likely the future generations are not ungrateful bastards and you are the fool bringing up stupid arguments to the climate change debate!
|
Rising temperatures, changes in precipitation, or other changes to the local environment would lead to extinctions through loss of habitat. The deterioration of The Great Barrier Reef is an example of this. Eventually the entire ecosystem would collapse, killing off a significant amount of the local life.
Some people will say 'well why don't they just move?'. Because animals are dumb as bricks, and bar humans they're the smartest lifeform on the planet. And that's without even considering the smaller species that really can't move. As an example
> In one species of tree, Erwin identified 1200 beetle species, of which he estimated 163 were found only in that type of tree.[^1](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4007977?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
Now, some species are mobile, and will cope with changes in temperature. But an alarming amount will not. [^2](http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full)
> Don't forget the people of the future will have genetic engineering and will be able to create any plant or animal that they so desire
There are, at the very least, two million distinct species on planet earth, whom we have identified. Estimates of the total amount of species range as high as one trillion. That's one million million species. It's completely unrealistic to think that we could match that number through genetic engineering, even if every person on the planet was involved in the effort.
|
It's true that, in general, future generations will be more technologically advanced. However, that alone doesn't tell us whether future generations will have exactly the right technology at the right time to deal with problems we can help minimize now.
If we look at cultural attitudes about the future, there's a consistent trend. We know that in broad strokes things will be better and we'll have new and superior technology, but we consistently get the specifics wrong. Think about how much classic sci-fi assumed we would have flying cars by the year 2000 but couldn't predict mobile phones or the internet. Think about how little the current year resembles the majority previous decades' depictions of what our time period would look like.
It's a classic case of Dunning-Kruger effect: we don't know how much we don't know. It seems obvious to us that future generations will have all the right technology to genetically engineer new, better adapted life in time, just like it seemed obvious to previous generations that we'd have flying cars. It's because we don't even yet know the exact technological and logistical barriers that future generations will have to overcome. It's easy to believe that a solution will be simple when our grasp of the problem is vague.
|
5ppnew
|
CMV: Climate change and the extinction of species is not as bad as people make it to be. Genetical engineering will make up for it.
|
I have heard many people freaking out about the environment, saying that the future generations will hate us, but how are you so certain? The future generations will have a technology we cannot even dream of, they will be able to genetic engineer new species and new things at an unprecedented rate. We are the ones who will suffer, death is upon us. Do I hate the past generations for the deforestation they did? Not a lot, because I am not an ungrateful bastard, I recognize that they had no knowledge and no technology, I accept the sadness of deforestation and all the sad fate of the species that went extinct since the humans first appeared on Earth, but I don't hate the people of the past, because that would make me an ungrateful bastard, I am a privileged human, THIS IS THE HIGHEST PRIVILEGE THERE IS (you talking about privilege? there is no higher privilege than being born later, white privilege, wealth privilege, all is small talk compared to the privilege of being born later!), having more technology and knowledge just because I was born later. And the people of the past didn't even know atoms and bacteria existed... and you will hate them and curse them? See? This is why I hate self-hating people, people who hate humanity for selfish reasons, that is the vibe many of the self-proclaimed climate change adepts give to me, they are so blind to the toughness of life itself and the struggles of the people of the past, just hating them on... blind to their death and will hate the people of the past and even themselves, ignoring the PRIVILEGES the future generations will have, all a hyperbole to draw attention, this is what climate change feels to me... Don't forget the people of the future will have genetic engineering and will be able to create any plant or animal that they so desire... Never forget the people of the future will be able to see things so small, they will see an entire universe we never saw, they are so privileged, and just because they were born later.... in the meanwhile we will all be long dead and forgotten, while they happily laugh with the technology and knowledge we never had, but with only our contributions and the contributions of all the past generations it was made possible for them, the privileged ones...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TL:DR: There is no worse argument about climate change than the one: "The future generations will hate us!" Ah, yeah, those privileged people will hate us, ungrateful bastards if they do so! Also, how do you know they are ungrateful bastards by asking such a stupid and angry inducing question, most likely the future generations are not ungrateful bastards and you are the fool bringing up stupid arguments to the climate change debate!
| 1,485,187,756
|
Garlicplanet
|
dcswg94
|
dcsuawt
| 2
| 1
|
CMV: Imperialism is more beneficial for man kind in the long run
The basis of this arguments comes from the fact that most imperialist nations are more developed technologically as well as economically than any colonial territories. Knowing this fact, these superior nations would essentially be able to provide better for their colonists and conquered peoples than they could themselves. One of my favorite examples of imperialism better mankind is the British Empire's occupation of India. India was originally a very divided feudal kingdom. After the British conquest, India was westernized which meant school systems were built, industrial society grew, and India was more unified than previously. I also believe that colonies which were already western, such as the American Colonies, should have stayed under British rule for its superior benefits. First the colonies had a permanent trading partner in Great Britain which would alleviate most economic failings. The Thirteen Colonies were also well protected and the colonists, despite their own perceptions, were actually taxed less than Britons in the mother country. By staying in the British Empire both the war of American Independence and 1812 would not have occurred. One could even extrapolate that later wars, such as WW1, would not have occurred due to the deterrent of the superior numbers and resources of the British Empire had she retained all of her colonies.
So for a summary, Imperialism brings tech, peace, and security to its colonies which would not have advanced without imperialism.
|
I think you have a skewed view of how Imperialism has actually impacted the countries who were on the receiving end. For instance, you state that:
>One of my favorite examples of imperialism better mankind is the British Empire's occupation of India. India was originally a very divided feudal kingdom. After the British conquest, India was westernized which meant school systems were built, industrial society grew, and India was more unified than previously.
So there are a few problems with this:
1. You're implying that India was less divided under British rule, yet this was almost certainly not the case. The British might have provided some overarching unity by carving out a geographic area that was clearly designated as British India, but the different regions were more or less administrated by local princes or other rulers who were themselves beholden to British colonial interests. These different states fought with each other on multiple occasions, and there was hardly political unity. The British didn't much care if the princes fought each other, and in some cases actively encouraged it so they could "divide and rule" India.
2. School systems were built, but they were almost exclusively for the British colonists and administrators who lived there, and for wealthy Indians who could get their kids into the schools. The rest of the Indian population was not entitled to education.
3. You imply that industrial technology was a benefit to the Indian people. While this is partly true, and there was some benefit to automation of some industries (like agriculture, for instance), these were overwhelmingly used for the benefit of the British and not the Indian people. For instance, automation in agriculture was primarily instituted to improve Indian cotton production which benefited the British textile industry, and any automated agriculture used for food production didn't prevent the British from essentially creating famines in India [on several occasions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India#British_rule). Most notably, the Great Famine of 1876-1878 is largely credited to British administration (rather than a lack of food), and had a massive death toll estimated at around *10 million people*.
These are just some examples from that one colony from that one nation. And while there are some colonies that undoubtedly benefited from colonization, many of them were utterly devastated by colonial rule.
Another example is the Congo, since the circumstances are particularly relevant to the argument that in modern times they have benefited from past colonization efforts.
The Congo was colonized by Belgium under King Leopold in the late 1800s, and the Governor-General who ruled over the colony was brutal. SEriously, there's a book on it called *King Leopold's Ghost*, and I'd highly recommend you read it. Suffice to say, the treatment of the natives was almost unbelievably cruel.
Eventually the people of the Congo resisted and the Belgians decided it was more trouble than it was worth, so they granted the Congo independence. The entire colonial infrastructure, including its government and almost every industrial leader, disappeared practically overnight. I can't find the exact number, but there were less than 20 people in the entire country who had more than the equivalent of a high school education. Not exactly a recipe for a great transition.
As a result of this, the Congo has been ruled by a series of oppressive dictatorial regimes that have eschewed development of the country in favor of enriching themselves.
In short, in cases like the Congo (which is not an isolated incident), I think it's pretty hard to argue that they unilaterally benefited from Imperialism/Colonization.
edit: Congo was colonized by King Leopold of Belgium not the Dutch.
|
> Knowing this fact, these superior nations would essentially be able to provide better for their colonists and conquered peoples than they could themselves
While true in some cases, this is hardly true in others. Look at places like Canada and the United States where native groups had their populations and ways of life devastated.
|
5pq413
|
CMV: Imperialism is more beneficial for man kind in the long run
|
The basis of this arguments comes from the fact that most imperialist nations are more developed technologically as well as economically than any colonial territories. Knowing this fact, these superior nations would essentially be able to provide better for their colonists and conquered peoples than they could themselves. One of my favorite examples of imperialism better mankind is the British Empire's occupation of India. India was originally a very divided feudal kingdom. After the British conquest, India was westernized which meant school systems were built, industrial society grew, and India was more unified than previously. I also believe that colonies which were already western, such as the American Colonies, should have stayed under British rule for its superior benefits. First the colonies had a permanent trading partner in Great Britain which would alleviate most economic failings. The Thirteen Colonies were also well protected and the colonists, despite their own perceptions, were actually taxed less than Britons in the mother country. By staying in the British Empire both the war of American Independence and 1812 would not have occurred. One could even extrapolate that later wars, such as WW1, would not have occurred due to the deterrent of the superior numbers and resources of the British Empire had she retained all of her colonies.
So for a summary, Imperialism brings tech, peace, and security to its colonies which would not have advanced without imperialism.
| 1,485,191,776
|
TheBlitzMaster
|
dct28zo
|
dct0hv2
| 13
| 6
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.