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: I support Steve Bannon and most of his beliefs.
Before reading about Steven Bannon, I thought the man was a devil as reddit makes him out to be. I thought he was a man who was itching to start World War III and tear down America for his own pleasure. Then I did my research on him and I was shocked at how much I agree with his beliefs. I was a huge Bernie supporter (and still am).
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.kbaw2zPW0#.cg1dMZkj1
This article from Buzzfeed transcribes Bannon's Speech to the Vatican. Everything in there is from his own words and it is where I'm getting my information from.
1) **He wants to do away with crony capitalism and return to the capitalism of the early 80s**, where the little people matter and aren't being used as "commodities" by companies to simply turn a profit. Whether or not that capitalism was a result of Judeo-Christian beliefs or simply due to circumstance, I don't know. But I agree with his belief.
Quote from him: "That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many years and decades of peace. And I believe we’ve come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we’re starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism."
Another quote: "One thing I want to make sure of, if you look at the leaders of capitalism at that time, when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West. They were either active participants in the Jewish faith, they were active participants in the Christians’ faith, and they took their beliefs, and the underpinnings of their beliefs was manifested in the work they did. And I think that’s incredibly important and something that would really become unmoored. I can see this on Wall Street today — I can see this with the securitization of everything is that, everything is looked at as a securitization opportunity. People are looked at as commodities. I don’t believe that our forefathers had that same belief."
2) **He is for the middle class and anti-establishment in the same way that Bernie was.**
"And you’re seeing that whether that was UKIP and Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom, whether it’s these groups in the Low Countries in Europe, whether it’s in France, there’s a new tea party in Germany. The theme is all the same. And the theme is middle-class and working-class people — they’re saying, “Hey, I’m working harder than I’ve ever worked. I’m getting less benefits than I’m ever getting through this, I’m incurring less wealth myself, and I’m seeing a system of fat cats who say they’re conservative and say they back capitalist principles, but all they’re doing is binding with corporatists.” Right? Corporatists, to garner all the benefits for themselves."
Additionally he believes Democrats and Repubs are basically on the same side of the coin.
3) **he is not sympathetic to Putin** - “Because at the end of the day, I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy, that are really an imperialist power that want to expand.”
I said most of his beliefs because I disagree with him on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. I am pro-choice and supportive of gay marriage.
I will only have my view changed by things that Bannon has said or done himself, not by opinion pieces on how he's the devil and the Antichrist.
| >["We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years, aren't we?"](https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/01/trumps-chief-strategist-steve-bannon-no-doubt-the-us-will-be/21704928/)
You down for a war with China?
>["Why is it that President Barack Hussein Obama — who went to Harvard Law School, went to Columbia University and has been hailed by the mainstream media as the brightest, most brilliant guy to ever sit in the White House — how can he not see that we're fighting a global existential war?"](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/steve-bannon-fire-past-comments-islam/story?id=45193278)
This could be lifted from al-Qaeda or ISIS talking points. They love it when we talk like this.
>"One of the issues we have in Garland, Texas, is trying to stop these Sharia courts."
That is utter horseshit. Bannon peddles that same pathetic fear that sharia law is coming to America despite no evidence whatsoever.
>[“I’m not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually really is the state capitalism evil of a kleptocracy,” he continued. “However, I think we, especially the Judeo-Christian West, have to really look at what he’s talking about as far as traditionalism goes, particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism.”](https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/trumps-new-campaign-chief-has-a-nationalist-vision-for-the-w?utm_term=.pb0APmmZ6#.fbN7gmm3w)
He's against Putin's expansion, not his style of governance or his political philosophy.
[This](http://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/i-know-trumps-new-campaign-chairman-steve-bannon-ben-shapiro) is a critique of him written by a highly conservative former contributor to Breitbart, Ben Shapiro. Bannon is a, ahem, "bad hombre." | You said you agree with "most" of his views, but you really only listed three, and I wouldn't consider them his core belief system. You also said you disagree with him on social issues, which is a pretty wide range. In order to evaluate your claim, we are going to need to know a little more about the your views on a wider range of issues.
How does your opinion compare to Bannon on things like
* Muslim Immigration
* Building a Wall with Mexico
* Appointing the Most Recent Supreme Court Justice
* Repealing/Replacing Obamacare
Do you agree or disagree with the executive orders that have been recently passed by the White House? | 5rjyrk | CMV: I support Steve Bannon and most of his beliefs. | Before reading about Steven Bannon, I thought the man was a devil as reddit makes him out to be. I thought he was a man who was itching to start World War III and tear down America for his own pleasure. Then I did my research on him and I was shocked at how much I agree with his beliefs. I was a huge Bernie supporter (and still am).
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.kbaw2zPW0#.cg1dMZkj1
This article from Buzzfeed transcribes Bannon's Speech to the Vatican. Everything in there is from his own words and it is where I'm getting my information from.
1) **He wants to do away with crony capitalism and return to the capitalism of the early 80s**, where the little people matter and aren't being used as "commodities" by companies to simply turn a profit. Whether or not that capitalism was a result of Judeo-Christian beliefs or simply due to circumstance, I don't know. But I agree with his belief.
Quote from him: "That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many years and decades of peace. And I believe we’ve come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we’re starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism."
Another quote: "One thing I want to make sure of, if you look at the leaders of capitalism at that time, when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West. They were either active participants in the Jewish faith, they were active participants in the Christians’ faith, and they took their beliefs, and the underpinnings of their beliefs was manifested in the work they did. And I think that’s incredibly important and something that would really become unmoored. I can see this on Wall Street today — I can see this with the securitization of everything is that, everything is looked at as a securitization opportunity. People are looked at as commodities. I don’t believe that our forefathers had that same belief."
2) **He is for the middle class and anti-establishment in the same way that Bernie was.**
"And you’re seeing that whether that was UKIP and Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom, whether it’s these groups in the Low Countries in Europe, whether it’s in France, there’s a new tea party in Germany. The theme is all the same. And the theme is middle-class and working-class people — they’re saying, “Hey, I’m working harder than I’ve ever worked. I’m getting less benefits than I’m ever getting through this, I’m incurring less wealth myself, and I’m seeing a system of fat cats who say they’re conservative and say they back capitalist principles, but all they’re doing is binding with corporatists.” Right? Corporatists, to garner all the benefits for themselves."
Additionally he believes Democrats and Repubs are basically on the same side of the coin.
3) **he is not sympathetic to Putin** - “Because at the end of the day, I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy, that are really an imperialist power that want to expand.”
I said most of his beliefs because I disagree with him on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. I am pro-choice and supportive of gay marriage.
I will only have my view changed by things that Bannon has said or done himself, not by opinion pieces on how he's the devil and the Antichrist.
| 1,486,000,592 | TRYNAGETGIRLS | dd7wccy | dd7vg40 | 9 | 7 |
CMV : With less people learning how to cook, supermarkets will start to replace fresh produce with pre-made food.
I'm in my 20s and I live in a busy city in Asia where people of my generation treat cooking as more of a hobby rather than a necessary skill.
I am quite content with the selections of produce here as I can literally buy anything from fish around the world, fruits from any continent and even fresh honeycombs and rare spices. But i hardly see anyone buying them at all, and I see that most of them end up in the trash at the backend of the store. I think is connected to the fact that people don't like to cook.
Because of this, I am afraid that supermarkets will stop seeing the value of stocking fresh produce and will start replacing them with boring premade foods. (Fruits will still be around I guess). And it will become harder to find ingredients to cook.
And perhaps in the future, fresh produce will largely be supplied to restaurants or businesses and not to the average consumer. People will rely on getting food prepacked or from eating at restaurants.
Please change my view :( | I can only speak to the USA, but a few trends from around here
1) The Freezer Section has not gotten larger since the 1980s. Pre-made meals have been a large part of the American diet since the 1960s, and hasn't shown any real decline, despite that, the Freezer Section in stores hasn't gotten larger over time.
2) Fresh Produce is largely a loss leader for stores. As you point out, stores throw away a lot of their produce. However, this isn't because "people aren't buying them", its because to an extent they are not meant to be sold. Study after study has shown that people prefer to shop at grocery stores which overflow with fresh fruit and rare fruit, even if they are just buying a TV/frozen dinner. Therefore, while you are legally allowed to buy the fresh produce, the store has already written them off as a loss, but an intentional one, in order to bring people into the store, to buy frozen food. Think of it this way, its not uncommon to see coupons for grocery stores. These coupons need to be printed and circulated. Even if never redeemed, they are not cheap. As an alternative (or supplement) they also front load the store with food which pleases the eye (fresh fruits, exotic fruits, fresh fish) even though they expect no one to buy them. They are essentially second coupons/advertisements to get people into the store. | There's a new trend here in the States; not sure if it's made it to Asia yet, but it's these meal kits delivered to your door. They provide you with all of the ingredients you need to make your meal, plus a recipe card with photos and step-by-step instructions. A lot of young millennials find it convenient -- but it is just as expensive as going out to eat, at least for the time being.
> I think is connected to the fact that people don't like to cook.
Again, I can't say whether or not this is the case in Asia, but here in the US I don't think it's so much that people don't like to cook, but that they never learned how to cook beyond basics. You're right, cooking is a skill, and one that is typically passed down from generation to generation. But as more and more households are lacking a stay-at-home parent, eating out more and cooking less due to time constraints, that skill transference isn't happening. Which is why I'm bound and determined not to let my grandma's beef stew recipe die with her. | 5rnj1d | CMV : With less people learning how to cook, supermarkets will start to replace fresh produce with pre-made food. | I'm in my 20s and I live in a busy city in Asia where people of my generation treat cooking as more of a hobby rather than a necessary skill.
I am quite content with the selections of produce here as I can literally buy anything from fish around the world, fruits from any continent and even fresh honeycombs and rare spices. But i hardly see anyone buying them at all, and I see that most of them end up in the trash at the backend of the store. I think is connected to the fact that people don't like to cook.
Because of this, I am afraid that supermarkets will stop seeing the value of stocking fresh produce and will start replacing them with boring premade foods. (Fruits will still be around I guess). And it will become harder to find ingredients to cook.
And perhaps in the future, fresh produce will largely be supplied to restaurants or businesses and not to the average consumer. People will rely on getting food prepacked or from eating at restaurants.
Please change my view :( | 1,486,050,833 | ministryofcake | dd8ph16 | dd8n7fr | 20 | 2 |
CMV: The deductive problem of evil makes belief in the God of classical theism wholly irrational
Firstly, my view only concerns itself with the God of [classical theism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism), which defines God as 'the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being'. In other words this is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all agree with this definition (as a general rule).
Secondly, I'm best described as an agnostic atheist, and I only append atheism to my agnosticism due to my belief that the burden of proof is wholly on those who claim God exists, and thus atheism is the default position. I am totally open to proofs of the existence of God - anyone interested in philosophy should be.
In essence, I am not aware of a theodicy that is successful at refuting the deductive problem of evil, and I can not personally conceive of one that is successful either. The problem of evil in question is best proposed through one of two ways, the first being J. L. Mackie's inconsistent triad.
> J. L. Mackie gave the following three propositions: God is omnipotent, God is omnibenevolent and Evil exists. Mackie argued that these propositions were inconsistent, and thus, that at least one of these propositions must be false.
The other way is through Epicurus' riddle.
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Please change my view on this! In regards to the specific deductive forms of the problem of evil, because I'm aware of the weaknesses of those based wholly in empiricism. | The difficulty with deductive proofs is that you can technically refute them by demonstrating that there is a bare minimal possibility that a counter example might exist. That can be done as simply as "We don't know very much about most of these things and there might be some minimal amount of 'evil' that cannot be eliminated in a good-maximizing universe." Fortunately, inductive argumentation can resolve that by simply noting that the universe we live in seems very unlikely to be good-maximizing, so the odds that this response is actually valid are negligible. | >Parasites and diseases kill but they don't do so with malice.
Would you volunteer to be infected with brain parasites? You know, because it's not a an evil thing - you should have no problem with it.
The point stands, things like brain parasites don't have to exists, but they do. Why? Is God an asshole, or what? If death HAS to exist, God can make it a lot less painful and devastating than by giving 6 year olds brain parasites. For example, every human can just quietly and painlessly die in the sleep on his/her 100th birthday.
| 5rooie | CMV: The deductive problem of evil makes belief in the God of classical theism wholly irrational | Firstly, my view only concerns itself with the God of [classical theism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism), which defines God as 'the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being'. In other words this is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all agree with this definition (as a general rule).
Secondly, I'm best described as an agnostic atheist, and I only append atheism to my agnosticism due to my belief that the burden of proof is wholly on those who claim God exists, and thus atheism is the default position. I am totally open to proofs of the existence of God - anyone interested in philosophy should be.
In essence, I am not aware of a theodicy that is successful at refuting the deductive problem of evil, and I can not personally conceive of one that is successful either. The problem of evil in question is best proposed through one of two ways, the first being J. L. Mackie's inconsistent triad.
> J. L. Mackie gave the following three propositions: God is omnipotent, God is omnibenevolent and Evil exists. Mackie argued that these propositions were inconsistent, and thus, that at least one of these propositions must be false.
The other way is through Epicurus' riddle.
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Please change my view on this! In regards to the specific deductive forms of the problem of evil, because I'm aware of the weaknesses of those based wholly in empiricism. | 1,486,061,864 | awolz | dd91ryf | dd8zaxt | 2 | 0 |
CMV: A protest turning violent does not negate the point of the protest
If a protest turns violent (people being attacked, property destroyed etc) that doesn't "spoil" the protest. The protesters can still be in the right for protesting something even if people on their side are being hostile. If people on your side are being violent that doesn't make you wrong all of a sudden. If that were the case almost every political affiliation would be in the wrong. I'm not arguing against peaceful protest, nor am I advocating for riots or violence. I'm just saying that the protesters message matters more than the point their means of getting that message across. For example if an anti-fascist protest happens and a protester punches someone. The protest isn't instantly evil, to claim that it is would be ignoring the whole point of the anti-fascist protest in the first place.
All I'm saying is if someone does something bad in a protest, that doesn't make the protest bad.
____
> *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!*
| > All I'm saying is if someone does something bad in a protest, that doesn't make the protest bad.
I think you've chosen the wrong argument here. I think what you should say is that the *reason* for the protest might not be wrong just because it turns violent, as in the position or argument that the protestors are basing their protest on can stand regardless of the protest actions. That could be true.
However, a protest *is* what happens at it. A protest that turns violent *is*, by definition, a bad protest. There is a difference behind the *position* of the protestors and the *behaviour* of the protestors. Bad behaviour doesn't mean a bad position, true, but the protest itself is the behaviour, not the position. You can hold the position with or without protesting. The behaviour is the protest and the protest is the behaviour.
Being "in the right" or "in the wrong" is also multifaceted. If I tell you that 2+2=5 and you say, no, it's 4, and I disagree, so you punch me in the face, then you are *factually* correct in your information but *morally* wrong in your actions on how to convey that information.
Beyond that academic discussion, there is a deeper issue though. Resorting to violence itself tends to come from a few main sources. People who resort to violence generally often can't win the argument on merits and get frustrated, so turn to violence because they truly believe something even if they can't demonstrate it to be true or articulate it. For example, the claims that Milo is a white supremacists, racist, sexist/misogynist, Islamophobic, or otherwise are baseless because there's both no evidence of any of that and there's plenty of evidence he isn't. But, he tends to vehemently criticize the "social justice" left, so they hate him and either tend to shout him down or turn to violence, since they can't win by debating on facts and reasoning. (I say this as somebody who disagrees with much of what Milo has to say in academic terms, but his critics are more wrong than he is.)
Another related reason people turn to violence is they've fallen prey to [ingroup/outgroup tribalism](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201012/in-groups-out-groups-and-the-psychology-crowds), which is perhaps best modeled by [Realistic Conflict Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory) and best demonstrated in the [Robbers Cave Experiment](http://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html) (RCE).
Essentially you can create hatred, vitriol, and violence between groups is two easy steps. Step 1 is to divide people into groups. That can be random as in the RCE, arbitrary such as the eye colour in Jane Elliott's classroom experiment, or essentially any differentiator: political leanings, favorite sports team, religion, nationality, accent, height, PC vs Mac, Android vs iOS, Coke vs Pepsi.
Step 2 is to set the groups in conflict, either via a competition (rewards, punishment, social status, attention, special privileges, etc.) or sparked by group-based insults ("fascist right", "communist left", "criminal blacks", "privileged whites", "terrorist Muslims", etc.).
That's it. Then buy some popcorn and watch it degrade into violence. In the RCE there were fistfights, sabotage, burning of other teams flag, and so on. In Jane Elliott's class, the different groups oppressed each other given the chance.
In addition to the violence and hatred, the groups tend to create in-group social norms arbitrarily and out-group narratives, typically with "us" being saints and righteous and "them" being evil. Both sides tend to rationalize, including rationalizing violence because "they" are evil, and the ends justify the means. Facts be damned.
In the U.S., this tribalist behaviour is [clearly demonstrable](http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-1-growing-ideological-consistency/#interactive) in the massively partisan division. On top of that, you have the fringe voices becoming the justifications. On the fringe right you have the white supremacists who statistically represent a small rounding error of Trump supporters yet these are who the political left use to smear Trump supporters. On the fringe left you have the "social justice" activists and anarchists who represent only a fraction of the anti-Trump crowd (and/or Clinton supporters), yet this is who the political right use to smear anti-Trump supporters. (Milo is one of them too, who equate SJWs with liberals or anyone left of center, which is where he is very wrong of course.)
It also happens that these are the two groups that instigate Steps 1 and 2 of Realistic Conflict Theory. The fringe bigots on the right group people by traits: skin colour/race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and so on. They put them in a competition in a hierarchy with the dominant/majority at the top and the marginalized minorities at the bottom, and suggest everybody must conform to the interests of people at the higher end of the hierarchy.
The social justice left also group people by traits: skin colour/race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and so on. They put them in a competition in a hierarchy with the marginalized minorities at the top and the dominant/majority at the bottom (known as the [progressive stack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack)), and suggest everybody must conform to the interests of people at the higher end of the hierarchy. And, they refer to groups having "voices" and treat people based on their grouping. It tends to derive from a form of Marxism of flipping the powers as applied to minority status instead of by peasants vs industrialists.
Voila, both of these fringe groups both contribute to creating hatred between groups. Both contribute to each others existence and power, and both pull the partisan politics to more extremes. And both are very, very wrong. Both commit the [fallacy of division](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division), assuming things that apply to the groups as a whole apply to individuals described by those groupings, and both commit the [base rate fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy). The fringe right confuse the fact that "most terrorists are Muslim" (true) with "most Muslims are terrorists" (not true). The fringe left confuse "most privileged people tend to be whites/males" (true) with "most whites/males tend to be privileged" (not true).
The correct answer is for both fringes to stop treating people as being part of a group defined by traits, and instead treat people as individuals who have traits. Treat them by the content of the character (merit), and not the color of their skin (race). This is, in fact, what is written into human rights codes, that all individuals are equal to other individuals and have the right not to be judged based on such traits, except where the trait is the merit of interest itself. It is then violations of that rule that are bigotry, and that applies equally to all people of all races, sexes, gender identities, nationalities, ethnicities, and so on. It's the violation of the principle that matters, not the particular race or group that matters.
So what does this have to do with violence and protests? Protests often turn violent when the protesters are themselves subject to tribalist tendencies; the "us vs them" mentality. This is why right-wing racists turn violent against racial groups and fringe left-wing groups, and why left-wing Marxists tend to turn violent against right-wing groups. It's also why liberals, libertarians, and moderate conservatives don't tend to turn violent, because they are based on common rules for all and equal freedom and equal rights for all, not group against group fighting for power.
So, in that context, a protest turning violent is an indicator that the protestors are not doing so based on taking a reasoned position, but rather are being tribalist. It's not so much your example, "if an anti-fascist protest happens and a protestor punches someone", it's more that the "anti-fascist" protest is very likely wrong that the people they are protesting are fascist at all.
| > Riots give legitimacy to the points of the opposition. It validates them and negates the points of the protestors. By trying to argue that they do not do that you are arguing that they are good, and that means you condone them.
You've made a hell of a lot of inferences in a really short space, so let me try to break it down
> Riots give legitimacy to the points of the opposition.
Absolutely not. Picture this scenario: Fascist protest because they want muslim internment camps. Clashes with Muslim protest who obviously don't want this and want to behead fascists. Violence erupts in one of these groups. Does that legitimate the view of the other group? Of course not.
Ideas and values have legitimacy *regardless* of what your opponent is up to. If the legitimacy of your movement depends on the behavior of your opponent, rather than standing on its own merit, you've already lost.
> It validates them and negates the points of the protestors.
Again, a "point" is either logically sound or it isn't. It's either morally sound or it isn't. You don't have a belief or a value and suddenly change it because of the violent behavior of someone else that happens to think like you do.
Say that some famous mass murderer was a vegetarian and hated smoking. His violent actions in no way would invalidate neither vegetarianism nor being tobacco free.
> By trying to argue that they do not do that you are arguing that they are good, and that means you condone them.
Just because someone doesn't agree with your point that all protesters should be put in the same bag, it doesn't mean that they condone violence. That is an absolutely ridiculous accusation.
By that argument, I should also be able to say that you condone the actions of every Trump supporter, including the Canadian terrorist from last week. Therefore, you condone and support terrorism. Of course, I wouldn't say that, because it is a ridiculous argument to make which doesn't have a leg to stand on.
There's a lot of room for plenty of positions between "every violent protester is the responsibility of every democratic voter" and "I will give my life to stop someone from destroying public property". Most people are fairly solidly somewhere along that continuum and far from the extremes. You are coming across as an extremist.
| 5rp57h | CMV: A protest turning violent does not negate the point of the protest | If a protest turns violent (people being attacked, property destroyed etc) that doesn't "spoil" the protest. The protesters can still be in the right for protesting something even if people on their side are being hostile. If people on your side are being violent that doesn't make you wrong all of a sudden. If that were the case almost every political affiliation would be in the wrong. I'm not arguing against peaceful protest, nor am I advocating for riots or violence. I'm just saying that the protesters message matters more than the point their means of getting that message across. For example if an anti-fascist protest happens and a protester punches someone. The protest isn't instantly evil, to claim that it is would be ignoring the whole point of the anti-fascist protest in the first place.
All I'm saying is if someone does something bad in a protest, that doesn't make the protest bad.
____
> *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!*
| 1,486,066,393 | Aman3003 | dd9j09e | dd9i8oc | 355 | 9 |
CMV: Virtual Reality will not take off in the next 20 years
a | Your entire post is based completely on your own opinion of what you THINK vr is...
>I imagine if people who were originally okay were to use VR for hours and months you may start then see the side effects that only the minority would suffer.
It's been out almost a year, no show effects yet. So that assumption is wrong.
>First problem is motion sickness, right now our only treatment is drugs
Again, not true. I feel no motion sickness when playing. And why do drugs need to be involved. Your argument here is like saying boating will never take off because people get motion sickness and take drugs to counteract it. Some can't go on boats without getting sick, but why should that deprive the majority of users from getting to enjoy it?
>Then theres derealization, becoming a neurotic person is NOT recomended.
How are those 2 things linked? Do you forget your dreams are not real and confuse them with reality?
The number one downside to vr is cost. Many people can't afford it. But it's a new technology, so of course is going to cost a lot and there will be those who are against it. Many were against laptops back in the day, look where they are now. Cost will go down, the masses will try it, and it will become mainstream. Everyone I've put into it were blown away, and did not have motion sickness. They all also said they want to get their own.
| [Just leaving this here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAeVE3Lsr2I)
Jesse makes a good point for why it'll be sooner than 20 years at 0:20. The porn industry won't be that slow to capitalize on it. | 5rp8zc | CMV: Virtual Reality will not take off in the next 20 years | a | 1,486,067,398 | ItsNotHectic | dd9jnak | dd94ixf | 2 | 1 |
CMV: The Berkeley protest of Milo Yiannopolous was counterproductive and stupid
My politics lean strongly to the left. My views on “free speech” are adequately summarized [here]( http://www.ginandtacos.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/MUH-FREEDOMS-fixed.png). I support the rights of bigots to express their views, but it isn’t my top priority, and the idea that they should be protected from criticism and consequences is laughable to me.
At the same time, it’s hard for me to think of a more counterproductive response to a troll like Milo Yiannopolous than the reception he received last night at Berkeley. It makes Milo feel important and validates him in the eyes of people who accuse “the left” of thought-policing. It saps credibility and strength from the movements that oppose his ideas and is a distraction from opposing the Trump administration on actual policy. At best, it’s a waste of time.
Trump and his allies pose a serious threat to the press and thus the free exchange of ideas. (Don't get me started on Putin.) Effectively opposing Trump means coming down *hard* on the side of the ACLU version of free speech. Shutting down an earthstain like Milo with violence, while literally “Constitutional,” is hypocritical and unacceptable.
This protest “no-platformed” a toxic egomaniac in a way that was guaranteed to bring him more attention than he would have gotten otherwise. As a leftist, I think it was a terrible move.
Is there anything useful or redeeming about this protest that I’m missing? Am I just concern-trolling? CMV.
| It is interesting how frequently protest is condemned by linking it to violence as if somehow violence has no place in social change. When we look back on famous progressive social endeavors like the civil rights movement or the Indian independence movement, we tend to think of peaceful demonstration prevailing in the face of oppressive forces.
Peaceful demonstration and leaders like MLK and Ghandi are only one side of the story. It happens to be the side that the history books and the politicians like to focus on because its the pretty part. The reality is that rioting played a huge role in both of those movements and has played a huge role in just about every social movement.
During the civil rights movement many innocent people were hurt and lots of property was damaged but look at what was accomplished. You don't have to condone violence to understand the important role it plays in these situations. It isn't right or wrong and it isn't better or worse than peaceful protest. It is when both occur that real change happens. | 1. You're talking about it. Without events like this, or analogues, the messages in the news could easily become that of contentment, calm, acceptance of the status quo. Short of polling, if people don't make headlines, versions of reality don't get discussed. The protests achieved significant focus on not only Milo and his messages, but on the system of beliefs he represents and that is part of our current administration.
2. Milo is important. Again, if we don't elevate his voice, expose it as counter-productive and un-American that that voice will quietly start shaping policy. Maybe not his exactly voice, but those in the administration who agree with him. So...to say he's not important is to say that people with his views aren't important and .... right now they are _really fucking important_. | 5rpz2d | CMV: The Berkeley protest of Milo Yiannopolous was counterproductive and stupid | My politics lean strongly to the left. My views on “free speech” are adequately summarized [here]( http://www.ginandtacos.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/MUH-FREEDOMS-fixed.png). I support the rights of bigots to express their views, but it isn’t my top priority, and the idea that they should be protected from criticism and consequences is laughable to me.
At the same time, it’s hard for me to think of a more counterproductive response to a troll like Milo Yiannopolous than the reception he received last night at Berkeley. It makes Milo feel important and validates him in the eyes of people who accuse “the left” of thought-policing. It saps credibility and strength from the movements that oppose his ideas and is a distraction from opposing the Trump administration on actual policy. At best, it’s a waste of time.
Trump and his allies pose a serious threat to the press and thus the free exchange of ideas. (Don't get me started on Putin.) Effectively opposing Trump means coming down *hard* on the side of the ACLU version of free speech. Shutting down an earthstain like Milo with violence, while literally “Constitutional,” is hypocritical and unacceptable.
This protest “no-platformed” a toxic egomaniac in a way that was guaranteed to bring him more attention than he would have gotten otherwise. As a leftist, I think it was a terrible move.
Is there anything useful or redeeming about this protest that I’m missing? Am I just concern-trolling? CMV.
| 1,486,074,462 | GreenyBlues | dd9aj3m | dd98b0c | 32 | 3 |
CMV: Milo Yiannopoulos is the worst choice of a person to speak at Universities.
I think the fact that certain Universities knowingly allow someone who perpetuates hate speech, who has instigated attacks against individuals, and more importantly does not instill civil discussion is insane. I think bringing people with opposing views to liberal campuses is a good thing, but Milo Yiannopoulos is one of the worst people that could come speak. Instead, Universities should bring people who actually instill more civil discussion. Side note: I think that Milo should be able to express his views, and I do not think that protestors should stop someone from attending one of his free speech events. | I go to UC Berkeley and was present at the protests/riots last night, so this issue has been on my mind for a while.
The thing that's important to keep in mind about Milo Yiannopoulos is that he has built his entire career on inciting opposition from the left. His whole shtick is that the left is a regressive political force that shuts out all opposing viewpoints on the basis of political correctness. This is why he says things that seem like they're designed to piss people off. His relevance depends on consistent liberal outrage directed against him.
So the problem with shutting out a speaker like Milo - whether by protesting his speaking engagements or simply having the administration ban him from speaking to begin with - is that it plays right into his hands. It reinforces the worldview that he instills in his supporters - that the right is under siege by the forces of political correctness.
To see this effect in action, just look at the response to the events of last night. It was the top story on Breitbart. It was the top story on /r/the_donald. It was referenced in a tweet by the president. Preventing Milo from speaking is the worst thing the left could have done to undermine his popularity. He wants to face resistance because it fuels his political narrative. | I live in NJ. In 2014 students at Rutgers protested former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice from speaking on campus to the point of her cancelling her appearance. It was not as extreme as this situation, but the point was made clear - her views were not welcome.
About a year later Barack Obama came to the school and claimed, "If you disagree with somebody, bring them in and ask them tough questions. Hold their feet to the fire, make them defend their positions. ... Don't be scared to take somebody on. Don't feel like you got to shut your ears off because you're too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities. Go at them if they're not making any sense." Smart words that apply to your view. | 5rr1zb | CMV: Milo Yiannopoulos is the worst choice of a person to speak at Universities. | I think the fact that certain Universities knowingly allow someone who perpetuates hate speech, who has instigated attacks against individuals, and more importantly does not instill civil discussion is insane. I think bringing people with opposing views to liberal campuses is a good thing, but Milo Yiannopoulos is one of the worst people that could come speak. Instead, Universities should bring people who actually instill more civil discussion. Side note: I think that Milo should be able to express his views, and I do not think that protestors should stop someone from attending one of his free speech events. | 1,486,085,871 | rectumpirate | dd9j7ic | dd9j4g7 | 36 | 20 |
CMV: Makeshift roadside memorials for victims of accidents or murder are intrusive and shouldn't be left for more than a month or so.
I'm talking about things like a "ghost bike", a piece of plywood with "RIP Billy, We love you" spray painted on it. A bunch of stuffed animals, flowers, and candles loosely organized. And I'm talking specifically about these that are placed at the scene of the crime or accident, not within a cemetery or other designated memorial place.
I understand that it's a method of grieving. It's not for me, but I can respect that people grieve differently. My issue is that the general public shouldn't have to participate in your grieving, especially not for an extended period of time. These usually aren't well tended to and create litter (cards, ribbons, etc.) and start to look trashy over time (stuffed animals can't stay out in the elements for years, candles and vases tip over, signs hang crooked, etc.). In the case of crimes, it's not a very attractive thing to be advertising murders in your neighborhood. It not only affects real estate, but it's a constant reminder of a crime that happened near you that you may not want to be reminded about every day. It's not a fun thing to explain to new visitors, either.
In general, I think long term grieving should be limited to your own house, your place of worship, the cemetery, or within your own mind. Nobody puts up a memorial if someone has a heart attack jogging in the park, but if they get hit by a car, there's a memorial.
**The primary reason for my feeling on this is that it is intrusive, because it forces strangers to be involved in your grief.**
> *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!* | I don't think it only has to do with grieving, there's another important function of roadside memorials. People do pay attention, and knowing that there have been accidents on a possibly dangerous part of the road might lead people to drive more carefully.
Even though the grieving process is important to the victims loved ones and they need to move on, those memorials can serve a purpose by raising attention to roadside victims.
Car and traffic accidents happen frequently and careless drivers are responsible for thousands of victims a year.
Yes I also get an eery feeling while going past a memorial, but it always reminds me that driving responsibly is important.
And to the victims of those accidents, their memorials can act as a warning and they can be remembered in this way.
| First of all I think that abandoned memorials should be removed if they start to negatively impact the neighborhood, as I think it defeats the purpose of having the memorial in the first place.
The purpose is what I want to talk about. It is in a way involving you in the grief of other people, but no one is expecting you to start crying every time you see it. You just have to know what it means. You don't even have to actively think about it, but if someone asks you could tell them and then they'd know. Now if we're talking about a recent murder or accident and someone is moving in then they're going to find out anyways, but like this it isn't gossip. It's just an open conversation about a tragedy that happened.
If having that memorial helps the family that lost a child or a parent even a little in their lifetime of grief, isn't it okay if it's a little inconvenient? | 5rrs1t | CMV: Makeshift roadside memorials for victims of accidents or murder are intrusive and shouldn't be left for more than a month or so. | I'm talking about things like a "ghost bike", a piece of plywood with "RIP Billy, We love you" spray painted on it. A bunch of stuffed animals, flowers, and candles loosely organized. And I'm talking specifically about these that are placed at the scene of the crime or accident, not within a cemetery or other designated memorial place.
I understand that it's a method of grieving. It's not for me, but I can respect that people grieve differently. My issue is that the general public shouldn't have to participate in your grieving, especially not for an extended period of time. These usually aren't well tended to and create litter (cards, ribbons, etc.) and start to look trashy over time (stuffed animals can't stay out in the elements for years, candles and vases tip over, signs hang crooked, etc.). In the case of crimes, it's not a very attractive thing to be advertising murders in your neighborhood. It not only affects real estate, but it's a constant reminder of a crime that happened near you that you may not want to be reminded about every day. It's not a fun thing to explain to new visitors, either.
In general, I think long term grieving should be limited to your own house, your place of worship, the cemetery, or within your own mind. Nobody puts up a memorial if someone has a heart attack jogging in the park, but if they get hit by a car, there's a memorial.
**The primary reason for my feeling on this is that it is intrusive, because it forces strangers to be involved in your grief.**
> *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!* | 1,486,094,704 | duktalo | dd9q19r | dd9prdw | 19 | 5 |
CMV: Violence against strangers in the Berkeley riot did not align with anarchist rhetoric.
It seems that violence in Berkeley was committed against innocent bystanders. This violence was committed by either lovers of violence or fools.
There is no school of anarchism I'm aware of that condones senseless violence against strangers. I understand destruction of property and violence against outspoken ideological opponents as expressions of anarchism, but nothing about going out and hurting random people furthers the anarchist cause.
It is claimed that ~100-150 people, a group identifying as an anarchist "black bloc" that has caused problems in Berkeley in the past, used "paramilitary tactics" to destroy property and *beat civilians with blunt objects.* If they had no indication that these civilians were fascists, they were not acting as antifas, they were acting as violent hooligans. Even if they've convinced themselves that they are anarchists, their thirst for violence has superseded their values and goals.
My speculation is that these people that claim to be anarchists are a mixture of opportunists that like violence and borderline-violent anarchists seeing red from where they perceive our country to have fallen. Maybe they have convinced themselves that their actions will further the cause of anarchism, but I'd wager a tiny minority of anarchists support their actions against random civilians. | > There is no school of anarchism I'm aware of that condones senseless violence against strangers.
Antifa groups often operate under the pledge "by any means necessary", a quote from French anarchist [Jean-Paul Sartre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre). Those means certainly include violence, although "senseless" is questionable.
To an anarchist, violent protests fight back against fascism's supporters while attracting attention and possible recruits for anarchy. An anarchist arrested at the inauguration [said](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/anarchists-respond-to-trumps-inauguration-by-any-means-necessary.html) "said the goal of the protests — to get television stations to cut away from the inauguration, even for a moment — had been met. [...] it has brought more attention to people who were against Trump and what he stands for".
So, to an anarchist at Berkeley violence *does* align with their rhetoric. To them, the violence was not senseless and was necessary for their goals. | >There is no school of anarchism I'm aware of that condones senseless violence against strangers.
Right, but this is the slippery slope itself: what constitutes "senseless" violence versus violence that is somehow justified is completely subjective and unclear once you abandon the notion of rights and laws.
>It is claimed that ~100-150 people, a group identifying as an anarchist "black bloc" that has caused problems in Berkeley in the past, used "paramilitary tactics" to destroy property and beat civilians with blunt objects.
These terrorists would defend their actions by saying that the people they beat were not civilians, but rather Trump supporters, and so clearly supporters of fascism who deserved a beating. The mob is not a rational entity, and all political violence ever really amounts to is the mob beating up people they don't like. It's really sort of a great reflection of why anarchism is a bad idea.
>Maybe they have convinced themselves that their actions will further the cause of anarchism, but I'd wager a tiny minority of anarchists support their actions against random civilians.
What, in your view, delineates a civilian from someone against whom violence is justified? | 5rruvm | CMV: Violence against strangers in the Berkeley riot did not align with anarchist rhetoric. | It seems that violence in Berkeley was committed against innocent bystanders. This violence was committed by either lovers of violence or fools.
There is no school of anarchism I'm aware of that condones senseless violence against strangers. I understand destruction of property and violence against outspoken ideological opponents as expressions of anarchism, but nothing about going out and hurting random people furthers the anarchist cause.
It is claimed that ~100-150 people, a group identifying as an anarchist "black bloc" that has caused problems in Berkeley in the past, used "paramilitary tactics" to destroy property and *beat civilians with blunt objects.* If they had no indication that these civilians were fascists, they were not acting as antifas, they were acting as violent hooligans. Even if they've convinced themselves that they are anarchists, their thirst for violence has superseded their values and goals.
My speculation is that these people that claim to be anarchists are a mixture of opportunists that like violence and borderline-violent anarchists seeing red from where they perceive our country to have fallen. Maybe they have convinced themselves that their actions will further the cause of anarchism, but I'd wager a tiny minority of anarchists support their actions against random civilians. | 1,486,095,746 | Ensurdagen | dd9sisp | dd9p1r1 | 6 | 3 |
CMV on sanctions on Russia and having Trumps view of Russian foreign policy
I am having a tough time here because I am vehemently anti-Trump in pretty much every way, but I can see his point for wanting to have a good relationship with Russia.
To clarify, my motivation for wanting a good relationship with Russia is most likely very different from Trumps (I assume that his is financial and specifically for his or his cabinets personal gain, but I am not really hear for that). My belief on having a good relationship with Russia is that it moves us one step closer to a global peace of sorts.
I will admit to being woefully under informed regarding tactics of foreign policy, which is why I am here. I feel like I am missing a key piece of the argument for Russian foreign policy, and I'm not sure what that piece is.
My confusion stems from the lifting of sanctions off Russia. I understand they were put in place to punish Russia for hacking attempts, but it seems to me they would be mostly symbolic in nature, and wouldn't really hurt Russia as other countries could sell them tech if needed, or it could be smuggled by covert means if they really wanted something (they've shown the use of covert means in the past, so why not now?).
To clarify further, I come from a psychotherapy background and believe strongly in human empathy and understanding all sides of an issue, which is why I have a hard time jumping on the Russia Hate Train, but I am also aware that interpersonal individual relationships and government relationships are completely different.
Please help, very confused. It's a yuge disaster.
(also, I apologize for any grammar mistakes, let's go with the writing on mobile excuse for now) | Russia's interests are in direct conflict with the interests of the United States. The basis of US foreign policy is that all world governments should strive towards democracy and that the US should use it's extensive power to protect democracy. Russia's actions under the leadership of Vladimir Putin are a threat to that mission. Putin is a corrupt autocrat who has used his power to suppress the press, civil liberties, and political opposition. Putin is suspected of using power to rig Russia's own elections to keep the ruling party in charge. Under Putin Russia has been expanding it's influence in Eastern Europe and Eastern European leaders are worried that Russia may lead a full on invasion.
A friendly relationship with Russia isn't undesirable, but Trump's actions suggest that he prioritizes relations with Russia over our Western allies. Trump has discussed pulling out of NATO ( an organization of nations that puts a serious power check on Russia) he favors the breaking up of the EU which is another major force against Russian influence, he has never criticized Putin but has insulted our allies, he was unwilling to acknowledge Russian influence in the 2016 election, he directly asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails, his campaign softened the GOP platform on Ukraine, Trump's campaign was in contact with Russia throughout the election, his Secretary of State has business ties to Russia, Trump has had unrecorded calls with Putin (which is highly irregular) and an unverified dossier by an MI6 spy alleges that Trump and Putin conspired with one another to win the 2016 presidential election. Naturally, there's a lot of suspicion that Trump has an unacceptable amount of loyalty to a foreign adversary of the United States. | I guess one side of the whole issue with America's Russian relationship and the sanctions is that it can be seen as though we are letting them off with just a light slap on the wrist. It's not that we, or at least most people, hate Russia, it's just that some people feel that they need to be held accountable for their actions. When Trump lifted the sanctions it steers us to a path where we could just let Russia, mostly the government, do some unethical stuff.
We've had a tense relationship with Russia, and we should approach them differently than some other countries. I feel as though we should be amicable with them, but we must be able to put our foot down at times. Now, the sanctions were the best we could probably do, we don't want to actually fight Russia or start some petty arguments with them. I feel that letting Russia off the hook is cheap and might cause some problems. I would prefer if we made them actually work and attempt to prove that they deserve the sanctions to be lifted.
Also, some people fear that by letting Russia be free and unregulated that they would be able to manipulate American politics. A lot of people do not like the government in Russia, mostly Putin and his friends. If the administration were to let them off easily, it sets up a chain of events that could lead to some direct interference and also Russia being able to abuse the situation.
I hope this kind of helps, but I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons why people don't personally like the whole ordeal. | 5rv5y8 | CMV on sanctions on Russia and having Trumps view of Russian foreign policy | I am having a tough time here because I am vehemently anti-Trump in pretty much every way, but I can see his point for wanting to have a good relationship with Russia.
To clarify, my motivation for wanting a good relationship with Russia is most likely very different from Trumps (I assume that his is financial and specifically for his or his cabinets personal gain, but I am not really hear for that). My belief on having a good relationship with Russia is that it moves us one step closer to a global peace of sorts.
I will admit to being woefully under informed regarding tactics of foreign policy, which is why I am here. I feel like I am missing a key piece of the argument for Russian foreign policy, and I'm not sure what that piece is.
My confusion stems from the lifting of sanctions off Russia. I understand they were put in place to punish Russia for hacking attempts, but it seems to me they would be mostly symbolic in nature, and wouldn't really hurt Russia as other countries could sell them tech if needed, or it could be smuggled by covert means if they really wanted something (they've shown the use of covert means in the past, so why not now?).
To clarify further, I come from a psychotherapy background and believe strongly in human empathy and understanding all sides of an issue, which is why I have a hard time jumping on the Russia Hate Train, but I am also aware that interpersonal individual relationships and government relationships are completely different.
Please help, very confused. It's a yuge disaster.
(also, I apologize for any grammar mistakes, let's go with the writing on mobile excuse for now) | 1,486,142,143 | arewehavingfun | ddatwwq | ddasmi2 | 6 | 2 |
CMV: Boxing is barbaric and should be outlawed
My experience with boxing comes from stories on HBO's real sports and a roommate who is obsessed with it. Him and his friends who watch boxing with him celebrate the biggest knockouts and hardest punches. I just find the sport very barbaric as its intention is to hurt your opponent to the point of knocking them out (sometimes unconscious) or so that the judges will agree that you fought better on a round by round basis. The boxers have a high rate of brain damage and take large amounts of pain that the fans only celebrate. It exploits under privileged people by damaging their brain for money.
Arguments that I have found unconvincing: *Boxing has become more regulated by shorting fight lengths.* This does not stop the essence of the sport and the goal in hurting your opponent.
*Other sports have brain injuries and other health risks.* The difference here is that in football and hockey the goal is to score points by putting a puck in a net or the ball through the field goal. Injuries result in the roughness of play rather than the other team intentionally trying to hurt you to gain score. | So what if its barbaric? It's the boxer's choice to fight. It's the crowds choice to watch. No one is forcing them. And on top of that, boxing is fun! It's fun to fight, it's fun to push yourself to that edge and be in danger. It's fun to test yourself against another person.
Now as for the brain damage there is more and more work being done to figure out how to stop that, and the answer actually might be removing the boxing gloves. Bare knuckle fighting is far far safer and causes far less injuries to the fighters; despite popular belief.
On top of that under privileged? You do realize the top paid athletes in the world are boxers? Many fighters grew up fairly privileged lives. It takes money to train well. | Boxing may be barbaric, but on what grounds should it be outlawed?
The participants are consenting adults that are practicing a martial art and are generally paid well if they are particularly skilled (unethical managers that take the winnings notwithstanding). They know what they are getting into.
Additionally, Boxing doesn't exist in an absence of demand. If you remove legal, monitored fights, you just drive the fighters and venues into the Black Market where there are no standards of medical professionals on hand or other rules that reduce the likelyhood of maiming or death.
On a more positive note, martial arts have merit in training the body, disciplining the mind, and giving people some skills for self-defense. Boxing isn't that different in that reguard. It requires athletic ability, situational awareness, and is an effective form of fighting, even if it's generally limited to teaching punches. | 5rvonf | CMV: Boxing is barbaric and should be outlawed | My experience with boxing comes from stories on HBO's real sports and a roommate who is obsessed with it. Him and his friends who watch boxing with him celebrate the biggest knockouts and hardest punches. I just find the sport very barbaric as its intention is to hurt your opponent to the point of knocking them out (sometimes unconscious) or so that the judges will agree that you fought better on a round by round basis. The boxers have a high rate of brain damage and take large amounts of pain that the fans only celebrate. It exploits under privileged people by damaging their brain for money.
Arguments that I have found unconvincing: *Boxing has become more regulated by shorting fight lengths.* This does not stop the essence of the sport and the goal in hurting your opponent.
*Other sports have brain injuries and other health risks.* The difference here is that in football and hockey the goal is to score points by putting a puck in a net or the ball through the field goal. Injuries result in the roughness of play rather than the other team intentionally trying to hurt you to gain score. | 1,486,147,221 | rain_parkour | ddaqkcf | ddapwik | 5 | 4 |
CMV: I need to invest less in my studies, otherwise I will remain socially weird and I will never be able to connect with people on a deep level.
First of all I hope that this topic is not too subjective and it is allowed to be posted here even though I have read the Submission Rules. I just feel like that this subreddit can be really helpful. If not, I want to apologize for any inconveniences and feel free to delete this post.
**TL;DR**: the headline.
Long version:
I am a 23yo male studying mathematics with minor in computer science and am currently pursuing a master's degree. Academically I would say that I am pretty successful: I have very good grades, acquired several scholarships, am working as a student assistant in my university and the staff there knows me well. I even consider to achieve a PhD or a second master's degree after completing my current major. I also thought about working in a company (since I have never worked somewhere outside the university) or work in a voluntary capacity during my studies to improve my CV and therefore my job prospects.
My studies are very important for me, so I take them very seriously. Therefore they are taking the majority of my time: usually I go to university at 9.30 a.m. and leave at around 6-8 p.m. During that time I go to the lectures, study in the library or doing sportive activities. After that I go home and recover from the stress caused by the effort for my studies. Once or twice a week I also need to go to the physiotherapist because of my tinnitus, back, neck and shoulder problems.
But because of that I only have few leisure time and fear to neglect my social life, become socially awkward and never be able to connect with people. Let me elaborate this:
I suffer from social anxiety in the past, especially in present of girls (never had a girlfriend), and always had a hard time to converse with people. I even went to the therapist because of this.
The thing I observed is that people who are very good at conversations have also experienced a lot of things and so have a variety of topics they can talk about. School- and university-related topics are one of the few things I can really talk about. But since this is not always everyone's topic, I often do not know what to talk about with people otherwise because I can't think outside the box. This is one of the reasons I think I should spend more time to socialize to have more life experience and don't rely on others to initiate. Especially because I am really bad at it.
It does not help either that mathematics is a subject that is all about understanding, so even talking about that can be really annoying if you can't follow (e.g. my fellow student and friend tells me stuff about his advanced statistics homework which I can't understand because I do not visit the same class and am more specialized in algebra). It is already difficult enough to find people who attend algebra classes, but even then as I said it is really hard to talk about that because algebra is really abstract.
I already decreased my effort in my studies since I have finished my bachelor's degree (doing only about 2/3 the credits which are recommended by the curriculum) and have improved my social skills a little bit. But it seems like this is not enough.
Lately I was even able to have my first date ever (with almost 23 years). I enjoyed the time with the girl I dated and was absolutely sure that we liked each other despite her giving me mixed signals. I confessed my love to her, but in the end she did not feel the same way and I acted really stupid (being clingy, literally begging her to be my girlfriend, ...). I feel like I could have prevented such a drama if I would have had more dating experience which I did not get because of my studies. And I really want to have a girlfriend in the future who I can trust fully and enjoy my life with.
It's not like I have not tried to get better at socializing. For example once a week I go working at a small restaurant where I work as a waiter. Sometimes I can chat with the customers there but this is also not the place where I really can connect with people.
Maybe I should also mention that my hobbies which I pursue in my remaining leisure time are also very specific and not very social:
- E.g. I enjoy playing Pokémon competitively on [Pokémon Showdown](http://pokemonshowdown.com/) but you need to have some knowledge to understand the battle mechanics. I like to play video games in general, but haven't got time lately to play them too.
- I usually hang out on the Internet a lot, especially on Pokémon Showdown, YouTube or reddit (Hey guys!).
- I have also mentioned that I am doing sports at my university (sigh...), namely fitness and Floorball. While being potentially social, in fitness I just work out alone and in Floorball we don't really talk much. And I don't know how to change.
I have the feeling that I am still missing too much out of my life and don't know if the effort for my studies will be really worth it. But I also do not perform poorly in my studies so I do not have any problems regarding finding a job etc., that's why I would like to have my view changed.
**Edit**: Just want to be more detailed about the date in my post:
I have dated the girl the girl twice: The first one was absolutely awesome, this was the moment I fell for her. On the other hand the second date did not went really well because it seemed like she backflipped her personality and acted ignorantly and coldly. But when she started to notice that I was sad/pissed she immediately turned nice again but I did not care during this date (so this was also a drama that I have not mentioned). Later I calmed down and apologized. I did this because I also thuoght that my behaviour was childish and could have handled this differently. After that she had to start her studies somewhere else, but we still kept texting. Here I have noticed her weird behaviour too: sometimes she sounded like the loveliest person on earth, only to ask me for a favour after that and completely ignore me after doing her that favour.
But when I ignored her after these cases she turned charming again and sending lovely messages which I interpreted as signs that she likes me more than a friend. My parents and her aunt also said that 'testing' is something normal during courtship and that's probably why she acted that way which I believed.
After we met again we had a date again and really enjoyed the time together. But then the rest I have mentioned previously happended.
**Edit 2**: I am getting tired and really need to go to bed now. Thank you for your responses so far, I am looking forward to continue the discussions tomorrow :)
**Edit 3**: Sorry for responding you guys so lately, something intervened me so I had no time the whole afternoon and I could only react right now at night. But I hope that you guys will still react to my replies even though some time has passed.
| > The thing I observed is that people who are very good at conversations have also experienced a lot of things
That's not really the case in my experience. Being good at conversation is largely about keeping the other party interested. While "I spent the last year travelling in Africa" will immediately pique someones interest, it could still quite easily result in less than 5 minutes of conversation if you don't have the skills. Conversely someone skilled in conversation can keep a conversation going without having done anything noteworthy at all. For example if I were to talk to you I might ask you about your work, ask you to explain things I don't understand, ask you why you're so passionate about it, etc. If I were a skilled conversationalist (which I'm not!) I could literally keep you engaged without having talked about myself at all which means I wouldn't have to have done anything noteworthy in order to be interesting. In short, "boring" is about how you interact with people, not what you do. Developing conversation skills is far more important than having "interesting life experiences". After all, isn't studying math an interesting life experience? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be doing it otherwise. | Sorry KunXI, your comment has been removed:
> Comment Rule 1\. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1)
If you would like to appeal, please [message the moderators by clicking this link.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+KunXI&message=KunXI+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5rvtw2/cmv_i_need_to_invest_less_in_my_studies_otherwise/ddb1do8/\))
Sorry KunXI, your comment has been removed:
> Comment Rule 5\. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5)
If you would like to appeal, please [message the moderators by clicking this link.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+5+Appeal+KunXI&message=KunXI+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5rvtw2/cmv_i_need_to_invest_less_in_my_studies_otherwise/ddb1do8/\)) | 5rvtw2 | CMV: I need to invest less in my studies, otherwise I will remain socially weird and I will never be able to connect with people on a deep level. | First of all I hope that this topic is not too subjective and it is allowed to be posted here even though I have read the Submission Rules. I just feel like that this subreddit can be really helpful. If not, I want to apologize for any inconveniences and feel free to delete this post.
**TL;DR**: the headline.
Long version:
I am a 23yo male studying mathematics with minor in computer science and am currently pursuing a master's degree. Academically I would say that I am pretty successful: I have very good grades, acquired several scholarships, am working as a student assistant in my university and the staff there knows me well. I even consider to achieve a PhD or a second master's degree after completing my current major. I also thought about working in a company (since I have never worked somewhere outside the university) or work in a voluntary capacity during my studies to improve my CV and therefore my job prospects.
My studies are very important for me, so I take them very seriously. Therefore they are taking the majority of my time: usually I go to university at 9.30 a.m. and leave at around 6-8 p.m. During that time I go to the lectures, study in the library or doing sportive activities. After that I go home and recover from the stress caused by the effort for my studies. Once or twice a week I also need to go to the physiotherapist because of my tinnitus, back, neck and shoulder problems.
But because of that I only have few leisure time and fear to neglect my social life, become socially awkward and never be able to connect with people. Let me elaborate this:
I suffer from social anxiety in the past, especially in present of girls (never had a girlfriend), and always had a hard time to converse with people. I even went to the therapist because of this.
The thing I observed is that people who are very good at conversations have also experienced a lot of things and so have a variety of topics they can talk about. School- and university-related topics are one of the few things I can really talk about. But since this is not always everyone's topic, I often do not know what to talk about with people otherwise because I can't think outside the box. This is one of the reasons I think I should spend more time to socialize to have more life experience and don't rely on others to initiate. Especially because I am really bad at it.
It does not help either that mathematics is a subject that is all about understanding, so even talking about that can be really annoying if you can't follow (e.g. my fellow student and friend tells me stuff about his advanced statistics homework which I can't understand because I do not visit the same class and am more specialized in algebra). It is already difficult enough to find people who attend algebra classes, but even then as I said it is really hard to talk about that because algebra is really abstract.
I already decreased my effort in my studies since I have finished my bachelor's degree (doing only about 2/3 the credits which are recommended by the curriculum) and have improved my social skills a little bit. But it seems like this is not enough.
Lately I was even able to have my first date ever (with almost 23 years). I enjoyed the time with the girl I dated and was absolutely sure that we liked each other despite her giving me mixed signals. I confessed my love to her, but in the end she did not feel the same way and I acted really stupid (being clingy, literally begging her to be my girlfriend, ...). I feel like I could have prevented such a drama if I would have had more dating experience which I did not get because of my studies. And I really want to have a girlfriend in the future who I can trust fully and enjoy my life with.
It's not like I have not tried to get better at socializing. For example once a week I go working at a small restaurant where I work as a waiter. Sometimes I can chat with the customers there but this is also not the place where I really can connect with people.
Maybe I should also mention that my hobbies which I pursue in my remaining leisure time are also very specific and not very social:
- E.g. I enjoy playing Pokémon competitively on [Pokémon Showdown](http://pokemonshowdown.com/) but you need to have some knowledge to understand the battle mechanics. I like to play video games in general, but haven't got time lately to play them too.
- I usually hang out on the Internet a lot, especially on Pokémon Showdown, YouTube or reddit (Hey guys!).
- I have also mentioned that I am doing sports at my university (sigh...), namely fitness and Floorball. While being potentially social, in fitness I just work out alone and in Floorball we don't really talk much. And I don't know how to change.
I have the feeling that I am still missing too much out of my life and don't know if the effort for my studies will be really worth it. But I also do not perform poorly in my studies so I do not have any problems regarding finding a job etc., that's why I would like to have my view changed.
**Edit**: Just want to be more detailed about the date in my post:
I have dated the girl the girl twice: The first one was absolutely awesome, this was the moment I fell for her. On the other hand the second date did not went really well because it seemed like she backflipped her personality and acted ignorantly and coldly. But when she started to notice that I was sad/pissed she immediately turned nice again but I did not care during this date (so this was also a drama that I have not mentioned). Later I calmed down and apologized. I did this because I also thuoght that my behaviour was childish and could have handled this differently. After that she had to start her studies somewhere else, but we still kept texting. Here I have noticed her weird behaviour too: sometimes she sounded like the loveliest person on earth, only to ask me for a favour after that and completely ignore me after doing her that favour.
But when I ignored her after these cases she turned charming again and sending lovely messages which I interpreted as signs that she likes me more than a friend. My parents and her aunt also said that 'testing' is something normal during courtship and that's probably why she acted that way which I believed.
After we met again we had a date again and really enjoyed the time together. But then the rest I have mentioned previously happended.
**Edit 2**: I am getting tired and really need to go to bed now. Thank you for your responses so far, I am looking forward to continue the discussions tomorrow :)
**Edit 3**: Sorry for responding you guys so lately, something intervened me so I had no time the whole afternoon and I could only react right now at night. But I hope that you guys will still react to my replies even though some time has passed.
| 1,486,148,645 | dude_that_needs_help | ddbfoi0 | ddb1r82 | 2 | 1 |
CMV: A (non-English speaking) Head of State does not need to speak (or to know how to) English
Hello,
My girlfriend and I are arguing whether a head of a state (particularly ours which neither of us like just one bit) should possess the knowledge of the English language.
Our head of state does not speak English at all (aside from occasional "How are you"s) and I think he actually does not have to. He has to be well-educated, yes; however, English is not a necessity.
In return, she insists that English is "the world language" and that a head of a state should be up-to-date with current world events not through translations brought before him but by his own research/interest.
One last point of disagreement between us is that she thinks it is a matter of representation of the state/country/people. She thinks that, for example, in a table of 6 leaders, if he is the only one that does not speak English (or a common language), then he would be left alone, unable to joke around perhaps, and unable to properly communicate if he's the only one receiving simultaneous translations through a headset. So an English-speaking leader would be more confident and better represent its people.
You can replace "English" with any other widely spoken language and you can try to change the views of either of us (I'm not sure if this would be permitted via the subreddit rules, if that's not the case, then Change My View) | The UN has 6 official languages they should probably know at least one of those to serve functionally as any sort of diplomat. | Also, speaking a language can make you more culturally aware. I know when I speak a different language I act differently with different mannerisms. It’s hard for an interpreter to translate body language in real time.
| 5rwaja | CMV: A (non-English speaking) Head of State does not need to speak (or to know how to) English | Hello,
My girlfriend and I are arguing whether a head of a state (particularly ours which neither of us like just one bit) should possess the knowledge of the English language.
Our head of state does not speak English at all (aside from occasional "How are you"s) and I think he actually does not have to. He has to be well-educated, yes; however, English is not a necessity.
In return, she insists that English is "the world language" and that a head of a state should be up-to-date with current world events not through translations brought before him but by his own research/interest.
One last point of disagreement between us is that she thinks it is a matter of representation of the state/country/people. She thinks that, for example, in a table of 6 leaders, if he is the only one that does not speak English (or a common language), then he would be left alone, unable to joke around perhaps, and unable to properly communicate if he's the only one receiving simultaneous translations through a headset. So an English-speaking leader would be more confident and better represent its people.
You can replace "English" with any other widely spoken language and you can try to change the views of either of us (I'm not sure if this would be permitted via the subreddit rules, if that's not the case, then Change My View) | 1,486,153,211 | kizilsakal | ddavw1t | ddauf93 | 11 | 1 |
CMV: Religious beliefs are essentially opinions and should not be given more weight than any other type of belief or opinion.
In the US, there are various exceptions and accommodations for religious beliefs. For instance, Catholic hospitals do not have to directly provide birth control and can instead sign a waiver with the actual birth control being supplied by a third party.
The Trump Administration is currently considering granting additional protections, and there are many conservatives who support the position that religious business owners should not have to serve gay couples, for instance.
I see two objections to this, one practical and one more philosophical:
* If applied to other characteristics of individuals, such as race for example, we would immediately say that people do not have the "religious freedom" to deny service to black Americans on the basis of race. Such a view would be widely condemned as racist and hearkens back to the days of Jim Crow.
* Religious beliefs are simply beliefs, and in a pluralistic society it does not make sense to continually grant exceptions to laws based on one category of beliefs without granting exceptions based on all categories. If anyone, for any reason, could say "I do not want to serve gay individuals at my restaurant", that would be one thing. But the policies being discussed grant that right-of-denial based only on religious beliefs.
I find these "religious freedom" policies to be thinly-veiled attempts at discrimination, but I also realize many Americans genuinely disagree with me. I'm hoping you can change my view and convince me that religious beliefs are indeed worthy of types of protections that beliefs justified in others ways are not.
EDIT: This was a really great discussion, thanks everyone. Great first experience with CMV. I partially changed my view, based on recognizing that religious beliefs belong to an institution in addition to a person, and that religion itself has been around for a long time and has some pretty stable qualities that we all recognize. I still would like religious and non-religious beliefs to be treated equally, but I get that in certain circumstances it can make sense to take a religious belief seriously while skepticism can exist about a similar non-religious belief. | Deeply held beliefs that don't work against the public good are a solid reason to create exemptions in both the laws and the social expectations that society puts on individuals, but the obvious flaw in allowing these exceptions is the ease with which a person can lie about what they believe. Normally, religious beliefs are shared by significant numbers and are codified or long observed across persons. This makes them easier to validate as legitimate. Also, protecting religious freedom often goes hand and hand with allowing communities and ethnic groups to maintain a sense of personal identity, as they're normally strongly identified with a set of religious beliefs and practices. Most religious wars and conflicts are really conflicts about self-determination and personal identify. | Refusing to bake a cake is one thing, I don't think too many people would want a wedding cake baked by someone who hates you. It's quite another thing if it's legal to discriminate in things like employment and housing. If discrimiantion based on race became a thing again I am sure people would not agree with it. Why should it be any more legal to discriminate based on other traits the person can't choose?
Being a person you were born as is not "forcing someone to go along with your beliefs". Nor is asking to be treated with the same basic decency as everyone else. No one is forcing anyone to give up their religious beliefs but they shouldn't be allowed to force them on anyone else in return. | 5rwoki | CMV: Religious beliefs are essentially opinions and should not be given more weight than any other type of belief or opinion. | In the US, there are various exceptions and accommodations for religious beliefs. For instance, Catholic hospitals do not have to directly provide birth control and can instead sign a waiver with the actual birth control being supplied by a third party.
The Trump Administration is currently considering granting additional protections, and there are many conservatives who support the position that religious business owners should not have to serve gay couples, for instance.
I see two objections to this, one practical and one more philosophical:
* If applied to other characteristics of individuals, such as race for example, we would immediately say that people do not have the "religious freedom" to deny service to black Americans on the basis of race. Such a view would be widely condemned as racist and hearkens back to the days of Jim Crow.
* Religious beliefs are simply beliefs, and in a pluralistic society it does not make sense to continually grant exceptions to laws based on one category of beliefs without granting exceptions based on all categories. If anyone, for any reason, could say "I do not want to serve gay individuals at my restaurant", that would be one thing. But the policies being discussed grant that right-of-denial based only on religious beliefs.
I find these "religious freedom" policies to be thinly-veiled attempts at discrimination, but I also realize many Americans genuinely disagree with me. I'm hoping you can change my view and convince me that religious beliefs are indeed worthy of types of protections that beliefs justified in others ways are not.
EDIT: This was a really great discussion, thanks everyone. Great first experience with CMV. I partially changed my view, based on recognizing that religious beliefs belong to an institution in addition to a person, and that religion itself has been around for a long time and has some pretty stable qualities that we all recognize. I still would like religious and non-religious beliefs to be treated equally, but I get that in certain circumstances it can make sense to take a religious belief seriously while skepticism can exist about a similar non-religious belief. | 1,486,157,213 | thats-rickdiculous | ddb0emz | ddawk4b | 27 | 3 |
CMV: Impeachment or removal of Donald Trump from office would have no downside and really would be best for everyone.
It seems to me that removing Trump from office, whether by impeachment under the Emoluments Clause or declared "unfit for duty" under the 25th Amendment is a win/win/win scenario with no downside for anyone involved. Some details:
**Trump himself**: He likes winning. His entire campaign was run not as an application for the most important job in the world, but as winning get the biggest contest in the world. And he did. Well done, Big Winner. And now that he has, he's left with a "prize" he seems not to really want—a difficult, stressful job that exposes him to intense scrutiny and daily ridicule. He has no experience in government, no aptitude for collaborative leadership, and no inclination to public service (in fact I suspect the notion of being any kind of "servant" is anathema to Donald Trump). Even if removed from office, he can still say for the rest of his life, "I did it. I won. I beat Crooked Hillary and all of the biased Mainstream Media." Let that thought keep him company and warm him in his dotage. I even think impeachment might play into his ego—"Think what I could have done if My Enemies hadn't stopped me" kind of thing.
**Pence**: "But if we remove Trump, then we get Mike Pence as president!" I hear you cry. He's definitely calling the shots right now, anyway. You all remember the call Trump made to John Kasich when he was looking for a VP—Kasich could be "in charge of foreign and domestic policy", while Trump would be Making America Great Again (incidentally, this points right back to my item #1, Trump doesn't really want the job). Can you imagine Pence didn't get the same offer? As a bonus, Pence has some *actual experience* with governance and knows how political leadership is actually supposed to work. He's not going to govern by tweet and alienate our closest allies with ranting phone calls about "terrible deals". I'm willing to take my chances on President Pence. As someone once said, "What the hell have you got to lose?"
**Congressional Republicans**: Aren't much happier with Trump than anyone else, I suspect. He makes the party look bad, and every time he does something outrageous, they are put in the unenviable position of having either to defend him, or break with the President. Of course, getting an impeachment through a Republican congress and convicted by a Republican senate may be impossible, but this is beyond the scope of this CMV which argues only that they would be *better off* without Trump in office.
**Kushner, Conway, Bannon, et al.**: Even Trump's hangers-on, I believe, would be better off removed from public limelight and making scads of money working for the Heritage Foundation or going on tour to promote their latest ghostwritten book they got a six-figure advance on.
**Deplorables**: Similar to point #1 above, they accomplished what they set out to do—they memed Trump into the White House. Do they really have any interest in keeping him there? I just imagine /r/The_Donald all moving over to /r/The_Mike and picking up where they left off.
**Vladimir Putin**: Won't Putin lose a valuable puppet in the White House? "No puppet! No puppet! *You're* the puppet!" | A potential issue I see is that while Pence is awful, he lacks the sort of obvious repugnance Trump possesses that is leading to such a considerable backlash from the left. With Trump out of the way, the leftist resistance against the GOP will likely lessen considerably, leading to far more of the disastrous levels of deregulation that Trump's administration is already pushing for. | It kinda depends on what support Pence would have... he'd certainly be struggling with the question of legitimacy of his presidency, not having been elected and having been on the ticket of an impeached president, and the fallout from the impeachment of Trump and his role in Trump's administration. The impeachment process would probably (maybe, I dunno) take quite a while, meaning the mid-terms would be closing in and Congressional Republicans would likely be distancing themselves from a toxic administration in order to retain their seats.
Plus, the impeachment might usher in a Democratic majority or at least a sizable minority, reducing Pence's capacity as reverend in chief. | 5s102j | CMV: Impeachment or removal of Donald Trump from office would have no downside and really would be best for everyone. | It seems to me that removing Trump from office, whether by impeachment under the Emoluments Clause or declared "unfit for duty" under the 25th Amendment is a win/win/win scenario with no downside for anyone involved. Some details:
**Trump himself**: He likes winning. His entire campaign was run not as an application for the most important job in the world, but as winning get the biggest contest in the world. And he did. Well done, Big Winner. And now that he has, he's left with a "prize" he seems not to really want—a difficult, stressful job that exposes him to intense scrutiny and daily ridicule. He has no experience in government, no aptitude for collaborative leadership, and no inclination to public service (in fact I suspect the notion of being any kind of "servant" is anathema to Donald Trump). Even if removed from office, he can still say for the rest of his life, "I did it. I won. I beat Crooked Hillary and all of the biased Mainstream Media." Let that thought keep him company and warm him in his dotage. I even think impeachment might play into his ego—"Think what I could have done if My Enemies hadn't stopped me" kind of thing.
**Pence**: "But if we remove Trump, then we get Mike Pence as president!" I hear you cry. He's definitely calling the shots right now, anyway. You all remember the call Trump made to John Kasich when he was looking for a VP—Kasich could be "in charge of foreign and domestic policy", while Trump would be Making America Great Again (incidentally, this points right back to my item #1, Trump doesn't really want the job). Can you imagine Pence didn't get the same offer? As a bonus, Pence has some *actual experience* with governance and knows how political leadership is actually supposed to work. He's not going to govern by tweet and alienate our closest allies with ranting phone calls about "terrible deals". I'm willing to take my chances on President Pence. As someone once said, "What the hell have you got to lose?"
**Congressional Republicans**: Aren't much happier with Trump than anyone else, I suspect. He makes the party look bad, and every time he does something outrageous, they are put in the unenviable position of having either to defend him, or break with the President. Of course, getting an impeachment through a Republican congress and convicted by a Republican senate may be impossible, but this is beyond the scope of this CMV which argues only that they would be *better off* without Trump in office.
**Kushner, Conway, Bannon, et al.**: Even Trump's hangers-on, I believe, would be better off removed from public limelight and making scads of money working for the Heritage Foundation or going on tour to promote their latest ghostwritten book they got a six-figure advance on.
**Deplorables**: Similar to point #1 above, they accomplished what they set out to do—they memed Trump into the White House. Do they really have any interest in keeping him there? I just imagine /r/The_Donald all moving over to /r/The_Mike and picking up where they left off.
**Vladimir Putin**: Won't Putin lose a valuable puppet in the White House? "No puppet! No puppet! *You're* the puppet!" | 1,486,220,185 | Iron_Nightingale | ddbp9u7 | ddbntcn | 17 | 2 |
CMV: I fail to see what is unique about terrorism as a form of violence
I don't think the actions currently associated with the word terrorism are inherently worse than conventional war practiced by most modern nations, That is not to say that I support the terrorists but I that I oppose terrorists because of their goals and general opposition to conflict.
My idea is as follows, the reason most terrorists nowadays use these tactics is because of practical manners, there is no way they can face a conventional army face to face therefore their only choice is to resort to terrorism(suicide bombings,car bombs,etc), A similar thing happens with conventional armies, it would be too costly to judge each scenario based on how many civilians would get hurt and take extreme measures to avoid, probably by having soldiers on the ground with good aim, and so they resort to things like airstrikes,drones and other modern methods that achieve the objective with little regard to collateral damage.
Lastly imagine if the roles were switched and the world had an incredibly powerful theocratic nations with guerrilla/terrorist groups seeking to change things to become more secular/liberal would there be a big difference in the way the secular party would act.
Just to clarify I am not saying terrorism is effective, I generally see that the cost of conflict is mostly too high so I am not sure if I would like the secular terrorists in that imaginary scenario.
edit : just to be absolutely clear I know that terrorism relies on fear and targeting civilians my point is that the reasons behind terrorism and the way modern armies act is quite similar, The major differences is in the objectives and the availability of alternatives, i.e no one gives the priority to avoiding civilian casualties except when it is important in achieving the objective.
edit 2: After thinking more about it and rereading my post I think I wasn't clear enough, attacks with civilian collateral damage are similar to terrorism but the morality of the action depend on the aim of the perpetrator which could be to save more lives, this can be applied to terrorists or armies.
____
> *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!* | I'd say the most obvious difference between war and terrorism is that warfare is always, at least theoretically, aimed towards other participants of a war, trying to avoid civilian casualties.
However, terrorists could argue that civilians in democratic societes are automatically participants. | The word terrorism is widely overused, I agree.
However the main distinguisher from terrorism vs military insurgency, etc. is that terrorists intentionally target civilian targets to intimidate the opposition. Insurgents target the military.
There can be state terrorism (like in North Korea) where they target civilians to terrorize and intimidate people. And there can be individualized terrorism like someone who blows up a bus or shoots up a church.
For the most part, what distinguishes terrorism from other military actions isn't the scale (because there are lone wolf terrorism, terrorism by small groups and state sponsored terrorism), it is whether the goal is to cause as much carnage, suffering and outrage as possible to force people to comply with the terrorists vs. to neutralize an authority figure (military, etc) to force people to comply. | 5s1xnv | CMV: I fail to see what is unique about terrorism as a form of violence | I don't think the actions currently associated with the word terrorism are inherently worse than conventional war practiced by most modern nations, That is not to say that I support the terrorists but I that I oppose terrorists because of their goals and general opposition to conflict.
My idea is as follows, the reason most terrorists nowadays use these tactics is because of practical manners, there is no way they can face a conventional army face to face therefore their only choice is to resort to terrorism(suicide bombings,car bombs,etc), A similar thing happens with conventional armies, it would be too costly to judge each scenario based on how many civilians would get hurt and take extreme measures to avoid, probably by having soldiers on the ground with good aim, and so they resort to things like airstrikes,drones and other modern methods that achieve the objective with little regard to collateral damage.
Lastly imagine if the roles were switched and the world had an incredibly powerful theocratic nations with guerrilla/terrorist groups seeking to change things to become more secular/liberal would there be a big difference in the way the secular party would act.
Just to clarify I am not saying terrorism is effective, I generally see that the cost of conflict is mostly too high so I am not sure if I would like the secular terrorists in that imaginary scenario.
edit : just to be absolutely clear I know that terrorism relies on fear and targeting civilians my point is that the reasons behind terrorism and the way modern armies act is quite similar, The major differences is in the objectives and the availability of alternatives, i.e no one gives the priority to avoiding civilian casualties except when it is important in achieving the objective.
edit 2: After thinking more about it and rereading my post I think I wasn't clear enough, attacks with civilian collateral damage are similar to terrorism but the morality of the action depend on the aim of the perpetrator which could be to save more lives, this can be applied to terrorists or armies.
____
> *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!* | 1,486,230,678 | Abohani | ddbtwdi | ddbtodw | 2 | 0 |
CMV: If you're REALLY good at something, practice is more or less arbitrary
This is based on a debate I'm having with a friend who's been putting in insane amounts of practice time into his hobby with the expectation that he'll become successful solely off of effort alone.
I'm not saying that practice isn't important, or even that it's not vital to succeed, nor am I diminishing anyone's hard work, but I do believe that if you're really the cream of the crop, you don't need to put in an extraneous amount of effort in the first place.
Example: A musician that's only slightly above average naturally could put in a ton of hours of practice, market themselves aggressively, study the ins and outs of music, play whatever shows they can, and they might achieve some level of success, but a musician that actually has the talent doesn't need to practice more than a few hours per week to get "good" and succeed. Their minimum output is better than the diligent person's maximum effort, and if they put in insane amounts of work like the other person does, they reach legendary status. The same goes for sports, acting, writing, "high-level" business, ect.
I'm not diminishing anyone's hard work, but if you have to exert yourself to an extreme extent, especially in a field where your odds of success are slim in the first place, you're probably just wasting your time. Practice might be the way for "average folks" to make it to the top, but after a certain threshold, we get filtered out. | As others have noted, plenty of elite performers in a variety of fields put in extreme amounts of practice & effort. It would be unreasonable to assume that their effort had nothing to do with their success. Granting this, your view basically comes down to "talent and practice both influence success", which is a fairly trivial point. | I remember learning in jazz class how Charlie Parker would practice his chops 8 hours a day. A similar example is I've heard the other two members of Nirvana complain that Kurt Cobain was extremely insistent on practice and took it very seriously. In other words I'm very skeptical that top musicians don't practice hard. They would get beat out constantly by top musicians who do practice hard. | 5s2a84 | CMV: If you're REALLY good at something, practice is more or less arbitrary | This is based on a debate I'm having with a friend who's been putting in insane amounts of practice time into his hobby with the expectation that he'll become successful solely off of effort alone.
I'm not saying that practice isn't important, or even that it's not vital to succeed, nor am I diminishing anyone's hard work, but I do believe that if you're really the cream of the crop, you don't need to put in an extraneous amount of effort in the first place.
Example: A musician that's only slightly above average naturally could put in a ton of hours of practice, market themselves aggressively, study the ins and outs of music, play whatever shows they can, and they might achieve some level of success, but a musician that actually has the talent doesn't need to practice more than a few hours per week to get "good" and succeed. Their minimum output is better than the diligent person's maximum effort, and if they put in insane amounts of work like the other person does, they reach legendary status. The same goes for sports, acting, writing, "high-level" business, ect.
I'm not diminishing anyone's hard work, but if you have to exert yourself to an extreme extent, especially in a field where your odds of success are slim in the first place, you're probably just wasting your time. Practice might be the way for "average folks" to make it to the top, but after a certain threshold, we get filtered out. | 1,486,234,478 | believeinwhatyouwant | ddbza6u | ddby9p8 | 7 | 2 |
CMV: Classical music is elitist and completely useless to society in 2017
I'll start it like this:
Six celebrities are on a sinking ship. There is only one lifeboat and it holds one person. Which one would you save?
- Adele Adkins
- Oprah Winfrey
- Yehudi Menuhin
- John F. Kennedy
- Tom Brady
- Ellen Degeneres
You definitely wouldn't save Yehudi Menuhin. Who the fuck is he, anyway?
Classical music, meaning Western classical music for purposes of this CMV, is completely unintelligible to the masses. The reasons for this are manifold:
- It is associated with [classism and racism](http://www.osborne-conant.org/posts/special.htm).
- It is associated with [stage parents](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9082553/Children-can-be-taught-to-enjoy-classical-music.html)
- The vast majority of people [don't listen to it](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/01/classical_music_sales_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html).
- You need to come from money, like, [a lot of money](http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/conservatory/homewood/), to make it professionally.
- Total anecdote, but I came from that world, and people in it are rich, douchey, and shitty.
CMV. | I still listen to it to study. Not too attention grabbing yet keeps me focused.
e.g. https://news.usc.edu/71969/studying-for-finals-let-classical-music-help/
> University research in France, published in Learning and Individual Differences, found that
students who listened to a one-hour lecture where classical music was played in the background
scored significantly higher in a quiz on the lecture when compared to a similar group of students who
heard the lecture with no music.
| What conclusion do you reach from these things, exactly? | 5s30h1 | CMV: Classical music is elitist and completely useless to society in 2017 | I'll start it like this:
Six celebrities are on a sinking ship. There is only one lifeboat and it holds one person. Which one would you save?
- Adele Adkins
- Oprah Winfrey
- Yehudi Menuhin
- John F. Kennedy
- Tom Brady
- Ellen Degeneres
You definitely wouldn't save Yehudi Menuhin. Who the fuck is he, anyway?
Classical music, meaning Western classical music for purposes of this CMV, is completely unintelligible to the masses. The reasons for this are manifold:
- It is associated with [classism and racism](http://www.osborne-conant.org/posts/special.htm).
- It is associated with [stage parents](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9082553/Children-can-be-taught-to-enjoy-classical-music.html)
- The vast majority of people [don't listen to it](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/01/classical_music_sales_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html).
- You need to come from money, like, [a lot of money](http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/conservatory/homewood/), to make it professionally.
- Total anecdote, but I came from that world, and people in it are rich, douchey, and shitty.
CMV. | 1,486,241,454 | [deleted] | ddc1n6z | ddc1eey | 7 | 4 |
CMV: Giving your child a name that people are never going to spell/pronounce correctly is selfish and foolish
I'm not talking about when you have an authentic name from a foreign culture you belong to while living in another country, I'm talking about when parents take regular names and spell them "uniquely" or just give them a name that is generally more difficult for people to pronounce. I may just be a little biased on this view because I have a "uniquely" spelled name that also gets mispronounced on a semi-regular basis. I just see no point in doing this.
It makes your child's life more unnecessarily difficult when that have to constantly remind everyone that "I'm Rebekka but R-E-B-E-K-K-A." You simply are trying too hard to make your kid "stand out" when you are just giving them a burden, and it only really says something about you as a parent.
I know some people who also have these kinds of names may be offended by my opinion, but I feel very strongly about this, even if I come off as whiny. Yes, you can change your name but it is generally long process and time and effort can be saved if you simply just give your child a regular name.
Edit: Grammatical errors.
Edit #2: I keep having to make the same defenses over and over again, so my view is yet to be changed.
1) I am NOT against names with specific cultural connections. e.g. If you are Japanese go ahead and name your kid Tadashi or Minami. I see nothing wrong with that. Someone already pointed out to me that "Rebekka" is a Hebrew spelling.
2) I am NOT talking about last names. (I should have specified that in the title)
3) My main argument IS against just random made up spellings and pronunciations that have no meaning whatsoever other than being "totally unique."
4) We have the ability to change our names BUT not until we are of LEGAL AGE. Children cannot change their names because they are not adults who can go to court on their own.
Edit #3: I've come to the conclusion that whatever the reason you may dislike your name, whether it be spelling or being too common, all people have to wait for a certain age to change their name, anyway. I STILL think a spelling like Bytnei or Dayved is ridiculous.
Edit #4: If your name has a few different ways to spell it I think that's fine like Kayla or Kaela, so long as the spelling isn't going to result in your name being butched by everyone. I also have learned that a lot of names I consider to be "made-up" spellings actually have cultural connections. I still don't think that Paeyden is one of those.
ALSO: There should be no laws prohibiting parents from naming their kids what they want (unless it's Stupid Head or whatnot), but I still find Cyndiee or whatnot to be that obnoxious and unnecessary ways to spell your child's name.
| Leave given names to the side for a second and consider this.
Some people like unique things, other people like "normal" things. Some people like to be/act/look unique, while other people like to fit in/not stand out. To some people, having a unique/made up/strange name would be fun and for others it would be a drag.
Consider the thought that your parents were trying to give you something special and fun instead of giving you a burden to bear.
It's also fully possible that you are different from your parents, in which case, feel free to change your name later.
But in terms of this CMV, perhaps they weren't being foolish and selfish, instead they were trying (even if they failed) to give you something unique and special to be cherished, in which case it wasn't an act of foolishness or selfishness, it was a misguided act of love. | Perhaps from now on there should be no naming differences and all people should be called "Hey, You" or some other generic thing. If there is no differentiation between peoples names then people are likely to mistake one person for another. Perhaps for you it is a hassle but for everyone else you are the person with the interestingly spelt name.
My brother has an improperly spelt name because my mother couldn't remember the order (ea or ae). All of our extended family will spell and speak the name traditionally but for the people that he knows and interacts with on a regular basis, they not only spell but also pronounce the name as it is on his birth certificate as that is how he introduces himself. (It should be noted that the difference in spelling is obvious from the pronunciation but none the less, he is remembered for it). | 5s30ws | CMV: Giving your child a name that people are never going to spell/pronounce correctly is selfish and foolish | I'm not talking about when you have an authentic name from a foreign culture you belong to while living in another country, I'm talking about when parents take regular names and spell them "uniquely" or just give them a name that is generally more difficult for people to pronounce. I may just be a little biased on this view because I have a "uniquely" spelled name that also gets mispronounced on a semi-regular basis. I just see no point in doing this.
It makes your child's life more unnecessarily difficult when that have to constantly remind everyone that "I'm Rebekka but R-E-B-E-K-K-A." You simply are trying too hard to make your kid "stand out" when you are just giving them a burden, and it only really says something about you as a parent.
I know some people who also have these kinds of names may be offended by my opinion, but I feel very strongly about this, even if I come off as whiny. Yes, you can change your name but it is generally long process and time and effort can be saved if you simply just give your child a regular name.
Edit: Grammatical errors.
Edit #2: I keep having to make the same defenses over and over again, so my view is yet to be changed.
1) I am NOT against names with specific cultural connections. e.g. If you are Japanese go ahead and name your kid Tadashi or Minami. I see nothing wrong with that. Someone already pointed out to me that "Rebekka" is a Hebrew spelling.
2) I am NOT talking about last names. (I should have specified that in the title)
3) My main argument IS against just random made up spellings and pronunciations that have no meaning whatsoever other than being "totally unique."
4) We have the ability to change our names BUT not until we are of LEGAL AGE. Children cannot change their names because they are not adults who can go to court on their own.
Edit #3: I've come to the conclusion that whatever the reason you may dislike your name, whether it be spelling or being too common, all people have to wait for a certain age to change their name, anyway. I STILL think a spelling like Bytnei or Dayved is ridiculous.
Edit #4: If your name has a few different ways to spell it I think that's fine like Kayla or Kaela, so long as the spelling isn't going to result in your name being butched by everyone. I also have learned that a lot of names I consider to be "made-up" spellings actually have cultural connections. I still don't think that Paeyden is one of those.
ALSO: There should be no laws prohibiting parents from naming their kids what they want (unless it's Stupid Head or whatnot), but I still find Cyndiee or whatnot to be that obnoxious and unnecessary ways to spell your child's name.
| 1,486,241,565 | AMO14 | ddcl7uo | ddckgxw | 301 | 1 |
CMV: There should be a law that mandates companies have all employees, and only employees, elect their Board of Directors. Of course, as a result, I want the abolition of selling company stock.
Within a company, there are many workers that provide their labour so that the company can sell products for the market to consume. The profits of these products legally go into the hands of the CEO who often takes a significant portion for themselves and gives enough to their workers to survive, thus the reason they provide labour in the first place. In this method of structuring a business, there exist a variable degree to which the CEO gives monetary compensation to their workers. Some may be benevolent and pay people to a certain extent all equally, some may be greedy and pay there workers solely by the legal minimum wage. It should goes without saying as to why a power structure dependent on the authority of a single person is problematic, to say the least. It puts too much power in the hands of an individual person that is capable of making innumerable bad decisions.
However, solving this problem simply by adding more people to form a small collective that become a Board of Directors seems to only form a structure that is Oligarchical rather than Autocratic. Effectively, without worker input on the make up of the Board's membership, they take the same role as the CEO did, only with minor infighting with other members for their interests. Just as well, the Board of Directors as a presence in the company seems to only give a format through which company stocks can be sold off to other special interests that, again, only look out for their own needs, not those of the workers. It could be argued that stock holders provide investment for which the company can use for funds to grow their business and give the amount with interest back to the investor as a return. However, this could be just as easily executed through a contract with the company as a whole or could simply work within the context of a customer giving interest to be returned on them once they receive the product.
Therefore, my view is that selling of company stock should be abolished and should be replaced by workers of a company having the ability to vote for a Board of Directors to represent their company interests. Through government regulation, there would be things off limits, such as illegality to fire or in general doing illegal things, of course. However, the company structure should not exist as an Autocracy for the benefits of individuals and should rather have a structure close to Representative Democracy. As with real life systems of representation, it may not be perfect. However, that debate is with voting systems that is on the whole seperate. In my opinion, the structure would work rather perfectly with the Single-Transferable Vote. | 1. Profits of a company do not go to the CEO. Thats not how a corporation works. This is not true of a C-corp, or an S-corp, unless they are structured with some very funky bylaws. But, essentially no company that is publicly traded works like this. The CEO reports to the board, and the board is _legally responsible_ to maximize the value of every single share of the company, regardless of who owns it. That means the share of the single share owner or the controlling interest must be protected. This is the fiduciary duty of a board member and they can literally go to jail if they are negligent in performing this duty.
2. Your proposal is essentially marxist socialism, albeit an odd path to it. You seem to believe that the profit motive results in the exploitation of workers - the value they create is not the value they received because someone is skimming off the top. That's pretty much Marx in a nutshell.
3. your proposal would make it such that the only reason to start a company or invest in a company was out of the goodness of ones heart and for the benefit of future employees. That's not a great method to motivate investment in our economy, or in job creation. | I thought most of what you said was complete nonsense, but I completely lost you at the stock part. Could you clarify.
You said,"t could be argued that stock holders provide investment for which the company can use for funds to grow their business and give the amount with interest back to the investor as a return. However, this could be just as easily executed through a contract with the company as a whole or could simply work within the context of a customer giving interest to be returned on them once they receive the product.."
What does that mean? Stockholders invest for a variety of reasons, but I have no idea what you are saying or suggesting.
Anyways, why would employees know more about running a business than stockholders? The #1 priority amongst employees at my old job would probably come down to how many jean days the CEO promised them. | 5s4ajw | CMV: There should be a law that mandates companies have all employees, and only employees, elect their Board of Directors. Of course, as a result, I want the abolition of selling company stock. | Within a company, there are many workers that provide their labour so that the company can sell products for the market to consume. The profits of these products legally go into the hands of the CEO who often takes a significant portion for themselves and gives enough to their workers to survive, thus the reason they provide labour in the first place. In this method of structuring a business, there exist a variable degree to which the CEO gives monetary compensation to their workers. Some may be benevolent and pay people to a certain extent all equally, some may be greedy and pay there workers solely by the legal minimum wage. It should goes without saying as to why a power structure dependent on the authority of a single person is problematic, to say the least. It puts too much power in the hands of an individual person that is capable of making innumerable bad decisions.
However, solving this problem simply by adding more people to form a small collective that become a Board of Directors seems to only form a structure that is Oligarchical rather than Autocratic. Effectively, without worker input on the make up of the Board's membership, they take the same role as the CEO did, only with minor infighting with other members for their interests. Just as well, the Board of Directors as a presence in the company seems to only give a format through which company stocks can be sold off to other special interests that, again, only look out for their own needs, not those of the workers. It could be argued that stock holders provide investment for which the company can use for funds to grow their business and give the amount with interest back to the investor as a return. However, this could be just as easily executed through a contract with the company as a whole or could simply work within the context of a customer giving interest to be returned on them once they receive the product.
Therefore, my view is that selling of company stock should be abolished and should be replaced by workers of a company having the ability to vote for a Board of Directors to represent their company interests. Through government regulation, there would be things off limits, such as illegality to fire or in general doing illegal things, of course. However, the company structure should not exist as an Autocracy for the benefits of individuals and should rather have a structure close to Representative Democracy. As with real life systems of representation, it may not be perfect. However, that debate is with voting systems that is on the whole seperate. In my opinion, the structure would work rather perfectly with the Single-Transferable Vote. | 1,486,252,642 | GottaHaveThemRibs | ddcau3f | ddc9wsz | 8 | 6 |
CMV: Racial slurs are not Hate Crimes
In a previous discussion with my cousin, he expressed the opinion that use of racial slurs should be considered a hate crime and be punished as such by the U.S. Justice System. After [reading articles](http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92644&page=1) that indicate that some people, like my cousin, are moving in this direction, I still cannot fathom how they could make this logical conclusion **WITHOUT** violating the U.S., or state constitution (we both live in California if that changes anything).
Please CMV, or at least help me to understand how one could justify this position.
| The rationale I have seen used is that racial slurs are tantamount to threats of violence, because of the strong and long-standing relationship between racial slurs and violence. Many people who are called racial slurs certainly do feel threatened.
Under this rationale, you have no more right to call someone a racial slur than you do to threaten them in more plain English. The government therefore has the ability to legislate against it. | A lot will have to do with content and implied intent. In the case you cited, Rae committed assault by threatening to "kick his ass" and it got bumped up because of the racial slur. IANAL, but it probably shouldn't have been because from the facts presented I don't think Rae was racially motivated. If the assault could have been racially motivated, say something like [this](http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/11/white-trump-supporter-pickup-truck-confederate-flag-threatens-black-driver/), then it should be a hate crime. | 5s51o7 | CMV: Racial slurs are not Hate Crimes | In a previous discussion with my cousin, he expressed the opinion that use of racial slurs should be considered a hate crime and be punished as such by the U.S. Justice System. After [reading articles](http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92644&page=1) that indicate that some people, like my cousin, are moving in this direction, I still cannot fathom how they could make this logical conclusion **WITHOUT** violating the U.S., or state constitution (we both live in California if that changes anything).
Please CMV, or at least help me to understand how one could justify this position.
| 1,486,260,956 | Pyraseas | ddcgjih | ddcfm6z | 6 | 2 |
CMV: Terms used to describe people
I feel like we should not use terms to describe someone especially for their race, gender, sexuality, or religion. It's so petty that we do because people argue about, "well I'm this" or "I'm that." It shouldn't matter and we shouldn't be arguing about what you are because we shouldn't have these terms in the first place. If we got rid of these terms all over the world, I feel like it would be a better place because it gets rid of discriminating against a certain group of people. We wouldn't have stupid arguments about what god you believe in or what gender you like. We could actually argue about something that is worth arguing.
Edit 1: First time posting here, so sorry if I worded it wrong. What I'm trying to get at is, that if we used terms to describe people which would end up using other terms to describe those same people to use while discriminating them. | Biology requires us to distinguish between the genders at a fairly basic level. I mean, we can't have men going to gynecologists, right?
Even race and other factors can be a bit like this. If we're completely unable to distinguish between races in our language, then how do we notice or discuss things like diseases that affect a certain race more frequently than others? | I'm sorry, I don't follow your train of thought fully. Your premise is:
>I feel like we should not use terms to describe someone especially for their race, gender, sexuality, or religion. It's so petty that we do because people argue about, "well I'm this" or "I'm that." It shouldn't matter and we shouldn't be arguing about what you are because we shouldn't have these terms in the first place.
Now, you're referencing people fighting for gender equality (to me, this seems only very loosely related) and assumptions made about Trump voters.
People use identifiers to help them mentally map the world and the people they encounter. That's it. Whether that's used for good or bad is up to the individual. Identifying group membership and discriminating based on it are completely different acts. | 5s5jhs | CMV: Terms used to describe people | I feel like we should not use terms to describe someone especially for their race, gender, sexuality, or religion. It's so petty that we do because people argue about, "well I'm this" or "I'm that." It shouldn't matter and we shouldn't be arguing about what you are because we shouldn't have these terms in the first place. If we got rid of these terms all over the world, I feel like it would be a better place because it gets rid of discriminating against a certain group of people. We wouldn't have stupid arguments about what god you believe in or what gender you like. We could actually argue about something that is worth arguing.
Edit 1: First time posting here, so sorry if I worded it wrong. What I'm trying to get at is, that if we used terms to describe people which would end up using other terms to describe those same people to use while discriminating them. | 1,486,267,876 | Ace_teh_Great343 | ddcjtvz | ddcjsjs | 2 | 1 |
CMV: Taxation is theft.
I feel that taxation is theft because the government takes your money by force. You are forced to pay a certain percentage of your income and have no say where it goes. How am I forced to pay taxes? If I choose not to pay them, the government levy's fines against me, then sends me to prison if I continue to not pay. If I make $250k a year, I should have the right to spend every penny of it on anything I want. "If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized" -Lysander Spooner. | Thank you for the detailed response. Can you please give me a few examples of the things I take from society without consent? | > No, they take your money by contract. You are very free to renounce your citizenship
I would like to see the said contract.
Also you are not FREE to renounce your citizenship, it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars to do so. | 5s5mvk | CMV: Taxation is theft. | I feel that taxation is theft because the government takes your money by force. You are forced to pay a certain percentage of your income and have no say where it goes. How am I forced to pay taxes? If I choose not to pay them, the government levy's fines against me, then sends me to prison if I continue to not pay. If I make $250k a year, I should have the right to spend every penny of it on anything I want. "If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized" -Lysander Spooner. | 1,486,269,311 | HaloEvent | ddcmjde | ddclsls | 0 | -1 |
CMV:There is no morality
I do not believe that there is morality due to a lack of evidence. I will define morality as being an imperative towards acting in the interests of people that are not oneself or a person that one cares about due to a personal relationship. I personally would like to live in a society where people are prevented from harming me and I can harm whoever I want but I acknowledge that a situation like that is unrealistic so I am willing to settle for a well-governed society I have to follow the rules but everyone else also needs to follow the rules and there will be harsh penalties for those who violate them. I do not see that as morality but rather just as my own personal preference.
Assuming that there is a person who I do not have a personal concern for their wellbeing (the reason for personal concern is irrelevant, just that many people myself included have people they care about and want to be happy) then why do I have any obligation to take their preferences into account. If I found a random person and could torture them to death without seeing any negative consequences (including potential psychological harm to myself), and I wanted to do so then why would I have an obligation to not do so? I consider the burden of proof to be on those arguing that I do have such an obligation.
| Morality is a label. Right and wrong are subjective and dependent upon social constructs, context, history, current trends, who is taking the action, and a million other things. For example, one of the things that defines a government is their monopoly on the legitimate use of force. So you shooting a drug dealer in your neighborhood in anything other than self defense is wrong, but the State can. We can't really rely on this area to make the argument for morality, then.
The only place I can think of that may be helpful in this argument comes from Dave Grossman's [On Killing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing). Grossman makes the argument that the vast majority of humans have an inherent resistance to killing their fellow humans. I won't summarize the whole book for you, but this resistance is so strong that it takes specifically-targeted training to overcome it. Furthermore, studies show that prolonged exposure to the conditions of having to kill other humans often leads to psychological trauma with varying degrees of severity based on the resilience and fortitude of the solider, and the length and frequency of their exposure to these conditions.
So can we label this as morality? I don't know, honestly. It's hard to say because I do personally believe that morality exists, but I understand your argument why it doesn't. At the end of the day it's kind of an existential argument, though. How does any social construct "exist"? In what form? What keeps us from throwing it out?
Clearly, though, if we can accept Grossman's argument, our biology creates certain imperatives that, at the very least, mirror or echo what we have also labeled as subjective morality. One could argue that these things are causally related, or at the very least correlated.
Thoughts? | Well, I do believe there is such a thing as morality, but I do not think it is an altruistic concept, such as it is portrayed and often defined.
Say you were to live in this hypothetical world you describe. Then no, there would be no direct physical or psychological detriment to yourself from torturing someone to death.
However, you would still benefit from refraining from torturing someone to death, because people would then appreciate you more, which leads to all sorts of positive things. This is why people are nice to each other. They have no obligation to be that way, but the system we live in rewards those who are. Morality is just the name we have put to one such mechanism.
In other words, it would not benefit you to torture someone to death, and refraining from it would grant you the respect and trust of your fellow humans, which is probably more advantageous than the result of killing the guy. So you 'take the moral high-ground' and choose not to do it. In this hypothetical world of yours you could simulate an andless number of situations based on the same premise, and there would always be a specific behaviour that garnered you the most respect from your fellow humans. This behaviour is what morality entails. | 5s5tn4 | CMV:There is no morality | I do not believe that there is morality due to a lack of evidence. I will define morality as being an imperative towards acting in the interests of people that are not oneself or a person that one cares about due to a personal relationship. I personally would like to live in a society where people are prevented from harming me and I can harm whoever I want but I acknowledge that a situation like that is unrealistic so I am willing to settle for a well-governed society I have to follow the rules but everyone else also needs to follow the rules and there will be harsh penalties for those who violate them. I do not see that as morality but rather just as my own personal preference.
Assuming that there is a person who I do not have a personal concern for their wellbeing (the reason for personal concern is irrelevant, just that many people myself included have people they care about and want to be happy) then why do I have any obligation to take their preferences into account. If I found a random person and could torture them to death without seeing any negative consequences (including potential psychological harm to myself), and I wanted to do so then why would I have an obligation to not do so? I consider the burden of proof to be on those arguing that I do have such an obligation.
| 1,486,272,204 | suwaii | ddcq142 | ddcmpql | 7 | 1 |
CMV: I truly believe the Sandy Hook shooting was staged.
I have done a lot of research and I am almost **100%** certain that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax created by gun control lobbyists, politicians, media representatives and other people who might benefit from the lobbying of gun control laws.
Maybe I am a conspiracy theorist. I don't know. Personally, I think that I am just someone who has seen a lot of inaccuracies and downright bizarre and fishy behaviors and actions surrounding this event and I want answers.
**The reason I am posting here is because although I am pretty certain of my opinion, I think that the best thing to do is to ask anyone else out there to give me solid, tangible evidence of Sandy Hook's validity. If not that, I seek at least a very convincing explanation as to why the reasons I list below are either false or not valid, and what their alternatives may be. If that happens, I am completely open to changing my view on the issue. That said, I will list below MY personal research and the reasons I believe Sandy Hook was staged. I will list my opinions as well as facts and evidence I have gathered.**
1. First I will talk about my personal *perceptions* of the event. I believe a gut feeling takes us far and holds a lot of weight in these sorts of things. Almost all of the interviews of parents or family look and *feel* fake. There are multiple, **multiple** interviews where people seem relaxed the day of or after the murders, they are seen laughing, they talk in retrospect as if their child had died years prior and they were remembering them (rather than the more logical, normal and typical reaction after a crisis which is to mourn or be angry and focus on the event rather than the memory of the person lost). [In this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhTqMoccVmY) the things I mentioned above can be seen. The interviews are peaceful. The interviews talk about old memories of their children, and the interviewees are not very emotional or frazzled which they should logically be. [Check out 3:50 of this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7lOcAWcpjg&t=242s) of the Columbine shooting in 1999. The differences in emotions are stark.
2. The helicopter videos of the school during or directly after the event are bizarre. They do not show evidence of groups of children leaving the building, they don't show multiple police cars, but they *do* show people walking nonchalantly around the campus, some going inside the school and then coming out again. Police and emergency personnel seem to be walking around aimlessly in the parking lot. [Skip to 2:00 of this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsv_z8Sx4E) of Sandy Hook during the event. I see one firetruck and no ambulances. At the firehouse a few hundred feet from the school, there are many ambulances all parked and facing one direction. At the time of this video in the helicopter, it is between 10 and 11 am, when some adults allegedly were still trapped in the school. However there is no sense of urgency at all. [Beginning in this video and throughout](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMnumYdO7as) of the Columbine shooting, it is clear there are tons of medical and emergency personnel and policemen, as well as a SWAT team helping kids escape. There are also two road blockades of firetrucks and police cars in one shot.
3. There is no evidence of Lanza's presence in the school that day. There is no video evidence, which is very surprising when you think about how 13 years prior, Columbine HS had video cameras that recorded almost all of the events that day. There is also no release of Lanza's medical records proving that he was mentally ill.
4. Gene Rosen. Gene was the old man who claimed to have found the children in his yard or seen some children in his yard, and he took them in and cared for them until the parents came. Gene is an ACTOR by profession. His stories are very theatrical and change and have many embellishments. Not only do his stories change EVERY single time he had an interview, but there is also a slightly incriminating video of him where he appears to be rehearsing his story and doing different takes. Beyond even THAT, there is a video of Gene walking in the parking lot of the school during the event, and an interview that took place in the same clothing in the parking lot of the school. [Video 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZQ3hPcxdQA) is one interview of Gene. [Video 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoh6HurUf4M) [Video 3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alp64daGTSo) Notice the differences in his stories. Notice the embellishments.
5. Many articles and webpages were posted prior to the event happening. [This](https://yoy50.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/even-the-arlington-red-devils-in-ohio-had-foreknowledge-of-sandy-hook/) site shows (if you scroll down) photos of a site that the Ohio Arlington Red Devils page posted on the day prior to the attack. [And this](http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/JE48f.png) photo is a screenshot of a Google Search for the United Way fund for Sandy Hook Elementary. As you can see it is a full 3 days before the event. In a link I will put in the next point, you can see that United Way disputed this and actually reached out to a Google representative. He said it was a "glitch" in the system and that the actual site was uploaded on December 14, at 6:58 pm.
6. And speaking of the United Way fund, a certain Mr. Trentacosta began the fund through United Way. Mr. Trentacosta was actually the next door neighbor of the Lanzas. On [THIS](http://insanemedia.net/sandy-hook-trentacostas-and-the-united-way/4645) site you can read the details. Mr. Trentacosta was the CEO of Newtown Bank, where the money was routed for this fund. United Way has since come out and denied that they knew anything about the shooting before it happened, even though the site they posted says otherwise. But even IF they were telling the truth and it was just a glitch on Google, how does that explain the very quick set up of this fund? How does it explain that Mr. Trentacosta claimed to have receieved "countless requests" for a fund? How could Mr. Trentacosta, Newtown Bank and United Way have learned about the shooting, come up with a plan, received these countless requests, set up a bank account, designed the webpage, and posted it all before 7pm the same day? Seems unlikely.
7. [These](https://megatronicsmedia.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/inside-the-sandy-hook-classrooms-what-crime/) are pictures of the classrooms where supposedly 20 children and 6 teachers were murdered in a shooting massacre. There is **NO BLOOD.** Very few photos of gunshots.
8. The famous photos taken of children leaving the school and frantic people in the hallway were taken by Shannon Hicks, according to the meta-data of two of the photos given to Time, on December 14th around 10 am. [Link](http://time.com/3449676/the-story-behind-the-iconic-photograph-from-sandy-hook/) However, the meta-data also shows that the photos were manipulated in Photoshop CS5. In Photoshop CS5 it is possible for the artist to manipulate the time that the photo was taken. However, a slideshow video that was uploaded by the person who took the photos is dated at December 13th.
9. Many of the parents of the children were actually actors and political activists before the shooting, all democratic and all pro-gun control before the shootings.
So these are just some of my reasons for believing that this is a hoax. I am here to find answers and truth. If anyone can help me change my view, please show me the flaws in my reasoning or any things I may have missed.
Thank you :)
| First off, I appreciate you taking the time to make this post. You're risking a lot of potential ridicule and hate mail in order to initiate an honest conversation and I respect that.
I don't have any evidence concerning Sandy Hook. I was not there, nor did I know anyone who experienced that event. But... and this is the issue I'd like to address, I don't think that you would believe me if I did.
Have you considered the fact that for your belief to be true, hundreds of people, teachers, students, and family members of students, emergency responders, the press, law enforcement, and members of the court system, would all have to be willing to lie through their teeth to the American public for a political stance that a significant fraction of them would not support? The President of the United States can't stop leaks from happening in the White House, but no leaks occurred about this mass conspiracy throughout Lanza's months long criminal case?
Nearly all conspiracy theories that have proven to be true are ones that involve a single government agency, such as the CIA's MKultra experiments or law enforcement poisoning alcohol during the prohibition. In these cases, there's a much lower chance of discoveries or leaks from the inside for a number of reasons, such as government background checks upon employment and political and ideological homogeneity of government law enforcement units. However, conspiracies like Sandy Hook being a hoax, Pizzagate, or Michelle Obama being a transgender man require would require so many people to be collaborating through either lies of omission or outright deceit that you basically have to doubt the fabric of society in order to believe them. You have to doubt that this large fraction of the general public is like you, with similar values and concerns to your own.
You basically have to believe that you're the main character of the Truman Show, and if you believe that, then where does it end? Suddenly, no newsworthy claim by federal, state, or local government or by mainstream media is trustworthy. Instead, you have to judge all claims based on your gut. That might sound good to you, but it removes any chance for unifying with others around an objective reality. Instead, because you can only follow your irrational and horribly biased gut, which due to evolution does a decent job of helping you make a snap judgement, but a horrible job of finding objective truth, you will only be able to live in a fantasy world with others whose gut has biased them towards similar beliefs.
P.S.: Concerning your evidence, please note that you have chosen to trust online web articles from unknown sources with unknown motives and easily photoshopped pictures (yes, I'm overlooking the youtube videos at this moment) over law enforcement and local journalists, both groups being required to maintain credibility in the face of the public and, hopefully, believing they have a civic duty to discover and reveal the truth. I urge you to consider why you view so many institutions of our society with such low credibility. | I'm a conspiracy theory fan, and a hardcore believer that Oswald wasn't a lone killer of JFK.
Two glaring problems with Sandy Hook that I can't get over.
1) A Manchurian situation, maybe. A guy programmed to be a killer. Those death had to be real. It makes not sense to "stage" the whole thing. What an unnecessary waste of resources (from a conspirator's viewpoint.) Anyone doing this kind of operation isn't looking to quadruple the budget to save the lives of some random children. No reason to fake their deaths.
I don't think you could possibly fake that many deaths in a small town if you wanted. People talk. You can't just pretend to rip that many lives away and no one notice that the classes still have the same numbers, that nobody knew any of the grieving families, that funeral homes weren't filled, that no journalist caught wind.
For the killer to be sent in by some evil agency, that's at least in the realm of humanly possible. For the guy to maybe have some inside help, that'at least in the realm of humanly possible. To tell a small community they lost so many lives when it lost none is impossible.
2) There's no real motive. You know what happened after Sandy Hook? Liberals talked about gun control for a day or two and nothing happened. The same thing as the school shooting before Sandy Hook and the one after. Nobody's pulling off such a preposterous operation without some level of certainty.
I mean if you can control the media enough that they'll cover a fake shooting, why not just control the media to be in favor of gun control?
And no one profits from gun control. No money motive, no motive. It's that simple. Don't tell me it's government takeover and they're going to take all guns. The most that could ever possibly pass is maybe closing the gun show loophole or bringing back the assault rifle ban.
The biggest gun control freaks among liberals are mothers who lost their children to gun violence. Not exactly the group putting up in dark, untraceable money the financing for some kind of super risky $100 million operation. Nobody's dropping that kind of dark money on passing a stronger waiting period. There's no Weather Underground for reasonable and moderate gun provisions. | 5s5xf7 | CMV: I truly believe the Sandy Hook shooting was staged. | I have done a lot of research and I am almost **100%** certain that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax created by gun control lobbyists, politicians, media representatives and other people who might benefit from the lobbying of gun control laws.
Maybe I am a conspiracy theorist. I don't know. Personally, I think that I am just someone who has seen a lot of inaccuracies and downright bizarre and fishy behaviors and actions surrounding this event and I want answers.
**The reason I am posting here is because although I am pretty certain of my opinion, I think that the best thing to do is to ask anyone else out there to give me solid, tangible evidence of Sandy Hook's validity. If not that, I seek at least a very convincing explanation as to why the reasons I list below are either false or not valid, and what their alternatives may be. If that happens, I am completely open to changing my view on the issue. That said, I will list below MY personal research and the reasons I believe Sandy Hook was staged. I will list my opinions as well as facts and evidence I have gathered.**
1. First I will talk about my personal *perceptions* of the event. I believe a gut feeling takes us far and holds a lot of weight in these sorts of things. Almost all of the interviews of parents or family look and *feel* fake. There are multiple, **multiple** interviews where people seem relaxed the day of or after the murders, they are seen laughing, they talk in retrospect as if their child had died years prior and they were remembering them (rather than the more logical, normal and typical reaction after a crisis which is to mourn or be angry and focus on the event rather than the memory of the person lost). [In this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhTqMoccVmY) the things I mentioned above can be seen. The interviews are peaceful. The interviews talk about old memories of their children, and the interviewees are not very emotional or frazzled which they should logically be. [Check out 3:50 of this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7lOcAWcpjg&t=242s) of the Columbine shooting in 1999. The differences in emotions are stark.
2. The helicopter videos of the school during or directly after the event are bizarre. They do not show evidence of groups of children leaving the building, they don't show multiple police cars, but they *do* show people walking nonchalantly around the campus, some going inside the school and then coming out again. Police and emergency personnel seem to be walking around aimlessly in the parking lot. [Skip to 2:00 of this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsv_z8Sx4E) of Sandy Hook during the event. I see one firetruck and no ambulances. At the firehouse a few hundred feet from the school, there are many ambulances all parked and facing one direction. At the time of this video in the helicopter, it is between 10 and 11 am, when some adults allegedly were still trapped in the school. However there is no sense of urgency at all. [Beginning in this video and throughout](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMnumYdO7as) of the Columbine shooting, it is clear there are tons of medical and emergency personnel and policemen, as well as a SWAT team helping kids escape. There are also two road blockades of firetrucks and police cars in one shot.
3. There is no evidence of Lanza's presence in the school that day. There is no video evidence, which is very surprising when you think about how 13 years prior, Columbine HS had video cameras that recorded almost all of the events that day. There is also no release of Lanza's medical records proving that he was mentally ill.
4. Gene Rosen. Gene was the old man who claimed to have found the children in his yard or seen some children in his yard, and he took them in and cared for them until the parents came. Gene is an ACTOR by profession. His stories are very theatrical and change and have many embellishments. Not only do his stories change EVERY single time he had an interview, but there is also a slightly incriminating video of him where he appears to be rehearsing his story and doing different takes. Beyond even THAT, there is a video of Gene walking in the parking lot of the school during the event, and an interview that took place in the same clothing in the parking lot of the school. [Video 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZQ3hPcxdQA) is one interview of Gene. [Video 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoh6HurUf4M) [Video 3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alp64daGTSo) Notice the differences in his stories. Notice the embellishments.
5. Many articles and webpages were posted prior to the event happening. [This](https://yoy50.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/even-the-arlington-red-devils-in-ohio-had-foreknowledge-of-sandy-hook/) site shows (if you scroll down) photos of a site that the Ohio Arlington Red Devils page posted on the day prior to the attack. [And this](http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/JE48f.png) photo is a screenshot of a Google Search for the United Way fund for Sandy Hook Elementary. As you can see it is a full 3 days before the event. In a link I will put in the next point, you can see that United Way disputed this and actually reached out to a Google representative. He said it was a "glitch" in the system and that the actual site was uploaded on December 14, at 6:58 pm.
6. And speaking of the United Way fund, a certain Mr. Trentacosta began the fund through United Way. Mr. Trentacosta was actually the next door neighbor of the Lanzas. On [THIS](http://insanemedia.net/sandy-hook-trentacostas-and-the-united-way/4645) site you can read the details. Mr. Trentacosta was the CEO of Newtown Bank, where the money was routed for this fund. United Way has since come out and denied that they knew anything about the shooting before it happened, even though the site they posted says otherwise. But even IF they were telling the truth and it was just a glitch on Google, how does that explain the very quick set up of this fund? How does it explain that Mr. Trentacosta claimed to have receieved "countless requests" for a fund? How could Mr. Trentacosta, Newtown Bank and United Way have learned about the shooting, come up with a plan, received these countless requests, set up a bank account, designed the webpage, and posted it all before 7pm the same day? Seems unlikely.
7. [These](https://megatronicsmedia.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/inside-the-sandy-hook-classrooms-what-crime/) are pictures of the classrooms where supposedly 20 children and 6 teachers were murdered in a shooting massacre. There is **NO BLOOD.** Very few photos of gunshots.
8. The famous photos taken of children leaving the school and frantic people in the hallway were taken by Shannon Hicks, according to the meta-data of two of the photos given to Time, on December 14th around 10 am. [Link](http://time.com/3449676/the-story-behind-the-iconic-photograph-from-sandy-hook/) However, the meta-data also shows that the photos were manipulated in Photoshop CS5. In Photoshop CS5 it is possible for the artist to manipulate the time that the photo was taken. However, a slideshow video that was uploaded by the person who took the photos is dated at December 13th.
9. Many of the parents of the children were actually actors and political activists before the shooting, all democratic and all pro-gun control before the shootings.
So these are just some of my reasons for believing that this is a hoax. I am here to find answers and truth. If anyone can help me change my view, please show me the flaws in my reasoning or any things I may have missed.
Thank you :)
| 1,486,273,922 | juliaakatrinaa0507 | ddcolsw | ddcnts6 | 27 | 6 |
CMV: Ice cream is better in a cone than a cup.
In the common situation where, to have a cone is the same price as to have a cup, a cone is the superior option.
First of all, as we all know, the cone is edible, where the cup is not. In some cases, there is even a chocolate filling at the bottom of the cone.
Furthermore, the cone is mobile. I can walk with an ice cream cone and eat it with one hand. To do the same with a cup requires two hands and slightly more coordination on the move.
There are two points that are often brought up against my case. The major disadvantage of a cone is, admittedly, that it is a more vulnerable choice on a hot day. The ice cream melts, and can go over the sides on to your hands, forcing you to consume it faster. But I'd consider the benefits to more than make up for this, especially the edible container part.
Another strength of the cup is that you can switch between flavours. I don't give this much weight, as you will eat it all anyway. | Cups make getting ice-cream with friends so much better.
1. You're not constrained to walking around the immediate area, which might be a boring place. You can put your ice-cream in a car cup-holder or bike basket and move somewhere more interesting.
2. Say you want to sample your friend's ice cream. If you both have cones, you have to lick the other person's food and at that point you're basically french kissing.
If you have a cup, you also have a spoon which you can use to take a reasonable, constrained amount of ice cream without slobbering all of your friend's ice-cream. You can avoid exchanging spit completely if you take the sample before you start eating your own ice-cream.
3. If you're, say, on a very promising date, you can eat your ice cream very slowly to extend the date without worrying about it dripping all over your hands or something. Even if it melts, you can still somewhat enjoy it. | >The ice cream melts, and can go over the sides on to your hands
>Another strength of the cup is that you can switch between flavours.
I'll add on to these-
The cone can get soggy when the ice cream melts, the cup will not.
A cup can be placed on virtually any flat surface without concern. If you need to free your hands of your ice cream briefly, a cup is the way to go.
Cups usually come with spoons which makes ice cream eating more enjoyable(less mess) for individuals with beards.
Your ice cream isn't likely to slip off of a cup. The same can't be said for a cone.
Toppings also grace much more of the ice cream in a cup. Sprinkles, for instance, will be all over the ice cream rather than just on the tip half.
In the event napkins aren't available, the worker doesn't have to touch your food(cone) if you get a cup.
| 5s5xjm | CMV: Ice cream is better in a cone than a cup. | In the common situation where, to have a cone is the same price as to have a cup, a cone is the superior option.
First of all, as we all know, the cone is edible, where the cup is not. In some cases, there is even a chocolate filling at the bottom of the cone.
Furthermore, the cone is mobile. I can walk with an ice cream cone and eat it with one hand. To do the same with a cup requires two hands and slightly more coordination on the move.
There are two points that are often brought up against my case. The major disadvantage of a cone is, admittedly, that it is a more vulnerable choice on a hot day. The ice cream melts, and can go over the sides on to your hands, forcing you to consume it faster. But I'd consider the benefits to more than make up for this, especially the edible container part.
Another strength of the cup is that you can switch between flavours. I don't give this much weight, as you will eat it all anyway. | 1,486,273,983 | trustyburrito | ddco3kh | ddcnjbb | 23 | 3 |
CMV: Donald Trump will accomplish more of his promises if congress flips to Democrat majority in 2018 than if it remains Republican.
Republicans do tend to agree with Donald Trump about 2/3 of the time, but about 1/3 they are against him. For campaign promises like paid maternity leave and mass infrastructure spending, he will need the support of Democrats.
Donald Trump can push his right wing policies now with a Republican controlled congress, and then (if) the congress flips Democrat he can push his left wing policies. For everything else, use executive action.
Of course this is all theoretical, but if my scenario plays out about congress flipping in 2018, Trump could be in a great position to be reelected in 2020 because he will have accomplished promises at a rate we haven't seen before in modern history. | There's one big failing in your theory - You're assuming that if the Democrats take control of congress, they will remain consistent with and vote with their beliefs/past promises.
I think what is far more likely, and has been borne out in the past, is that they will try to be as obstructive as possible to create frustration and have a Democrat take the White House in 2020 - politicians aren't above voting against policies they've espoused in the past if it will hurt their opponents. | His numbers are really bad. Like worst in history bad.
The Democrats hate and dislike him. There is no trust there.
Nor are they going to look at his multiple examples of plain bad policy.
If the Democrats got into congress they would probably investigate Trump. They wouldn't work with him. | 5s6szk | CMV: Donald Trump will accomplish more of his promises if congress flips to Democrat majority in 2018 than if it remains Republican. | Republicans do tend to agree with Donald Trump about 2/3 of the time, but about 1/3 they are against him. For campaign promises like paid maternity leave and mass infrastructure spending, he will need the support of Democrats.
Donald Trump can push his right wing policies now with a Republican controlled congress, and then (if) the congress flips Democrat he can push his left wing policies. For everything else, use executive action.
Of course this is all theoretical, but if my scenario plays out about congress flipping in 2018, Trump could be in a great position to be reelected in 2020 because he will have accomplished promises at a rate we haven't seen before in modern history. | 1,486,291,459 | ShotBot | ddcthgb | ddctfz9 | 10 | 4 |
CMV: If you cheat on someone, it is selfish and only in your best interest to tell them about it.
Okay, I know this may be controversial, and I actually have not cheated on a serious significant other before. However, I have been cheated on, so I am saying this from that persons point of view.
If the situation is that you made a mistake, it happened only once, you truly don't see it happening again, and you DO WANT to stay with your current partner, there is absolutely no need to tell them about the occurrence. In fact, telling them because it's "the right thing to do," or "I would want to know," or "there shouldn't be any lies in relationships," is simply selfish and is only ridding you of the guilt of what you did.
Now, if you do not want to stay with the person and there are other problems that are hurting them and yourself, then it's a different story. This is only my view toward relationships where both parties are happy, treat each other well, and in it for the long term.
If John Smith comes home from work one day and tells his wife Jane Doe that he cheated on her a couple months back at a bachelor party and feels she needs to know, what good does that do for Jane?
Pros: John told her the truth so she now knows he's capable of coming clean about things (this does NOT automatically mean he will be truthful in the future)
Jane knows about what happened and can now make her own decision about staying with a cheater.
Cons: Jane is now distraught, angry, skeptical, and hurt by what she thought was a good relationship and was making her happy. Things will never be the same even if she did decide to stay with him, and even if she does say she forgives him.
My view comes from my own experience and those that I've witnessed. When I was with my my ex boyfriend, I was happy. We were both contributing financially, we had good friends, good sex life, had even started talking long term...
Then he decides to break the news one Sunday morning that he had cheated. He told me it happened on his trip to Texas to see his old college buddy. It was obvious he felt bad about it and that he would never see this girl again, and he said "I'll understand if you couldn't be with me anymore."
This was so unfair. "Why would you tell me?" Is what I asked. He was shocked by this question and stated the reasons listed above, mainly that I had the right to know and honesty is the best thing for a relationship.
After some thought, I had come to the conclusion that honesty in this situation is only the best policy for one party. I could have carried on with not knowing in my blissful ignorance. Instead, I was extremely hurt and realized I couldn't try anymore after a couple months of fighting and constant mistrust.
Bottom line: if your situation fits the criteria listed above, take it to your grave and live with the guilt. The only person you're helping by spilling the cheating beans is yourself.
Edit: I understand that cheating is exposing your partner to possible STDs. This is very serious and I am in no way condoning putting someone at risk by withholding information. It would be your responsibility to get yourself tested before being intimate with your partner again if you believe you've been exposed.
Not all cheating involves sex. I'm not convinced this is the black and white reason to tell your partner about the one time mistake you made.
Edit #2: my view has been partially changed by some comments reminding me that a relationship should be viewed as a social contract between two people. When this contract changes, such as in the form of cheating, both parties should be made aware of this new information so they can decide if they want to continue with the contract.
Thanks for everyone's input and for keeping it civil! | It just stems from my belief that he told me to rid himself of the guilt. Looking back on it now, I wish he had not said anything if it really only happened once and we could have continued our relationship. | I don't agree. There is no official contract when being in a relationship. | 5s7np0 | CMV: If you cheat on someone, it is selfish and only in your best interest to tell them about it. | Okay, I know this may be controversial, and I actually have not cheated on a serious significant other before. However, I have been cheated on, so I am saying this from that persons point of view.
If the situation is that you made a mistake, it happened only once, you truly don't see it happening again, and you DO WANT to stay with your current partner, there is absolutely no need to tell them about the occurrence. In fact, telling them because it's "the right thing to do," or "I would want to know," or "there shouldn't be any lies in relationships," is simply selfish and is only ridding you of the guilt of what you did.
Now, if you do not want to stay with the person and there are other problems that are hurting them and yourself, then it's a different story. This is only my view toward relationships where both parties are happy, treat each other well, and in it for the long term.
If John Smith comes home from work one day and tells his wife Jane Doe that he cheated on her a couple months back at a bachelor party and feels she needs to know, what good does that do for Jane?
Pros: John told her the truth so she now knows he's capable of coming clean about things (this does NOT automatically mean he will be truthful in the future)
Jane knows about what happened and can now make her own decision about staying with a cheater.
Cons: Jane is now distraught, angry, skeptical, and hurt by what she thought was a good relationship and was making her happy. Things will never be the same even if she did decide to stay with him, and even if she does say she forgives him.
My view comes from my own experience and those that I've witnessed. When I was with my my ex boyfriend, I was happy. We were both contributing financially, we had good friends, good sex life, had even started talking long term...
Then he decides to break the news one Sunday morning that he had cheated. He told me it happened on his trip to Texas to see his old college buddy. It was obvious he felt bad about it and that he would never see this girl again, and he said "I'll understand if you couldn't be with me anymore."
This was so unfair. "Why would you tell me?" Is what I asked. He was shocked by this question and stated the reasons listed above, mainly that I had the right to know and honesty is the best thing for a relationship.
After some thought, I had come to the conclusion that honesty in this situation is only the best policy for one party. I could have carried on with not knowing in my blissful ignorance. Instead, I was extremely hurt and realized I couldn't try anymore after a couple months of fighting and constant mistrust.
Bottom line: if your situation fits the criteria listed above, take it to your grave and live with the guilt. The only person you're helping by spilling the cheating beans is yourself.
Edit: I understand that cheating is exposing your partner to possible STDs. This is very serious and I am in no way condoning putting someone at risk by withholding information. It would be your responsibility to get yourself tested before being intimate with your partner again if you believe you've been exposed.
Not all cheating involves sex. I'm not convinced this is the black and white reason to tell your partner about the one time mistake you made.
Edit #2: my view has been partially changed by some comments reminding me that a relationship should be viewed as a social contract between two people. When this contract changes, such as in the form of cheating, both parties should be made aware of this new information so they can decide if they want to continue with the contract.
Thanks for everyone's input and for keeping it civil! | 1,486,305,560 | jcsmile | dddh8nx | dddbe25 | 1 | -3 |
CMV: Trump's "Muslim Ban" is a correct and neccesary meassure.
I'd like to have a conversation on this topic and to have my view challenged. The folks at t_D won't generally allow discussion against Trump while I would become a pariah in any other politics subreddit if I admit that I support him, so I decided to come here. Though I don't know if it will have any relevence in regards to my argument, I will supply some information about myself: I'm a Latino born, raised and still living in Latin America who wants to immigrate to Canada.
I consider that Trump's "Muslim ban" is the right thing to do right now. First, it isn't a Muslim ban at all since the executive order doesn't mention "Islam" or "Muslims" at any point and the nine countries with the largest Muslim populations are exluded from it (such as Indonesia, Pakistan). Besides, the ban is only temporary.
I believe the ban in immigration is neccesary because the seven countries banned are currently very unstable and radical Islam is prospering there. Thus, while the great majority of people there are good people who are only looking for a better life away from war and poverty, there may be a lot of radical Muslims there that wish to hurt Americans. It's then neccesary to ban immigration until a better system to identify who is a terrorist and who is a refugee is put in place. Once a system is there and we can reliable check if someone is a terrorist or whishes to hurt other people in any way I wholeheartedly support the US taking as many refugees as it is possible.
EDIT: It's been a wonderful discussion. I apologize if I wasn't able to argue my point correctly or if I seemed rude at any moment, but I listened to all your arguments and thought deeply on the issue. My view has been changed and I've reached the conclussion that the Muslim ban would cause more problems than it solves. Thank you very much for this.
| To read that article I would need to suscribe there, which I can't do right now. Could you please provide a summary?
Still, if the average has been 10 deaths that means that at least 160 people have died. Don't you think that we should do everything we can to prevent anybody from being murdered? After all, and at least from my point of view, a human life can't be replaced and thus any economic and diplomatic cost is justified. | OP,
DjangoUBlackBastard's assertion is false, there have been terrorists that have gotten into the country and successfully carried out attacks.
Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a Muslim Somali born refugee who spent 2007-2014 living in a Pakistinian refugee camp carried out a terrorist attack on the Ohio State University campus on November 28th of this year (less than 3 months ago). He moved here on a refugee visa in 2014, this posters "facts" are false.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack#Perpetrator | 5s7psq | CMV: Trump's "Muslim Ban" is a correct and neccesary meassure. | I'd like to have a conversation on this topic and to have my view challenged. The folks at t_D won't generally allow discussion against Trump while I would become a pariah in any other politics subreddit if I admit that I support him, so I decided to come here. Though I don't know if it will have any relevence in regards to my argument, I will supply some information about myself: I'm a Latino born, raised and still living in Latin America who wants to immigrate to Canada.
I consider that Trump's "Muslim ban" is the right thing to do right now. First, it isn't a Muslim ban at all since the executive order doesn't mention "Islam" or "Muslims" at any point and the nine countries with the largest Muslim populations are exluded from it (such as Indonesia, Pakistan). Besides, the ban is only temporary.
I believe the ban in immigration is neccesary because the seven countries banned are currently very unstable and radical Islam is prospering there. Thus, while the great majority of people there are good people who are only looking for a better life away from war and poverty, there may be a lot of radical Muslims there that wish to hurt Americans. It's then neccesary to ban immigration until a better system to identify who is a terrorist and who is a refugee is put in place. Once a system is there and we can reliable check if someone is a terrorist or whishes to hurt other people in any way I wholeheartedly support the US taking as many refugees as it is possible.
EDIT: It's been a wonderful discussion. I apologize if I wasn't able to argue my point correctly or if I seemed rude at any moment, but I listened to all your arguments and thought deeply on the issue. My view has been changed and I've reached the conclussion that the Muslim ban would cause more problems than it solves. Thank you very much for this.
| 1,486,306,293 | Red_Galiray | ddd08x1 | ddczt44 | 0 | -12 |
CMV: The United States of America is socially and legally backwards and should not be emulated by other countries.
As the title may imply, I'm not an American. I'm a 24-year-old Dane who finished university last summer and as a result, I am a master of science in computer science (that's a mouthful in English)
My childhood was during the late nineties and through the naughts, and during this time I was brought up with an America-centric worldview, with America as this mythical place where you went to earn a lot of money and live the high life. It was responsible for, quite literally 'the free world'.
But as I got older, I started to see a lot of cracks. The first one came when I heard about your healthcare, about how you could catch a life-threatening disease through no fault of your own and be saddled with crippling bills for the treatment, and when I started hearing reports about how incredibly sick patients went to work because they couldn't afford a doctor, I was quite frankly disgusted. When it dawned on me that doctors are being paid by medicine-producing companies to promote their drugs, I was quite literally horrified.
The second big blow was when it came to education. In Denmark, you get paid if you study full time. It's enough to survive on if you're savvy with your expenses and don't have a bank saved up, about 5800 DKK (790 euro)/month if you're living alone and a university student, but it varies depending on level of education, whether you're living at home (You do still get paid even if you are), and other factors. It's also not tax-exempt because in the eyes of the government you are employed as a student, which brings it down to about 5000 DKK (670 Euro) after taxes - again, enough to pay rent, electricity, etc, and survive on if you're savvy.
So hearing that students take out ridiculously huge loans, saddling themselves with debt just to get an education so they're competitive in today's world feels absurd and with the [rise of automation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU), I do not see this being alleviated in the slightest.
From those two loose threads, the entire fabric that was the well-spun lie about America began to unravel. [John Oliver in particular](https://www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight) has been providing me with the one depressing story after another, and
* from the recent election of Trump because of [a system that is long overdue for an overhaul](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM),
* to the fact that Americans apparently view their presidents as important enough to memorize the entire line of,
* ~~to the constant (attempted) infringement of rights which needs the entire world up in arms to prevent (PRISM, SOPA, PIPA to name a few) in the name of earning more money,~~[2]
* ~~to the fact that religion plays such a huge role that there's a lot of people willing to reject the theory of evolution and fight for its abolishment is schools,~~[2]
* to the fact that your prison system is bonkers
lead me to the conclusion that, yes, America is a great place if you have an education and want to earn money, but it's a figurative shithole if you're born to parents who didn't have the foresight to use contraceptive when they couldn't afford you. It is an industrial monster that every so often swallows the lives of people to sustain itself. Great economic production, great social/legal sufferings.
Even now, as I write this, I am an intern at the municipality, have been for a month. I don't get paid from the municipality, but rather by two other social security nets:
* One for the formerly employed, but currently unemployed (because internships don't carry the guarantee of employment at its end, and I am technically formerly employed because I studied - again, studying is a job here in Denmark, a crappy paying one, but it's still a job)[3], and
* The other a fixed percentage of my apartment rent, literally called 'residential support'.
Together it's roughly 9600 DKK (1300 Euros)/month after taxes, and means that even should I return to being unemployed, I won't have to leave my home - I can even afford clothes, good food, birthday presents, and so on.
I am glad for the support the danish government has given me, and I am more than happy to pay my taxes for that to continue to be the case for the next generation. I feel privileged to be born in Denmark and not the United States of America, and ~~I will continue to vote against any legislation that is inspired by the US of A~~^[1] unless...
You provide a reason to *Change my view*.
[1] as /u/alecbenzer pointed out. [This line of reasoning is stupid](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5s9idm/cmv_the_united_states_of_america_is_socially_and/dddfuoq/), delta awarded. I stand by the rest of my CMV still, though.
[2] /u/felixjawesome pointed out that [a reason America might look backwards to me is because of its sheer size](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5s9idm/cmv_the_united_states_of_america_is_socially_and/dddins1/). It's easy for small countries, like Denmark, to make changes on a whim, but America is a behemoth, and changing the course is inheirently harder for larger beings. The important thing to look for is the fact that it *wants* to change, and I see plenty of that.
[3] This is where it gets a little wierd. I'm unemployed despite having an internship, but despite this there are criteria for continuing to get this social support. [Essentially, I have to prove that I am actively working on getting work. The moment I stop looking, the payments stop. Yes, even while I'm in an internship I am still looking for jobs because an internship isn't a job - it's part of the internship rules; they need to give me time, each day, to look for more jobs to apply to.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5s9idm/cmv_the_united_states_of_america_is_socially_and/ddde975/) TL;DR: I'm currently in an internship which means I work full time but am technically unemployed, and thus I am employed and earn my money by looking for jobs.
[Final edit for the day.] I feel the CMV is reaching critical mass. It has definitely blown up in a way I never anticipated! I've tried my best to reason my viewpoint, as have others - my view is changed (not completely turned around, mind. But changed none the less), and judging by comments and private messages, mine is not the only view that's changed. But now people are raising the same points using the same graphs, using the same arguments discussed already, so I am going to call it quits for today and get back to sketching out my thoughts for the 25th century on the sketchblock I got for christmas. Thank you all for your stories, thought, debates, and likewise, I will return tomorrow to see if there are new points brought up. | Opposing ideas based on where they come from isn't helpful. Judge ideas as ideas. If someone proposes a good law, support it. If someone proposes a bad law, oppose it. The inspiration for the law shouldn't matter.
It'd be silly to oppose a good law that happens to have been inspired by something in America. | > Well you should change your view because it's largely hateful.
Is it hateful? Or do you just feel hated on because you have so much hate inside you?
OP said America's prison systems are bonkers. How can you feel that's being hated on? If it is, it's your people hating on you **because you people literally engage in legalized modern slavery and forms of torture otherwise outlawed by civilized countries and you do this to children.**
I believe it's very fair and accurate to say that. | 5s9idm | CMV: The United States of America is socially and legally backwards and should not be emulated by other countries. | As the title may imply, I'm not an American. I'm a 24-year-old Dane who finished university last summer and as a result, I am a master of science in computer science (that's a mouthful in English)
My childhood was during the late nineties and through the naughts, and during this time I was brought up with an America-centric worldview, with America as this mythical place where you went to earn a lot of money and live the high life. It was responsible for, quite literally 'the free world'.
But as I got older, I started to see a lot of cracks. The first one came when I heard about your healthcare, about how you could catch a life-threatening disease through no fault of your own and be saddled with crippling bills for the treatment, and when I started hearing reports about how incredibly sick patients went to work because they couldn't afford a doctor, I was quite frankly disgusted. When it dawned on me that doctors are being paid by medicine-producing companies to promote their drugs, I was quite literally horrified.
The second big blow was when it came to education. In Denmark, you get paid if you study full time. It's enough to survive on if you're savvy with your expenses and don't have a bank saved up, about 5800 DKK (790 euro)/month if you're living alone and a university student, but it varies depending on level of education, whether you're living at home (You do still get paid even if you are), and other factors. It's also not tax-exempt because in the eyes of the government you are employed as a student, which brings it down to about 5000 DKK (670 Euro) after taxes - again, enough to pay rent, electricity, etc, and survive on if you're savvy.
So hearing that students take out ridiculously huge loans, saddling themselves with debt just to get an education so they're competitive in today's world feels absurd and with the [rise of automation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU), I do not see this being alleviated in the slightest.
From those two loose threads, the entire fabric that was the well-spun lie about America began to unravel. [John Oliver in particular](https://www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight) has been providing me with the one depressing story after another, and
* from the recent election of Trump because of [a system that is long overdue for an overhaul](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM),
* to the fact that Americans apparently view their presidents as important enough to memorize the entire line of,
* ~~to the constant (attempted) infringement of rights which needs the entire world up in arms to prevent (PRISM, SOPA, PIPA to name a few) in the name of earning more money,~~[2]
* ~~to the fact that religion plays such a huge role that there's a lot of people willing to reject the theory of evolution and fight for its abolishment is schools,~~[2]
* to the fact that your prison system is bonkers
lead me to the conclusion that, yes, America is a great place if you have an education and want to earn money, but it's a figurative shithole if you're born to parents who didn't have the foresight to use contraceptive when they couldn't afford you. It is an industrial monster that every so often swallows the lives of people to sustain itself. Great economic production, great social/legal sufferings.
Even now, as I write this, I am an intern at the municipality, have been for a month. I don't get paid from the municipality, but rather by two other social security nets:
* One for the formerly employed, but currently unemployed (because internships don't carry the guarantee of employment at its end, and I am technically formerly employed because I studied - again, studying is a job here in Denmark, a crappy paying one, but it's still a job)[3], and
* The other a fixed percentage of my apartment rent, literally called 'residential support'.
Together it's roughly 9600 DKK (1300 Euros)/month after taxes, and means that even should I return to being unemployed, I won't have to leave my home - I can even afford clothes, good food, birthday presents, and so on.
I am glad for the support the danish government has given me, and I am more than happy to pay my taxes for that to continue to be the case for the next generation. I feel privileged to be born in Denmark and not the United States of America, and ~~I will continue to vote against any legislation that is inspired by the US of A~~^[1] unless...
You provide a reason to *Change my view*.
[1] as /u/alecbenzer pointed out. [This line of reasoning is stupid](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5s9idm/cmv_the_united_states_of_america_is_socially_and/dddfuoq/), delta awarded. I stand by the rest of my CMV still, though.
[2] /u/felixjawesome pointed out that [a reason America might look backwards to me is because of its sheer size](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5s9idm/cmv_the_united_states_of_america_is_socially_and/dddins1/). It's easy for small countries, like Denmark, to make changes on a whim, but America is a behemoth, and changing the course is inheirently harder for larger beings. The important thing to look for is the fact that it *wants* to change, and I see plenty of that.
[3] This is where it gets a little wierd. I'm unemployed despite having an internship, but despite this there are criteria for continuing to get this social support. [Essentially, I have to prove that I am actively working on getting work. The moment I stop looking, the payments stop. Yes, even while I'm in an internship I am still looking for jobs because an internship isn't a job - it's part of the internship rules; they need to give me time, each day, to look for more jobs to apply to.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5s9idm/cmv_the_united_states_of_america_is_socially_and/ddde975/) TL;DR: I'm currently in an internship which means I work full time but am technically unemployed, and thus I am employed and earn my money by looking for jobs.
[Final edit for the day.] I feel the CMV is reaching critical mass. It has definitely blown up in a way I never anticipated! I've tried my best to reason my viewpoint, as have others - my view is changed (not completely turned around, mind. But changed none the less), and judging by comments and private messages, mine is not the only view that's changed. But now people are raising the same points using the same graphs, using the same arguments discussed already, so I am going to call it quits for today and get back to sketching out my thoughts for the 25th century on the sketchblock I got for christmas. Thank you all for your stories, thought, debates, and likewise, I will return tomorrow to see if there are new points brought up. | 1,486,324,591 | jacobstx | dddfuoq | dddd6ym | 710 | 4 |
CMV: The NFL overtime system should allow the defending team a chance on offense, regardless of whether their opponents score a touchdown.
With the absolutely astonishing Superbowl in the books, I've been thinking about the current system for OT in the NFL. The idea is that the first team with possession can end the game immediately if they score a touchdown, without the opposite team's offense ever getting a chance to score themselves. I have yet to hear a compelling reason for the defending team (i.e. the team that loses the coin toss) not being given a shot on offense after giving up a touchdown. It seems more fair to give them a shot, and would lead to more exciting games.
> *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!* | In regular games this would make sense because the early games would cut into late games if they just kept going.
In the Super Bowl though the current system works because of the coin toss.
Imagine baseball where a coin flip determines who is home team. That team has home field advantage where they can score as many runs in the final inning as they can without being cut off.
Similarly the coin flip in this situation is deciding who has the advantage.
Is it the most fair system? No.
But it is the most fair, simple system available that doesn't cause the Superbowl to cut into other broadcast time.
If the game ran noon-4pm, a system allowing for near limitless chances at reprisal would work. But due to the time the game is being played, drawing it out causes issues that are most easily avoided by simplifying the system even at the cost of some fairness. | It would lead to long games. And in the regular season this would mean that the early game would cut into the late game a lot of the time.
I mean at least a team has to work for a touchdown.
But if I score one and you score one we are right back where we started and now we are kissing our sister with a tie. And ties suck. | 5sc64x | CMV: The NFL overtime system should allow the defending team a chance on offense, regardless of whether their opponents score a touchdown. | With the absolutely astonishing Superbowl in the books, I've been thinking about the current system for OT in the NFL. The idea is that the first team with possession can end the game immediately if they score a touchdown, without the opposite team's offense ever getting a chance to score themselves. I have yet to hear a compelling reason for the defending team (i.e. the team that loses the coin toss) not being given a shot on offense after giving up a touchdown. It seems more fair to give them a shot, and would lead to more exciting games.
> *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!* | 1,486,355,451 | Richer_than_God | dde1uwg | dddzdag | 10 | 5 |
CMV: Russia has some sort of blackmail on Donald Trump.
I don't want to bore you all with a wall of text--I think the notion that Trump is under the thumb of Russia, and Putin, in some way is fairly well established. There's the buzzfeed dossier (which is admittedly not fully reliable), but there's also a pattern of seemingly illogical defenses/support of Putin and Russia on Trump's part. For a heated nativist, Trump seems pretty happy with Russia.
To me it seems like the only reason a guy like Trump would be so blatantly positive and defensive about Putin and Russia is if they had something on him that could potentially humiliate him.
CMV
| Trump gets Putin. Simple as that.
You want to meet a shit load of shady, strong arm, morally bankrupt, cunning, psychopaths? Go into property development in New York City.
Because of Trump's world view and experience he not only understands Putin, he kind of goes "what's so bad about that?" Putin has his little country to run and Trump knows that Putin knows that the USA is now far too big a fish for Putin to fuck with, so Trump doesn't really care what Putin does in his own back yard.
Obama, Bush, and Clinton all had this world view where everything was interconnected and we were going to build bridges and slowly integrate everyone together. Trump doesn't believe that, and he doesn't want it even if it was true. For Clinton, Bush, and Obama a "bad actor" of Russia on the world stage is their problem to deal with. For Trump Russia is China's problem, and China is his problem. | I understand this isn't exactly the subject of OP's thread, but-
> ...an existential threat to US predominance and life.... Those battles are with China and Islamic terrorism.
Neither China nor Islamic terrorism are existential threats to US hegemony or life in the United States.
Islamic terrorism is an extremely minor "threat" to the United States. At the very most Islamic terrorism has short term negative economic impacts on the United States. Far from existential. If you look at the number of Americans who have fallen victim to Islamic terrorism you'll see that it's extremely low relative to the population of the United States.
China really lacks the ability to project power outside of a handful of undeveloped African states and the nations just outside their borders. It would take a massive diplomatic and militaristic effort to expand China's sphere of influence at the expense of the United States. | 5scb6w | CMV: Russia has some sort of blackmail on Donald Trump. | I don't want to bore you all with a wall of text--I think the notion that Trump is under the thumb of Russia, and Putin, in some way is fairly well established. There's the buzzfeed dossier (which is admittedly not fully reliable), but there's also a pattern of seemingly illogical defenses/support of Putin and Russia on Trump's part. For a heated nativist, Trump seems pretty happy with Russia.
To me it seems like the only reason a guy like Trump would be so blatantly positive and defensive about Putin and Russia is if they had something on him that could potentially humiliate him.
CMV
| 1,486,357,229 | namename77 | ddei0xz | dde3tqa | 18 | 6 |
CMV: Outsourcing jobs is the root of all of american's economic problems.
I feel that outsourcing is the root of America's economic problems. The general logic works like this.
American companies make products that are primarily sold to american users. Take the american car industry for instance, how many american cars are sold abroad vs locally?
Outsourcing labour and production improves profitability for companies, and that's a good thing. It does so by reducing wages, and this is where corporate america shoots itself in the foot.
In general if labour demand is lowered (or supply is increased via immigration) then wages go down.
If wages go down, then the money in the hands of the consumers is reduced. This means that there's no one left to buy the goods being produced by american companies.
But they're still running? How can that be? Debt.
We've shipped off jobs out of the US.. causing the US consumer to rely on debt to fill in the 'gap' between what they earn, and what companies are asking to maintain their profits. But debt is a short term solution, we can't borrow forever... and therefore we are setting ourselves up for crashes and long term deflation.
All of this can be traced back to american corporations being too short sighted to realise if they don't pay their employees and increasing wage; they can't expect sustainably increasing profits as a matter of principle.
This will become extremely obvious as machines take over production and produce boundless goods... that no one can afford to buy.
> *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!* | >Outsourcing labour and production improves profitability for companies, and that's a good thing. It does so by reducing wages, and this is where corporate america shoots itself in the foot.
That's looking at the issue too narrowly. First of all, the company doesn't just pocket the difference. Since multiple competing companies do this, lower production costs lead to lower sticker prices on products.
Now there are a few affects to this.
First, American consumers pay less money than they otherwise would for a product, meaning their money goes further and their standard of living is higher.
Second, a lot of products that people have access to make them more productive. Your car, your computer, your smartphone, your kitchen appliances, etc. Make tasks easier and quicker, and mean you can do more stuff during the day. This has a tremendous impact on established companies, and startups, since it lowers the barriers of entry for starting a new business. It's really hard to quantify how much this benefits the local economy.
>All of this can be traced back to american corporations being too short sighted to realise if they don't pay their employees and increasing wage; they can't expect sustainably increasing profits as a matter of principle.
Consumers have chosen again and again that they want the cheaper, foreign made product. Zenith and RCA lost to Sony and Panasonic. The have needed to outsource and automate to stay competitive, otherwise they'd lose out to foreign companies selling their products to Americans.
>This will become extremely obvious as machines take over production and produce boundless goods... that no one can afford to buy.
There's the much bigger culprit: automation. Companies always look to lower their overhead, and it's a lot cheaper and easier to reduce labor costs in your local factory instead of establishing a presence and building a factory overseas. | > I feel like it's a pick one of two case here. You can't have one without sacrificing the other. ANd the extent to which the sacrifice is made directly contributes to my point.
That's not how economics works, especially with scale technologies. It is usually the case where trade has resulted in gains for everyone. Certainly not every segment of society equally, but every country.
> I have a feeling the Iphone's price wouldn't be too much different made in America in real value... Especially if American workers were earning more. Apple's share price might be much much lower, but the actual phone probably cost about the same.
There is no way this would be true. Come on.
> The extra money profited by employing chinese workers (who despite making the iphone will never be able to afford the Iphone) goes straight into: https://www.google.com/finance?cid=22144
Nope. Remember, it is a competitive market still. You can't just price your apples at $10 if everyone else is selling at $8.
> The Iphone is priced such that you technically can't 'afford' one either without signing up for a plan which is essentially a debt. I'm not sure how many ameircan's can fork out $650USD off the cuff for the latest Iphone.
Well realistically (as opposed to my previous point) Apple has surely done a lot to dictate smartphone pricing. But whether Americans can easily afford a $650 phone is not the point. The point is without Chinese manufacturing, that phone will cost at least double. | 5sd8vx | CMV: Outsourcing jobs is the root of all of american's economic problems. | I feel that outsourcing is the root of America's economic problems. The general logic works like this.
American companies make products that are primarily sold to american users. Take the american car industry for instance, how many american cars are sold abroad vs locally?
Outsourcing labour and production improves profitability for companies, and that's a good thing. It does so by reducing wages, and this is where corporate america shoots itself in the foot.
In general if labour demand is lowered (or supply is increased via immigration) then wages go down.
If wages go down, then the money in the hands of the consumers is reduced. This means that there's no one left to buy the goods being produced by american companies.
But they're still running? How can that be? Debt.
We've shipped off jobs out of the US.. causing the US consumer to rely on debt to fill in the 'gap' between what they earn, and what companies are asking to maintain their profits. But debt is a short term solution, we can't borrow forever... and therefore we are setting ourselves up for crashes and long term deflation.
All of this can be traced back to american corporations being too short sighted to realise if they don't pay their employees and increasing wage; they can't expect sustainably increasing profits as a matter of principle.
This will become extremely obvious as machines take over production and produce boundless goods... that no one can afford to buy.
> *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!* | 1,486,372,475 | Karmafarma25 | dde91cz | dde7mrn | 8 | 3 |
CMV: The political ideology I propose herein would be a vast improvement for America, reunify the country if people at large bought into it, and protect human rights better than either major party.
I'm considering writing a book proposing a new political ideology, and thought I would use Reddit for feedback!
The core of this proposed political ideology is neither Democratic, not Republican, nor Libertarian, but has elements of it that would appeal to a cross-section of the population, I believe.
The main focus of the ideology is reliance on logic instead of emotion, and protecting human rights. This is a common aim among all Americans to differing extents, but few agree how to go about it. In this post I'll just focus on a few aspects of my ideology, but in large part it has to do with maximally restricting government's ability to dictate personal actions. This is something Libertarians fundamentally agree with (though their desire to eradicate business and environmental regulations as well turn many non-libertarians off), and should also appeal to small-government conservatives and human-rights Democrats.
___________________________________________________
"Big Ideas":
-The government does have an important role to play. They should protect the commons (environment), provide a social safety net, guard out borders, create a business environment that is fair and competitive, collect and distribute taxes, and ensure the safety of their citizens. We reject the far-libertarian view that everything should be privatized.
-That said, as far as human rights go, eliminating the excesses of the criminal justice system is inextricably linked to ensuring the rights of the citizens from intrusion by their government.
-Criminal laws are nothing more than threats from our government. Remember, pieces of paper do not have the power to physically prevent a murder - all they do is say "If you do Action X, we will ruin your life." This is justified sometimes, but we should never forget the true nature of laws as threats, and view them as a necessary evil at best.
-Illegalizing any personal action is inherently an intrusion into personal freedom by government. That is not to say it is never justified, but it should always be viewed with extreme skepticism.
-The right to engage in personal actions which do not cause harm is fundamental, not subject to the whims of public opinion. This is a key difference in this ideology.
-A general principle is that "If a personal action is legal in at least one upscale, western first-world country (being here defined as the US, Canada, Australia, and any country that is both in the EU and was not part of the Warsaw Pact), it almost certainly should be legal." The rationale being that if an upscale country can function without banning something, it's almost certain that it's not necessary to ban it for society to function.
______________________________________________________
Part 1:
"if x (where "x" is a "personal action" (ie, an activity a citizen can choose to engage in - not a business regulation or something of that nature)) does not harm anybody and does not have the potential to harm anybody, or alternatively if x has the potential to harm only those willingly engaging in x, then engaging in x is a *fundamental human right* which no governing body has the right to prohibit no matter how popular or unpopular x is, and attempting to do so is a crime against humanity and should be punished as such.
Attempts to demonstrate "X is harmful" or "X has the potential to be harmful" must rely specifically on actions that are a direct consequence of X, and not those of tangentially-related events or a "slippery slope." For instance, arguing that gambling should be illegal or restricted because some gamblers "fuel their habit" by robbing banks is in invalid argument - it's the bank-robbing that is causing the harm to nonparticipant third parties, not the gambling. Similarly, those who argue that violent video games should be illegal or restricted because some of their players commit violent crimes are using an invalid argument - the actual violence is the cause of harm, not the game. Arguing that certain hard drugs should be illegal because their users inherently become violent towards non-participants may in some instances be a more compelling argument (because the argument claims that the violent tendencies are an inherent, inevitable consequence of action X and not just something a subset of participants do), but should still be viewed with skepticism. It is the absolute responsibility of those attempting to restrict or ban X to prove beyond any doubt that X is harmful or has the potential to be harmful.
If x does have the potential to cause harm to those not willingly participating in x, then x is likely *not a fundamental human right* and is *subject to popular opinion* - however, mitigating factors should be considered which could tip the scales in favor of keeping x legal. Example: Driving. Driving heavy automobiles at fast speeds has the potential to cause harm, even to those not willingly engaging in x (eg, protesters walking on the sidewalks near roads). Driving is therefore not a fundamental human right, but a myriad of obvious mitigating factors tip the scales in favor of keeping driving legal."
_____________________________________________
Example 1: Should prostitution be legal? From the above statement, we can see that the only two people substantially impacted by the act are also involved and consenting to the act, and it seems nearly impossible to prove that it is causing definitive harm to nonparticipant third parties. As such, it should be legal, but this ideology breaks from most by saying not just that it "should" be legal, as if the support of the people is required, by rather defining it as a *fundamental human right* that it would be a *crime* for any politician to try to circumvent. Public opinion has no bearing.
Also notice that a common erroneous argument applied here is that "legalizing prostitution would encourage human trafficking." I'll refer to this as the "subset fallacy" - the reasoning is attempting to reference something that *sometimes* occurs alongside Action X(prostitution), and using it to try to make a law that affects Action X itself, rather than the subset. Rather, this reasoning only justifies laws that ban human trafficking, not prostitution. The fact that legal prostitution makes human trafficking "easier" is immaterial.
____________________________________________
Example 2: Should driving 70 MPH on the highway be legal?
First, note that as the roads are paid with tax dollars for public use, this is not strictly a "personal action." Thus, public opinion *does* matter. The people should be able to decide what rules they would like for their publicly-funded roads, and there is no "right" to drive at any given speed. Naturally, being allowed to drive 70 MPH on private property (with consent of the property owner) is a fundamental human right.
___________________________________________________
Part 2: The role of taxes
(There is a lot more to do with defining rights, limiting governmental scope as far as criminalizing actions, and other such things, but to keep things short here I wanted to skip ahead to another part of the ideology I find interesting.)
-There is no right to avoid paying taxes, and as such taxes should largely be determined by popular opinion. That said, there are some guidelines lawmakers should be obliged to follow when creating tax code:
-No stratified income tax shall be such that those in higher tax brackets feel unduly punished for their marginal additional income (IE, if income up to $200k is taxed at 25% and income over $200k is taxed at 50%, the value of dollars earned over $200k goes down too much, too fast. This principle is of course subjective, as it is not protecting a fundamental right, but followers of this ideology would keep it in mind when creating tax law or debating tax policy
-No income should be taxed at an amount greater than 100% of actual earnings
-(Most critically and most interesting) Taxes are a tool to be used to offset negative externalities, but are NOT a tool to use for social engineering.
Example: The government wants fewer people to gamble, so they impose a 5% tax on all gambling winnings. This tax would NOT be permitted. A tax cannot be used to induce action or deter action alone.
Example: The government is concerned that an increase in soda intake will increase the burden on the public healthcare system in the future, and want to impose a tax to recoup their losses. They estimate (through careful analysis with healthcare professionals and other relevant field experts, and would of course be required to provide proof of their calculations for the tax to be permitted) that for each soda consumed, a person is .002% more likely to develop a condition that requires reliance on Medicare or other governmental assistance later in life, calculated across society at large. It's also estimated that the average cost of these conditions to government is $30,000 per person. By multiplying 30,000 by .002 percent, the government decides to tax sugary drinks at an amount no greater than $0.60 per liter to offset the costs they later expect to incur from the activity. This tax WOULD be permitted, and is a perfect example of how things would work in a logic-based political system.
_________________________________
There's much more, but there's a basic introduction! I look forward to hearing your thoughts (also, if anyone has a name for this ideology, feel free to suggest it!)
| I think it is imminently practical, far more so than some of the more-rounded Libertarian, "We don't have to pay taxes" ideology. Eradicating each and every law that regulates private actions that doesn't impact nonparticipant third parties could be enacted *today*, with no preparation, and society would continue to function just fine.
Religion? I don't see the relevance. People could have said for a long time that Gay Marriage was "at odds" with religion, but that doesn't make it any less of a right. People can still believe whatever they want, religious rights don't go away. They'd just be forced to recognize that just because they believe something doesn't mean they have the ability to enforce it on others...something they should be used to by now.
| >But I recognize that what I want doesn't matter
What you recognize and what the majority recognizes are totally different things, and there's no way you could convince an entire population to follow a logic-based method to politics especially since your entire thesis relies on giving people free will and explicitly banning any kind of social engineering that could be used to draw people closer to a rational system of politics. People aren't the result of divisive politics, divisive politics is the result of people. | 5sel3g | CMV: The political ideology I propose herein would be a vast improvement for America, reunify the country if people at large bought into it, and protect human rights better than either major party. | I'm considering writing a book proposing a new political ideology, and thought I would use Reddit for feedback!
The core of this proposed political ideology is neither Democratic, not Republican, nor Libertarian, but has elements of it that would appeal to a cross-section of the population, I believe.
The main focus of the ideology is reliance on logic instead of emotion, and protecting human rights. This is a common aim among all Americans to differing extents, but few agree how to go about it. In this post I'll just focus on a few aspects of my ideology, but in large part it has to do with maximally restricting government's ability to dictate personal actions. This is something Libertarians fundamentally agree with (though their desire to eradicate business and environmental regulations as well turn many non-libertarians off), and should also appeal to small-government conservatives and human-rights Democrats.
___________________________________________________
"Big Ideas":
-The government does have an important role to play. They should protect the commons (environment), provide a social safety net, guard out borders, create a business environment that is fair and competitive, collect and distribute taxes, and ensure the safety of their citizens. We reject the far-libertarian view that everything should be privatized.
-That said, as far as human rights go, eliminating the excesses of the criminal justice system is inextricably linked to ensuring the rights of the citizens from intrusion by their government.
-Criminal laws are nothing more than threats from our government. Remember, pieces of paper do not have the power to physically prevent a murder - all they do is say "If you do Action X, we will ruin your life." This is justified sometimes, but we should never forget the true nature of laws as threats, and view them as a necessary evil at best.
-Illegalizing any personal action is inherently an intrusion into personal freedom by government. That is not to say it is never justified, but it should always be viewed with extreme skepticism.
-The right to engage in personal actions which do not cause harm is fundamental, not subject to the whims of public opinion. This is a key difference in this ideology.
-A general principle is that "If a personal action is legal in at least one upscale, western first-world country (being here defined as the US, Canada, Australia, and any country that is both in the EU and was not part of the Warsaw Pact), it almost certainly should be legal." The rationale being that if an upscale country can function without banning something, it's almost certain that it's not necessary to ban it for society to function.
______________________________________________________
Part 1:
"if x (where "x" is a "personal action" (ie, an activity a citizen can choose to engage in - not a business regulation or something of that nature)) does not harm anybody and does not have the potential to harm anybody, or alternatively if x has the potential to harm only those willingly engaging in x, then engaging in x is a *fundamental human right* which no governing body has the right to prohibit no matter how popular or unpopular x is, and attempting to do so is a crime against humanity and should be punished as such.
Attempts to demonstrate "X is harmful" or "X has the potential to be harmful" must rely specifically on actions that are a direct consequence of X, and not those of tangentially-related events or a "slippery slope." For instance, arguing that gambling should be illegal or restricted because some gamblers "fuel their habit" by robbing banks is in invalid argument - it's the bank-robbing that is causing the harm to nonparticipant third parties, not the gambling. Similarly, those who argue that violent video games should be illegal or restricted because some of their players commit violent crimes are using an invalid argument - the actual violence is the cause of harm, not the game. Arguing that certain hard drugs should be illegal because their users inherently become violent towards non-participants may in some instances be a more compelling argument (because the argument claims that the violent tendencies are an inherent, inevitable consequence of action X and not just something a subset of participants do), but should still be viewed with skepticism. It is the absolute responsibility of those attempting to restrict or ban X to prove beyond any doubt that X is harmful or has the potential to be harmful.
If x does have the potential to cause harm to those not willingly participating in x, then x is likely *not a fundamental human right* and is *subject to popular opinion* - however, mitigating factors should be considered which could tip the scales in favor of keeping x legal. Example: Driving. Driving heavy automobiles at fast speeds has the potential to cause harm, even to those not willingly engaging in x (eg, protesters walking on the sidewalks near roads). Driving is therefore not a fundamental human right, but a myriad of obvious mitigating factors tip the scales in favor of keeping driving legal."
_____________________________________________
Example 1: Should prostitution be legal? From the above statement, we can see that the only two people substantially impacted by the act are also involved and consenting to the act, and it seems nearly impossible to prove that it is causing definitive harm to nonparticipant third parties. As such, it should be legal, but this ideology breaks from most by saying not just that it "should" be legal, as if the support of the people is required, by rather defining it as a *fundamental human right* that it would be a *crime* for any politician to try to circumvent. Public opinion has no bearing.
Also notice that a common erroneous argument applied here is that "legalizing prostitution would encourage human trafficking." I'll refer to this as the "subset fallacy" - the reasoning is attempting to reference something that *sometimes* occurs alongside Action X(prostitution), and using it to try to make a law that affects Action X itself, rather than the subset. Rather, this reasoning only justifies laws that ban human trafficking, not prostitution. The fact that legal prostitution makes human trafficking "easier" is immaterial.
____________________________________________
Example 2: Should driving 70 MPH on the highway be legal?
First, note that as the roads are paid with tax dollars for public use, this is not strictly a "personal action." Thus, public opinion *does* matter. The people should be able to decide what rules they would like for their publicly-funded roads, and there is no "right" to drive at any given speed. Naturally, being allowed to drive 70 MPH on private property (with consent of the property owner) is a fundamental human right.
___________________________________________________
Part 2: The role of taxes
(There is a lot more to do with defining rights, limiting governmental scope as far as criminalizing actions, and other such things, but to keep things short here I wanted to skip ahead to another part of the ideology I find interesting.)
-There is no right to avoid paying taxes, and as such taxes should largely be determined by popular opinion. That said, there are some guidelines lawmakers should be obliged to follow when creating tax code:
-No stratified income tax shall be such that those in higher tax brackets feel unduly punished for their marginal additional income (IE, if income up to $200k is taxed at 25% and income over $200k is taxed at 50%, the value of dollars earned over $200k goes down too much, too fast. This principle is of course subjective, as it is not protecting a fundamental right, but followers of this ideology would keep it in mind when creating tax law or debating tax policy
-No income should be taxed at an amount greater than 100% of actual earnings
-(Most critically and most interesting) Taxes are a tool to be used to offset negative externalities, but are NOT a tool to use for social engineering.
Example: The government wants fewer people to gamble, so they impose a 5% tax on all gambling winnings. This tax would NOT be permitted. A tax cannot be used to induce action or deter action alone.
Example: The government is concerned that an increase in soda intake will increase the burden on the public healthcare system in the future, and want to impose a tax to recoup their losses. They estimate (through careful analysis with healthcare professionals and other relevant field experts, and would of course be required to provide proof of their calculations for the tax to be permitted) that for each soda consumed, a person is .002% more likely to develop a condition that requires reliance on Medicare or other governmental assistance later in life, calculated across society at large. It's also estimated that the average cost of these conditions to government is $30,000 per person. By multiplying 30,000 by .002 percent, the government decides to tax sugary drinks at an amount no greater than $0.60 per liter to offset the costs they later expect to incur from the activity. This tax WOULD be permitted, and is a perfect example of how things would work in a logic-based political system.
_________________________________
There's much more, but there's a basic introduction! I look forward to hearing your thoughts (also, if anyone has a name for this ideology, feel free to suggest it!)
| 1,486,392,117 | yogokitty | ddehacx | ddeh5aj | 2 | 0 |
CMV: Instead of allowing/encouraging people to identify as queer/trans/etc, all focus should be on dissolving the norms surrounding gender etc.
I've found myself conflicted about the seemingly ever-expanding sexual identity spectrum. We've got all kinds of labels for people that don't fit in with the norms regarding gender, sexual orientation etc.
While I see the point of creating "us" groups with people who are similar to us (e.g. gay men), especially when "we" are pushed away by the normative group (e.g. heterosexual men), it also adds to friction between these groups. Instead, I believe that what education and social movements should focus on is to bring prejudice about gender, appearance and behaviour to the surface and question them.
The goal can't be "Hey let's separate everyone into different groups based on how they act and who they love", but must be "Hey, let's acknowledge that there are men who wears dresses and nail polish and that's not weird, they are still men. No more, no less." | Your problem is that you fundamentally misunderstand what transgender people actually feel. A transgender woman (like me) feels that they are born in the wrong body, like being born male was a mistake and it results in a lot of dysphoria. Just saying to me "Okay, it's okay to be a man and wear a dress" Does not solve my problem, because *being male bodied just feels wrong.*
I don't particularly get why this is hard to understand because it's a very common mistake. I know transgender women that don't wear dresses or even act all that feminine. It's the *body* that they feel is wrong. It's not your clothes, or your hair, or your make up, or your anything. Having a penis feels wrong to me, this is a mental condition known as Gender Dysphoria.
What makes me want to be female is not the dresses. It is not the makeup. It is not anything other than the fact that my *body* feels wrong. Therefore saying "it's okay to be a man and wear dresses :)" Does not solve this problem at all. | This puts all the burden on queer and trans people, making them uncomfortable and denying them identity and community indefinitely, while the people actually causing the problems by enforcing gender roles etc. are free to keep being dicks with minimal consequences. | 5sgmj4 | CMV: Instead of allowing/encouraging people to identify as queer/trans/etc, all focus should be on dissolving the norms surrounding gender etc. | I've found myself conflicted about the seemingly ever-expanding sexual identity spectrum. We've got all kinds of labels for people that don't fit in with the norms regarding gender, sexual orientation etc.
While I see the point of creating "us" groups with people who are similar to us (e.g. gay men), especially when "we" are pushed away by the normative group (e.g. heterosexual men), it also adds to friction between these groups. Instead, I believe that what education and social movements should focus on is to bring prejudice about gender, appearance and behaviour to the surface and question them.
The goal can't be "Hey let's separate everyone into different groups based on how they act and who they love", but must be "Hey, let's acknowledge that there are men who wears dresses and nail polish and that's not weird, they are still men. No more, no less." | 1,486,412,273 | nuttiebear | ddew2dl | ddevzs9 | 21 | 5 |
CMV: We need to be more exclusive when using the term "GOAT" in reference to athletes.
Okay, first off, with all of this talk about Tom Brady being the "GOAT" (Greatest Of All Time). It has reignited my passionate frustration with people calling average or slightly-above average players GOATs. James Harden will score 50 points in a game and suddenly half of NBA Twitter is tweeting GOAT memes and gifs.
CUT THAT SHIT OUT.
We can argue that the consensus top 5 athletes of whichever sport may be called "GOATs" because they actually are the Greatest of All Time. Change my view, Shea Serrano. (Glock Osweiler is a pile of garbage quarterback.) | So it seems to me that your gripe is primarily that tossing around "GOAT" too casually undermines basketball history. To call James Harden the "GOAT" is to disregard the achievements of LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Magic, Kareem, Bill Russell, etc.!
But what if maybe, just maybe, throwing around "GOAT" has the opposite effect? Every time someone mentions a "GOAT," they are referencing the fact that basketball (or whatever) has a rich history of all-time great players. To say "James Harden is amazing!" is to praise Harden in a vacuum, with no context. To say "Harden is the GOAT!" is to take his achievements and reference them in the context of that rich history of greatness. Surely, the speaker knows he is speaking in hyperbole. However, the mere thought that he *might* be witnessing something as special as LeBron, Kobe, MJ, etc. is so exciting that the fan can't help but bring up the idea.
To me, that props up history in a positive way. | But the point of objectivity vs subjectivity still stands. If a person uses the *GOAT* label to describe someone, they naturally need to back it up with data. And data doesn't lie. A person who claims Kobe is the GOAT would probably weight different data differently than a person who claims Wilt is the GOAT. But at the end of the day, objective data would end up declaring a **single** winner.
The existence of more than one GOAT for any criteria automatically means the label is 100% opinion and not fact. And if you concede that the GOAT label is, in fact, a title rooted in opinion and not fact, then the exclusivity of the label is also completely open to opinion and interpretation. | 5sh1ew | CMV: We need to be more exclusive when using the term "GOAT" in reference to athletes. |
Okay, first off, with all of this talk about Tom Brady being the "GOAT" (Greatest Of All Time). It has reignited my passionate frustration with people calling average or slightly-above average players GOATs. James Harden will score 50 points in a game and suddenly half of NBA Twitter is tweeting GOAT memes and gifs.
CUT THAT SHIT OUT.
We can argue that the consensus top 5 athletes of whichever sport may be called "GOATs" because they actually are the Greatest of All Time. Change my view, Shea Serrano. (Glock Osweiler is a pile of garbage quarterback.) | 1,486,416,293 | adequateatbestt | ddfa6id | ddf5iep | 5 | 1 |
CMV: I am not pro-life, nor am I pro-choice. I am pro-abortion
I'm making this CMV because I've noticed that my views on abortion don't really line up with either of the two main viewpoints on it (although they're much closer to a pro-choice viewpoint than a pro-life one). This isn't so much one specific view as it is a collection of related views regarding abortion.
I'll specifically list the things that I believe and the things that I don't believe. I think it's good to address both sides because we live in a world where a simple sentence like "I support gun rights" has people immediately jumping to conclusions about your views on everything from race relations and gay marriage to economic standpoints and foreign policy. Addressing both sides helps to avoid people reaching incorrect conclusions.
Important note: For the purposes of this discussion I am writing this with the assumption in mind that a fetus at any point in development is equivalent to a human life. I **do not** believe this and I will explain my reasons for making this assumption in the "Things I don't believe" section.
Also, I am from the U.S.A. and I will be writing this with specific regards to the United States. When I say 'government', 'society', etc. I mean the U.S. government or U.S. society.
**Things that I believe**
*View*: Abortions help society.
*Reasoning*: There are many reasons that we should try to minimize the number of unwanted babies. For starters, every human who is born takes up a lot of resources, and produces a lot of pollution. The average American is responsible for roughly 20 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year ([source](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita)). Essentially, humans are bad for the environment so less humans is a good thing if we consider climate change to be important.
Additionally, unwanted babies are more likely to grow up in bad situations (since they were unwanted), and are more likely to become criminals detrimental to society, or if not criminals then people on welfare which is also detrimental to society. Now yes, it is possible that some aborted baby would have grown up to be the next Einstein. But since it is more likely that they will end up being detrimental to society, I see no reason why we should assume that the less likely of two outcomes will happen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*View*: Women of any age, citizenship status, etc. should be able to get an abortion from any abortion clinic for free, no questions asked.
*Reasoning*: In order for this to be free, I suggest a small federal tax increase to cover the cost of government funded abortions. The tax would only need to be minimal - the average cost of an abortion is a little less than $500 ([source](https://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2014/06/much-abortion-cost-draft-theresas/)). This is a relatively tiny amount of money to the government, so the tax increase would be minimal.
The benefits however, would be huge. It is highly likely that easier abortion access would help reduce the global carbon footprint, and would also reduce crime. This isn't even going into the fact that it would help improve the lives of the potential mother and father in a very direct way if the pregnancy was unwanted. Overall, this would be a good investment for society. In addition, I mention age and citizenship status because regardless of these factors, American citizens still benefit when women get abortions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*View*: Doctors should be required to inform pregnant women about the safety and cost of abortions, as well as the safety and cost of pregnancy (including the costs of raising the child).
*Reasoning*: More (accurate) information is never a bad thing. Requiring doctors to inform patients about both options will allow the pregnant woman to make a more informed decision on whether or not to abort. If you oppose a doctor simply informing their patient of the facts, then you oppose spreading knowledge and have no place in any sort of philosophical discussion. If you still do not like the fact that the woman may be more likely to choose abortion when they are more aware of the facts, then maybe you should rethink your position on the matter because when people gain knowledge on the subject they become more likely to disagree with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*View*: A fetus is essentially a form of parasite, and women deserve the ability to remove such a parasite from their bodies.
*Reasoning*: A fetus is similar to parasite for several reasons. During pregnancy, the fetus feeds off the nutrients of the mother, while providing virtually no health benefits in return. Additionally, pregnancy can result in complications that lead to the death or disability of the mother. This is analogous to a parasite such a a mosquito which feeds off another being's nutrients, provides no benefit to the host, and can result in serious harm to the host. If it is moral for someone to slap a mosquito sucking their blood, then it is moral to allow a woman to abort a fetus.
Also not that this is fundamentally different from things such as breastfeeding or a mother simply providing food for her child. Breast milk serves no purpose to the mother, and the nutrients stored in food do not belong to anyone until they consume that food. In this way, a fetus in the womb truly does steal nutrients from the mother. A baby does not steal nutrients from the mother, but rather uses nutrients that were either useless to the mother (breastmilk), or provided by the mother as a gift and therefore never the mother's in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*View*: Abortions should be allowed up until birth, after which they should no longer be allowed.
*Reasoning*: This point will probably cause the most controversy. Many people will disagree with this because late in the pregnancy, the fetus would be able to survive on its own if it were surgically removed from the woman in the proper manner. However, I believe that just because it would be able to survive on its own does not change the fact that it is still essentially a parasite and the woman still deserves the right to remove that parasite from her body. The fetus, while in the womb, is still feeding off the nutrients of the mother (regardless of whether or not it could survive outside the womb), and therere should be treated as a parasite.
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
**Things that I do not believe**
*View*: Women should be forced to have abortions.
*Reasoning*: This one is obvious but it must be stated, I do not believe that any woman, for any reason, should EVER be forced into having an abortion. Encouraging them is fine, informing them is fine, forcing them is not.
--------------------------------------
*View*: A fetus's life is equivalent to a human life
*Reasoning*: As I mentioned earlier, I want this discussion to be had with the assumption in mind that fetus's are equivalent to human lives. However, I do not believe this is true. The reason I wish for this to be the assumption is that pro-lifers tend to get hung up on this which I know will lead to a meaningless discussion because I believe that abortion should be an option even if it were **uneqivocally proven** that a fetus were equal to a human life. Essentially, this boils down to "I don't care if a fetus is a human or not, women should be able to abort it either way."
----------------------------------
*View*: All killing is bad
*Reasoning*: There are many forms of killing that are generally considered acceptable. Soldiers kill other soldiers in wartime, people are allowed to kill in self-defense, and criminals are executed due to their crimes. All of these are perfectly legal forms of killing, and though some are controversial most would agree that at least one of the three is justified. I believe that abortion is another one of these types of killing. This is also why I don't care whether the fetus is a human or not - I view it as a legally and morally justified form of killing.
While I am interested in having my view changed, I am also interested in simply having a discussion on the topic. Let's talk about abortion!
| Firstly, your position is a pro-choice position, it's just a radicalized sort of pro-choice position. For example, atheists who happen to be extreme (e.g. anti-theists) don't stop being atheists.
But I don't consider that to be very important. More important is this: the views that you have given thus far could all be given in support of letting unwanted babies die. Do you also hold this view?
> Abortions help society....There are many reasons that we should try to minimize the number of unwanted babies.
Everything here also applies to unwanted babies who are already born.
> View: A fetus is essentially a form of parasite, and women deserve the ability to remove such a parasite from their bodies.
I assume this is a sort of a bodily autonomy argument. It seems like you're saying something like: women have a right to do what they want with their own bodies. This gives them the right to remove parasites that are attached to their body. Therefore, since fetuses are parasites, women have the right to remove fetuses.
A similar bodily autonomy argument can be given to support having the right to let babies die. You could say something like: all people have a right to do what they want with their own bodies. This gives them the right to refuse to care for others. Therefore, people have the right to refuse to care for fetuses (thus letting them die).
> View: Abortions should be allowed up until birth, after which they should no longer be allowed.
So what you're saying is *even if* the fetus could theoretically survive if the woman went through special surgical procedures, no woman should be forced to go through with this procedure. Instead, women should retain their right to an abortion, even if the baby could be saved (because the woman has a right to bodily autonomy).
A similar case can be made for letting babies die. *Even if* a particular baby could theoretically survive if a particular individual went through a special procedure (i.e. by giving the baby to authorities), no individual should be forced to go through with this procedure. Instead, everyone should retain their right to let babies die, even if the baby could be saved (because people have a right to bodily autonomy).
In conclusion, everyone should have the right to let babies die, even if the only thing you need to do is give the baby to the authorities. Further, we actually *should* let all unwanted babies die, because it would be good for society. Do you believe this? | I think part of the issue here is that your position is mostly outside of the current debate, almost to the point of being a non-sequitur.
Whether or not abortions should be encouraged is an interesting discussion but almost entirely irrelevant at the current point in time. It would be a little like arguing about institutionalized racism back when outright slavery was still legal; that it would be a very valid line of argument doesn't make it any less irrelevant until the greater question is settled.
I would argue that your position isn't so much a distinct one in the pro-choice/pro-life debate, but rather your personal reasons for being pro-choice. Furthermore, bringing the idea that we should be outright *encouraging* abortions into the current debate would do little but alienate many on the fence and provide ammo to the pro-life movement. | 5shhx3 | CMV: I am not pro-life, nor am I pro-choice. I am pro-abortion | I'm making this CMV because I've noticed that my views on abortion don't really line up with either of the two main viewpoints on it (although they're much closer to a pro-choice viewpoint than a pro-life one). This isn't so much one specific view as it is a collection of related views regarding abortion.
I'll specifically list the things that I believe and the things that I don't believe. I think it's good to address both sides because we live in a world where a simple sentence like "I support gun rights" has people immediately jumping to conclusions about your views on everything from race relations and gay marriage to economic standpoints and foreign policy. Addressing both sides helps to avoid people reaching incorrect conclusions.
Important note: For the purposes of this discussion I am writing this with the assumption in mind that a fetus at any point in development is equivalent to a human life. I **do not** believe this and I will explain my reasons for making this assumption in the "Things I don't believe" section.
Also, I am from the U.S.A. and I will be writing this with specific regards to the United States. When I say 'government', 'society', etc. I mean the U.S. government or U.S. society.
**Things that I believe**
*View*: Abortions help society.
*Reasoning*: There are many reasons that we should try to minimize the number of unwanted babies. For starters, every human who is born takes up a lot of resources, and produces a lot of pollution. The average American is responsible for roughly 20 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year ([source](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita)). Essentially, humans are bad for the environment so less humans is a good thing if we consider climate change to be important.
Additionally, unwanted babies are more likely to grow up in bad situations (since they were unwanted), and are more likely to become criminals detrimental to society, or if not criminals then people on welfare which is also detrimental to society. Now yes, it is possible that some aborted baby would have grown up to be the next Einstein. But since it is more likely that they will end up being detrimental to society, I see no reason why we should assume that the less likely of two outcomes will happen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*View*: Women of any age, citizenship status, etc. should be able to get an abortion from any abortion clinic for free, no questions asked.
*Reasoning*: In order for this to be free, I suggest a small federal tax increase to cover the cost of government funded abortions. The tax would only need to be minimal - the average cost of an abortion is a little less than $500 ([source](https://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2014/06/much-abortion-cost-draft-theresas/)). This is a relatively tiny amount of money to the government, so the tax increase would be minimal.
The benefits however, would be huge. It is highly likely that easier abortion access would help reduce the global carbon footprint, and would also reduce crime. This isn't even going into the fact that it would help improve the lives of the potential mother and father in a very direct way if the pregnancy was unwanted. Overall, this would be a good investment for society. In addition, I mention age and citizenship status because regardless of these factors, American citizens still benefit when women get abortions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*View*: Doctors should be required to inform pregnant women about the safety and cost of abortions, as well as the safety and cost of pregnancy (including the costs of raising the child).
*Reasoning*: More (accurate) information is never a bad thing. Requiring doctors to inform patients about both options will allow the pregnant woman to make a more informed decision on whether or not to abort. If you oppose a doctor simply informing their patient of the facts, then you oppose spreading knowledge and have no place in any sort of philosophical discussion. If you still do not like the fact that the woman may be more likely to choose abortion when they are more aware of the facts, then maybe you should rethink your position on the matter because when people gain knowledge on the subject they become more likely to disagree with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*View*: A fetus is essentially a form of parasite, and women deserve the ability to remove such a parasite from their bodies.
*Reasoning*: A fetus is similar to parasite for several reasons. During pregnancy, the fetus feeds off the nutrients of the mother, while providing virtually no health benefits in return. Additionally, pregnancy can result in complications that lead to the death or disability of the mother. This is analogous to a parasite such a a mosquito which feeds off another being's nutrients, provides no benefit to the host, and can result in serious harm to the host. If it is moral for someone to slap a mosquito sucking their blood, then it is moral to allow a woman to abort a fetus.
Also not that this is fundamentally different from things such as breastfeeding or a mother simply providing food for her child. Breast milk serves no purpose to the mother, and the nutrients stored in food do not belong to anyone until they consume that food. In this way, a fetus in the womb truly does steal nutrients from the mother. A baby does not steal nutrients from the mother, but rather uses nutrients that were either useless to the mother (breastmilk), or provided by the mother as a gift and therefore never the mother's in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*View*: Abortions should be allowed up until birth, after which they should no longer be allowed.
*Reasoning*: This point will probably cause the most controversy. Many people will disagree with this because late in the pregnancy, the fetus would be able to survive on its own if it were surgically removed from the woman in the proper manner. However, I believe that just because it would be able to survive on its own does not change the fact that it is still essentially a parasite and the woman still deserves the right to remove that parasite from her body. The fetus, while in the womb, is still feeding off the nutrients of the mother (regardless of whether or not it could survive outside the womb), and therere should be treated as a parasite.
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
**Things that I do not believe**
*View*: Women should be forced to have abortions.
*Reasoning*: This one is obvious but it must be stated, I do not believe that any woman, for any reason, should EVER be forced into having an abortion. Encouraging them is fine, informing them is fine, forcing them is not.
--------------------------------------
*View*: A fetus's life is equivalent to a human life
*Reasoning*: As I mentioned earlier, I want this discussion to be had with the assumption in mind that fetus's are equivalent to human lives. However, I do not believe this is true. The reason I wish for this to be the assumption is that pro-lifers tend to get hung up on this which I know will lead to a meaningless discussion because I believe that abortion should be an option even if it were **uneqivocally proven** that a fetus were equal to a human life. Essentially, this boils down to "I don't care if a fetus is a human or not, women should be able to abort it either way."
----------------------------------
*View*: All killing is bad
*Reasoning*: There are many forms of killing that are generally considered acceptable. Soldiers kill other soldiers in wartime, people are allowed to kill in self-defense, and criminals are executed due to their crimes. All of these are perfectly legal forms of killing, and though some are controversial most would agree that at least one of the three is justified. I believe that abortion is another one of these types of killing. This is also why I don't care whether the fetus is a human or not - I view it as a legally and morally justified form of killing.
While I am interested in having my view changed, I am also interested in simply having a discussion on the topic. Let's talk about abortion!
| 1,486,420,792 | Rockmar1 | ddf7o70 | ddf7azs | 175 | 15 |
CMV: Feminism exists because men support it and allow it to exist
Please bear with me, English is not my first language.
While the idea that the sexes should have equal rights has my support, it's an undeniable biological fact that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. There are more women than men, but not enough to effectively overcome the physical advantage that men have.
This fact (and ONLY this fact) lead me to the conclusion that if men collectively wanted to shut feminism down and take away all rights from women, they could forcibly do so, and women as a whole could do very little about it. There would be acts of defiance and some violence, but in the end, women would quickly lose the fight.
Feminism exists not only because women fight for it, but mainly because men allow it to exist and even support their fight for equality. If all men collectively said "No", it would be over.
| I think your view is founded on false premises. "Men" are not a singular political or social entity, and never in history have all men acted together to advance a singular cause.
I would say that this is self-evident, but it's especially evident in the history of women's voting rights and feminism in general. Many men **supported** women's voting rights. Of course, far more opposed it, at first. And yet, women gained the right to vote. They didn't earn it through overthrow of the government, but through acts of politics. Through debate, protest, and sometimes even [political violence](http://www.historytoday.com/fern-riddell/weaker-sex-violence-and-suffragette-movement), they gained the vote.
During that process many men opposed them politically, and many women did too! Where in that process was there an opportunity for all men to collectively say "No"? | once men gave groups of people the ability to organize collectively feminism was possible.
Men might have created the open space.
But they didn't create feminism.
Right now, if men didn't support feminism it would still exist since there is no way now that groups of men could just go and kill whatever women they want to. | 5sihsi | CMV: Feminism exists because men support it and allow it to exist | Please bear with me, English is not my first language.
While the idea that the sexes should have equal rights has my support, it's an undeniable biological fact that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. There are more women than men, but not enough to effectively overcome the physical advantage that men have.
This fact (and ONLY this fact) lead me to the conclusion that if men collectively wanted to shut feminism down and take away all rights from women, they could forcibly do so, and women as a whole could do very little about it. There would be acts of defiance and some violence, but in the end, women would quickly lose the fight.
Feminism exists not only because women fight for it, but mainly because men allow it to exist and even support their fight for equality. If all men collectively said "No", it would be over.
| 1,486,431,452 | [deleted] | ddfeuf8 | ddfe0q0 | 3 | 2 |
CMV: In the Wizarding World of J.K. Rowling, Hufflepuff should have been the most popular house
Hello,
As an educator and reader of the Harry Potter books, I believe that in a more thought out portrayal of the universe in the Harry Potter books that the Hufflepuff house would be the most popular, at least within Hogwarts itself. This does not mean that I believe that any of the major events within the books would be different, only that the esteem that the Hufflepuff house was held in would be higher. I believe that the huge amount of favouritism that was shown towards Gryffindor would not occur in a more fleshed out world. Among the educators, I think that the hard work, dedication and a tendency towards fair play would make the Hufflepuff ideal students along with Ravenclaws. I believe that the Gryffindor, far from being the teachers pets would be regarded as a constant headache and as entitled students who think that they are above the laws. I also believe that Hufflepuffs would be highly regarded as friends and co-workers for much the same reasons. They would be patient, caring and show loyalty. Not to say many facets of personality are not important but if you were getting a group partner, new co-worker, room mate, boss or friend you would hope for and value a Hufflepuff.
| In Peacetime, Hufflepuff is probably the "best house". However, remember, in the context of the books, the wizarding world is at war. Book 4 onwards, Hogwarts and the wizard world more resembles a war zone that a school. Gryffindor is the house of bravery and selflessness, which in times of war, is arguably more important than social aptitude or even intelligence. Also, the books are told from Harry and cos. perspective, so much of the favoritism comes from the head master of Gryffindor. We just don't happen to see the head of Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw expressing favoritism because we are never in their perspective. (I cannot even remember which professors they even are to be honest). | Everything Hufflepuffs do screams "conformity", though. It makes sense for you to favor that; a group of people who are loyal, dependable, kind. These are good traits! But if you rank them next to Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Slytherin, it's obvious Hufflepuffs are severely lacking in one particular area that trumps all others - *ambition*. Bravery leads to greatness, intelligence leads to greatness, cunning leads to greatness... Humility just doesn't, not overtly, anyway.
Hufflepuff is probably the most mature of the houses, too. Again, that's a good thing, but if you couple maturity with humility, it's not too hard to see why a student(!) of Hogwarts would gravitate towards the other houses.
**Edit:** On mobile, typing is hard. Tried fixing the mistakes I spotted, but forgive any you still find. | 5siv8r | CMV: In the Wizarding World of J.K. Rowling, Hufflepuff should have been the most popular house | Hello,
As an educator and reader of the Harry Potter books, I believe that in a more thought out portrayal of the universe in the Harry Potter books that the Hufflepuff house would be the most popular, at least within Hogwarts itself. This does not mean that I believe that any of the major events within the books would be different, only that the esteem that the Hufflepuff house was held in would be higher. I believe that the huge amount of favouritism that was shown towards Gryffindor would not occur in a more fleshed out world. Among the educators, I think that the hard work, dedication and a tendency towards fair play would make the Hufflepuff ideal students along with Ravenclaws. I believe that the Gryffindor, far from being the teachers pets would be regarded as a constant headache and as entitled students who think that they are above the laws. I also believe that Hufflepuffs would be highly regarded as friends and co-workers for much the same reasons. They would be patient, caring and show loyalty. Not to say many facets of personality are not important but if you were getting a group partner, new co-worker, room mate, boss or friend you would hope for and value a Hufflepuff.
| 1,486,435,845 | Warren-Peace | ddfgvu7 | ddff6rk | 232 | 51 |
CMV: Windows laptops are better than macbooks
[The current best macbook](http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/) costs $2799 and it's specs are...
* 2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz, with 8MB shared L3 cache
* 512gb SSD
* 16 Gb of LPDDR3 RAM
* Radeon Pro 455 with 2GB of GDDR5 memory and automatic graphics switching
* Intel HD Graphics 530
* 15 inch screen
If I go to a name brand windows laptop ( [Alienware 17 in this case](http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/alienware-17-laptop/dkcwkblg44s?selectionState=eyJGUHJpY2UiOjI1MjQuOTksIk9DIjoiZGtjd2tibGc0NHMiLCJRdHkiOjEsIk1vZHMiOlt7IklkIjozLCJPcHRzIjpbeyJJZCI6IjMyRzI0MDAiLCJQcmljZSI6NDAwLjB9XX0seyJJZCI6OCwiT3B0cyI6W3siSWQiOiI1MTIxVEIiLCJQcmljZSI6NDAwLjB9XX0seyJJZCI6MTAxNSwiT3B0cyI6W3siSWQiOiIyNDBXM1AifV19XX0%253D) ) costs about $2,500 ($200 less than the MacBook)
* 7th Generation Intel® Core™ i7-7700HQ (Quad-Core, 6MB Cache, up to 3.8GHz w/ Turbo Boost)
* NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1070 with 8GB GDDR5
* 32gb DDR4 RAM
* 512gb SSD and a 1TB SATA (1,500 gb in total)
If I wanted to I could even buy a good warranty and still be under Apple's $2,700 mark
To recap,
I can get a Windows laptop for $200 less than Apples best MacBook and it has
* A far better graphics card
* three times the storage
* twice the RAM
* Better for gaming
* More customizable, refer to my link and you can see that you can upgrade and downgrade parts according to your budget.
Edits : u/zardeh pointed out that the mac is better than windows for web development due to the UNIX system Mac is better for web development. Therefor, people doing that would be better off using a Mac. u/masterFurgison pointed out that Unix also provides the Mac increased stability. For these reasons PC is not objectively better, and it does depends on your intention with the PC. Though my opinion hasn't completely changed, I still believe that PCs have objectively better hardware. | I went through a string of Windows computers until I bought a Macbook after being a Apple hater. I don't have any other Apple products. I've had my mac for about 4.5 years. Here was my decisions for buying.
1. MacBooks are undeniably the most reliable and repairable brand WHEN I bought mine (things have changed a bit with super slim computers). I was actually introduced to the idea of buying a Mac when I researched what was the most reliable computer brands after going though several very expensive but poorly made PC laptops. Apple at the time was crushing the competition in terms of consumer satisfaction, recalls, service and longevity.
2. If something happens to my computer I can fix it because there are about a 100 guides on how to. Dell releases dozens of different laptops that no one particularly likes except that they are cheap or good at gaming. The result is that there is very little support for them online. Apples releases about 3 models every 3-5 years. The 100 most common problems for a Mac are thoroughly documented on forums and Youtube. If it can be fixed by the user, there will be a guide and supplies (many actually).
3. The operating system is superior. It has virtually never crashed and I have NEVER had a driver issue. The vast majority of the frustration I experience with computers is the PCs in my lab that I use about 1/20th as much as I do my Mac (like I have to turn it on and off to get the internet driver to work, wtf). The terminal system is also much better IMO. Being a UNIX system it shares much with LINUX.
4. The experience is much better. I remember calling Microsoft tech support trying to figure out how to sync my calendar and email with Google. This is after several fruitless hours of trying. The Indian man informed that I actually could not do this at this time, and he did not know when. The first time I logged onto to my Gmail on my new Mac, it asked me if I wanted to sink everything with Google. I clicked yes and that was the end of that. Never had to mess with it.
My Macbook is one of my best investments and I whole heartedly recommend them to anyone now | What about all the time one spends trying to connect to printers that mysteriously vanish (e.g. Brother brand printers, while OS X sees it all the time)? What about the yearly cost of spyware, etc? It is ~required~ on a PC but not as critical on OSX. I switched to macs because of the time I spent screwing around with PC's so that they would do what I want. If your claim extends "PC" to any Linux OS then there are good options except for open office, which is only good if you don't want anyone to ever be able to open stuff on windows. For several hundred dollars in difference over three to four years the price difference is more than justified by time savings ~on top of~ the cost of anti-virus software. Maybe windows 10 eliminates this cost to some degree, but the other annoyances (forced click pop-ups, god-damned NTFS and fragmented disk issues causing slowdowns, etc.) still require a lot of time. Imagine you pay yourself $10/hr to deal with these issues. I bet there is more than 10 hrs/year that adds up to the price difference. Time is money, so I switched long ago (I still use Linux and have one PC station at work) | 5sivuk | CMV: Windows laptops are better than macbooks | [The current best macbook](http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/) costs $2799 and it's specs are...
* 2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz, with 8MB shared L3 cache
* 512gb SSD
* 16 Gb of LPDDR3 RAM
* Radeon Pro 455 with 2GB of GDDR5 memory and automatic graphics switching
* Intel HD Graphics 530
* 15 inch screen
If I go to a name brand windows laptop ( [Alienware 17 in this case](http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/alienware-17-laptop/dkcwkblg44s?selectionState=eyJGUHJpY2UiOjI1MjQuOTksIk9DIjoiZGtjd2tibGc0NHMiLCJRdHkiOjEsIk1vZHMiOlt7IklkIjozLCJPcHRzIjpbeyJJZCI6IjMyRzI0MDAiLCJQcmljZSI6NDAwLjB9XX0seyJJZCI6OCwiT3B0cyI6W3siSWQiOiI1MTIxVEIiLCJQcmljZSI6NDAwLjB9XX0seyJJZCI6MTAxNSwiT3B0cyI6W3siSWQiOiIyNDBXM1AifV19XX0%253D) ) costs about $2,500 ($200 less than the MacBook)
* 7th Generation Intel® Core™ i7-7700HQ (Quad-Core, 6MB Cache, up to 3.8GHz w/ Turbo Boost)
* NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1070 with 8GB GDDR5
* 32gb DDR4 RAM
* 512gb SSD and a 1TB SATA (1,500 gb in total)
If I wanted to I could even buy a good warranty and still be under Apple's $2,700 mark
To recap,
I can get a Windows laptop for $200 less than Apples best MacBook and it has
* A far better graphics card
* three times the storage
* twice the RAM
* Better for gaming
* More customizable, refer to my link and you can see that you can upgrade and downgrade parts according to your budget.
Edits : u/zardeh pointed out that the mac is better than windows for web development due to the UNIX system Mac is better for web development. Therefor, people doing that would be better off using a Mac. u/masterFurgison pointed out that Unix also provides the Mac increased stability. For these reasons PC is not objectively better, and it does depends on your intention with the PC. Though my opinion hasn't completely changed, I still believe that PCs have objectively better hardware. | 1,486,436,039 | Deathstroke5289 | ddfhjda | ddfghyo | 4 | 2 |
CMV: I don't think hyperrealistic paintings are interesting art
Just so everyone is on the same page, when I say "hyperrealistic paintings", I'm talking about paintings like [this one](http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uuuploads/hyper-realistic-artworks/hyper-realistic-artworks-12-1.jpg), which use a photograph as reference.
I don't dispute that paintings of this style require a very high level of skill, nor do I dispute that they are art. However, I don't think that they are particularly interesting as art. I think that what make paintings interesting are the imperfections, divergences from reality, and personal impressions of emotion and aesthetic. Hyperrealistic paintings, by contrast, are little more than manual photocopies - as works of art, they're only as interesting as the photos they're based on. I think it would be far more interesting if the artists took the skills they practiced by making hyperrealistic paintings and used them to create realistic paintings of fictional scenes.
| I think the sculpture is a different context because it allows you to look at the subject from any angle, and there's (currently) no 3D equivalent of a photograph. The sculpture is still a sculpture of *something*, whereas a hyperrealistic painting is just a copy of a photograph. | Do you find photos compelling? I certainly do.
And the artists who make media that looks like photos are doing something cool.
Their final product does come from their own mind. Not some editing program.
They can't paint a picture of a scene and then use a tool to adjust the contrast or add in a new filter.
They have to do that part on their own. That's the art. | 5sj09v | CMV: I don't think hyperrealistic paintings are interesting art | Just so everyone is on the same page, when I say "hyperrealistic paintings", I'm talking about paintings like [this one](http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uuuploads/hyper-realistic-artworks/hyper-realistic-artworks-12-1.jpg), which use a photograph as reference.
I don't dispute that paintings of this style require a very high level of skill, nor do I dispute that they are art. However, I don't think that they are particularly interesting as art. I think that what make paintings interesting are the imperfections, divergences from reality, and personal impressions of emotion and aesthetic. Hyperrealistic paintings, by contrast, are little more than manual photocopies - as works of art, they're only as interesting as the photos they're based on. I think it would be far more interesting if the artists took the skills they practiced by making hyperrealistic paintings and used them to create realistic paintings of fictional scenes.
| 1,486,437,550 | blindcolumn | ddfllnv | ddfljch | 4 | 1 |
CMV: I believe that the United States Should Have A Corporate Death Penalty
A couple of reasons for thinking we should have a corporate death penalty.
My Reason: It would scare the shit out of decision makers in corporations to do something would deliberately try to defraud consumers or even worst commit acts of high treason in search for profits.
Implementation: Now I understand there would be some fallout if the corporation large it will have many employees that would be affected. Here is how we deal with that.
Step 1: There business certificate is obliterated.
Step 2: All the assets and employees of the former corporation, would be nationalized and have 120 day period to find other work or stay (there is a reason why I'm saying that).
Step 3: All decision makers can't start a business for 10 years. (disbarment for business) Crimes of high treason decision makers will be jailed.
Step 4: The assets will be broken up evenly between competent business people. These people will be made up of a board of consumers ( the were affected by the institution ) Politicians and academics.
EDIT: Jesus there were some great responses! This really came from a place of there being consequences for people's actions. I just remember vividly the 2008-2009 crash, and remembering NO ONE facing any consequences!
I didn't think about the verberating effects on smaller investors, the cost to the taxpayers, to acquire said corporation.
There must be a more nuanced way to get people to do the right thing.
Thanks, Guys! | Lawyer here!
Let's start with the simple thing:
A corporate "death penalty" exists. It's called involuntary (or judicial) dissolution. The corporation is "killed", and while the actual steps aren't quite the same, the general principle exists. Corporate malfeasance can lead to the "execution" of the corporation.
>It would scare the shit out of decision makers in corporations to do something would deliberately try to defraud consumers or even worst commit acts of high treason in search for profits.
I'm kind of curious what situation you're envisioning in which those decisionmakers were actively involved in "something [which] would deliberately try to defraud customers or commit acts of treason", but aren't subject to personal culpability under existing fraud and treason statutes.
I don't want to overstep or make assumptions, but it sounds like you're unclear about why a corporation itself might have engaged in wrongdoing if none of the executives themselves were charged. I can get into that, but the short version is that the corporation as a whole is liable for the totality of all acts done within it, while the executives are liable only for their personal acts (to the extent proven).
I'm also curious why you keep coming back to "high treason" as something corporations should be ended for. I can't honestly come up with a time when a corporation has been engaged in what would suffice for treason ("levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort"). Do you have any examples?
NB: treason does *not* include "did things contrary to the best interests of America or the American people."
>Step 2: All the assets and employees of the former corporation, would be nationalized and have 120 day period to find other work or stay (there is a reason why I'm saying that) .
Small problem. That doesn't really just hurt the corporation (which has no feelings) or its executives, this part really screws over shareholders. This would be like having a provision that when a person (living breathing individual) is executed, we take money away from their children.
Assets held by a corporation are, effectively, owned by the people who invested in that company. Why should the wrongdoing of even the *entire* corporation also lead to punishing people who bought their stock?
To say nothing of you having a fifth amendment problem, what with "taking" (quite literally) ownership in the company away from shareholders without any due process.
And ignoring the ethical and legal problems, this will do a lot of damage to investment in new companies.
To the first: not actually constitutional. It would be a taking (and a pretty severe punishment) without due process for that individual decision maker. Evidence of the crimes of the corporation is not in and of itself evidence of crimes of the decision makers. *Respondeat inferior* isn't a thing.
As for treason: if the decision makers *themselves committed treason*, they will be prosecuted under existing treason laws.
I get it, you look at cases like HSBC and BofA doing illegal things and want some more punishment than "the company pays out." In particular, you want the people who oversaw the company to be held responsible.
The problem is that we don't (and really can't, due process again) hold people responsible for crimes we can't prove they were actively involved in. Even conspiracy and RICO require that the defendant have made *some* affirmative act in furtherance of the crime.
And in case you're thinking "but it's like a license to practice law or medicine, they can revoke those", remember that those are privileges above and beyond what ordinary members of the public can do.
Starting a business is something anyone can do, and "disbarment" from that is definitely a restriction requiring due process.
>Step 4: The assets will be broken up evenly between competent business people. These people will be made up of a board of consumers ( the were affected by the institution ) Politicians and academics.
Ignoring the problems with steps 2 and 3, this would be prohibitively costly and unwieldy to manage. To say nothing of the room for corruption in an unelected board deciding who will receive perhaps billions in assets. | What do you mean by high treason? I can't imagine the US wouldn't take a corporation waging war on them seriously. Giving aid and comfort to the enemies sounds a little more likely. But I'm pretty sure exporting weapons is already pretty controlled, and stuff like selling them food seems pointless to ban. You could just sell it somewhere else and they could buy it somewhere else. The end result would be the same.
Also, what are some other examples of crimes that could result in this? | 5sjmsq | CMV: I believe that the United States Should Have A Corporate Death Penalty | A couple of reasons for thinking we should have a corporate death penalty.
My Reason: It would scare the shit out of decision makers in corporations to do something would deliberately try to defraud consumers or even worst commit acts of high treason in search for profits.
Implementation: Now I understand there would be some fallout if the corporation large it will have many employees that would be affected. Here is how we deal with that.
Step 1: There business certificate is obliterated.
Step 2: All the assets and employees of the former corporation, would be nationalized and have 120 day period to find other work or stay (there is a reason why I'm saying that).
Step 3: All decision makers can't start a business for 10 years. (disbarment for business) Crimes of high treason decision makers will be jailed.
Step 4: The assets will be broken up evenly between competent business people. These people will be made up of a board of consumers ( the were affected by the institution ) Politicians and academics.
EDIT: Jesus there were some great responses! This really came from a place of there being consequences for people's actions. I just remember vividly the 2008-2009 crash, and remembering NO ONE facing any consequences!
I didn't think about the verberating effects on smaller investors, the cost to the taxpayers, to acquire said corporation.
There must be a more nuanced way to get people to do the right thing.
Thanks, Guys! | 1,486,445,651 | whodidyouthinkiwas13 | ddfoawf | ddfmb6j | 11 | 3 |
CMV: People suggest I should read lots of books in order to become a better writer. However, people nowadays don't seem to have the patience for books, so I think reading more books would only make me better at a style of writing which is quickly becoming defunct.
Background: I have noticed a considerable decline in my both my writing and reading abilities over the years, which has coincided with the increase in texting and web surfing in my daily life. I am also reading far fewer books than I did in school.
When I ask how I can improve my writing skills (for emails, blog posts and such), the #1 suggestion I receive is: read more books and less internet.
The issue: while I agree that reading actual books WOULD improve my writing abilities in a few areas, I feel like I'd only end up writing in a "bookish" style that people nowadays lack the patience to read anyway. I think our brains are changing because of the internet, and eventually we are going to be communicating with fewer words, because we can no longer tolerate long blocks of text and long sentences.
CMV: I believe it is a waste of time to read lots of books in order to become a better writer. More and more people are online and no longer have the patience to read books or long chunks of text. I would only be learning how to write for a soon-to-be obsolete medium. My time would be better spent reading things like pithy tweets/comments/posts from skilled writers.
Side note: Some of the issues with our modern approach to reading/writing are brought up in this 2008 Atlantic article ["Is Google Making Us Stupid"](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/), issues which seem equally pressing in 2017, if not moreso.
| A filter is a very good point!
However, wouldn't you say the very thing that books are known for: large blocks of text, is what drives people away from reading something online? I get the sense that the principles of writing for the web is fundamentally different than writing for a book. | I basically agree with you, but am curious- Are you in a writing profession? If not, why are you thinking about improving your writing?
Based on the emails I've gotten working for corporations, you do not need to even use spellcheck, much less have thoughtful prose to get by. | 5sk16n | CMV: People suggest I should read lots of books in order to become a better writer. However, people nowadays don't seem to have the patience for books, so I think reading more books would only make me better at a style of writing which is quickly becoming defunct. | Background: I have noticed a considerable decline in my both my writing and reading abilities over the years, which has coincided with the increase in texting and web surfing in my daily life. I am also reading far fewer books than I did in school.
When I ask how I can improve my writing skills (for emails, blog posts and such), the #1 suggestion I receive is: read more books and less internet.
The issue: while I agree that reading actual books WOULD improve my writing abilities in a few areas, I feel like I'd only end up writing in a "bookish" style that people nowadays lack the patience to read anyway. I think our brains are changing because of the internet, and eventually we are going to be communicating with fewer words, because we can no longer tolerate long blocks of text and long sentences.
CMV: I believe it is a waste of time to read lots of books in order to become a better writer. More and more people are online and no longer have the patience to read books or long chunks of text. I would only be learning how to write for a soon-to-be obsolete medium. My time would be better spent reading things like pithy tweets/comments/posts from skilled writers.
Side note: Some of the issues with our modern approach to reading/writing are brought up in this 2008 Atlantic article ["Is Google Making Us Stupid"](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/), issues which seem equally pressing in 2017, if not moreso.
| 1,486,451,797 | bananacantalk | ddfp3ay | ddfnzcb | 1 | 0 |
CMV: It is unjust to require men to provide child support for a child if that child was the result of statutory rape by the woman.
It is a common topic of discussion whether a man should be required to pay child support in one circumstance or another. Many arguments in favour of requiring the man to pay rely on the idea that his situation was avoidable if he were to do something different such as be more careful with contraception, trust your partner, etc.
I believe this logic does not work in the case where the man did not consent to the sex that conceived the child, since his options in avoiding the situation are shifted over into murky territory of 'try to not be raped' which is fairly shaky.
What I made here was not specifically an argument against a case of statutory rape, but rather against a case of non-statutory rape where the man would have no agency at all in the matter. However, and this would be the point I'm most shaky on, I find it inconsistent to employ the reasoning that a minor had agency in a case of statutory rape unless one were to, if not in part then at least in a very significant way, also surrender the idea that a minor cannot consent to sex even if their underage conscience and sense of reasoning told them it was a good idea.
To put it another way, I am uncomfortable with the idea of granting a person agency in an act for the purpose of determining their responsibility for care of a child, then granting no agency for the purpose of determining whether someone had committed statutory rape. (To clarify, I don't have a problem with the latter half of the explanation.)
In short, the view could be summarised as follows:
* It is wrong to require someone to pay child support if they did not consent to sex and thus had no agency at all in the matter.
* The reasoning of statutory rape laws are based in well founded concerns that minors cannot provide meaningful consent to sexual acts.
* Not applying that reasoning in determining whether a person should pay child support is inconsistent.
CMV!
| I don't know whether this will change your view or not, but...
The popular internet theories of sexual consent are kind of nonsense, including how the internet talks about statutory rape.
On the internet people will stand up and declare that minors can't consent, then pat themselves on the back for opposing rape.
In real life the law acknowledges that minors CAN consent, but that they aren't as good at it as adults. That's why criminal punishments in most (maybe all but I haven't counted) states increase as the age of the victim goes down. That's why it's not double-rape when two minors have consensual sex. That's why it's still actual rape if a minor rapes someone.
The actual justification for statutory rape laws has a lot more to do with disparate power and concerns about undue and inappropriate influence than about some bold, unqualified declaration that a minor "can't consent."
You're concerned about the inconsistency of saying that child support shouldn't be imposed after non consensual parentage, but not applying the same reasoning to statutory rape. Don't be. They're entirely different. And if you want to illustrate how they're different in the easiest way possible, imagine two sixteen year olds having sex on purpose and because they choose to, and then keeping the resulting baby. If we insist that minors "can't consent" in the same way that rape victims "don't consent," what then? We've got two people who didn't consent to sex (after all they literally can't, right?), so can we impose any parental obligations on either? How did we let them choose whether to keep a baby or have an abortion if they're psychologically incapable of choosing to have sex? Are they mentally competent to make such a choice? Shouldn't it be taken away from them and given to someone psychologically able to handle it?
Alternate suggestion- anyone who's ever been a teenager understands that teenagers may be impulsive as may have poorer judgment than an adult, but they can definitely consent or not consent to sex. There are other VERY VALID reasons to prohibit adults from having sex with minors, because such relationships are VERY PRONE to abuse and it's no big burden (though it may seem that way to an immature sixteen year old) to wait until legal adulthood. But our desire to condemn these relationships shouldn't lead us to go so far as to pretend things about teenagers we know aren't true. In the main, absent actual coercion, teenagers really do understand what sex is, and really can choose whether to engage in it, and really can validly be handed the consequences of those choices if that's necessary to protect an innocent third party like a child conceived along the way. Teenagers are dumb but they're not THAT dumb. | So statutory rape is not actual rape, it is statutory. In other words, it is not something that is a recognized evil, like murder or robbery. It is a crime only because statute deems it to be.
You can think of situations where statutory rape is morally fine (at least arguably). 16 + 18 year old, 15+18 year old, in some situations 14 + 18 year old. The 14 year old could be very mature, initiate the conduct, take adequate precautions, be smarter/more educated than the 18 year old, etc. We as society have instituted blanket rules so that courts don't have to make this case by case analysis, which would be messy, degrading, and invasive. It also makes things simpler for people looking to engage in sex with someone who may be a minor. They know that if they do it, there is no way around being punished for it. Statutory rape does not look at the reasons, circumstances, backgrounds. It just says that if you do it, you are liable.
Child support, on the other hand, isn't a blanket rule. It is decided on a case by case basis. While statutory rape, as a law, creates unjust results sometimes, creating blanket rules in the area of child support could allow certain people to purposefully escape the consequences of their actions, and could lead to situations where a child's needs are not property met. For statutory rape, following the blanket rule just means an adult can't have sex with minors. For child care, it would mean that the court must rule that the "victim" of the statutory rape is not liable for the consequence of his actions.
That's why it's better to deal with it on a case by case basis. A court can ask if the 14 year old knew how children are made, engaged in the conduct willfully/purposefully/recklessly, had access to contraception, etc.
TL;DR: There are a lot of policy rationals behind why the government treats all statutory rape cases the same. Those same policy rationals don't apply for child support, so it's better to treat those cases on a case by case basis. | 5skqeb | CMV: It is unjust to require men to provide child support for a child if that child was the result of statutory rape by the woman. | It is a common topic of discussion whether a man should be required to pay child support in one circumstance or another. Many arguments in favour of requiring the man to pay rely on the idea that his situation was avoidable if he were to do something different such as be more careful with contraception, trust your partner, etc.
I believe this logic does not work in the case where the man did not consent to the sex that conceived the child, since his options in avoiding the situation are shifted over into murky territory of 'try to not be raped' which is fairly shaky.
What I made here was not specifically an argument against a case of statutory rape, but rather against a case of non-statutory rape where the man would have no agency at all in the matter. However, and this would be the point I'm most shaky on, I find it inconsistent to employ the reasoning that a minor had agency in a case of statutory rape unless one were to, if not in part then at least in a very significant way, also surrender the idea that a minor cannot consent to sex even if their underage conscience and sense of reasoning told them it was a good idea.
To put it another way, I am uncomfortable with the idea of granting a person agency in an act for the purpose of determining their responsibility for care of a child, then granting no agency for the purpose of determining whether someone had committed statutory rape. (To clarify, I don't have a problem with the latter half of the explanation.)
In short, the view could be summarised as follows:
* It is wrong to require someone to pay child support if they did not consent to sex and thus had no agency at all in the matter.
* The reasoning of statutory rape laws are based in well founded concerns that minors cannot provide meaningful consent to sexual acts.
* Not applying that reasoning in determining whether a person should pay child support is inconsistent.
CMV!
| 1,486,464,539 | A_Giant_Brick | ddgffnr | ddgbnsn | 6 | 4 |
CMV: I believe that if we were to create a fully synthetic 1:1 replica of a human, it should still not be considered alive
EDIT***
I have used the word Synthetic incorrectly in the title. Replace synthetic with non-organic matter. Sorry, that is my fault.
To make the discussion easier, I will separate my points into sections to allow for people to respond more efficiently. Please don't bring up anything related to religion, as I don't think that will have any sway whatsoever.
**Life must come from organic tissue**
As it holds now, almost all sentient life as we know has been formed from what we consider as organic tissue. On Earth, we have found no trace evidence of any kind that would suggest that life could spring from what we consider to be synthetic materials. I believe that it has also stated by many scientists that if we do find any form of life out there in the cosmos, it will most likely have developed under Darwinian circumstances. Synthetic substances seem to not meet the requirements for life to take place.
EDIT** Adding organic matter here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_matter
**Artificial life is made by intentional design and not natural selection** Artificial life, by definition, is creating synthetic life. Every form of life on Earth has gone through Natural Selection. Random genetic mutations within favorable parameters have allowed life to change and endure over time. A synthetic life is designed with a _purpose_ in mind. Even if it is emulating a human, it was designed to do so.
**Mimicry is not identical to actual**
If it quacks like a duck, is it a duck? If we have a scenario where a a synthetic life form passes the Turing Test. does that mean it is alive or does that simply mean it passed a test it was designed to? It may be able to fully copy a human but that does not mean it _is_ human. It's emotions and thoughts are still the product of an intentional design and not random circumstance. It's personality, likes, dislikes etc are not wholly unique. For these characteristics to be genuine, they must not come from someones intentional design but from a process that has worked simply because it has failed so many times before(evolution).
| >Life must come from organic tissue
Correct, everything we know up to this point agrees with this.
>Artificial life is made by intentional design and not natural selection
Correct, the construct is being engineered and deliberately created by an intelligent being. However, as this is a creation, it need not be required to be made of what you and I would call "living" tissue.
Consider the following:
On Glibox 7 live the rock-men. The rock-men are similar to what we would consider a "golem" from the folk legends. They have a nervous system consisting of micro crystal veins which are able to conduct electricity. By all metrics, we have tested them and they are just as intelligent as us in reasoning, logic, and emotional capability (take these to mean what you will).
Are the rock-men not alive because they are made of something other than what we consider "living" tissue?
>Mimicry is not identical to actual
Suppose the two situations:
1. A child is cloned.
2. An exact replica of an adult down to the position of the atoms in the body is made.
Do you consider both of those humans?
Now, you talk about "It's emotions and thoughts are still the product of an intentional design and not random circumstance." You are the product of two people coming together and making a (hopefully) mutual decision to have a child. This means that two people both made a decision and used the traditional reproductive techniques that nature has bestowed upon us.
| On point 1, life is about Mrs Nerg, Movement Respiration Sensitivity Nutrition excretion, Reproduction, and Growth. If the life form can do all of those, it would clearly count. Organic simply means containing carbon compounds. I feel it's improbable that a synthetic human is gonna be made without carbon. We can and have grown bacteria and such on synthetic carbon compounds, that's no issue.
We've designed a number of synthetic organisms, and eat them. I'm not sure why it matters though that they've undergone natural selection?
>For these characteristics to be genuine, they must not come from someones intentional design but from a process that has worked simply because it has failed so many times before(evolution).
How does this logic follow?
For example, suppose we found out that aliens created humans would that mean we wouldn't be considered alive? | 5slc2r | CMV: I believe that if we were to create a fully synthetic 1:1 replica of a human, it should still not be considered alive | EDIT***
I have used the word Synthetic incorrectly in the title. Replace synthetic with non-organic matter. Sorry, that is my fault.
To make the discussion easier, I will separate my points into sections to allow for people to respond more efficiently. Please don't bring up anything related to religion, as I don't think that will have any sway whatsoever.
**Life must come from organic tissue**
As it holds now, almost all sentient life as we know has been formed from what we consider as organic tissue. On Earth, we have found no trace evidence of any kind that would suggest that life could spring from what we consider to be synthetic materials. I believe that it has also stated by many scientists that if we do find any form of life out there in the cosmos, it will most likely have developed under Darwinian circumstances. Synthetic substances seem to not meet the requirements for life to take place.
EDIT** Adding organic matter here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_matter
**Artificial life is made by intentional design and not natural selection** Artificial life, by definition, is creating synthetic life. Every form of life on Earth has gone through Natural Selection. Random genetic mutations within favorable parameters have allowed life to change and endure over time. A synthetic life is designed with a _purpose_ in mind. Even if it is emulating a human, it was designed to do so.
**Mimicry is not identical to actual**
If it quacks like a duck, is it a duck? If we have a scenario where a a synthetic life form passes the Turing Test. does that mean it is alive or does that simply mean it passed a test it was designed to? It may be able to fully copy a human but that does not mean it _is_ human. It's emotions and thoughts are still the product of an intentional design and not random circumstance. It's personality, likes, dislikes etc are not wholly unique. For these characteristics to be genuine, they must not come from someones intentional design but from a process that has worked simply because it has failed so many times before(evolution).
| 1,486,473,574 | Matrix117 | ddfx5hh | ddfwv53 | 6 | 1 |
CMV: Donald trump violated the Geneva convention by ordering a stop on refugees. Other countries should begin imposing sanctions.
(Edit: correction, the United states violated a treaty called the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees)
(Edit: several delta's awarded, view changed, enjoying the conversations still tho)
The United States has acted like it's above international law before, but this time there are imediate international ramifications to it.
I think other countries should react to Trumps violation of the convention and his attempts to weasel out of carefully negotiated trade treaties severely.
However, I have yet to see any leaders even suggest this. I get that anything done by the U.N. could be stopped at the Security Council, but I still think countries should be sanctioning the U.S.
So... change my view? | Specifically, what element of the Geneva Conventions did he violate? Because it appears you're talking about the *Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees* from 1951, which is a UN Treaty and not part of The Geneva Conventions. | Can you cite the section of the Geneva Conventions you feel he has violated? | 5slxfa | CMV: Donald trump violated the Geneva convention by ordering a stop on refugees. Other countries should begin imposing sanctions. | (Edit: correction, the United states violated a treaty called the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees)
(Edit: several delta's awarded, view changed, enjoying the conversations still tho)
The United States has acted like it's above international law before, but this time there are imediate international ramifications to it.
I think other countries should react to Trumps violation of the convention and his attempts to weasel out of carefully negotiated trade treaties severely.
However, I have yet to see any leaders even suggest this. I get that anything done by the U.N. could be stopped at the Security Council, but I still think countries should be sanctioning the U.S.
So... change my view? | 1,486,480,650 | Namaij | ddg12wc | ddg0zjr | 8 | 2 |
CMV: All humans are selfish
Out of every action people do, it is only done with themselves in mind. Holding the door open for someone? Makes them feel better. Donating to a charity? Makes them feel better. Nothing in this world is done by a person without their best interests at heart. I cannot think of any example that proves this wrong, I have thought about this for years and this subreddit looks like a good place to put it. Easy delta if you can think of an example that isn't motivated by a person's own interests, subconsciously or consciously.
>EDIT: to rephrase it, true altruism doesn't exist. | Some actions are reflexive or instinctual, and involve no prior thought. Sometimes saving someone's life falls into this category of action.
How can it be selfish, if there is no selfish thought process motivating the action?
If my daughter next to me slips on some ice, I will reflexively grab her to prevent her from falling an injuring herself. As others have suggested, some people will even give up their own lives, and jump on a grenade, for example. Some of these protective instincts are so strong, that if it was some random kid running next to me slips on a patch of ice, I'll reflexively grab them too - even though they're a complete stranger.
Can you explain how such actions are selfish?
| What you have presented is tautological, or nearly so. Literally any motivation can be boiled down to selfishness in the way that you are talking about, because people choose their actions. You can rationalize *anything* this way. "They jumped on a grenade because they would rather be dead than live knowing they could have saved their comrade. It was selfishly choosing the better option for them."
So I'm not going to try to argue that your statement is *false*. Instead I'm going to say that *if it is true*, then it is *also meaningless*. If you define selfishness that way, then the word selfish loses all meaning. It cannot be a value statement, it is not philosophically interesting, and a self-aware but unselfish being would be impossible. | 5sm9g5 | CMV: All humans are selfish | Out of every action people do, it is only done with themselves in mind. Holding the door open for someone? Makes them feel better. Donating to a charity? Makes them feel better. Nothing in this world is done by a person without their best interests at heart. I cannot think of any example that proves this wrong, I have thought about this for years and this subreddit looks like a good place to put it. Easy delta if you can think of an example that isn't motivated by a person's own interests, subconsciously or consciously.
>EDIT: to rephrase it, true altruism doesn't exist. | 1,486,484,087 | rubberduckpoontang | ddga798 | ddg6kl6 | 4 | 3 |
CMV: I don't understand why adult undocumented immigrants (who were not born in the US) of any race should be above immigration laws, and why preventing illegal immigration is wrong.
My university is currently trying to declare itself a [sanctuary campus] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_campus). Personally, I think that if you were born here, it makes sense for you to be considered a citizen of the US. And if you were brought here below a certain age (maybe 14) by illegal immigrants, it makes sense for you to be "legalized".
However, I am not sure that adults who illegally immigrated here should be given special protection against immigration laws. This is difficult for me, because I identify as liberal. But I am also a legal immigrant, and while I have enormous sympathy for anyone trying to find a better way of life, I also can't wrap my mind around the idea that undocumented adult immigrants simply should be "allowed in" and protected against law enforcement. I think we should let refugees in, but I also think the vetting process exists for a reason. I think the exact same for other kinds of immigration.
In addition, will these protections apply to all illegal immigrants, including the many from Asia? Personally, I don't think an illegal adult immigrant from Asia should be allowed to live here if they haven't gone through the proper vetting processes. So I feel it's hypocritical if I don't apply the same logic to immigrants from, say, Mexico.
Also just to clarify, I'm against expensive and unpractical means of prevention like that stupid wall.
Sorry if this was rambly, hope to hear your thoughts!
| While I agree with you overall, you have to consider the actually, tangible effect that will happen otherwise. If a certain population of a town, city, campus, or other area felt they were unable to report crimes - including crimes committed by *legal* residents - for fear of the consequences, they won't report crime. Depending on the population distribution, this could lead to some areas being no-man's land for police and other activities. Aside from leading to these people's exploitation from anyone, it would mean there could be a flow of crime in and out affecting everyone.
Drugs, violence, sex trafficking - if people don't feel comfortable reporting these things or other violations, they'll only spread. They'll at least have a foothold. If a legal citizen treated an illegal resident poorly and did something illegal, sure, the illegal resident shouldn't have been there, but the legal citizen would also have done something illegal.
Imagine you're living next to a house with people who are undocumented. Anything could happen there and they won't call the police. They won't call the police to help you, or anyone, for any reason. They might become a place where illegal activity happens by illegal residents who really don't give a shit and are involved in illicit activities because again, they won't bring attention to themselves. You now live next to a drug den, or brothel, or something else potentially unseemly.
These are extreme examples, but you can look to any community and see what happens if it's unwilling to cooperate with police and the law to any extent (which is different from having a lawyer present).
Sanctuary areas are simply areas where the authorities will not pursue **apropos** the departure of people from their community. They will report to ICE or the police anyone who has committed a crime, and from there they're the responsibility of whomever. But local authorities do not have the ability to enforce federal law even if they wanted to. Therefore asking them to isn't feasible, especially without tax increases to fund such endeavors. | Sorry that I didn't address your direct view! My bad!
This is not going to be the most articulate answer but please bear with me:
Our immigration system is very broken, so there are few opportunities for people who are undocumented to come to the United States. There are few if any legal avenues for them to come here. Unless you are married to a US or related to a US citizen or green card holder, you need to be stellar, lucky, or wealthy to come to the United States. Protecting the people that are here illegally acknowledges that they didn't have a lot of options to come here legally. | 5smzf1 | CMV: I don't understand why adult undocumented immigrants (who were not born in the US) of any race should be above immigration laws, and why preventing illegal immigration is wrong. | My university is currently trying to declare itself a [sanctuary campus] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_campus). Personally, I think that if you were born here, it makes sense for you to be considered a citizen of the US. And if you were brought here below a certain age (maybe 14) by illegal immigrants, it makes sense for you to be "legalized".
However, I am not sure that adults who illegally immigrated here should be given special protection against immigration laws. This is difficult for me, because I identify as liberal. But I am also a legal immigrant, and while I have enormous sympathy for anyone trying to find a better way of life, I also can't wrap my mind around the idea that undocumented adult immigrants simply should be "allowed in" and protected against law enforcement. I think we should let refugees in, but I also think the vetting process exists for a reason. I think the exact same for other kinds of immigration.
In addition, will these protections apply to all illegal immigrants, including the many from Asia? Personally, I don't think an illegal adult immigrant from Asia should be allowed to live here if they haven't gone through the proper vetting processes. So I feel it's hypocritical if I don't apply the same logic to immigrants from, say, Mexico.
Also just to clarify, I'm against expensive and unpractical means of prevention like that stupid wall.
Sorry if this was rambly, hope to hear your thoughts!
| 1,486,490,926 | MintTalking | ddh5vc9 | ddh5std | 2 | 1 |
CMV:Wasting food is a horrible, selfish thing to do.
I grew up with my parents telling me to not waste any food. I grew up in the countryside where seeing how food is made is in plain sight. I've been to eating disorder clinics where they force you to finish your plate and tell you that eating when you're not hungry at strict meal times is how "normal" people eat.
Every time I eat something, especially animal products, I think about the animal that died for it, the energy that went into growing, preparing and transporting it.
So far, so reasonable.
Except I now refuse to waste food on an extreme level. I feel so selfish for wasting food. I'll eat food that's out of date. I'm about to sit down to a meal that's a week past it's best by day. I'll eat food that smells disgusting. Last week I ate some chicken that smelt like sulphur the moment I opened the packaging (although it was in date!). I'll eat food when I'm not even hungry, I can't even leave food on my plate or in serving dishes. My doctor has asked me to stick to a particular diet that excludes certain food groups, and I still eat them because I can't stand wasting food.
So please, help me see some sense. Behaviour changes will come later, I just need some reasoning to tell myself as I'm tucking into another meal I don't want to eat that there is another way of thinking. I'm a person easily swayed by logic, I just haven't found anyone with a convincing enough argument yet.
_____
Edits: Reading between the lines of what you've collectively said I've added a few deltas to my thought process:
∆ If I had higher self worth I would put my own health above wasting food
∆ Maybe I need to be selfish to do what's best for me
∆ I only care about wasting food because it's what I've been bought up to believe. I care more about the judgement than I do about the cause. I have no problems about being selfish in other areas of my life - why should I let my carers dictate when I can or can't put myself first.
Case closed guys. Thanks for all of your help. You've achieved more in 12 hours than therapists have done in 12 months.
I think I might go celebrate by creatively disposing of food. Ideas welcome!
| If you are so against wasting food, then why are you so constantly struggling not to waste food? Why are you sitting down to a week old meal? What other meals got in the way of that one for so long? Why are you so willing to eat food that has gone bad when, presumably, it was perfectly fine for days?
>My doctor has asked me to stick to a particular diet that excludes certain food groups, and I still eat them because I can't stand wasting food
I don't understand this at all. Just never buy those "excluded" foods again. Unless you are stocked up for what you'll be eating months in advance, there's no reason for you to just keep eating something your doctor has told you to refrain from.
I think you are not nearly as against wasting food as you think you are. Someone that is against wasting food to the degree that you describe would not be making so much food that it has a chance to go bad all the time. I have almost no qualms about wasting a bit of food from time to time, but I never find myself in situations where food is going bad in the first place. It sounds like you are simply buying/making way too much food in general.
To address the belief, though, any food you waste is infinitesimal in comparison to the rest of the food waste in the world. Seriously. The farmers that grow your food waste more just trying to transport it places than you ever could manage just throwing away things that have gone bad. Food banks, places whose entire purpose is to fight hunger, waste food on scales that you could never hope to match. We are capable of producing WAAAAY more food than we can use. The reason there is still starvation is because the logistics of actually getting that food all over the planet to every hungry mouth is an impossibly complex clusterfuck of epic proportions.
I'm not trying to advocate for wastefullness, I am trying to advocate for safety and moderation. Buy only what you expect to eat. Eat it while it is still good. If it goes bad, just get rid of it, but if you do those first two things you shouldn't have food going bad almost ever. | We make tonnes of food specifically because food goes bad. We can't just store it all forever and we never know when we're going to need more food so we can't produce exact amounts.
It's a waste if that food could have gone to better use. Who's going to come into your kitchen and put to use all that spoiled food? If you didn't buy that food in the first place then who would? Certainly not the poor and hungry. They're poor and hungry for a reason. That food would spoil on the shelf and get tossed.
You shouldn't be giving away your food as charity anyway. It's not efficient. They can't sort and distribute good, healthy food to all those people. They do much better with the dollar value of that food and buying straight from sources like farms and wholesalers who specifically give them good deals.
What about the food on your plate. You're full. Stop eating. You're likely ingesting more food than you need. This might cause health problems down the line such as diabetes and heart issues. Not to mention weight issues.
Finally what good is having food if you don't enjoy it? You're an adult now and pay for your own groceries. If you throw out food, who's the one that cares? You and you already paid for it. You can do whatever you want with it. It's your food now. | 5sna1j | CMV:Wasting food is a horrible, selfish thing to do. | I grew up with my parents telling me to not waste any food. I grew up in the countryside where seeing how food is made is in plain sight. I've been to eating disorder clinics where they force you to finish your plate and tell you that eating when you're not hungry at strict meal times is how "normal" people eat.
Every time I eat something, especially animal products, I think about the animal that died for it, the energy that went into growing, preparing and transporting it.
So far, so reasonable.
Except I now refuse to waste food on an extreme level. I feel so selfish for wasting food. I'll eat food that's out of date. I'm about to sit down to a meal that's a week past it's best by day. I'll eat food that smells disgusting. Last week I ate some chicken that smelt like sulphur the moment I opened the packaging (although it was in date!). I'll eat food when I'm not even hungry, I can't even leave food on my plate or in serving dishes. My doctor has asked me to stick to a particular diet that excludes certain food groups, and I still eat them because I can't stand wasting food.
So please, help me see some sense. Behaviour changes will come later, I just need some reasoning to tell myself as I'm tucking into another meal I don't want to eat that there is another way of thinking. I'm a person easily swayed by logic, I just haven't found anyone with a convincing enough argument yet.
_____
Edits: Reading between the lines of what you've collectively said I've added a few deltas to my thought process:
∆ If I had higher self worth I would put my own health above wasting food
∆ Maybe I need to be selfish to do what's best for me
∆ I only care about wasting food because it's what I've been bought up to believe. I care more about the judgement than I do about the cause. I have no problems about being selfish in other areas of my life - why should I let my carers dictate when I can or can't put myself first.
Case closed guys. Thanks for all of your help. You've achieved more in 12 hours than therapists have done in 12 months.
I think I might go celebrate by creatively disposing of food. Ideas welcome!
| 1,486,493,612 | mini_blue | ddgczwt | ddgctup | 15 | 3 |
CMV: Thinly sliced deli meat is pointless. It's next to impossible to peel a slice without it falling apart.
I enjoy a turkey sandwich as much as the next person. For some reason beyond me, my wife likes to have the thin sliced deli meats. It goes against everything I believe in in making a sandwich.
The meat is exceedingly difficult to separate when sliced so thin. The structure of the meat is compromised and it does not have the strength to come apart in one piece.
Now, I'm not saying that meat should be sliced at no smaller than 2mm, but there comes a point where it stops being slices of meat and ends up being a pile of disappointing shreds. | Counterexample: prosciutto, jamón ibérico, soppressata, mortadella, etc. Turkey is inferior no matter how you slice it. | I really appreciate the non-seriousness of this CMV. No politics, no hate, just some dudes debating lunch meats. | 5snkra | CMV: Thinly sliced deli meat is pointless. It's next to impossible to peel a slice without it falling apart. | I enjoy a turkey sandwich as much as the next person. For some reason beyond me, my wife likes to have the thin sliced deli meats. It goes against everything I believe in in making a sandwich.
The meat is exceedingly difficult to separate when sliced so thin. The structure of the meat is compromised and it does not have the strength to come apart in one piece.
Now, I'm not saying that meat should be sliced at no smaller than 2mm, but there comes a point where it stops being slices of meat and ends up being a pile of disappointing shreds. | 1,486,496,293 | th3virus | ddgoxmm | ddgojvr | 8 | 5 |
CMV: Donald Trump Brings Out the Worst in Almost Everyone
I will say off the bat that this is motivated by a lot of opinion and anecdotal evidence.
As the title suggests, I believe that newly elected President Trump has a universal effect of bringing out the worst in almost everyone.
Trump was largely elected by people who were fed up with the US political system, believing that it was broken, corrupt, and was far away from its traditionally "great roots". His supporters (based on his campaign rhetoric) voted for him out of fear of [foreign based terror attacks that were overstated by Trump](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/) and a problem of illegal immigration from Mexico ([even though we're actually losing Mexican immigrants](http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/)). In short, his supporters ignored facts for flashy, paranoid, bombastic campaign rhetoric.
However, the opposing party is not guilt-free either. The democratic party sees Trump as a bigot, racist, and xenophobe. Those three buzz words are everywhere. They can't understand why he was elected. On my Facebook the day after the election, people were unbelievably upset because they saw a country that was now based on hatred. However, Trump lost the popular vote, so wouldn't that mean, even if every Trump supporter was hateful, that the country "filled with hate" is still in the minority? That night, the number one trending topic on Facebook was about Mike Pence. [Mr. Pence did once advocate for state funds for people seeking to change their sexual behavior, but never once advocated for the usage of electro-shock therapy.](http://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/) I support same-sex marriage, but one of my gay friends was very upset after Pence's election, because (this is true) he said that he would "probably be going to a concentration camp". Then he cited the fact that Pence had advocated for electro-shock therapy, which is not only untrue, but also illegal. In the same vein as Trump supporters screaming, "Make America Great Again", Democrats are screaming too--and the worst part is people aren't screaming anything that is supported by facts.
Perhaps the *worst* part of all is how congress has been affected by this election. The only goal of congressional democrats is seemingly to block Trump from doing any actual governing. Democrats thought it was unfair when Republicans did this after the death of Justice Scalia, and, a year later, they are doing the same thing. Regarding the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, Sen. minority leader Chuck Schumer said that [there would be exhaustive debate over his confirmation](http://www.businessinsider.com/chuck-schumer-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-trump-2017-1).
In short, it just seems instead of promoting facts, we're promoting opinions. We're trying to all be the loudest one in the room and not the most intelligent. Trump may have said things that have belittled muslims, women, and the disabled, but liberals, who want to be seen as elite and take the moral high ground are yelling at the same volume, and it's brought an end to civil discourse and factual support.
____________
> *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!* | Trump is bringing out some of the best in other world leaders:
* Justin Trudeau is emphasizing Canada's diversity and generosity: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/world/canada/justin-trudeau-trump-refugee-ban.html
* Xi Jinping is making China a world leader on climate change: https://www.ft.com/content/3f1ba5ba-ddac-11e6-86ac-f253db7791c6
* Angela Merkel has been speaking out in support of free speech and pluralism: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/world/europe/angela-merkel-recep-tayyip-erdogan-germany-turkey-kpp.html
As the United States recedes from the world stage, other leaders will fill the void. Trump's weaknesses can and will bring out the best in the leaders of other countries who will no longer need to defer to the United States and can take a leadership role in building international trust and cooperation. | I don't feel my accelerated political engagement and crystallized knowledge of the rhetorical grounding (or lack of) of the Republican party is my worst. I feel like this serves a public good. Obama said himself at his last speech as President that the power and dexterity of government must rely on people's desire to carry it out, and it won't be run for us. I think he is right. I think it is bringing put the best in a lot of people. | 5snmbt | CMV: Donald Trump Brings Out the Worst in Almost Everyone | I will say off the bat that this is motivated by a lot of opinion and anecdotal evidence.
As the title suggests, I believe that newly elected President Trump has a universal effect of bringing out the worst in almost everyone.
Trump was largely elected by people who were fed up with the US political system, believing that it was broken, corrupt, and was far away from its traditionally "great roots". His supporters (based on his campaign rhetoric) voted for him out of fear of [foreign based terror attacks that were overstated by Trump](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/) and a problem of illegal immigration from Mexico ([even though we're actually losing Mexican immigrants](http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/)). In short, his supporters ignored facts for flashy, paranoid, bombastic campaign rhetoric.
However, the opposing party is not guilt-free either. The democratic party sees Trump as a bigot, racist, and xenophobe. Those three buzz words are everywhere. They can't understand why he was elected. On my Facebook the day after the election, people were unbelievably upset because they saw a country that was now based on hatred. However, Trump lost the popular vote, so wouldn't that mean, even if every Trump supporter was hateful, that the country "filled with hate" is still in the minority? That night, the number one trending topic on Facebook was about Mike Pence. [Mr. Pence did once advocate for state funds for people seeking to change their sexual behavior, but never once advocated for the usage of electro-shock therapy.](http://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/) I support same-sex marriage, but one of my gay friends was very upset after Pence's election, because (this is true) he said that he would "probably be going to a concentration camp". Then he cited the fact that Pence had advocated for electro-shock therapy, which is not only untrue, but also illegal. In the same vein as Trump supporters screaming, "Make America Great Again", Democrats are screaming too--and the worst part is people aren't screaming anything that is supported by facts.
Perhaps the *worst* part of all is how congress has been affected by this election. The only goal of congressional democrats is seemingly to block Trump from doing any actual governing. Democrats thought it was unfair when Republicans did this after the death of Justice Scalia, and, a year later, they are doing the same thing. Regarding the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, Sen. minority leader Chuck Schumer said that [there would be exhaustive debate over his confirmation](http://www.businessinsider.com/chuck-schumer-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-trump-2017-1).
In short, it just seems instead of promoting facts, we're promoting opinions. We're trying to all be the loudest one in the room and not the most intelligent. Trump may have said things that have belittled muslims, women, and the disabled, but liberals, who want to be seen as elite and take the moral high ground are yelling at the same volume, and it's brought an end to civil discourse and factual support.
____________
> *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!* | 1,486,496,679 | MrPnutButter | ddgl8sm | ddgl522 | 151 | 8 |
CMV: Betsy DeVos is not qualified to serve as the US Education Secretary
She has ~~not attended public school~~ not attended/no knowledge of the public education system, for which managing is one of the largest responsibilities of the Education Secretary/Department of Education.
As demonstrated in her Senate hearing, she does not know the difference between proficiency and growth, one of the most eminent controversies in standardized testing today.
At the hearing, she also declined to state that she supports equal accountability of results for private schools to public schools. A lack of accountability would leave private schools able to progress students through the education system without preparing them properly or by teaching them biased material.
She has ~~no prior education~~ almost no prior *public* education (thanks /u/stargazerAMDG) managerial experience.
I want to have an actual conversation with someone who understands the other side of this argument in light of her confirmation. Please help convince me that this confirmation is not horrible for our education system and America's children. | In order to change your view, I would ask what you think the Department of Education *does* where her lack of experience in a public school system would hurt her?
The vast, vast majority of the ED budget goes to Pell grants, Title 1 (low income) grants, Special Ed Grants and others. They don't control the content of curriculum, states decide that (even NCLB was ultimately up to the states). They don't control standards, again states decide that. The ED only issues guidelines that states/schools may implement or not. The standards are very loose as well, and states implement them very differently from each other. (again look at NCLB). Even the current controversy over Common Core is ultimately left to the states as to how it's implemented.
So to quote :
>As demonstrated in her Senate hearing, she does not know the difference between proficiency and growth, one of the most eminent controversies in standardized testing today.
At the hearing, she also declined to state that she supports equal accountability of results for private schools to public schools. A lack of accountability would leave private schools able to progress students through the education system without preparing them properly or by teaching them biased material.
The ED currently doesn't manage those items, the states do. I would imagine that the ED under her (really under Trump ultimately) would steer more grant money to charter schools, and to issue different guidelines to states regarding charter schools. I gather that you wouldn't like more of an emphasis on Charters, but in terms of *qualifications*, she is qualified. She's been involved in at the district level (executive level) in school systems.
So what qualifications does the head of the ED need in order to steer grant money?
| That's a good summary of the other side, but as an argument standing on its own merit, it falls woefully flat in the face of reality. Charter/private schools are good for rich families but in the end there simply has to be a public school system that works for everyone without those choices. Simply put, not everyone will be able to make those choices, there aren't enough private or charter schools for everyone. Not everyone has the means for the transportation for magnet schools. Even if everyone gets to "choose" most people are going to want to put their kids in the closest public school. You can't just reform education for those that can afford it or are otherwise fortunate, it has to be able to work for every single child in America...which is why putting someone whose only experience with public education is trying to gut it is an absolutely terrible choice on its face. Unless..you are bent on dismantling the state as President Bannon's philosophy would suggest.
Think about it, a climate change denier for chief of the EPA that wants to dismantle it, someone with no experience with public schools for education secretary besides trying to dismantle it, financial people that want to strip regulations put in place not even 10 years ago over the malfeasance of Wall St. An FCC bent on eliminating Net Neutrality and gutting regulations as well. When viewed from a lens of dismantling the state, DeVos makes perfect sense. She's not there to make the school system better, she's there to dismantle it. That's simply not something that can happen in America, and frankly it's stupid as fuck to want to try it.
Edit:Wall St. not DC. | 5so756 | CMV: Betsy DeVos is not qualified to serve as the US Education Secretary | She has ~~not attended public school~~ not attended/no knowledge of the public education system, for which managing is one of the largest responsibilities of the Education Secretary/Department of Education.
As demonstrated in her Senate hearing, she does not know the difference between proficiency and growth, one of the most eminent controversies in standardized testing today.
At the hearing, she also declined to state that she supports equal accountability of results for private schools to public schools. A lack of accountability would leave private schools able to progress students through the education system without preparing them properly or by teaching them biased material.
She has ~~no prior education~~ almost no prior *public* education (thanks /u/stargazerAMDG) managerial experience.
I want to have an actual conversation with someone who understands the other side of this argument in light of her confirmation. Please help convince me that this confirmation is not horrible for our education system and America's children. | 1,486,502,251 | apartmented | ddgr1ue | ddgp55l | 215 | 6 |
CMV: Insider Trading Shouldn't Be a Crime
First, knowledge and information regarding sales and exchanges arises spontaneously from individual actors. It doesn't not originate in a single overarching body and therefore can not be disseminated to everyone simultaneously as though it were.
Second, there is nothing morally wrong with people using information to make good businesses decisions even when everyone is not privy to that information. If it were a moral wrong, all sales business transactions would be immoral because there is never and can never be a perfect symmetry of information.
Lastly, let's look an example of the principle in action. Jeff and Jill are friends. Because they are friends Jeff knows that Jill will bring in cookies to the office on Friday. Consequently, he is in the right location before everyone else and has his selection of the best cookies.
Now, the cookies did not belong to everyone to begin with. If they did, then there might be a case that a wrong was done. However, they belonged to Jill (a private actor) and she chose to give Jeff an advantage in getting *her* good cookies. This is simply a choice she has made regarding her property and her freedom of speech. All of which are well within her rights.
Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post.
| What makes insider trading immoral and illegal is what is called a "fiduciary duty". When you have a fiduciary duty to others, it means that you have been given control over some economic interest that belongs to them, and you have agreed to make decisions that will make the most money for everyone. Insider trading is a violation of that agreement; it is using information that you have access to because of your fiduciary responsibilities to benefit only yourself and/or those you share it with.
In more simple terms, insider trading is a simple violation of a contract. Under the contract you are given certain powers that come with responsibilities, and you use those powers to help yourself while ignoring your responsibilities. That's wrong any way you look at it.
| In this case Jill can't say she is bringing cookies for everyone to fairly distribute, she is playing favorites. As a group we should decide that if someone is bring cookies in the future that it shouldn't be Jill because Jeff will get the double chocolate chip ones and the rest of us get stuck with the dumb raisin ones. Jill can bring cookies whenever she wants and distribute them with unfair rules but she can't say she is doing it fairly and get the benefits of a public corporation. | 5so8rt | CMV: Insider Trading Shouldn't Be a Crime | First, knowledge and information regarding sales and exchanges arises spontaneously from individual actors. It doesn't not originate in a single overarching body and therefore can not be disseminated to everyone simultaneously as though it were.
Second, there is nothing morally wrong with people using information to make good businesses decisions even when everyone is not privy to that information. If it were a moral wrong, all sales business transactions would be immoral because there is never and can never be a perfect symmetry of information.
Lastly, let's look an example of the principle in action. Jeff and Jill are friends. Because they are friends Jeff knows that Jill will bring in cookies to the office on Friday. Consequently, he is in the right location before everyone else and has his selection of the best cookies.
Now, the cookies did not belong to everyone to begin with. If they did, then there might be a case that a wrong was done. However, they belonged to Jill (a private actor) and she chose to give Jeff an advantage in getting *her* good cookies. This is simply a choice she has made regarding her property and her freedom of speech. All of which are well within her rights.
Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post.
| 1,486,502,703 | [deleted] | ddgkxvp | ddgkvhm | 5 | 1 |
CMV: JK Rowling is bad at writing male characters
Okay, so, a lot of male authors (rightfully so) get a lot of flack for writing terrible female characters. However, the thing is, I think JK Rowling is just as bad at writing male characters as some men are at writing women.
Disclaimer: I can't really blame JK for this. A lot of people have trouble connecting to the opposite gender. However, I believe that JK Rowling IS bad at writing male characters and no one really acknowledges it. Also, I truly do adore harry potter, but that doesn't mean that i think that they're perfect
So, lets look at the prominent male characters of Harry Potter and think about them:
Harry: Harry is basically a Mary Sue. The only time they give him any sort of character flaws its explained as the main villain trying to influence his mind and control him. However, I could sorta pardon Harry because a lot of YA books have bland main characters, so his blandness might be an issue with the genre as a whole rather than just JK
Ron: Ron is basically every male stereotype rolled into one. He's the guy whose always eating, swearing, obsessed with sports, doesn't care about school, and as soon as he reaches adolescendts he spends EVERY SINGLE WAKING MOMENT TRYING TO GET GIRLS! He is a pretty weak character, and a lot of people in the community accept this as true.
Dumbledore: Okay, so Dumbledore is a pretty interesting character. However, he is almost a carbon copy from other mentor figures in classical stories. In addition, he is a pretty static character throughout the books. In other words, although he is well written, he has no real character development. In addition, he is just a stereotype. I wouldn't go around appluading a male author for being able to perfectly duplicate the main character from Gone Girl.
Voldemort: Okay, so Voldemort isnt interesting at all. Hes not an interesting villain. He's not an interesting character. No one ever tries to help him. He's born a sociopath, and Dumbledore, rather than trying to help him, just despises him from the start. He's everything that JK Rowling hates in the world rolled into one. Which is fine, a villain should be despisable, but easy to hate does not a great character make. Voldemort is a lot like Joker from the Dark Knight. He's pure evil, but he's not a character. Joker and Voldemort are both ideas; Joker the idea of chaos, Voldemort the idea of racism. The thing that annoys me the most about this is that it would have been interesting for JK Rowling to make us feel bad for Voldemort more. He was born without the ability for emotions! That sounds like such an interesting angle to tackle a character from, but instead he's just pure evil.
Peter: He's just a coward. That's it. He has literally no personality beyond being a coward.
Sirius: He's brave and rash; both are common male stereotypes. He's not a very interesting character at all, because he's just the stereotypical brave but rash hero.
Neville: He's an idiot whose sad about his parents. The thing about Neville is that he flips around a lot. Half the time hes hiding in the back of potions class, and the other half of the time he's using an ancient sword to battle the lord of evil. That just seems... it seems like Neville doesn't have a very concrete character. He's what the plot needs him to be.
Snape: He wasn't interesting at all until the last book. And even then, he was the dude who was motivated by the fact that he couldn't get the girl he wanted, so he decided to torture kids for years on end because of that. Look, i understand love is a strong motivator, but i can't tell you how many times I've seen people get mad over female characters who were motivated because they couldn't marry the guy they wanted. Its wrong when it happens then, and its wrong when it happens here.
Malfoy: He's the standard jerk character. We've seen this character a million times across a million different stories. Again, he's a complete sociopath until the last book, where he realizes that he can't kill someone. That seems like such a sudden turn of character that it felt jarring. He was never written as being anything other than cruel, so when he decides he cant kill dumbledore it just feels... strange. I mean, he tried to kill harry a couple of times across the series. There was no reason that he assumed that Harry wouldn't fall off of his broom when he pretended to be a dementor. For all he knew, harry could fall off and to his death. So why was dumbledore any different?
Lucius: Again, the coward stereotype.
Hagrid: He's the woodsman who may not be the smartest but has a heart of gold. Admitadly, he is a rather original character, but he's written to be a complete idiot who frequently puts students in danger. He's original, but he's written to be over the top idiotic. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but he was endangering students to a completely unrealistic level.
There are others, but I feel that I hit on the main/important ones.
Now, i know that people are going to say that the problem is more that JK Rowling is bad at writing characters. So, instead lets look at female characters:
Hermoine: Everyone admits that she's the most interesting character in all of Harry Potter. She's smart, reliable, does good in school, and isn't just motivated by wanting to get a guy the whole book.
McGonagal: She's basically just female Dumbledore, but she has the added twist of being a strict teacher who also happens to have favorites at her school. Again, he's not the most complex, and not very interesting, but McGongal is well written if nothing else. All of her dialouge seems witty and matches her character
LeStrange: She's absolutely insane. So, she's not the best written, but she serves her purpose of being Voldemorts henchwoman and also a foil for both Hermoine and Mrs Weasley
Mrs. Weasley: A caring mother, who is also illtempered and willing to help out anyone. Oh, and did i mention that in the final book she goes complete badass and kills the murderer of countless witches and wizards. So yeah, she's pretty interesting and well written
Ginny: She has great character development. She starts out as an annoying little girl, and by the end of the story she's joined the battle against Voldemort as a fully fledged fighter. She has fantastic character development.
Well Reddit, CMV!
| If anyone's a Mary Sue, it's Hermione. Her intelligence is frequently used in a deux ex machina manner ("How are we going to get through this? Ah, Hermione knows a spell never mentioned before".) She's allegedly average-looking, but transforms to the belle of the ball by smoothening her hair and putting on a dress (played out stereotype of the nerd taking off her glasses). Not only is she smart but she's logical - a trait that most wizards don't have, according to Snape's sorcerer's stone protection. And she's fiercely loyal. She could represent *every* Hogwarts house.
If Ginny's character development works, Neville's does too. He too was an immature wizard who wised up quickly once Voldemort returned (and he was actually *shown* doing this, rather than turning from giggly schoolgirl to badass tomboy while Harry wasn't watching).
What makes a male character well written to you? | I'd argue that she's just as good at writing male characters as she is at writing female characters. You even admit yourself that quite a few of the female characters aren't "the best written".
You also seem to be applying a bit of a double standard between the sexes:
>Malfoy: He's the standard jerk character. We've seen this character a million times across a million different stories.
>Hermoine: She's smart, reliable, does good in school
How is one of these "standard" and "seen a million times" while the other isn't? Neither of these are all that much more impressive than the other.
| 5spe6x | CMV: JK Rowling is bad at writing male characters | Okay, so, a lot of male authors (rightfully so) get a lot of flack for writing terrible female characters. However, the thing is, I think JK Rowling is just as bad at writing male characters as some men are at writing women.
Disclaimer: I can't really blame JK for this. A lot of people have trouble connecting to the opposite gender. However, I believe that JK Rowling IS bad at writing male characters and no one really acknowledges it. Also, I truly do adore harry potter, but that doesn't mean that i think that they're perfect
So, lets look at the prominent male characters of Harry Potter and think about them:
Harry: Harry is basically a Mary Sue. The only time they give him any sort of character flaws its explained as the main villain trying to influence his mind and control him. However, I could sorta pardon Harry because a lot of YA books have bland main characters, so his blandness might be an issue with the genre as a whole rather than just JK
Ron: Ron is basically every male stereotype rolled into one. He's the guy whose always eating, swearing, obsessed with sports, doesn't care about school, and as soon as he reaches adolescendts he spends EVERY SINGLE WAKING MOMENT TRYING TO GET GIRLS! He is a pretty weak character, and a lot of people in the community accept this as true.
Dumbledore: Okay, so Dumbledore is a pretty interesting character. However, he is almost a carbon copy from other mentor figures in classical stories. In addition, he is a pretty static character throughout the books. In other words, although he is well written, he has no real character development. In addition, he is just a stereotype. I wouldn't go around appluading a male author for being able to perfectly duplicate the main character from Gone Girl.
Voldemort: Okay, so Voldemort isnt interesting at all. Hes not an interesting villain. He's not an interesting character. No one ever tries to help him. He's born a sociopath, and Dumbledore, rather than trying to help him, just despises him from the start. He's everything that JK Rowling hates in the world rolled into one. Which is fine, a villain should be despisable, but easy to hate does not a great character make. Voldemort is a lot like Joker from the Dark Knight. He's pure evil, but he's not a character. Joker and Voldemort are both ideas; Joker the idea of chaos, Voldemort the idea of racism. The thing that annoys me the most about this is that it would have been interesting for JK Rowling to make us feel bad for Voldemort more. He was born without the ability for emotions! That sounds like such an interesting angle to tackle a character from, but instead he's just pure evil.
Peter: He's just a coward. That's it. He has literally no personality beyond being a coward.
Sirius: He's brave and rash; both are common male stereotypes. He's not a very interesting character at all, because he's just the stereotypical brave but rash hero.
Neville: He's an idiot whose sad about his parents. The thing about Neville is that he flips around a lot. Half the time hes hiding in the back of potions class, and the other half of the time he's using an ancient sword to battle the lord of evil. That just seems... it seems like Neville doesn't have a very concrete character. He's what the plot needs him to be.
Snape: He wasn't interesting at all until the last book. And even then, he was the dude who was motivated by the fact that he couldn't get the girl he wanted, so he decided to torture kids for years on end because of that. Look, i understand love is a strong motivator, but i can't tell you how many times I've seen people get mad over female characters who were motivated because they couldn't marry the guy they wanted. Its wrong when it happens then, and its wrong when it happens here.
Malfoy: He's the standard jerk character. We've seen this character a million times across a million different stories. Again, he's a complete sociopath until the last book, where he realizes that he can't kill someone. That seems like such a sudden turn of character that it felt jarring. He was never written as being anything other than cruel, so when he decides he cant kill dumbledore it just feels... strange. I mean, he tried to kill harry a couple of times across the series. There was no reason that he assumed that Harry wouldn't fall off of his broom when he pretended to be a dementor. For all he knew, harry could fall off and to his death. So why was dumbledore any different?
Lucius: Again, the coward stereotype.
Hagrid: He's the woodsman who may not be the smartest but has a heart of gold. Admitadly, he is a rather original character, but he's written to be a complete idiot who frequently puts students in danger. He's original, but he's written to be over the top idiotic. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but he was endangering students to a completely unrealistic level.
There are others, but I feel that I hit on the main/important ones.
Now, i know that people are going to say that the problem is more that JK Rowling is bad at writing characters. So, instead lets look at female characters:
Hermoine: Everyone admits that she's the most interesting character in all of Harry Potter. She's smart, reliable, does good in school, and isn't just motivated by wanting to get a guy the whole book.
McGonagal: She's basically just female Dumbledore, but she has the added twist of being a strict teacher who also happens to have favorites at her school. Again, he's not the most complex, and not very interesting, but McGongal is well written if nothing else. All of her dialouge seems witty and matches her character
LeStrange: She's absolutely insane. So, she's not the best written, but she serves her purpose of being Voldemorts henchwoman and also a foil for both Hermoine and Mrs Weasley
Mrs. Weasley: A caring mother, who is also illtempered and willing to help out anyone. Oh, and did i mention that in the final book she goes complete badass and kills the murderer of countless witches and wizards. So yeah, she's pretty interesting and well written
Ginny: She has great character development. She starts out as an annoying little girl, and by the end of the story she's joined the battle against Voldemort as a fully fledged fighter. She has fantastic character development.
Well Reddit, CMV!
| 1,486,514,151 | Fishb20 | ddgvof0 | ddgtti0 | 15 | 8 |
CMV: The current American administration cannot be counted on to protect the nation from terror attacks, because one would be too beneficial politically.
Trump campaigned on a few ideas related to protecting the nation against outside influence, but since election has not listened to intelligence briefings, diplomats, or allies. This is troubling because it signals that he is not interested in the existing apparatus of intelligence and counterterrorism.
I believe he wants an attack to happen, and has signaled it already: Talk of the fictional Bowling Green Massacre, [repeated enough that we know it is no mistake](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/times-kellyanne-conway-referenced-bowling-green-massacre-attack/story?id=45311574). This [new list of terror attacks that supposedly were not covered by media, including both the Orlando and San Bernardino attacks that definitely *were* covered by media and total non-events like some guy in Chad shooting a BB gun near an embassy and injuring no one](http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/white-house-terror-attack-list-trump/). These moves suggest that, at the very least, the administration wants us to believe there is a higher frequency of terror attacks and we should be extra fearful of them.
Why is that useful to the administration? If there is another 9/11, it justifies Trump's Muslim ban retroactively. It justifies a crackdown on privacy and civil liberties. It allows him to brand his detractors as unpatriotic at best and possible collaborators at worst. It allows him to seize special powers as president and insist on more positive coverage. It allows him to use "national security" as an excuse to do anything he might want.
So when [officials raise concerns that the travel ban is weakening our ability to conduct effective counterterrorism](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-worry-that-us-counterterrorism-defenses-will-be-weakened-by-trump-actions/2017/01/29/1f045074-e644-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html), Trump doesn't care. He doesn't want effective counterterrorism.
When [allies warn that the travel ban is strengthening ISIS at a time when it otherwise might be about to collapse](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-travel-ban-us-allies-diplomats-cables-isis-retaliation-muslim-world/), Trump doesn't care. He doesn't want ISIS to collapse.
He campaigned on being ready to fight ISIS. You can't fight ISIS if they're gone. You can't fight terrorism if there isn't any. He needs an enemy or else his rhetoric falls flat.
But if there's an attack, won't we blame Trump? Not if [he didn't know about it because he skipped the intelligence briefings.](http://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504864988/trump-skips-intelligence-briefings-denies-russian-election-mischief) This allows him to scapegoat whoever it was who should be filling in for the president at these briefings.
Who will his supporters blame? [He's already telling them, pre-emptively, to blame his opponents.](http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-judge-immigration-ban-terror-attacks-2017-2) That sounds like preparation that only makes sense if there's another terror attack.
Think he's interested in preventing one? Please, change my view. I am very concerned about what the future might hold.
(I will ignore any comment calling these stories "fake news".) | I'd argue a few points:
1) A terrorist attack probably would not work for Trump's long-term political interest. Though there might be an initial rally-around-the-flag effect, this would likely wane quickly, for a couple of reasons.
First, judging from who has perpetrated previous attacks, there's a good chance future attacks will be perpetrated by individuals not covered by his ban. If this is the case, this will likely be pointed out unceasingly from Democrats, who will claim that the ban 1) was ineffective and 2) helped radicalize individuals.
Second, there is a good chance the American people would blame Trump for failing at his job to protect us. I totally disagree with your contention that Americans won't because he skipped intelligence briefings. On the contrary, the ads write themselves: *"Countless Americans died because President Trump thought tweeting insults was a more important way to spend his time than attending intelligence briefings that would have stopped the terrorist attacks that killed them."*
2) The day-to-day work of preventing terrorist attacks is up to a large bureaucracy (the FBI, CIA, etc.) that still has every incentive to do their best to keep America safe. Trump has a limited ability to inhibit this, and, even if he were to try, there will likely be an uproar from both Democrats and hawkish Republicans. | > Except none of them have killed anyone.
So if none of these people have devolved to psychotic murderers up until this point, why would a temporary ban drive them to become terrorists?
>It's not how civilized people react to non-violent actions? Well, sure. But there have been violent actions.
This ban *isn't* a violent act, though. In fact, it's about as passive as it could be.
Remember, your initial claim was that the travel ban would drive enough Muslims to terrorism that ISIS would be saved from the brink of collapse. You're moving the goalposts by pointing to other things which certainly could merit a violent response(such as having family killed).
>What makes Muslims different? That there's a gang problem? There are gangs of all kinds of ethnicities, and we don't blame the whole race. Well.... some people do.
What I'm trying to get across is that you *shouldn't* blame the whole race. You're suggesting that Muslims(at least a significant minority of them) are just one word away from strapping explosives to their chest by saying that a non-violent travel ban would be enough to convert thousands upon thousands of Muslims to terrorism. This simply isn't the case.
>Anyway, we are getting away from my original point. Strike the "ISIS got stronger" remark, I'll cede the point, does that unravel my argument? I think it's a tangential, rather than essential, part of it.
I believe in my OP I also pointed out how Trump's goal was to "Destroy ISIS" rather than keep it going, we can discuss that if you'd like.
>You haven't answered my question about supporting a religious test.
That's not part of my argument at all. I haven't taken a side in this matter.
| 5spfw3 | CMV: The current American administration cannot be counted on to protect the nation from terror attacks, because one would be too beneficial politically. | Trump campaigned on a few ideas related to protecting the nation against outside influence, but since election has not listened to intelligence briefings, diplomats, or allies. This is troubling because it signals that he is not interested in the existing apparatus of intelligence and counterterrorism.
I believe he wants an attack to happen, and has signaled it already: Talk of the fictional Bowling Green Massacre, [repeated enough that we know it is no mistake](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/times-kellyanne-conway-referenced-bowling-green-massacre-attack/story?id=45311574). This [new list of terror attacks that supposedly were not covered by media, including both the Orlando and San Bernardino attacks that definitely *were* covered by media and total non-events like some guy in Chad shooting a BB gun near an embassy and injuring no one](http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/white-house-terror-attack-list-trump/). These moves suggest that, at the very least, the administration wants us to believe there is a higher frequency of terror attacks and we should be extra fearful of them.
Why is that useful to the administration? If there is another 9/11, it justifies Trump's Muslim ban retroactively. It justifies a crackdown on privacy and civil liberties. It allows him to brand his detractors as unpatriotic at best and possible collaborators at worst. It allows him to seize special powers as president and insist on more positive coverage. It allows him to use "national security" as an excuse to do anything he might want.
So when [officials raise concerns that the travel ban is weakening our ability to conduct effective counterterrorism](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-worry-that-us-counterterrorism-defenses-will-be-weakened-by-trump-actions/2017/01/29/1f045074-e644-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html), Trump doesn't care. He doesn't want effective counterterrorism.
When [allies warn that the travel ban is strengthening ISIS at a time when it otherwise might be about to collapse](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-travel-ban-us-allies-diplomats-cables-isis-retaliation-muslim-world/), Trump doesn't care. He doesn't want ISIS to collapse.
He campaigned on being ready to fight ISIS. You can't fight ISIS if they're gone. You can't fight terrorism if there isn't any. He needs an enemy or else his rhetoric falls flat.
But if there's an attack, won't we blame Trump? Not if [he didn't know about it because he skipped the intelligence briefings.](http://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504864988/trump-skips-intelligence-briefings-denies-russian-election-mischief) This allows him to scapegoat whoever it was who should be filling in for the president at these briefings.
Who will his supporters blame? [He's already telling them, pre-emptively, to blame his opponents.](http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-judge-immigration-ban-terror-attacks-2017-2) That sounds like preparation that only makes sense if there's another terror attack.
Think he's interested in preventing one? Please, change my view. I am very concerned about what the future might hold.
(I will ignore any comment calling these stories "fake news".) | 1,486,514,635 | Differently | ddh4u97 | ddh1hk2 | 15 | 1 |
CMV: The best way to handle disagreements with family and friends is to explore it briefly and then let it go.
You can't have a relationship with another person without having a disagreement at some point. Some people take the approach of self-censoring any topic that might cause a disagreement such as politics or religion, and only bringing up totally vapid topics of conversation like what they ate for dinner that day or what happened on their favorite show. I think this leads to a boring life where you never really get to know people.
It's much better to say what's on your mind to the people in your life, but don't be insulting about it, and understand that the people you are talking to might disagree with you at any point and that's okay. If you find someone disagreeing with you, you might engage in a little friendly debate, and if it's too much for you, you show your displeasure by frowning and changing the subject. Or you leave the room or something. Arguing is not what you do.
Every once in a while a person has to evaluate the people in their lives and figure out if they want to be around those people as much as they are. If the answer is no then, that's it, you stop being around them. It's never a good idea to argue with the person. That never solves anything. It just makes life more stressful.
CMV
| In most cases I would say the behaviour you describe makes perfect sense.
And the lack of comments also shows that you aren't facing a lot of opposition.
The demand that argueing never gets people anywhere crumbles when people face situations where they are trapped. For example in situation where they are caught between deeply loving a person while also facing deep hurt from that person.
In that case constant conflict can be helpful to get hurtful people out of their life.
Examples I know from real life:
- An alcoholic father is loving, but when he gets drunk every other day he denies that you are his child.
- A teenager gets raped by the mother's new boyfriend. Even though strong evidence exist, the mother denies that the her son got raped. The son is trapped between the love for his mother, his financial dependance on her and his hurtful experience.
- A young woman from an abusive household is in love with her first boyfriend. The boyfriend switches between being deeply hurtful and deeply loving, but the young woman feels trapped but also doesn't know better and thinks the situation is normal. Also because this is her first love, she thinks it is really precious.
These situations are a standoff for the people involved:
They love the parent/friend but also face strong hurt. These are difficult situations that most people can not get out of without strong feelings and in it's path lots of arguements.
In the cases I described the constant conflict and the strong anger were a catalyst for the children/girlfriend to cut the hurtful people out of their life and improve their life quality.
They would not have been able to cut the people out WITHOUT the constant open conflict.
You say that once in a while one should evalute the people in one's life.
In the case with the alcoholic it took the child 10 years to decide, because the love for the father and the anger about his behaviour were about balanced - only the constant anger and conflict led her to cut him out of her life. | My deeply held beliefs aren't held for no reason, they're there because I believe that they are essential for making a better world. Because of that I'm not generally going to enjoy hanging out with someone who disagrees with them.
But I care about my friends, I don't want to stop being around them and I don't want them to go through life in a worse world. I don't think I could consider someone a friend if I didn't care about them enough to argue with them.
Also, remember that arguments don't need to be insulting, demeaning, or in any way mean, and as such should strengthen your relationship, not damage it.
| 5ssj5q | CMV: The best way to handle disagreements with family and friends is to explore it briefly and then let it go. | You can't have a relationship with another person without having a disagreement at some point. Some people take the approach of self-censoring any topic that might cause a disagreement such as politics or religion, and only bringing up totally vapid topics of conversation like what they ate for dinner that day or what happened on their favorite show. I think this leads to a boring life where you never really get to know people.
It's much better to say what's on your mind to the people in your life, but don't be insulting about it, and understand that the people you are talking to might disagree with you at any point and that's okay. If you find someone disagreeing with you, you might engage in a little friendly debate, and if it's too much for you, you show your displeasure by frowning and changing the subject. Or you leave the room or something. Arguing is not what you do.
Every once in a while a person has to evaluate the people in their lives and figure out if they want to be around those people as much as they are. If the answer is no then, that's it, you stop being around them. It's never a good idea to argue with the person. That never solves anything. It just makes life more stressful.
CMV
| 1,486,558,743 | yahooeymoogly | ddiya4r | ddhvjiv | 2 | 1 |
CMV: A Proper Quesadilla involves 2 tortillas to make an O-shaped 'dilla, not 1 tortilla to make a D-shaped 'dilla
My friends told me last night that a proper quesadilla was a 1-tortilla 'dilla, and the "quesadilla" monstrosity should properly be D-shaped (as is the way Cookout makes them) Then the second person in the four person agreed, so our group was split 2-2. I honestly didn't even know this was a topic of debate. Maybe I'm wrong. So here's my argument:
1. More 'Dilla to enjoy. The difference between one and two tortillas in a "snack" quesadilla is almost negligible, but having two tortillas allows there more 'dilla to enjoy
2. Better Aesthetics. Having the folded edge is nice, but if you cut the quesadilla into pieces (as is common behavior) you ruin the crease, which looks aesthetically worse than open edges with gooey cheese
3. More Flavor. The only possible benefit I see to the 1-tortilla method is more uniform cooking and quicker cooking time, but they do lack the ability to have more ingredients on the inside which increases the cooking time but allows for far better quesadillas
4. Only acceptable Manufacturing. a simple google search of "quesadilla maker" shows nothing but O-shaped quesadilla makers. No D shaped ones. Coincidence? I think not. [https://www.google.com/search?q=quesadilla+maker&espv=2&biw=1517&bih=708&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjShcmr04DSAhWCSiYKHaMNCwIQ_AUIBygC] (https://www.google.com/search?q=quesadilla+maker&espv=2&biw=1517&bih=708&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjShcmr04DSAhWCSiYKHaMNCwIQ_AUIBygC)
I have class, but I will respond to messages quickly | If you were in central mexico - the place these things originate - it'd always be folded in half. Beyond that trump card (not that trump's card permits quesadillas on this side of the wall) for properness, consider:
1. flipping. Much harder and messier without a folded edge.
2. Carry and go. Folded is a finger food. 2-flat is a fucking disaster. You can only carry and go if you're in an electric wheelchair.
3. The "more dilla argument is ridiculous. With the literally exact same ingredients and pan space you get too fucking quesadillas using the folding method. 2 > 1.
4. Better Aesthetics? As someone who prefers the folded method, I'm OFFENDED. So...there. Send your two friends over for a cold beverage, while you and your other friend go chill with HITLER. I have no other explanation for your aesthetics other than your obviously deep ties to satan.
5. Anyone who needs a "quesadilla maker" doesn't get a vote 'round here on this topic. That's like getting a separate device to prepare you a glass of water. If it's not prepared on a skillet (or a frying pan) then you don't get to call it a quesadilla.
At this point I'm pretty sure you're an agent from the grilled cheese sandwich lobby trying to stir up trouble like y'all did back in '07. | Let us ignore the quesadilla makers because a proper quesadilla is not made on a dedicated unitasker and also because an O shape permits either to be made, and therefore is the correct shape for a manufacturer to produce if there is any controversy amongst people silly enough to want a unitasker.
A quesadilla is better without too much in the way of ingredients. Add too much and you've got sogginess to contend with - cheese only or just a minimum of other stuff. A D shaped one holds more than one ought to put in.
A 2 tortilla quesadilla requires two pans to make, which is a bit annoying. You want to brown it a bit before adding the cheese, so you have enough Maillard reaction without the cheese going beyond gooey to escape. With a single tortilla, that's easy: put it on, wait, add cheese, fold. With two tortillas, you've got something complicated where you need two pans or to take a hot tortilla off the pan and let it cool or something. Or you can do what I bet you do: accept an underbrowned tortilla by simply browning the first, adding the cheese, then spending more time on the unbrowned side to even it up - but you'll just never get as much browning as if you'd started with a browned tortilla.
And then there's the matter that it's easier to eat with one hand and no utensils (possibly dipping if that's your thing) if it's folded. Cutting the tortilla or having no folded edge makes this trickier. | 5ssswv | CMV: A Proper Quesadilla involves 2 tortillas to make an O-shaped 'dilla, not 1 tortilla to make a D-shaped 'dilla | My friends told me last night that a proper quesadilla was a 1-tortilla 'dilla, and the "quesadilla" monstrosity should properly be D-shaped (as is the way Cookout makes them) Then the second person in the four person agreed, so our group was split 2-2. I honestly didn't even know this was a topic of debate. Maybe I'm wrong. So here's my argument:
1. More 'Dilla to enjoy. The difference between one and two tortillas in a "snack" quesadilla is almost negligible, but having two tortillas allows there more 'dilla to enjoy
2. Better Aesthetics. Having the folded edge is nice, but if you cut the quesadilla into pieces (as is common behavior) you ruin the crease, which looks aesthetically worse than open edges with gooey cheese
3. More Flavor. The only possible benefit I see to the 1-tortilla method is more uniform cooking and quicker cooking time, but they do lack the ability to have more ingredients on the inside which increases the cooking time but allows for far better quesadillas
4. Only acceptable Manufacturing. a simple google search of "quesadilla maker" shows nothing but O-shaped quesadilla makers. No D shaped ones. Coincidence? I think not. [https://www.google.com/search?q=quesadilla+maker&espv=2&biw=1517&bih=708&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjShcmr04DSAhWCSiYKHaMNCwIQ_AUIBygC] (https://www.google.com/search?q=quesadilla+maker&espv=2&biw=1517&bih=708&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjShcmr04DSAhWCSiYKHaMNCwIQ_AUIBygC)
I have class, but I will respond to messages quickly | 1,486,562,341 | escot | ddhk50p | ddhjghg | 114 | 2 |
CMV: Flooding is not a natural disaster, but human stupidity.
Flooding should never be mentioned as a natural disaster, because it is not. A river, a body of water has a natural extension.... but the stupid humans decide to ignore it, many times they build a city near a body of water and then, as George Carlin said: "How about those people in those lowlands prone to flood, who built their homes right next to a running river and then wonder why they have water in the living room" ...see?... It is almost impossible to have a flood where there is no river, and if you built upon a land that is not on a low point. It is human stupidity, just as Einstein already alerted us about flood with his famous statement "'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity... and I'm not sure about the universe'". And also, don't forget, GOD said so himself: ""Let there be human stupidity," and there was flood."
----------------TL;DR: Saying that flood is a natural disaster is the same as saying that it was a tragedy that a man was killed when he invaded the habitat of a wild animal... in other words, human stupidity, the same human stupidity that makes the same man invade the "habitat" of a river. | Have you ever looked at *why* humans build near water like that. Waterways have historically been the best way of transporting goods and for large cargo loads that is still true. As such, cities naturally pop up along rivers and in natural harbors because that is where you off load the boats. Once you are on land, the cargo can go any direction it pleases but it is only right at the water's edge that you will have everything passing through one place. As such, it makes no sense for any of these cities to be anywhere *but* right on the water.
In some other places, cities were founded on the water because the people living there needed water to drink or for other purposes such as industrial or agricultural. These cities were founded on the water because water was effectively the lifeblood of the city. Sure they could have been founded further away, but that would require building aqueducts to reach the city when it is far easier to just put the city on the water.
If you look at the major cities of the world, you will see that the vast majority of them are on the water for one of these reason. Sure there are a few exceptions where cities got established for other reasons, but water is the biggest reason.
Furthermore, you specifically talk about humans living in flood plains but that is where the most fertile soil is *because* it is a flood plain. The floods bring fertile soil which makes it easy to grow a wide range of crops. Farming out of flood plains is much more difficult and in dry areas that also means away from irrigation for the crop land.
**Edit:** Of the 10 biggest cities in the US, 7 of them are port cities. If you moved them away from the water, their economies would not be able to sustain them. The other three were all founded on rivers because they are in a relatively dry area and the rivers provide a much needed source of water and fertile farmland. None of these cities could exists without the bodies of water that you say they should be avoiding. | Living anywhere carries certain risks. Rivers are prone to flood. Coastlines are vulnerable to hurricanes. The plains have tornadoes. In the southwest, there are wildfires. Those risks are taken, because living there provides other benefits.
There's nothing stupid about establishing a city near a river. Fresh water is unlimited, and it's an easy way to move huge amounts of materials. That helps (or at least, helped) to bring industry into the area (which remains today). All of those economic benefits greatly outweigh the risk of flooding, which has (in the time I've spent living on the Mississippi river) are very isolated and can be mitigated with adequate city planning.
Similar assessments can be made for any of those other locations I mentioned. There's nothing stupid about it, it's a risk, everyone knows it's a risk, they do it anyway because of the benefits. | 5str4h | CMV: Flooding is not a natural disaster, but human stupidity. | Flooding should never be mentioned as a natural disaster, because it is not. A river, a body of water has a natural extension.... but the stupid humans decide to ignore it, many times they build a city near a body of water and then, as George Carlin said: "How about those people in those lowlands prone to flood, who built their homes right next to a running river and then wonder why they have water in the living room" ...see?... It is almost impossible to have a flood where there is no river, and if you built upon a land that is not on a low point. It is human stupidity, just as Einstein already alerted us about flood with his famous statement "'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity... and I'm not sure about the universe'". And also, don't forget, GOD said so himself: ""Let there be human stupidity," and there was flood."
----------------TL;DR: Saying that flood is a natural disaster is the same as saying that it was a tragedy that a man was killed when he invaded the habitat of a wild animal... in other words, human stupidity, the same human stupidity that makes the same man invade the "habitat" of a river. | 1,486,572,024 | Garlicplanet | ddhrdg6 | ddhqy0d | 7 | 5 |
CMV: Videogames are always bad for humans overall
Videogames provide no net positive for players. They do not train the player with any transferable or useful skills for the rest of life. They waste away the player's body. Their stable and predictable, guaranteed (if not timely) reward systems are hyper addictive. They are a waste of a human's money inside our culture. They exist solely to eat our time and give us useless,brief happy feelings that ultimately leave us more unhappy inside. They have not to date explored any ideas or sparked any conversations in society that have provided a positive benefit to our culture or lives. Any education of real world concepts inside of games is quickly forgotten or remembered by only a tiny populace of the playing community.
Videogames are a waste of time.
_____
And that's why I make them!
> *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 one has really tackled video games as medical treatments yet, so let me do that:
Stroke patients, increased muscle control
http://www.livescience.com/41862-video-game-stroke-therapy.html
Cerebral Palsy:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/770970
A safe environment for Asperger’s patients to practice social skills:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/29/autism-video-games_n_6056634.html
| Just to piggy-back, World of Warcraft's corrupted blood incident has been used by many universities to research epidemic and how they spread. | 5strfi | CMV: Videogames are always bad for humans overall | Videogames provide no net positive for players. They do not train the player with any transferable or useful skills for the rest of life. They waste away the player's body. Their stable and predictable, guaranteed (if not timely) reward systems are hyper addictive. They are a waste of a human's money inside our culture. They exist solely to eat our time and give us useless,brief happy feelings that ultimately leave us more unhappy inside. They have not to date explored any ideas or sparked any conversations in society that have provided a positive benefit to our culture or lives. Any education of real world concepts inside of games is quickly forgotten or remembered by only a tiny populace of the playing community.
Videogames are a waste of time.
_____
And that's why I make them!
> *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!* | 1,486,572,092 | londonagain | ddhs3vu | ddhrqml | 11 | 3 |
CMV: Donald Trump could shoot somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/
Trump said that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and he wouldn't lose any supporters. I actually agree with him (at least in terms of the people supporting him right now, thus excluding the Conservatives that voted for him over Clinton for party loyalty/other reasons); I think his supporters would still support him if you assume 3 conditions:
* The person he shoots isn't a Trump supporter. If he kills one of his supporters, he will, by definition, have lost a supporter.
* There are no Trump supporters looking at the shot as he pulls the trigger. If they see him pull the trigger, they might believe he did it. This is surely possible if he does it quickly given that New York mostly voted for Clinton and people are unlikely to stare at other people when in such a busy area.
* He denies it afterwards. If he confesses, then his voters would believe it.
As silly as it seems, I believe they would not change their minds to support him for the following reasons:
* I believe that any action against Trump by the police or FBI would be seen as a corrupt action by the 'institution'/'system' to stop him from being president or the result of some sort of framing from Clinton, it would only fuel the outrage felt by his supporters.
* They will not have seen it live so the only source they have for Trump's shooting would be the media that they seem to ignore. Any footage that CNN/MSNBC/etc shows will be disregarded as doctored.
* No one is perfect and there is probably something negative in the history of the person he would have shot. Trump supporters could blame it on the victim instead of on him.
* Some of his voters strongly believe in the use of guns and are more comfortable with it than most other people.
* New York is a diverse area so it is likely that Trump would have shot someone who wasn't white. If so, his supporters would be much more comfortable with it (I'm not saying they want minorities to die, just that they are much more comfortable with forgetting about their deaths (See: Stand Your Ground laws/the disdain for Black lives Matter)).
* Obama and Clinton have been politicians for some time and have made decisions that have resulted in deaths so they could argue that what Trump did in this scenario is the same thing.
* They could use it as an example of his 'killer instinct' and how he's 'different' from other politicians and use it as a positive.
I would honestly like to have my mind changed on this as it isn't comfortable believing that there are millions of fascists in America. This does sound insane but I can't see any limit to the poor behaviour from him that his supporters are willing to accept.
All you have to do is convince me that there is some line that his supporters wouldn't accept him crossing.
EDIT: I didn't think this would get as many upvotes as it did and it was partly posted due to frustration so I want to clarify a few things:
**Firstly it was obviously wrong to say he wouldn't lose any voters. That was an extreme scenario.** That said, I still think a majority of his current supporters would stick by him and it would not be the end of his political career unless he was actually imprisoned.
Secondly, I'm not saying Trump supporters are fine with murder, just that they would refuse to believe he actually did it.
Thirdly, I'm not saying Trump supporters are stupid, just that they have shown a willingness to ignore all the sources (e.g. news media, government, law enforcement) that would tell them that Trump did something like this so they wouldn't believe it. His supporters seem to either mostly ignore the news or rely on partisan sources like breitbart and Fox News.
| **Any** supporters? That's an extreme standard. If even one person (as you stated in your gun shot example) pulls their support the view is invalidated. You're basically saying every single Trump supporter is predictably the same. No group as large as Trump supporters is that homogenous. You don't have to look any further than those who've already come out regretting supporting him. How likely is it that there are zero left that wouldn't withdraw support if he shot someone? | there are millions of people that voted, you don't belief 1 out of those millions might have an issue with an elected president gunning down? | 5svc5f | CMV: Donald Trump could shoot somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters | http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/
Trump said that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and he wouldn't lose any supporters. I actually agree with him (at least in terms of the people supporting him right now, thus excluding the Conservatives that voted for him over Clinton for party loyalty/other reasons); I think his supporters would still support him if you assume 3 conditions:
* The person he shoots isn't a Trump supporter. If he kills one of his supporters, he will, by definition, have lost a supporter.
* There are no Trump supporters looking at the shot as he pulls the trigger. If they see him pull the trigger, they might believe he did it. This is surely possible if he does it quickly given that New York mostly voted for Clinton and people are unlikely to stare at other people when in such a busy area.
* He denies it afterwards. If he confesses, then his voters would believe it.
As silly as it seems, I believe they would not change their minds to support him for the following reasons:
* I believe that any action against Trump by the police or FBI would be seen as a corrupt action by the 'institution'/'system' to stop him from being president or the result of some sort of framing from Clinton, it would only fuel the outrage felt by his supporters.
* They will not have seen it live so the only source they have for Trump's shooting would be the media that they seem to ignore. Any footage that CNN/MSNBC/etc shows will be disregarded as doctored.
* No one is perfect and there is probably something negative in the history of the person he would have shot. Trump supporters could blame it on the victim instead of on him.
* Some of his voters strongly believe in the use of guns and are more comfortable with it than most other people.
* New York is a diverse area so it is likely that Trump would have shot someone who wasn't white. If so, his supporters would be much more comfortable with it (I'm not saying they want minorities to die, just that they are much more comfortable with forgetting about their deaths (See: Stand Your Ground laws/the disdain for Black lives Matter)).
* Obama and Clinton have been politicians for some time and have made decisions that have resulted in deaths so they could argue that what Trump did in this scenario is the same thing.
* They could use it as an example of his 'killer instinct' and how he's 'different' from other politicians and use it as a positive.
I would honestly like to have my mind changed on this as it isn't comfortable believing that there are millions of fascists in America. This does sound insane but I can't see any limit to the poor behaviour from him that his supporters are willing to accept.
All you have to do is convince me that there is some line that his supporters wouldn't accept him crossing.
EDIT: I didn't think this would get as many upvotes as it did and it was partly posted due to frustration so I want to clarify a few things:
**Firstly it was obviously wrong to say he wouldn't lose any voters. That was an extreme scenario.** That said, I still think a majority of his current supporters would stick by him and it would not be the end of his political career unless he was actually imprisoned.
Secondly, I'm not saying Trump supporters are fine with murder, just that they would refuse to believe he actually did it.
Thirdly, I'm not saying Trump supporters are stupid, just that they have shown a willingness to ignore all the sources (e.g. news media, government, law enforcement) that would tell them that Trump did something like this so they wouldn't believe it. His supporters seem to either mostly ignore the news or rely on partisan sources like breitbart and Fox News.
| 1,486,586,297 | Hastatus_107 | ddi3cpc | ddi39zk | 512 | 23 |
CMV: I believe the voting age should be lowered to 16
In western democratic countries the voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16.
My main reasoning for this is that at age 16, people are typically still in high school and have reticently, or are actively learning about subjects that make voters knowledgeable. Subjects such as history, civics, law, geography, and economics. For this reason, I would argue that the average 16/17 year old potentially has as much, or more knowledge about the political process than the typical voter.
Secondly, I believe that engaging people in the political process at a younger age will encourage the younger demographics to stay engaged throughout their lifetime. It is currently a problem nearly everywhere that young people simply do not vote. There are many reasons why this could be true, but I think one main one is that they feel like they don't know enough about the political process to make a decision on which candidate to vote for. I believe if they could vote at a younger age, students would be able to learn about the political process and how to register to vote while in high school, and therefore feel they can make an informed decision. College students, and young members of the workforce however, are often not exposed to learning about politics. They are also often living in temporary rental dorms/apartments/housing, and do not know how to register as a voter. By the time they own property and have full-time careers, people are often so far removed from learning about the political process that they forget and have no desire to re-learn it.
My third point is that there are many political issues that affect young people just as much or more than the typical voter. Issues such as the environment, education, or the long-term economy arguably matter much more to the younger generation.
Lastly, the most common counter-argument I hear is that young people don't pay taxes, so they should not have a say in how they are distributed. By this logic though, the elderly, people on social security or disability, or others who do not pay taxes should also not get to vote. Taxes are not the only thing governments do (although it may seem like it). Policy is very important too, and I believe most young people have strong opinions on many policies.
Why I want my view changed: I want to see if there is a good argument against lowering the voting age. I am often laughed at for suggesting it, but I truly believe it will raise voter turn out and get much more people involved in the political process for life. | > I would argue that the average 16/17 year old potentially has as much, or more knowledge about the political process than the typical voter.
So do some 12 year olds. You could even argue that some older people are so misinformed that the absence of knowledge makes even a 5 year old a better voter. I don't think knowledge about the political process is useful in determining who should be able to vote.
> I believe if they could vote at a younger age, students would be able to learn about the political process and how to register to vote while in high school, and therefore feel they can make an informed decision.
I'm assuming you're trying to suggest being able to vote would make them more likely to get interested, which is speculation. They could learn how(it's not hard at all) in senior year of high school and be "voting ready" at 18 too.
Just being able to vote may not substantially affect their interest, I think if you want a larger/better voting population you need civics to be a required course, that seems like a better idea than just letting 16 and 17 year olds vote and crossing your fingers just being able to do so will make them interested in it.
___
Lastly, 18 is when a person becomes a legal adult, which you haven't addressed. The age may not always be in alignment with maturation for everyone, but it's roughly an appropriate age to bestow a collection of rights and responsibilities to a person including voting. I don't see a very good reason to make an exception for voting in particular. I think all of your concerns are more about lack of civic education and interest in young people, and it doesn't seem lowering voting age is a very good solution compared to just ... more/better civic education.
| > Lastly, the most common counter-argument I hear is that young people don't pay taxes, so they should not have a say in how they are distributed. By this logic though, the elderly, people on social security or disability, or others who do not pay taxes should also not get to vote. Taxes are not the only thing governments do (although it may seem like it). Policy is very important too, and I believe most young people have strong opinions on many policies.
Old people have paid taxes. Enough for a lifetime. It isn't so much paying taxes that grants you the ticket to vote, but rather being a legal adult.
A 16 year old isn't legally responsible for themselves. Most crimes won't garner them the same sentence as an 18 year old and in most altercations with others of an adult age they are viewed as children by the law (statutory rape, domestic abuse, DUI/MIP, child support).
Most 16 year olds aren't legally emancipated, attend compulsory education, and aren't enlisted in the selective service. If they were to change all of that (I would say against their better interest) then they should have the right to vote. As it stands, 18 is the age when you are given the legal responsibilities that grant you the right to vote. | 5svlbf | CMV: I believe the voting age should be lowered to 16 | In western democratic countries the voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16.
My main reasoning for this is that at age 16, people are typically still in high school and have reticently, or are actively learning about subjects that make voters knowledgeable. Subjects such as history, civics, law, geography, and economics. For this reason, I would argue that the average 16/17 year old potentially has as much, or more knowledge about the political process than the typical voter.
Secondly, I believe that engaging people in the political process at a younger age will encourage the younger demographics to stay engaged throughout their lifetime. It is currently a problem nearly everywhere that young people simply do not vote. There are many reasons why this could be true, but I think one main one is that they feel like they don't know enough about the political process to make a decision on which candidate to vote for. I believe if they could vote at a younger age, students would be able to learn about the political process and how to register to vote while in high school, and therefore feel they can make an informed decision. College students, and young members of the workforce however, are often not exposed to learning about politics. They are also often living in temporary rental dorms/apartments/housing, and do not know how to register as a voter. By the time they own property and have full-time careers, people are often so far removed from learning about the political process that they forget and have no desire to re-learn it.
My third point is that there are many political issues that affect young people just as much or more than the typical voter. Issues such as the environment, education, or the long-term economy arguably matter much more to the younger generation.
Lastly, the most common counter-argument I hear is that young people don't pay taxes, so they should not have a say in how they are distributed. By this logic though, the elderly, people on social security or disability, or others who do not pay taxes should also not get to vote. Taxes are not the only thing governments do (although it may seem like it). Policy is very important too, and I believe most young people have strong opinions on many policies.
Why I want my view changed: I want to see if there is a good argument against lowering the voting age. I am often laughed at for suggesting it, but I truly believe it will raise voter turn out and get much more people involved in the political process for life. | 1,486,588,723 | svenson_26 | ddi6u0n | ddi5vgn | 14 | 4 |
CMV: The right to bear arms should be treated like the right to drive a car (x-post from /r/gunpolitics)
Hi, let me preface this by saying that I am a young gun enthusiast who does not yet own any guns but goes to the range and rents guns whenever possible. I will also be purchasing a firearm as soon as I can.
I was watching a pro-gun video/rant on the HPA/NFA (Hearing Protection Act/National Firearms Act), and I wanted to have a discussion on about this topic, along with 2A in general. The video talked mostly about allowing citizens to purchase machine guns (fully automatic, as in one trigger hold would allow for the firearm to dispense all the ammunition in its magazine) just like purchasing any other firearm.
I wrote a comment on the Youtube video, which I copied here:
>The problem is not that law-abiding citizens will commit crimes with these firearms. Unfortunately, society dictates that laws must be passed in accordance with the weakest link/worst case scenario in mind. I do support the right for a righteous person to own a gun, but the fact of the matter is that, even now, a lot of new gun owners have no clue what they are doing when they buy a gun, much less so a machine gun.
>If anything, there should be a requirement to know how to handle a gun before being able to purchase one, just like there is a requirement for buying a car (knowing how to drive, earning a license by taking a written/field test, etc.). Even with cars, people take driver's ed and still end up in crashes, so there is the chance that accidents will happen with licensed firearm users. In general, I believe that people should be given a government-subsidized licensing program to be able to own/purchase firearms, just as they do for cars.
>How this relates to machine guns is that machine guns are even more unruly and harder to grasp due to media suppression. I would suppose that it would be best to have machine guns as another level of licensing, just like how you can't drive a trailer truck without the proper driver's license class.
>I think that this is the best compromise for everybody: gun control advocates win because us gun owners are now held to a higher standard of education and responsibility, and gun owners win because we are allowed additional provisions (silencers, machine guns, etc.) if we choose to study, and test for them. Let me know what you guys think!
I refrained from linking the video because of possible brigading, but in general I want to hear both ends of the spectrum: is licensing the right to bear arms too restrictive, or is this being too loose on gun control?
I'll have to ask those of you who respond to please refrain from saying "you don't need a gun!" or something of the like. Thanks! | Driving a car isn't a right specifically protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Which generally gives the government ability to put all sorts of onerous requirements on car ownership, even beyond licensing, like requiring insurance and tab fees, which means only people who can afford can drive. I don't really want the government to have the power to override the bill or rights in that way for other amendments, even if I don't care about the second amendment (which I don't). | I think the right to bear arms should be treated like the right to free speech. It is intrinsic, people should have the means to protect themselves from what they deem as threats. When the government has completely stripped the people of any reasonable means of resistance, they have the power to strip people of their rights. Just because the United States government hasn't, doesn't mean it won't. Other governments have done it in the past and others will do it again. | 5svzm1 | CMV: The right to bear arms should be treated like the right to drive a car (x-post from /r/gunpolitics) | Hi, let me preface this by saying that I am a young gun enthusiast who does not yet own any guns but goes to the range and rents guns whenever possible. I will also be purchasing a firearm as soon as I can.
I was watching a pro-gun video/rant on the HPA/NFA (Hearing Protection Act/National Firearms Act), and I wanted to have a discussion on about this topic, along with 2A in general. The video talked mostly about allowing citizens to purchase machine guns (fully automatic, as in one trigger hold would allow for the firearm to dispense all the ammunition in its magazine) just like purchasing any other firearm.
I wrote a comment on the Youtube video, which I copied here:
>The problem is not that law-abiding citizens will commit crimes with these firearms. Unfortunately, society dictates that laws must be passed in accordance with the weakest link/worst case scenario in mind. I do support the right for a righteous person to own a gun, but the fact of the matter is that, even now, a lot of new gun owners have no clue what they are doing when they buy a gun, much less so a machine gun.
>If anything, there should be a requirement to know how to handle a gun before being able to purchase one, just like there is a requirement for buying a car (knowing how to drive, earning a license by taking a written/field test, etc.). Even with cars, people take driver's ed and still end up in crashes, so there is the chance that accidents will happen with licensed firearm users. In general, I believe that people should be given a government-subsidized licensing program to be able to own/purchase firearms, just as they do for cars.
>How this relates to machine guns is that machine guns are even more unruly and harder to grasp due to media suppression. I would suppose that it would be best to have machine guns as another level of licensing, just like how you can't drive a trailer truck without the proper driver's license class.
>I think that this is the best compromise for everybody: gun control advocates win because us gun owners are now held to a higher standard of education and responsibility, and gun owners win because we are allowed additional provisions (silencers, machine guns, etc.) if we choose to study, and test for them. Let me know what you guys think!
I refrained from linking the video because of possible brigading, but in general I want to hear both ends of the spectrum: is licensing the right to bear arms too restrictive, or is this being too loose on gun control?
I'll have to ask those of you who respond to please refrain from saying "you don't need a gun!" or something of the like. Thanks! | 1,486,592,578 | chrask | ddi9n4w | ddi98er | 7 | 6 |
CMV: Liberals should really be conservatives
The modern left are extremely regressive as opposed to progressive. The left constantly shutdown free speech when opinions differ from theirs (as seen with Milo Yinanopolis on multiple occasions, and most recently at Berkeley). IMO liberalism and limited government go hand in hand as it truly encourages a difference of opinion. Left governments like to force people to against their beliefs as seen with the Christian bakery. However, conservatives are for limited government because they believe the government have no right to deal with social issues and truly believe in the 1st amendment.
Another huge part of liberalism is the rights of the individual which has been neglected by the left for the belief that social standings and ethnic groups are more important than the individual. By this I mean the left tend to lean to the thought that you should get special treatment if you're apart of a minority group. For example, the left blindly support BLM because they feel that blacks are oppressed so their actions are justified. True liberals are against this contradictory social justice just like conservatives are.
It's become extremely common for the left to label people as sexist, bigots etc for anyone who criticises "taboo" topic. This even happened to Sam Harris, who is a liberal, when criticising Islam.
PS: this doesn't apply to liberals who identify themselves as separate from the regressive left.
| Are you talking about actual liberals and actual liberal policies by actual liberal parties, or are you just talking about fringe idiots you meet on the internet or in protests? I live in Scotland, a fairly left wing country by today's standards. The right wing don't even control a third of the seats in our parliament. Not once have the stifled free speech or introduced any policy that makes "ethnic groups are more important than the individual".
Name me some real policies introduced by real liberal politicians in real liberal parties that have real political power and I'll believe you. Obama's government was a fairly conservative in the grand scheme, if he were to run in any European country he'd be a centrist. Maybe centre-right.
These "regressive leftists" are not conservatives. They're just stupid leftists. You seem to be viewing this in an internet bubble and not looking at the big picture of actual politics and actual parties. Are you really attributing the modern left to these fringe idiots who don't actually represent political policies. That's like me saying the alt-right and neo-nazis represent the modern right. They don't, they represent a fringe part of that ideology.
Also, Milo did not just have a differing opinion. He openly singled out and harassed a transgender girl at a unviersity and told the people there it was okay to make fun of her and people like her for being who they are. That isn't having a different opinion, that's inciting harassment. If he had put a black woman on screen and made fun of her for being black and then said it was okay to harass her for being black, nobody would be defending him. | Quick question. Have you read Locke and Burke? If not, where are you getting the definitions of these terms from? | 5sx30l | CMV: Liberals should really be conservatives | The modern left are extremely regressive as opposed to progressive. The left constantly shutdown free speech when opinions differ from theirs (as seen with Milo Yinanopolis on multiple occasions, and most recently at Berkeley). IMO liberalism and limited government go hand in hand as it truly encourages a difference of opinion. Left governments like to force people to against their beliefs as seen with the Christian bakery. However, conservatives are for limited government because they believe the government have no right to deal with social issues and truly believe in the 1st amendment.
Another huge part of liberalism is the rights of the individual which has been neglected by the left for the belief that social standings and ethnic groups are more important than the individual. By this I mean the left tend to lean to the thought that you should get special treatment if you're apart of a minority group. For example, the left blindly support BLM because they feel that blacks are oppressed so their actions are justified. True liberals are against this contradictory social justice just like conservatives are.
It's become extremely common for the left to label people as sexist, bigots etc for anyone who criticises "taboo" topic. This even happened to Sam Harris, who is a liberal, when criticising Islam.
PS: this doesn't apply to liberals who identify themselves as separate from the regressive left.
| 1,486,604,325 | sinbad7seas | ddiiern | ddihpjq | 27 | 2 |
CMV: Existing libel law for public figures.
I think that existing libel laws should be revised for public figures. It used to be law that media had to portray a truthful and unbiased point of view. With the repeal of that law in the 90's, many (if not most) news organizations are not fact checking sources or stories. With how widespread TV, social media, and print has become, it takes a fraction of a time for someone's reputation to be damaged. Someone no longer needs actual malice to cause irreparable harm to a public figure, now they only need a reckless disregard for the truth since the truth is not required by law. | Lawyer here!
First and foremost, libel law has basically been the same as it is now since the middle of the 20th century. Anything more would be unconstitutional (first amendment and all). As /u/huadpe noted, you seem to be thinking about the fairness doctrine which only *ever* applied to broadcast television because it was done through regulation of the *privilege* of television broadcasting on public airwaves. The New York Times was never subject to it, nor was cable television, and the internet definitely wouldn't be.
>With the repeal of that law in the 90's, many (if not most) news organizations are not fact checking sources or stories
Failure to do due diligence on the accuracy of a story containing libelous claims would still fall under the actual malice standard.
>the truth is not required by law.
Even in the era of the fairness doctrine "the truth" was not required, just balance. If anything, slavish devotion to "balance" forced a lack of truthfulness, and a false equivalency which would today force "global warming is real and we should do something about it" to share time with "global warming doesn't exist."
That's not truth, it's not even unbiased. It's just biased towards "well who knows, both of these arguments must be equally valid." | There hasn't been a change to libel laws in several generations. So, it's hard for me to know what you're talking about here.
That said, we absolute _do not want_ our government telling us what is fair and honest with regards to....our government. While I too would prefer better journalism than what we've got, as a hierarchy of concern I'd place the need for an _independent_ journalism founded upon the freedom of speech to one that lacks that, but that judged by our government and its agents as "honest".
We sit here with a president that has views that risk a slip into authoritarianism and the independence of the press is critical to our ability to not follow that slip.
| 5sxgg7 | CMV: Existing libel law for public figures. | I think that existing libel laws should be revised for public figures. It used to be law that media had to portray a truthful and unbiased point of view. With the repeal of that law in the 90's, many (if not most) news organizations are not fact checking sources or stories. With how widespread TV, social media, and print has become, it takes a fraction of a time for someone's reputation to be damaged. Someone no longer needs actual malice to cause irreparable harm to a public figure, now they only need a reckless disregard for the truth since the truth is not required by law. | 1,486,608,747 | PM_me_nicetits | ddioc4g | ddio1ik | 6 | 1 |
CMV: There is no need for programmers to use a command line; in fact, doing so makes them *worse* programmers
There is a commonly held belief that computer programmers ought to, or perhaps *need* to, use a command line. A quick Google search turns up many articles putting forward this view, including, for example, [this one](http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/developers-command-line/).
I've been a programmer, on and off, for over 30 years. A good portion of that time has involved working professionally as a programmer. I have a degree in software engineer, and I now work as a tutor, teaching apprentices the art of computer programming.
When I started programming computers like the ZX Spectrum and the BBC Micro, everything was done using some form of command line - and when I say "everything", I'm talking about users as well as programmers. Use of the command line became even more important when MS-DOS started becoming popular.
But for the last couple of decades, users have moved away from command lines. Windows has been the de facto operating system since the 1990s, OS X and now Mac OS have been close behind. Both operating systems are known for their GUI. Linux in its various flavours has been left in third place, and is perhaps gaining a little bit of ground as its GUIs gain maturity. Traditional desktop operating systems are being displaced by iOS and Android - both graphical operating systems, and no one, to my knowledge, has seriously tried to run a mobile device on a command-line-based operating system.
So why, when users have moved on, are developers stuck in the past?
Let's look at the [web page I linked to before](http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/developers-command-line/). It does, indeed, list some things which developers might need to do, which are easier with the command line. I am **not** trying to argue that there aren't tasks which developers occasionally need to do which are easier with the command line.
But what is a developer's job? A developer's job is to write software, yes... but a developer's job is to write **good** software, which is *easy for users to use*. If we were to design an operating system, an installation system, a source control system, and we were going to design it for a user, even a power-user, **there is no way we would design it to use a command line** in the 21st century! The *only* reason we continue to use command line tools today is because we are too lazy, or too stuck in our ways, to write graphical tools that can do the same job. There are many tools out there which provide users with excellent, fine control over many - often hundreds - of options, and provide menus to offer a range of advanced features and complexity, so to say it's not possible is simply untrue. A well designed GUI ought to be able to do everything a command line does, with just as much ease as a command line, and with a shallower learning curve - we've done it for our users, so why don't we do it for ourselves?
The thing is, if we made use of GUIs for our own work, it would actually give us a better insight into how power-users need to use GUIs. It would help us understand our users better, because it would make *us* into users of the type of software our own users need. It would teach us, through daily use, what a good GUI looks like so we can duplicate good practice in our own software. By being too lazy to write new tools to replace command lines, or to learn to use the same tools our users use, we are denying ourselves the opportunity to better understand software and our users. By saying that command lines have more power, we are saying that our users, who don't want command lines, are not capable of having that same power. It's not true! There is absolutely no technical reason why, for those tasks where we frequently use command lines, we couldn't build a GUI.
So why do we feel that using the command line is so essential? Why do we even use command line tools where there are *better* graphical tools available? Why do we use vi, or nano, as a text editor when we have Notepad on Windows, or TextEdit on MacOS, and that's before we even consider the multitude of graphical text editors that are specifically designed for programmers and provide features that are lacking from Notepad and TextEdit? There is absolutely no reason why we should still be encouraging new programmers to use the command line, rather than writing graphical tools to do the same job.
**Edit:** the two people who have come closest to changing my view so far:
/u/teerre said "I think you're totally correct that UI design in general is ignored too much in software dev, but that doesn't mean cli is completely useless", and I agreed with him. He is generally agreeing with my argument, but pointing out that perhaps I've gone too far, and that perhaps if I'd said that command lines are over-used, rather than they should *never* be used, I'd be more correct. I agree with that, but since he largely agrees with my point I'm not sure it's enough for a delta.
/u/SucculentMeal has pointed out that not every programmer has users who expect GUIs, which was one of my starting points, but again I'm not sure I can award a delta - just because his users don't expect GUIs, that doesn't mean they (and he) wouldn't be better off with GUIs. But he has made me look at things from a different point of view.
**Further edit:** Delta awarded to /u/redesckey, who took /u/SucculentMeal's point one step further with the argument that the end user may not even be human, e.g. when writing libraries, APIs or drivers. I concede that my argument breaks down when the end user of your software is not human. I'm open to further discussion regarding programmers who have human end-users.
| I'm a software developer, and as a rule use the command line as much as possible. I find the closer I get to the underlying technology, the better I understand it. Putting more layers on top of it just obfuscates things for me and gets in my way.
There was even a period where I didn't even use a graphical desktop environment for the most part, and mostly stuck to the Linux virtual consoles. I'd flip into an X session when I needed to use Firefox or something like that, but that's it. I now use KDE, but the time I spent doing things that way was instrumental in me gaining the understanding I now have of how Linux works.
Also, yes, as programmers we need to keep the user interface of our systems in mind. However, not all user interfaces are graphical. What about a REST API meant to be consumed over HTTP? Or a library or framework meant to be used in other applications? Or a driver for a peripheral device? Not everything revolves around desktop applications, and not all "end users" are the kind you're thinking of. Often they're other programmers. | I feel like you comparing two different tools that clearly, obviously, would have benefits under specific situations. In general, saying "there's NO use for X" is misguided, here's no different
For example, imagine a package manager. Let's say pip. I cannot see a situation in which is faster to a GUI than it is to use a command line
A GUI would inevitably have me waiting for images to load or, at minimum, me moving the cursor to click/select something with no clear benefits
Nowadays I have to both program and write texts, by text I mean things you would usually write using Word or something similar. I simply cannot do it. vim is simply much more efficient. I end up writing everything on Sublime Text
In other words, use the right tool for the right situation. I think you're totally correct that UI design in general is ignored too much in software dev, but that doesn't mean cli is completely useless
| 5t0brv | CMV: There is no need for programmers to use a command line; in fact, doing so makes them *worse* programmers | There is a commonly held belief that computer programmers ought to, or perhaps *need* to, use a command line. A quick Google search turns up many articles putting forward this view, including, for example, [this one](http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/developers-command-line/).
I've been a programmer, on and off, for over 30 years. A good portion of that time has involved working professionally as a programmer. I have a degree in software engineer, and I now work as a tutor, teaching apprentices the art of computer programming.
When I started programming computers like the ZX Spectrum and the BBC Micro, everything was done using some form of command line - and when I say "everything", I'm talking about users as well as programmers. Use of the command line became even more important when MS-DOS started becoming popular.
But for the last couple of decades, users have moved away from command lines. Windows has been the de facto operating system since the 1990s, OS X and now Mac OS have been close behind. Both operating systems are known for their GUI. Linux in its various flavours has been left in third place, and is perhaps gaining a little bit of ground as its GUIs gain maturity. Traditional desktop operating systems are being displaced by iOS and Android - both graphical operating systems, and no one, to my knowledge, has seriously tried to run a mobile device on a command-line-based operating system.
So why, when users have moved on, are developers stuck in the past?
Let's look at the [web page I linked to before](http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/developers-command-line/). It does, indeed, list some things which developers might need to do, which are easier with the command line. I am **not** trying to argue that there aren't tasks which developers occasionally need to do which are easier with the command line.
But what is a developer's job? A developer's job is to write software, yes... but a developer's job is to write **good** software, which is *easy for users to use*. If we were to design an operating system, an installation system, a source control system, and we were going to design it for a user, even a power-user, **there is no way we would design it to use a command line** in the 21st century! The *only* reason we continue to use command line tools today is because we are too lazy, or too stuck in our ways, to write graphical tools that can do the same job. There are many tools out there which provide users with excellent, fine control over many - often hundreds - of options, and provide menus to offer a range of advanced features and complexity, so to say it's not possible is simply untrue. A well designed GUI ought to be able to do everything a command line does, with just as much ease as a command line, and with a shallower learning curve - we've done it for our users, so why don't we do it for ourselves?
The thing is, if we made use of GUIs for our own work, it would actually give us a better insight into how power-users need to use GUIs. It would help us understand our users better, because it would make *us* into users of the type of software our own users need. It would teach us, through daily use, what a good GUI looks like so we can duplicate good practice in our own software. By being too lazy to write new tools to replace command lines, or to learn to use the same tools our users use, we are denying ourselves the opportunity to better understand software and our users. By saying that command lines have more power, we are saying that our users, who don't want command lines, are not capable of having that same power. It's not true! There is absolutely no technical reason why, for those tasks where we frequently use command lines, we couldn't build a GUI.
So why do we feel that using the command line is so essential? Why do we even use command line tools where there are *better* graphical tools available? Why do we use vi, or nano, as a text editor when we have Notepad on Windows, or TextEdit on MacOS, and that's before we even consider the multitude of graphical text editors that are specifically designed for programmers and provide features that are lacking from Notepad and TextEdit? There is absolutely no reason why we should still be encouraging new programmers to use the command line, rather than writing graphical tools to do the same job.
**Edit:** the two people who have come closest to changing my view so far:
/u/teerre said "I think you're totally correct that UI design in general is ignored too much in software dev, but that doesn't mean cli is completely useless", and I agreed with him. He is generally agreeing with my argument, but pointing out that perhaps I've gone too far, and that perhaps if I'd said that command lines are over-used, rather than they should *never* be used, I'd be more correct. I agree with that, but since he largely agrees with my point I'm not sure it's enough for a delta.
/u/SucculentMeal has pointed out that not every programmer has users who expect GUIs, which was one of my starting points, but again I'm not sure I can award a delta - just because his users don't expect GUIs, that doesn't mean they (and he) wouldn't be better off with GUIs. But he has made me look at things from a different point of view.
**Further edit:** Delta awarded to /u/redesckey, who took /u/SucculentMeal's point one step further with the argument that the end user may not even be human, e.g. when writing libraries, APIs or drivers. I concede that my argument breaks down when the end user of your software is not human. I'm open to further discussion regarding programmers who have human end-users.
| 1,486,651,193 | LondonPilot | ddjc4j5 | ddj9v7n | 5 | 2 |
CMV: Non-Binary Genders are bad for society and harmful to the Transgender Community
I personally hold the belief that people who adhere to the concept of having a "Non-Binary" gender outside of the traditional "Male" and Female" are bad for society as the concept is ridiculous and harmful to the Transgender Community.
To think that you can become a gender outside of the standard binaries is baffling to me. Gender aligns directly with the genitals you possess and your Sex that correlates. Transgender people go from one gender to the other with reassignment surgeries, etc. due to Gender Dysphoria that has been diagnosed upon them.
People who become Transgender and claim to Non-Binary Genders without any diagnosis and feelings that come from it, makes me believe they are doing it for the sake of doing it.
It's harmful to the Transgender Community to identify as a Non-Binary gender and act as if it is legitimate. It presents a warped perception of their actual struggles and feelings that come from actual Transgender people.
*(Sorry for any mistakes, writing on phone.)*
**Edit:**
I've seen Trans people speak against these people as it's delegitimizing the movement and struggles they face. They act in a way as if they're struggles are the same, but they aren't. People who claim to Non-Binary Genders aren't helping their movement by claiming to fictional ideas that haven't been scientifically or medically proven to exist. It causes so much confusion for those trying to understand the Transgender community when they see these kind of people. That's why I hold this belief as its harmful and has caused a stigma against trans people. I want to see the rights and lives of Trans People improve, but I don't think this will happen if these people keep doing what they do. | >Gender aligns directly with the genitals you possess and your Sex that correlates.
No it doesn't. To be blunt, that's just plain wrong. Would you care to explain your thinking to me?
Gender is just the cultural aspects of sex. Sex IS biological, that is true. But gender varies from culture to culture.
What exactly does it mean to be gendered male? To have a penis and testes? So what of the intersex person who has a vagina but testes on the inside?
My uncle is gay. Is he gendered male even though he wears bright pink clothes and talks with the stereotypical feminine lisp? Or would that some how mean he is gendered female despite having a penis and testes?
Other cultures have different gender roles. In saudi arabia, two men holding hands is masculine. In certain indigenous tribes in the american midwest, homosexuality was accepted so long as it was between a masculine person and a feminine person.
So this shows that ideas of gender and what is acceptable varies from culture to culture.
Now, when you say non binary gender do you mean the "I'm wolf gendered" people" Because sure, those people seem to be acting out and they also fail to understand gender.
But gender is not binary. It's not even quantitative. You can be a male with low hormones who plays with dolls. You're biologically male, but you aren't gendered as anything. You have certain feminine and masculine traits. | We still don't know why some people are trans, but it seems possible that it's a result of prenatal hormones affecting the developing brain. If that's the case, I see no reason why people couldn't essentially end up "partially trans," with some feminization/masculinization of the brain, but not as much as a binary trans person.
I am non-binary myself. I may not have a diagnosis, but I certainly have feelings relating to my sex and gender that are not what a cis person would experience. The fact that non-binary genders have not yet been "scientifically or medically proven to exist" does not negate my experience. There was a time when binary trans people were in that position. It took doctors listening to them and their experiences to begin to figure out what was going on with them.
Last but not least, I sincerely doubt that non-binary people are significantly affecting the degree of stigma against trans people. I'm sure there are people who are happy to have another excuse to say that trans people aren't "real"... but that doesn't mean they would have been pro-trans in the absence of non-binary people. | 5t0g03 | CMV: Non-Binary Genders are bad for society and harmful to the Transgender Community | I personally hold the belief that people who adhere to the concept of having a "Non-Binary" gender outside of the traditional "Male" and Female" are bad for society as the concept is ridiculous and harmful to the Transgender Community.
To think that you can become a gender outside of the standard binaries is baffling to me. Gender aligns directly with the genitals you possess and your Sex that correlates. Transgender people go from one gender to the other with reassignment surgeries, etc. due to Gender Dysphoria that has been diagnosed upon them.
People who become Transgender and claim to Non-Binary Genders without any diagnosis and feelings that come from it, makes me believe they are doing it for the sake of doing it.
It's harmful to the Transgender Community to identify as a Non-Binary gender and act as if it is legitimate. It presents a warped perception of their actual struggles and feelings that come from actual Transgender people.
*(Sorry for any mistakes, writing on phone.)*
**Edit:**
I've seen Trans people speak against these people as it's delegitimizing the movement and struggles they face. They act in a way as if they're struggles are the same, but they aren't. People who claim to Non-Binary Genders aren't helping their movement by claiming to fictional ideas that haven't been scientifically or medically proven to exist. It causes so much confusion for those trying to understand the Transgender community when they see these kind of people. That's why I hold this belief as its harmful and has caused a stigma against trans people. I want to see the rights and lives of Trans People improve, but I don't think this will happen if these people keep doing what they do. | 1,486,652,532 | Keniisu | ddjiqfl | ddjc88o | 4 | 2 |
CMV: r/The_Donald is the ultimate Safe Space.
"Safe Space" is defined as "a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm."
Since the beginning of Donald Trump's campaign, r/The_Donald has practiced systemic banning, derision, and overall silencing of users who do not agree with their political views. Users of the sub ostensibly go there to hear their thoughts repeated back at them, because any time users who disagree try to engage in conversation, they're either banned or otherwise silenced by the r/The_Donald community.
The biggest criticism of safe spaces is that they don't allow people to experience discomfort necessary for personal growth, and that they limit free speech. It seems to me that r/The_Donald fits within these parameters perfectly.
CMV!
| Wouldn't the ultimate safe space be wholly separate and unreachable from external views and ideas? Any one of us can visit r/The_Donald and post anything we like. It may get deleted quickly or it may not, but if it does someone might still see it. Certainly, at the very least, the user who reported it and the mod who deleted it would have seen it. It's not the ultimate safe space. Not even close. | Sure, but it's not the ultimate one. Trump supporters are still occasionally forced to interact with reality on occasion. Either someone who hasn't been banned slips through, their posts are highly downvoted the minute they hit /r/all, or they accidentally step out of /r/The_Donald and into the rest of Reddit. The ultimate safe space is one that fully insulates one's views from all other viewpoints, or only allows weak arguments through that can easily be squashed. | 5t0skf | CMV: r/The_Donald is the ultimate Safe Space. | "Safe Space" is defined as "a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm."
Since the beginning of Donald Trump's campaign, r/The_Donald has practiced systemic banning, derision, and overall silencing of users who do not agree with their political views. Users of the sub ostensibly go there to hear their thoughts repeated back at them, because any time users who disagree try to engage in conversation, they're either banned or otherwise silenced by the r/The_Donald community.
The biggest criticism of safe spaces is that they don't allow people to experience discomfort necessary for personal growth, and that they limit free speech. It seems to me that r/The_Donald fits within these parameters perfectly.
CMV!
| 1,486,656,074 | namename77 | ddjed17 | ddjbtb8 | 44 | -1 |
CMV: Title IX sexual assault tribunals, while perhaps not illegal or unconstitutional, are clearly in violation of the spirit of our judicial system.
I've been doing some catch-up on the politics in my home state (Georgia), and I started reading about and then reading [HB 51](http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20172018/HB/51). The bill has two main goals: to make university faculty mandatory reporters for sexual assault, and to forbid universities from opening Title IX tribunals until law enforcement has begun a criminal investigation. While I think the first part is both stupid and paternalistic (Why take away the victim's choice?) I agree wholeheartedly with the second. My reasons are:
1. Title IX courts operate with very little oversight, compared with the legal system. The standard of evidence is often far lower, and what appeals process exists is frequently shrouded in secrecy and university policy. The "disciplinary proceedings" are carried out my people who would be more comfortable - and qualified - handling cases of cheating, plagiarism, and dorm violations.
2. Some proponents of Title IX tribunals claim that, because they are merely disciplinary hearings, they both do not need and should not have the burden of proof placed on the accuser. Both parties, they say, should have an equal chance to present their case, to show and critique evidence, etc. But the problem with this way of thinking is that it ignores the fact that it is much, much harder to prove that you didn't do something than it is to show that you very well might have. Barring a cast-iron alibi, the accused has few options at his disposal, while the accuser has every advantage. There is a reason that the justice system places the burden of proof on the state. Any other standard is heavily weighted against the defendant.
3. When faced with Point #2, some Title IX advocates respond that these courts only hand out university discipline, not criminal penalties, so the defendant has no need for the rights afforded him in a traditional court. Atlanta Women for Equality provides a perfect example in [their response to HB 51](http://www.11alive.com/news/local/holding-powerful-accountable/georgia-legislator-introduces-bill-to-change-rules-about-campus-sex-assault-investigations/385556907):
>In school disciplinary proceedings, however, both parties are private individuals—the complainant being the victim-survivor and the respondent being the person who allegedly violated the school’s code of conduct—with equal interests at stake: access to educational programs, activities and benefits. Unlike the state in criminal cases, schools are impartial fact-finders.
The naivete of this response is, to me, stunning. Does anyone actually believe that the only thing the defendant has at stake in these hearings is his education? If the school rules against him, then that's it: he's a rapist. And that kind of accusation doesn't come off. No matter what else he does, even if he is eventually exonerated, there are going to be people out there who think he just "got away with it." ~~And in the meantime, his name and face will be plastered all over the news and social media, so that everyone he knows can hear what an awful human being he is.~~ All that from a farce of a court without any of the legal protections he should have been afforded? How is that just? And anyway, how is losing your access to a college education *not* a big enough stake already?
I want sexual assault victims to feel that they can come forward, I want a reform to the way law enforcement handles their cases, and I want more funding to help see that actual rapists are caught and punished. But I don't see how these kangaroo courts accomplish anything other than perverting our system of laws.
Any takers?
Edit: Removed the bit about disclosing the accused's identity. I was totally wrong on that point. | (I'm using my non-anon account because I attend a Georgia School and have been tangentially involved in this debate for quite some time now).
So first lets hit one important thing first:
> And in the meantime, his name and face will be plastered all over the news and social media,
Is patently false. These proceedings are done privately, with the name of the respondent and complainant kept secret. I'm privy to a number of these cases, and despite that I know the name of only one of the accused. And I know his name only because *he posted about it on social media*. They aren't rapists unless they tell you.
So now lets talk about something you've overlooked.
I believe that a school has a responsibility to protect its students. And colleges are weird. There are practically no other places where you can be coworker, subordinate, and sexual partner *all in the same context* with the same person in the same day, and certainly no other situations like that where you are paying large amounts of money to be in that situation. It poses a unique set of challenges. If schools have a responsibility to protect their students (as I and I think most believe), then they have a responsibility to protect students from other students.
This means that if you are assaulted by your TA, or roommate or teammate, there needs to be some form of protection for you. And most people agree that these "non-disciplinary" actions should be allowed. But the problem is in defining what a non-disciplinary action is, because you have to weight the impact on the claimant (ie. victim) and respondent (ie. alleged assaulter). Is room swapping really keeping people safe, or just putting another person in harm's way? Alternatively, is forcing a respondent to move into a single room disciplinary? What about forcing a respondent to switch classes or step down from their TA position, even if temporarily? What if the alternative is forcing the claimant to switch classes, or worse drop a course and delay their graduation, potentially costing them tens of thousands of dollars. Which is worse: "sexually assaulted student forced to delay graduation because university refused to provide Title IX protections" or "alleged assaulter innocent, still lost position as TA"?
There's no "good" answer. And because of these unique challenges, they need to be able to work quickly, because time scales that are "reasonable" in civil or criminal litigation aren't if both parties are paying tens of thousands of dollars per year into a system that has the potential to force one of them into a terrible outcome. As an accused sophomore, it would be strictly better for you to be expelled now as opposed to a year from now, since you will have paid in a large amount of money for practically no gain.
All that is to say that in a university situation, by not taking action, you are punishing the accuser in a way that isn't the case in a more 'normal' kind of situation.
So now lets talk about HB 51 specifically, and I'll just quote myself:
------
This bill has really 2 main things it does, I'll quote them here:
>Every official or employee of a postsecondary institution in this state who receives information which would lead such individual to believe that a crime which is a felony under the laws of this state has been committed by or against a student of such postsecondary institution... shall promptly report such crime to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
(this has since been amended with an exception for certified licensed counselors and other similar people who have variations of client confidentiality).
>No investigation of such matter shall be undertaken by the postsecondary institution unless such investigation is done by a campus law enforcement agency...In addition, the postsecondary institution shall not pursue any final disciplinary action against any student alleged to have committed a crime which would be a felony under the laws of this state until and unless such student is found guilty [or similar]. ...the postsecondary institution may suspend a student from such postsecondary institution while felony criminal charges are pending if the postsecondary institution finds, following a due process hearing, that allowing the student to continue at the postsecondary institution poses an immediate threat to the life, health, or safety of the student body.
So here's some of the issues:
- I've been a student employee before, which under this bill makes me a mandatory reporter
- a professor, women's resource center employee, coach, RA, TA and most other employees are not covered by the confidentiality exception. That means that if a victim, in a panicked state, goes to a professor to talk about grades or missing class, or asks their RA for advice, or even goes to their roommate who happens to be a paid research assistant, that person is legally obligated to report the rape to campus police.
- The bill doesn't explain how this is done, or what a report entails. One of the witnesses for the bill claimed that it (could) be as simple as "we have a reported sexual assault", with no identifying information, but one of the panel members also pointed out that "I think 2 judges could come to 3 different conclusions on what 'reported' means here". It needs to
- It doesn't actually solve any of the perceived issues.
- One of the "for" witnesses discussed how her son was reported to the ROTC and then via ROTC to the campus disciplinary process. This bill wouldn't have prevented that, it would have just meant that her son was *also* reported to campus PD. I don't think that what happened to her son was right, but I'm hard pressed to see how this bill would have avoided any of the outcomes that occurred, and certainly not the outcomes that would occur now with the revised policy.
- There's already a solution in place (the updated USG sexual misconduct policy)
- It either hamstrings universities abilities to protect students, or it encourages universities to create broader classes of non-disciplinary actions
- Depending on how you read the bill, it may mean that schools cannot do anything to protect victims, or it means that schools are only prevented from taking disciplinary action, and that non-disciplinary actions (such as swapping classes or rooms) are allowed
- Under the first reading, there's nothing a school can do, period, to protect its students, or anything a student can have done, unless they file charges and initiate a police investigation
- This isn't good for a variety of reasons, but the clearest is that there is a wide grey area of actions which are not obviously unlawful that can and do make people feel unsafe. I may not want, or be willing to, press charges against someone for something, for any number of reasons, but still wish to not be stuck in a class with them, or in the same building as them, where they may continue to intimidate (perhaps unintentionally!) by their presence. That is, under this reading, a school may be unable to help a student who says "I'm not sure that this person did anything wrong, but what they did was painful to me and I'd prefer to not encounter them anymore if possible."
- Under the second reading, schools are allowed to provide this nondisciplinary action as a form of protection for students, but cannot provide disciplinary action. This bill then encourages schools to classify more actions as "nondisciplinary", giving the schools more freedom with which to approach these issues, and likely means that even if these definitions are not expanded, the schools will apply them in *all* cases, without any investigation, because they are not allowed to investigate at all.
- In either case, its unclear at what point the school can begin taking action, they can take no 'disciplinary' action until the student has been convicted or similar, but can suspend a student once they have been charged with a felony, but those charges don't come immediately, they can take weeks and sometimes months, even in cases where things are clear, *and then* the school is required to convene an additional hearing. That is, someone who has been charged with a felony, who is likely then in jail, cannot be removed from campus unless they pose an immediate threat (which I'm curious about, when does someone charged with rape not pose a threat?)
------
TL;DR:
university adjudication poses a unique set of challenges that aren't common in other kinds of criminal or civil proceedings. A university does not and cannot punish you in the same way that a court could. A university needs to be able to take certain actions to protect itself and its students. HB 51 doesn't actually fix anything anyway, it just makes the lives of victims significantly harder, by preventing them from being able to talk to anyone without accidentally filing a police report. | >who are the perpetrators?
Students
>Who decides?
The School
>What system of checks and balances is in place?
There doesn't need to be one.
>sexual assault seems to me to be a crime of a much higher order than your average disciplinary board is qualified to deal with
No it is not and we are not talking about a crime becasue it is not a criminal proceeding
>The solution to the problem of sexual assault on campus seems to me to be better funded and better organized police
Police don't want to deal with it and it would not result in safer campuses.
---------------
Every time the subject is brought up I feel that another conversation needs to be held first, about what people think is sexual assault.
I don't know what your experience with University social life is like but when I was at school I saw many cases of sexual assault. This idea that some random person attacks and rapes someone when no one is watching is a myth. It hardly ever happens.
Here is how the US government defines sexual assault
>Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape
Rape is a part but not the only thing that falls under sexual assault.
If you have ever gone out on a weekend in a college town you probably have seen something that fits this definition.
| 5t1xkp | CMV: Title IX sexual assault tribunals, while perhaps not illegal or unconstitutional, are clearly in violation of the spirit of our judicial system. | I've been doing some catch-up on the politics in my home state (Georgia), and I started reading about and then reading [HB 51](http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20172018/HB/51). The bill has two main goals: to make university faculty mandatory reporters for sexual assault, and to forbid universities from opening Title IX tribunals until law enforcement has begun a criminal investigation. While I think the first part is both stupid and paternalistic (Why take away the victim's choice?) I agree wholeheartedly with the second. My reasons are:
1. Title IX courts operate with very little oversight, compared with the legal system. The standard of evidence is often far lower, and what appeals process exists is frequently shrouded in secrecy and university policy. The "disciplinary proceedings" are carried out my people who would be more comfortable - and qualified - handling cases of cheating, plagiarism, and dorm violations.
2. Some proponents of Title IX tribunals claim that, because they are merely disciplinary hearings, they both do not need and should not have the burden of proof placed on the accuser. Both parties, they say, should have an equal chance to present their case, to show and critique evidence, etc. But the problem with this way of thinking is that it ignores the fact that it is much, much harder to prove that you didn't do something than it is to show that you very well might have. Barring a cast-iron alibi, the accused has few options at his disposal, while the accuser has every advantage. There is a reason that the justice system places the burden of proof on the state. Any other standard is heavily weighted against the defendant.
3. When faced with Point #2, some Title IX advocates respond that these courts only hand out university discipline, not criminal penalties, so the defendant has no need for the rights afforded him in a traditional court. Atlanta Women for Equality provides a perfect example in [their response to HB 51](http://www.11alive.com/news/local/holding-powerful-accountable/georgia-legislator-introduces-bill-to-change-rules-about-campus-sex-assault-investigations/385556907):
>In school disciplinary proceedings, however, both parties are private individuals—the complainant being the victim-survivor and the respondent being the person who allegedly violated the school’s code of conduct—with equal interests at stake: access to educational programs, activities and benefits. Unlike the state in criminal cases, schools are impartial fact-finders.
The naivete of this response is, to me, stunning. Does anyone actually believe that the only thing the defendant has at stake in these hearings is his education? If the school rules against him, then that's it: he's a rapist. And that kind of accusation doesn't come off. No matter what else he does, even if he is eventually exonerated, there are going to be people out there who think he just "got away with it." ~~And in the meantime, his name and face will be plastered all over the news and social media, so that everyone he knows can hear what an awful human being he is.~~ All that from a farce of a court without any of the legal protections he should have been afforded? How is that just? And anyway, how is losing your access to a college education *not* a big enough stake already?
I want sexual assault victims to feel that they can come forward, I want a reform to the way law enforcement handles their cases, and I want more funding to help see that actual rapists are caught and punished. But I don't see how these kangaroo courts accomplish anything other than perverting our system of laws.
Any takers?
Edit: Removed the bit about disclosing the accused's identity. I was totally wrong on that point. | 1,486,665,981 | smile_e_face | ddjjn8k | ddjj8et | 9 | 1 |
CMV: The GOP is ethically and morally bankrupt
Let me start first by avoiding deflection, I'm not claiming the democrats have good moral and ethical high ground.
The current administration has taking numerous actions, almost daily, to impinge on the values of this country, from calling into question the legitimacy of the election, to undermining the judiciary, to laying out personal attacks at congress members who dare to stand against him, to at best towing the line on conflicts of interest.
I am not here to attack the administration. I'm hear to say that time and time again, the GOP, Ryan, McConnell in particular, have acted so hypocritically and have supported Trump's abysmal cabinet nominees, and pushed policies directly aimed at hurting the people who have voted for them. This predates Trump, voting numerous times to repeal the ACA while Obama was still president, and ultimately I have always had a hard time to see them as anything other than a thinly veiled attempt at an anti-regulation corporatist party. However, now, they are failing to stand in the way of a oncoming storm of constitutional conflict, and for a party professing constitution above all, they are now empty of whatever little shred of moral or ethical fuel they had left. We need term limits in congress, and anyone voting for the sitting GOP, whose rhetoric sometimes stand against the administration, but whose actions seem to completely support gutting the integrity of our Government.
EDIT: The last sentence is incomplete:
We need term limits in congress, and anyone voting for the sitting GOP, whose rhetoric sometimes stand against the administration, but whose actions seem to completely support gutting the integrity of our Government, must be held to the same account. | I'm going to challenge your term limits comment. You don't specifically say why you like term limits, but presumably you're saying that term limits will make our representatives more ethical, and accountable.
So let's look at this. When are representatives least accountable to voters? The answer is, *when they're not running for re-election*.
In a term limits scenario you have many more politicians who are in their last term and aren't running, and are thus not so interested in what voters think but are often more interested in what they're going to do next and how to position themselves for that cushy corporate board or lobbying position.
Term limits also mean representatives don't have long term members to keep an institutional memory, so they depend much more on staffers and lobbyists.
Now this is just a prax, but we have a bunch of states that already have term limits, so [you can look at the evidence](http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/10/18/13323842/trump-term-limits). | "Morality"
You on the left claim morality is relative and thus anything can be morality because you hate the constraints judging from a leftist ideal of morality there is nothing wrong in doing anything to advance which while objectively could be wrong according to liberals we just have different Ideas
Also no one is pushing policies to hurt the voting base, all his appointees are perfect and overly appropriate for their roles and are some of the best to ever take the office. Also they were elected to defy Obama, the nation rejected whole-hilt the democrats and their backwards ideas. The nation wanted hard-right national reaction to rule the country and they will be given what they demanded.
Progress isn't a one way street, there are many roads through the path of life and we disagree over them.
also morality is spooks according to your side
Lol down votes by salty libs | 5t1yv8 | CMV: The GOP is ethically and morally bankrupt | Let me start first by avoiding deflection, I'm not claiming the democrats have good moral and ethical high ground.
The current administration has taking numerous actions, almost daily, to impinge on the values of this country, from calling into question the legitimacy of the election, to undermining the judiciary, to laying out personal attacks at congress members who dare to stand against him, to at best towing the line on conflicts of interest.
I am not here to attack the administration. I'm hear to say that time and time again, the GOP, Ryan, McConnell in particular, have acted so hypocritically and have supported Trump's abysmal cabinet nominees, and pushed policies directly aimed at hurting the people who have voted for them. This predates Trump, voting numerous times to repeal the ACA while Obama was still president, and ultimately I have always had a hard time to see them as anything other than a thinly veiled attempt at an anti-regulation corporatist party. However, now, they are failing to stand in the way of a oncoming storm of constitutional conflict, and for a party professing constitution above all, they are now empty of whatever little shred of moral or ethical fuel they had left. We need term limits in congress, and anyone voting for the sitting GOP, whose rhetoric sometimes stand against the administration, but whose actions seem to completely support gutting the integrity of our Government.
EDIT: The last sentence is incomplete:
We need term limits in congress, and anyone voting for the sitting GOP, whose rhetoric sometimes stand against the administration, but whose actions seem to completely support gutting the integrity of our Government, must be held to the same account. | 1,486,666,310 | hbetx9 | ddjlb5x | ddjhz7q | 12 | -5 |
CMV: I don't think I'm privileged, but people keep telling me I am.
I am what one would consider a "white" American citizen. However, I've come to despise that term since people use it against me.
I was abused as a child, constantly in survival mode (for my full story you can go search for me on RBN). My mom and I escaped, but mostly lived out of a car we couldn't afford to keep and squatted with friends when we needed food or ran out of gas. The police and Family Court system left me for dead on multiple occasions, not caring that I was terrified of my abuser.
When mom and I could finally //fully// get away, we moved in with my grandparents who charged us more rent than we could afford. This was when I was 12. My mom was unable to find a job until I was 17. We were stuck paying rent with what little college savings I had (~$2000), selling our car, selling our food stamps, and other odd-jobs. I worked three under-the-table jobs throughout high school to support my mom and I.
When I was 14, they cut our food stamps down to $16/month, from $100/month. Our social worker then told us "you have an ethnic-sounding last name, if you say you're Latino then we have to give you a minimum of $250/month." We declined because integrity, but often wished we didn't.
When I was in high school, I applied for a scholarship specifically for high-performing, low-income students. Two other kids (siblings) applied for it as well. Their mother has her PhD and had //recently// lost her six-figure-salary job. My mom was still unemployed at that point. They got the scholarship, I did not. They are racial minorities, I am not.
I'm now in college (first in my family) on a full scholarship through a contract with an employer, and my mom was able to get a well-paying job and put a deposit on a small townhouse very recently. I understand that going to school, getting a scholarship, having a place to live, having internet, etc, I get that that is a privilege. That's a privilege that most people in the world, regardless of race or ethnicity, don't have. I am forever thankful for that.
But what I don't understand is that people keep telling me I get perks for being "white." People tell me that me "pretending" to be afraid of cops is me trying to sympathize with racial minorities. People tell me that me "pretending" to be poor is patronizing. People tell me that I need to stop "trying to relate to minorities" and use my "white privilege" to speak out against institutionalized racism or whatever. Like, what privilege? Why is my fear of cops "pretend"? Am I not allowed to be afraid of cops? Institutionalized racism? I don't understand. Help. | As I understand it, talking about white privilege basically means, "All other factors being equal, in our society having white skin gives you an overall advantage that someone having black or brown skin lacks."
To give you some examples as alternatives to your own history:
>My mom and I escaped, but mostly lived out of a car we couldn't afford to keep and squatted with friends when we needed food or ran out of gas.
If you had brown skin, it's more likely that cops would have been pulling over your car to ask to see identification and make sure that your mother and you were not illegal immigrants.
> I worked three under-the-table jobs throughout high school to support my mom and I.
If you had black or brown skin, it is quite possible that even under-the-table jobs would not be offered to you simply because those with darker skin colors are more mistrusted.
>my mom was able to get a well-paying job and put a deposit on a small townhouse very recently
One of the most common ways to segregate communities is to discriminate in housing; even with overt discrimination made illegal, [black, Hispanic, and Asian people overall are given a harder time about their finances, shown fewer properties than whites, and are more likely to be refused an appointment](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/business/economy/discrimination-in-housing-against-nonwhites-persists-quietly-us-study-finds.html).
Now, none of that means you had an easy time of it, nor does it make people calling your difficulties "pretend" in any way justified. All it means is, at least you didn't have one other factor (your race) working against you. For all the problems you had throughout your life, things would likely have been even worse if you were not white.
That is what white privilege means. | >But what I don't understand is why people say my skin color, something that I can't control, affects my life.
1. The majority of Americans are white and, historically, always been white.
2. There is a history of discrimination of non-whites going back to the USA's creation
3. The combination of a historical white majority and non-white discrimination has created a reality in the US that is more favorable to white folks.
You said "white" American...as if it's up for debate or maybe not self-identified. Regardless, skin color matters in this country. Broad examples are the increase in probability of police brutality, job discrimination, etc. etc. etc. I mean the list goes on and on.
Something to recommend would be to take sociology or similar type 101 classes during your time in college. You've had it rough, no doubt, but imagine your *same* circumstances but with a skin color that makes your life even *more* difficult...that's just one of many differences.
Edit: something I forgot to mention is that racism is *still* going strong in this country. | 5t20f8 | CMV: I don't think I'm privileged, but people keep telling me I am. | I am what one would consider a "white" American citizen. However, I've come to despise that term since people use it against me.
I was abused as a child, constantly in survival mode (for my full story you can go search for me on RBN). My mom and I escaped, but mostly lived out of a car we couldn't afford to keep and squatted with friends when we needed food or ran out of gas. The police and Family Court system left me for dead on multiple occasions, not caring that I was terrified of my abuser.
When mom and I could finally //fully// get away, we moved in with my grandparents who charged us more rent than we could afford. This was when I was 12. My mom was unable to find a job until I was 17. We were stuck paying rent with what little college savings I had (~$2000), selling our car, selling our food stamps, and other odd-jobs. I worked three under-the-table jobs throughout high school to support my mom and I.
When I was 14, they cut our food stamps down to $16/month, from $100/month. Our social worker then told us "you have an ethnic-sounding last name, if you say you're Latino then we have to give you a minimum of $250/month." We declined because integrity, but often wished we didn't.
When I was in high school, I applied for a scholarship specifically for high-performing, low-income students. Two other kids (siblings) applied for it as well. Their mother has her PhD and had //recently// lost her six-figure-salary job. My mom was still unemployed at that point. They got the scholarship, I did not. They are racial minorities, I am not.
I'm now in college (first in my family) on a full scholarship through a contract with an employer, and my mom was able to get a well-paying job and put a deposit on a small townhouse very recently. I understand that going to school, getting a scholarship, having a place to live, having internet, etc, I get that that is a privilege. That's a privilege that most people in the world, regardless of race or ethnicity, don't have. I am forever thankful for that.
But what I don't understand is that people keep telling me I get perks for being "white." People tell me that me "pretending" to be afraid of cops is me trying to sympathize with racial minorities. People tell me that me "pretending" to be poor is patronizing. People tell me that I need to stop "trying to relate to minorities" and use my "white privilege" to speak out against institutionalized racism or whatever. Like, what privilege? Why is my fear of cops "pretend"? Am I not allowed to be afraid of cops? Institutionalized racism? I don't understand. Help. | 1,486,666,714 | INeedAHoagie | ddjjfel | ddjjdgd | 62 | 3 |
CMV: Nobody has a completely correct political opinion.
While there are parts of your opinion that can be correct, I believe that it is impossible for someone to have a correct political opinion witch includes myself. I know for a fact that there are things I believe, that are wrong: weather it be due to conformation bias, some false study/statistic or a multitude of other reasons. Another such reason for this is that a lot of people base their ideas on ideology: I feel like every political spectrum has points to be made but a lot of people will cut off opposing views simply because of the opposition they have with it. I would like to leave my own political opinion out of this because I feel its irrelevant, and as always CMV. | Unless you believe in magic or don't believe we live in a natural world with cause and effects than it is an objective fact that there is a correct ideal solution for every problem taking into account all of the variables. That is, there is a political opinion for every problem that is measurably superior to other opinions. It is true that we currently don't have the tools, models, or capacity to understand human sociopolitical issues enough to calculate those things ourselves. Nevertheless, it is still true that the correct answer exists even if we can't know which answer it is for sure. Therefore it is absolutely possible for someone to hold the correct (and best) political opinion about everything. It is statistically unlikely buy possible that a person has randomly stumbled upon the correct political opinion currently. | But even then, even if you have all the facts in the world, how do you determine if your fundamental principles are correct?
For example, in cases where who freedoms collide, if one person values one freedom more highly than the other, they'll reach a different conclusion than a different person even if they have access to the exact same set of facts.
Ultimately, determining what is best is fundamentally a subjective question.
(That's not to say there is no right or wrong at all - if you can agree on what values are important, there are best choices on how to achieve your goals. The problem is that many people can't even agree on which principles we should be following) | 5t2b0y | CMV: Nobody has a completely correct political opinion. | While there are parts of your opinion that can be correct, I believe that it is impossible for someone to have a correct political opinion witch includes myself. I know for a fact that there are things I believe, that are wrong: weather it be due to conformation bias, some false study/statistic or a multitude of other reasons. Another such reason for this is that a lot of people base their ideas on ideology: I feel like every political spectrum has points to be made but a lot of people will cut off opposing views simply because of the opposition they have with it. I would like to leave my own political opinion out of this because I feel its irrelevant, and as always CMV. | 1,486,669,403 | King_trout | ddjnw8q | ddjnpw8 | 7 | 2 |
CMV: The United States cannot survive the level of division we are seeing today.
I feel like in the last ten years or so, America has become more and more divided. People are less willing to talk to each other about our political differences, and seem totally uninterested in finding where we might agree.
I am not innocent in this. Until just a few minutes ago I had a very anti-Trump username. I began feeling bad about it because I'm looking around and seeing the anger on both sides, and getting worried. I am personally still angry, and still want to see President Trump fail, but I am at the point now where I don't see how our country survives when the average citizens hate each other as much as we do.
So many Democrats, myself included, hate anyone who voted for Trump. So many Trump supporters hate anyone who dares to question him. We seem to disagree on fundamental principles, not just policies.
Please, try to convince me that the country will survive this, hopefully without resorting to violence.
| As long as we're economically stable and comfortable enough with our lives I don't think anywhere near enough people will be interested in supporting any sort of division of the country. And despite unrest about a variety of things, the US still provides very comfortable lives even for those who are relatively poor. We also don't hate each other that much, you're comparing, I think, only the most politically active/visible supporters on either extreme. Generally, we don't even know about or care about the political views of the people we interact with on a day to day basis outside our circle of friends, so we can't hate them for views we don't know about. There's more apathy and uncertainty about politics in the general population than there is hatred of the other side, it's just that the apathy doesn't stand out so much.
Also, at this stage of human civilizations across the world, we'd have very little to gain from a divide, and a lot to lose. The freedoms of the divided nations resulting from it to govern independently of the federal government would be hardly worth the loss power, and I don't think any state's government is remotely interested in splitting off currently. You will see some citizens wanting secession or whatever, but it's a tiny minority of people that just happen to be loud about it, they don't have the power or influence to make anything happen.
This is also only a 4-8 year presidency, and people will watch what the people and ideas they supported and voted into government actually result in. That's the nice thing about term limits, it lets you test something without committing long term. If things go poorly, there's a limit to the ability of most people to deny failures. Certainly, the failures may also do damage to the country and it's not like there's nothing to worry about, but we're the most powerful and wealthy country in the world - doesn't mean we couldn't fall, but unlikely to happen in a 4 year time frame, while we're allied with several other powerful and wealthy countries. | How old are you?
I can remember back as far as President Ford. I was in 4th grade when Carter became President. From what I can remember, the animosity between liberals and conservatives started with the Clinton administration. Interestingly, that's about the same time I was getting out of college and actually being an adult.
During Clinton the dissention was partially on a personal level (are we talking about a consensual blowjob from an intern, rape and sexual assault of multiple women, or lying about a blowjob). But it was also policy related (the one I most remember is, deja vu, healthcare reform).
During GWB, there was dissention from the start because of the way Bush won the Presidency by only 537 Florida votes. It unified in the wake of 9/11, but quickly went awry again during the subsequent wars and then completely went to shit during the housing collapse with both sides pointing to policies of the other side causing the economic meltdown.
It certainly continued during the Obama administration. From my perspective, most of that disagreement was policy related, but many on the liberal side perceived it as being racially motivated.
So that's my own, personal little anecdote about how I remember things. And from that perspective, division started with Clinton. But that's just because of my age and when I started paying attention.
In the late 60's we had huge divisions over Vietnam. Those divisions resulted in Kent State where college kids were literally shot and killed by the government. After that we had the Impeachment of Nixon; clearly some sever division there. Even during the Carter administration, I know there was division over his passive approach to foreign policy and the Iranian hostage crisis.
So my point is, there has likely *always* been division that ebbs and flows in intensity. You just think it is "worse than ever" right now because of your frame of reference. | 5t2ntv | CMV: The United States cannot survive the level of division we are seeing today. | I feel like in the last ten years or so, America has become more and more divided. People are less willing to talk to each other about our political differences, and seem totally uninterested in finding where we might agree.
I am not innocent in this. Until just a few minutes ago I had a very anti-Trump username. I began feeling bad about it because I'm looking around and seeing the anger on both sides, and getting worried. I am personally still angry, and still want to see President Trump fail, but I am at the point now where I don't see how our country survives when the average citizens hate each other as much as we do.
So many Democrats, myself included, hate anyone who voted for Trump. So many Trump supporters hate anyone who dares to question him. We seem to disagree on fundamental principles, not just policies.
Please, try to convince me that the country will survive this, hopefully without resorting to violence.
| 1,486,672,788 | tryin2staysane | ddjra45 | ddjq8iu | 6 | 3 |
CMV: I can't understand why both conservatives and liberals wouldn't both be equally in favor of a UBI (as opposed to a welfare state)
Want to be very clear about this: My view is not "if starting over with a clean slate we should choose UBI". Rather it is that *UBI should be favored over targeted welfare by both conservatives and liberals.*
Going to just focus on conservatives here, since I don't think there is much disagreement from the liberal side in regards to UBI:
- UBI removes power from the government. They can't pick and choose which groups gets free tax payer money. Every single American gets the same amount per month, regardless of their circumstances.
- UBI leans more towards equality of opportunity than equality of outcome.
- UBI could be as cheap as we want it to be, the budget is much more controllable than with hundreds of targeted welfare programs. For example, one could just sum the total amount spent on welfare last year, take 95% of that number, and make that the budget for UBI. There, we've saved money.
- UBI requires much, much less overhead. It'd be much easier to make sure people qualify for UBI, they'd just need to be an American, and be at a certain age (say 21 for example). The only thing they'd really need to check for fraud wise is people trying to collect UBI from dead relatives.
- UBI leans more towards personal liberty and responsibility than welfare does. You get your UBI check every month; if you decide to spend it on drugs and find that you can't pay your rent afterwards...well tough sh*t, that was your own decision that you yourself made.
- UBI would only get someone pretty close to not living in abject poverty. In other words, if I chose to just stop working and live off of my UBI, I'd still be a little bit short of not being in poverty. Few people would be satisfied living like this, so a massive departure of the workforce wouldn't happen. But even if it did, that wouldn't be all that bad:
1) The people in the workforce would only be people that actually want to work
2) People just living off of UBI are still consumers; this is good for businesses. Even the unemployed still have the ability to buy stuff
3) Labor would become more valuable if something like 20% of the workforce stopped working. People's salaries would go up naturally...a case could even be made for removing the minimum wage.
**-----**
So to change my view, you essentially need to convince me that given the choice between the two, it would be more in line with the conservative ideology to choose a welfare state instead of UBI. I currently believe that any true conservative would favor a UBI over a welfare state.
| >UBI could be as cheap as we want it to be, the budget is much more controllable than with hundreds of targeted welfare programs.
So, if you're argument is that both liberals and conservatives should support a UBI, this is a major point of tension. If the UBI is too low, you're going to get liberals opposed to it (especially if all other welfare programs get cut). If the UBI is too high, then conservatives are going to be opposed to it.
Beyond this, there are a number of reasons why conservatives might oppose a UBI:
1) It would be WAY harder to cut than our current welfare programs. Why? Because people hate getting their benefits cut. Under the current system, where most people never see welfare, it's easy to get popular support to cut it; under a UBI, people would fight tooth and nail to protect their benefits. Just look at seniors and social security.
2) Unless there are massive cuts to it relative to targeted welfare programs it would cost way more than the current system (unless benefits would be substantially cut, in which case liberals would not support it) considering everybody gets benefits. While there might be some drop in administrative costs, welfare programs already have extremely low overhead/fraud rates, so these savings would not be substantial.
3)
>UBI leans more towards personal liberty and responsibility than welfare does.
This, of course, presumes that conservatives care only about allowing personal choice, when in reality many care about paternalistically enforcing "personal responsibility." Indeed, just look at how many Republicans support drug testing for welfare recipients. Many conservatives I know would balk at the idea of their tax dollars going to fund somebody's drug addiction.
4)
>UBI would only get someone pretty close to not living in abject poverty.
iirc, the few studies conducted on negative income taxes (which are at least somewhat similar to a UBI) in the 1970s showed a modest but real decline in labor force participation. While you suggest a few reasons why this wouldn't be a bad thing, they aren't necessarily arguments that conservatives would buy. Most conservatives, for example, hate the idea of paying for somebody who refuses to work, regardless of the impacts declining labor force participation would have on the market.
Finally -- and this is perhaps the biggest point -- we functionally know extremely little about how a UBI would actually work out. There are only a few studies testing the economic impacts of UBI, and those that exist are mostly small in scale and from decades ago. You are proposing a massive and disruptive change in how welfare is delivered in the United States without much evidence that it would actually work as intended. While it might be a wild success, it may also go down in flames. In other words, with limited evidence, there would be large uncertainties over the economic effects of an UBI, and, in general, conservatives aim to be somewhat risk averse.
| The reason that conservatives are not for it is not because of basic conservative ideology (as you have logically shown). It is because the representatives that conservatives tend to vote for, look up to, and trust (Republican party) are less about those values are more about securing higher incomes and lower taxes for the wealthy among them. A UBI necessarily redistributes wealth from the top to the bottom, so republicans are not in favor of it. They will use whatever media outlets they can to convince their conservative voters that it is actually bad and against their ideology when it really isn't. The same can be said about a lot of Republican party positions. | 5t36es | CMV: I can't understand why both conservatives and liberals wouldn't both be equally in favor of a UBI (as opposed to a welfare state) | Want to be very clear about this: My view is not "if starting over with a clean slate we should choose UBI". Rather it is that *UBI should be favored over targeted welfare by both conservatives and liberals.*
Going to just focus on conservatives here, since I don't think there is much disagreement from the liberal side in regards to UBI:
- UBI removes power from the government. They can't pick and choose which groups gets free tax payer money. Every single American gets the same amount per month, regardless of their circumstances.
- UBI leans more towards equality of opportunity than equality of outcome.
- UBI could be as cheap as we want it to be, the budget is much more controllable than with hundreds of targeted welfare programs. For example, one could just sum the total amount spent on welfare last year, take 95% of that number, and make that the budget for UBI. There, we've saved money.
- UBI requires much, much less overhead. It'd be much easier to make sure people qualify for UBI, they'd just need to be an American, and be at a certain age (say 21 for example). The only thing they'd really need to check for fraud wise is people trying to collect UBI from dead relatives.
- UBI leans more towards personal liberty and responsibility than welfare does. You get your UBI check every month; if you decide to spend it on drugs and find that you can't pay your rent afterwards...well tough sh*t, that was your own decision that you yourself made.
- UBI would only get someone pretty close to not living in abject poverty. In other words, if I chose to just stop working and live off of my UBI, I'd still be a little bit short of not being in poverty. Few people would be satisfied living like this, so a massive departure of the workforce wouldn't happen. But even if it did, that wouldn't be all that bad:
1) The people in the workforce would only be people that actually want to work
2) People just living off of UBI are still consumers; this is good for businesses. Even the unemployed still have the ability to buy stuff
3) Labor would become more valuable if something like 20% of the workforce stopped working. People's salaries would go up naturally...a case could even be made for removing the minimum wage.
**-----**
So to change my view, you essentially need to convince me that given the choice between the two, it would be more in line with the conservative ideology to choose a welfare state instead of UBI. I currently believe that any true conservative would favor a UBI over a welfare state.
| 1,486,677,764 | ZeusThunder369 | ddk2rb4 | ddjsezo | 1 | -5 |
CMV: The travelers ban is within the prerogative of the executive branch.
My opinion is that Trump’s ban on entry from certain countries morally abhorrent and not consistent with the highest ideals of the United States. It is also my opinion that subject countries have been arbitrarily selected and do not map to countries where we have experienced terrorist activities.
With that said, I do believe it is the legal and moral responsibility and duty of the executive branch to make determinations as to allow or disallow entry to persons from any country they desire and to set conditions for such an entry.
So this is the view I ask to be changed: The travelers ban is within the prerogative of the executive branch.
| The executive branch's prerogatives are limited by the Constitution, including the bill of rights. Ample evidence exists that the travel ban was motivated by religious animus, and not by a good faith belief that the ban would protect us against (admittedly religiously based) terrorism. This evidence includes but is not limited to,
1. The incredibly poor tailoring of the ban itself to the threats we face,
2. Trump's statements prior to the ban in which he regularly characterized it as a ban of Muslim entry into the US,
3. The statements of Guiliani where he proudly admitted that he was asked to craft this ban to satisfy Trump's Muslim ban promise as much as possible without being unconstitutional, suggesting that the national origins aspect is pretextual. | >*EDIT*: Also, that's the opposite of what arbitrary means.
Are you referring to this?
>It is also my opinion that subject countries have been arbitrarily selected and do not map to countries where we have experienced terrorist activities.
That word is used correctly - he's ceding that the specific countries picked have no connection to a legitimate security threat. He's preemptively shutting down rebuttals based on the *effectiveness* of Trump's executive action, because his interest is the *legitimacy* of it. "Aribitrary" seems to be the right word. | 5t3vdk | CMV: The travelers ban is within the prerogative of the executive branch. | My opinion is that Trump’s ban on entry from certain countries morally abhorrent and not consistent with the highest ideals of the United States. It is also my opinion that subject countries have been arbitrarily selected and do not map to countries where we have experienced terrorist activities.
With that said, I do believe it is the legal and moral responsibility and duty of the executive branch to make determinations as to allow or disallow entry to persons from any country they desire and to set conditions for such an entry.
So this is the view I ask to be changed: The travelers ban is within the prerogative of the executive branch.
| 1,486,684,490 | Juicygadfly | ddjyhgl | ddjxbnw | 7 | 2 |
CMV: If abortion is morally acceptable to you, then a male form of contraceptive that doesn't prevent pregnancy, but instead causes a miscarriage between the 8th and 10th week of pregnancy should also be morally acceptable to you.
This isn't something that I've give a lot of thought to, so there might be something obvious that I'm missing.
I'm basically thinking of a pill of some sort that makes a man's sperm defective, but not defective enough to prevent pregnancy all together. Only defective enough that fetal development is deficient and the pregnancy naturally miscarries during the first trimester.
The only pause that I have is the physical impact on the woman's body. But pregnancy is always a possible outcome of sex, and miscarriage is always a possible outcome of pregnancy, so the situation created by the pill is a risk that women are already taking when having sex. And a miscarriage certainly isn't as traumatic on the body as a full-term pregnancy, which would have been the result without the male contraception. So this area of pause I have isn't sufficient to lead me to change my view. It seems that if abortion is moral, then this male pill that causes miscarriage would also be moral.
To put it another way, any argument against the morality of this pill has a comparable argument against the morality of abortion. | This doesn't involve the consent of the mother. It's basically a forced abortion, which is dramatically far removed from the idea of pro-choice.
No form of contraception is 100% effective, and it seems as though if this one were to fail, the result would be some pretty terrible birth defects. Compounding that, if the method were not sufficiently invertible (and messing with the genetic code inside sperm seems hard to revert, because the modified "defective" sperm will replicate more and more defective sperm), you run the risk of abortions that are not intended by either the would-be father or mother.
Unlike an abortion carried out under the supervision of a trained and qualified medical professional, this method would be shutting down a pregnancy midway through without any sort of supervision. It seems like there could be a decent risk of complications involved with such a dramatic "procedure."
Finally, your argument that "miscarriage isn't as traumatic..." is just kind of absurd... Abortion should not be considered a primary form of preventing pregnancy, and I would assume that a professionally handled abortion would be less traumatic still than this hypothetical contraception. I suppose it could be used as a "backup" after other forms of birth control, but there are plenty of other combinations of birth control that you could use to further lower the risk that don't involve a miscarriage. | One problem I would see with a pill like this is that you potentially put the woman unnecessarily through the trauma of discovering that she is pregnant and then coming to grips with whether or not she wants to continue the pregnancy to term only to then deal with the potential shock of miscarrying. | 5t45zm | CMV: If abortion is morally acceptable to you, then a male form of contraceptive that doesn't prevent pregnancy, but instead causes a miscarriage between the 8th and 10th week of pregnancy should also be morally acceptable to you. | This isn't something that I've give a lot of thought to, so there might be something obvious that I'm missing.
I'm basically thinking of a pill of some sort that makes a man's sperm defective, but not defective enough to prevent pregnancy all together. Only defective enough that fetal development is deficient and the pregnancy naturally miscarries during the first trimester.
The only pause that I have is the physical impact on the woman's body. But pregnancy is always a possible outcome of sex, and miscarriage is always a possible outcome of pregnancy, so the situation created by the pill is a risk that women are already taking when having sex. And a miscarriage certainly isn't as traumatic on the body as a full-term pregnancy, which would have been the result without the male contraception. So this area of pause I have isn't sufficient to lead me to change my view. It seems that if abortion is moral, then this male pill that causes miscarriage would also be moral.
To put it another way, any argument against the morality of this pill has a comparable argument against the morality of abortion. | 1,486,687,653 | AlwaysABride | ddk083l | ddjzpk2 | 23 | 12 |
CMV: I see no reason for love.
The reason I see no reason for love, is that you lose a tremendous amount; and yet, gain so little. If you like a girl you can get into so many safety issues. One would be if someone were to touch her chivalry obligates you to fight, and lose possibly lose your life. The girl could have a boyfriend, and now you must fight. Someone says something mean to her, now you must fight. So much violence, so little reason. Let us say that there is no violence involved, ok. The entire reason animals feel "love," is so that we are all compelled to breed. You have sex, great, a few seconds of gratitude; now there is a chance, no matter how small that you either gotten a disease or are going to have a kid. Now you must slave off to feed and raise a child. Say you do not have a kid, if you marry her, now there is (I do not mean to pull stats out of my ass but) more than a 75% chance that she will not work and you technically have a child you must buy food and just things for. All of this utterly horrid things could arise, but obviously a part of me does not want to have this belief; which is why I am here.
TL;DR- I see no reason for love. Change My View.
_____
| First; that much is true, you do become more happy with those things. But is that happiness worth all that suffering.
Second; Now input drug related things into IUDs, vasectomies and condoms. And replace sex with x drug. And replace adults with adicts. Surprisingly, the aforementioned words fit into your sentence.
In my opinion what one wants, is not always what they should want. | Most of the issues you mention are issues of security. Love is possible after you have the security you need for yourself.
All these fears about it not working out or having to fight for something you care about, are solved by having security in your life, not by changing the value of love. Love is worth it. | 5t4eme | CMV: I see no reason for love. | The reason I see no reason for love, is that you lose a tremendous amount; and yet, gain so little. If you like a girl you can get into so many safety issues. One would be if someone were to touch her chivalry obligates you to fight, and lose possibly lose your life. The girl could have a boyfriend, and now you must fight. Someone says something mean to her, now you must fight. So much violence, so little reason. Let us say that there is no violence involved, ok. The entire reason animals feel "love," is so that we are all compelled to breed. You have sex, great, a few seconds of gratitude; now there is a chance, no matter how small that you either gotten a disease or are going to have a kid. Now you must slave off to feed and raise a child. Say you do not have a kid, if you marry her, now there is (I do not mean to pull stats out of my ass but) more than a 75% chance that she will not work and you technically have a child you must buy food and just things for. All of this utterly horrid things could arise, but obviously a part of me does not want to have this belief; which is why I am here.
TL;DR- I see no reason for love. Change My View.
_____
| 1,486,690,462 | CPDrunk | ddk4gr6 | ddk3tvx | 2 | 1 |
CMV: It is Hypocritical for Meat-Eaters to Oppose Hunting For Sport.
At a fundamental level, both are wilfully killing an animal for your own enjoyment. A vegetarian lifestyle is totally possible, you don't get ill or die or anything - the only reason you'd choose a meat-eating lifestyle over a veggie lifestyle is because you enjoy eating meat more than you care about killing animals.
The only difference between this and someone who kills an animal because he/she enjoys the feeling of hunting and killing is the fact that the hunter is doing the killing themselves. The level of abstraction from the kill makes it easier for meat eaters to feel morally superior.
| What if the person's issue with killing an animal for sport isn't that the hunter enjoyed it but that they're wasting perfectly good meat. | >The only difference between this and someone who kills an animal because he/she enjoys the feeling of hunting and killing is the fact that the hunter is doing the killing themselves
There are actually a lot of regulations surrounding how livestock are killed that make it more humane and close to instantaneous. When hunting a poor shot could lead to an animal suffering for days. | 5t4gdm | CMV: It is Hypocritical for Meat-Eaters to Oppose Hunting For Sport. | At a fundamental level, both are wilfully killing an animal for your own enjoyment. A vegetarian lifestyle is totally possible, you don't get ill or die or anything - the only reason you'd choose a meat-eating lifestyle over a veggie lifestyle is because you enjoy eating meat more than you care about killing animals.
The only difference between this and someone who kills an animal because he/she enjoys the feeling of hunting and killing is the fact that the hunter is doing the killing themselves. The level of abstraction from the kill makes it easier for meat eaters to feel morally superior.
| 1,486,691,007 | CheekyGeth | ddk2567 | ddk22wj | 16 | 7 |
CMV: The current conservative ideology of the US Republican Party (GOP) is objectively worse than the progressive modern-liberal ideology (within the US Democratic party) because it’s bound to lead to socioeconomic failure and risks environmental failure.
There is a [joke of reality having a well-known liberal bias](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert). A lot of the world's most prestigious awards in academia go to liberal works ([journalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize#Criticism_and_studies), peace, economics etc.). [Steven Pinker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker) mentioned that academia also has a liberal bias. [Jim Simons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harris_Simons) mentioned, indirectly, that his Democratic views represent a different **opinion** than that of some his colleagues. My claim is that the current ideology of the US Republican Party is **objectively untenable** because it enforces factors that lead to socioeconomic - and, potentially, environmental - failure, and any fair-minded (i.e., empathetic and informed) person will reject it.
I’d like to emphasize that the comparison is relative to *progressive* Democrats, not *corporate* Democrats. I claim that even the corporate Democrats would lead us to failure, but it would take much longer. Highly progressive Democrats are likely able to stop this process completely with a minor and progressive [wealth based tax](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL-YUTFqtuI), universal basic income, proactively enforcing [anti-trust laws]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law) to lower barriers to entry along with stopping other [market failures]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure), compensating against [economic rents]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent), discouraging [negative externalities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative) and information asymmetries (better investment information) at the top in a progressive fashion, etc. There’s also the counter-argument about the rich just offshoring pollution or expatriating themselves in response to tax laws. My point is that the progressive Democrats will be able to push the slider as much as possible without things getting out of hand, and engaging in dialog with foreign countries to develop global agreements to prevent loopholes.
EDIT: I'd like to further emphasize that **I'm not talking about comparing communism/socialism with libertarian/anarchic laissez-faire free market economies** in a binary fashion. The theme of this CMV concerns the long-term effects of conservative ideologies on key [preferential attachment processes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment): wealth distribution and global warming.
**Observation 1:** The objective of the US government is to maximize the welfare and “fairness” (liberty, justice, defense) in both the present and the future.
You could probably formalize this statement with a bunch of mathematical expressions and compare it to what the US Constitution promulgates and there would still be some vagueness. For the sake of argument, I’m willing to throw the Republicans a bone and adopt their obscene interpretation of “fairness” where two Americans with equal DNA, equal merit (g-factor, effort etc.), and/or equal conscious streams deserve different rewards based on who their parents are. Even if you think that welfare is not as important relative to fairness presently, my argument is that it will lead to a failure in the future that will obliterate both welfare and fairness (my interpretation of the latter).
**Observation 2:** The goal of the current Republicans is to reduce taxes and regulations for businesses and the wealthy (relative to the status quo), expand the military, reduce benefits of the lower class (unions, minimum wages, social support) while maintaining Judeo-Christian values socially (pro-life, anti-gay; anti-sex ed, anti-contraception, anti-evolution, anti-geology, pro-religion, pro-right, pro-voucher, pro-prayer in education).
Some of these are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States) Listing Gallup poll results and legislative bills that the Republicans have sponsored and voted for would probably bolster Observation 2 further.
**Observation 3:** The socio-economic policies of the Republicans lower the aggregate quality of life.
Economically, their policies lower social mobility, increase inequality (and [associated social problems](https://youtu.be/cZ7LzE3u7Bw?t=4m11s)), increase market failures, and are unsustainable. As a small example, just consider the relaxation of Dodd-Frank in which uninformed lenders can be taken advantage of. They also advocate for other financial deregulation. Environmentally, their lack of concern for CO2 causes global warming to become worse, risking lives (disasters, heat, pollution, extinctions, lowered agricultural yield, migrations, potential catastrophe). Socially, their policies facilitate the poor to have more kids with less education; less informed means less likely to vote efficiently (due to religion intermingling of politics and ignorance) or vote at all (busy with other things, like surviving).
Even if we were living in a bubble and there would be no incoming technological unemployment from automation in the lower and middle classes, the trends are unsustainable. If return to capital and economic growth continue to stay like they have been, it’s a [mathematical fact]( https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/macroeconomics/gdp-topic/piketty-capital/v/piketty-spreadsheet-1) that we reach levels of inequality where the masses will live in poverty and ignorance, while a small dynasty of plutocrats will own virtually everything.
From a social conservative perspective, our current social and educational programs are already doing a poor job. The poor are reproducing faster than the rich (the kids of poor people have poor quality of life and education) and the Judeo-Christian values from Observation 2 only accelerate this pattern.
The state where the masses are poor and we have plutocracy is certainly a negative representation of welfare. Personally, I’d argue that it’s also unfair and gradually suppresses the reward of merit. A brilliant, curious, diligent kid from the ghetto will find it hard to experience reward, while a dumb, uninterested, lazy child of the royalty will be able experience the full utility of her trust/inheritance/estate.
| Your first objective is stealing a base. There's nothing in the Constitution (or in the ideals of the founding) that really equates to "fairness", and generally it's a concept that conservatives reject, since tipping the scales to make things "fair" frequently impinges on justice or liberty or both.
Secondly, you assume that competing conservative ideas for fixing problem X are naturally inferior. For example, Republicans believe that raising the minimum wage is bad for the poor because it reduces employment and makes it harder for people to enter in and/or rise through the workforce. There are economic studies supporting both sides, but, I believe, far more studies supporting the GOP viewpoint on that. Republicans have similar beliefs about unions.
Another example -- if Democrats were serious about CO2 emissions, they would push to reduce the regulatory hurdles towards nuclear power, for which it would be easy to find a bipartisan consensus. Instead they battle "climate change" by lavishing subsides on well-connected businesses, writing new regulations, and proposing new taxes, all of which Republicans obviously oppose.
You also don't mention (or unaware of) all the ways liberals deliberately make the problems you mention worse in favor of some other political goal. They support unlimited illegal immigration, which is a huge driver for inequality, both in the importation of lower class workers, and the downward effect on wages of native lower class workers. They oppose school choice (despite studies showing charters are successful, and against the objections of many poor Democrats) because it hurts the teacher's unions. They support all kinds of government heavy-handedness to solve crime and poverty, while avoiding the one that even social science admits would help most (promoting families over single parenthood), because they want the political support of single parents and the legions of bureaucrats hired to "help" them. | The U.S. enjoys an extraordinary privilege in the world: when the global economy tanks--even if the U.S. is the cause of the trouble, as was the case in 2008--investors move their money into U.S. bonds under the assumption that U.S. government is the safest investment in the world.
Without that confidence in the safety of U.S. dollars, our debt level (including unfunded mandates) would be unsustainable without a severe impact to quality of life for average people.
With "progressive" Democrats at the helm, how long do you suppose that investor confidence would last? From what I've seen, "progressive" Democrats (unlike corporate Democrats like Clinton, who would've been a better choice than Trump) are generally clueless if not hostile to the actions necessary for maintaining the dominant global position that enables us to pile on more consequence-free debt. Military dominance, which you clearly dislike, plays a major role.
So here's a different paradigm for you: Suppose China continues to grow in wealth and power, and eventually reach the dominant position it craves. Then suppose we have an economic crisis in the U.S. If there's major capital flight out of the U.S., what do you suppose will happen to folks in the lower rungs of the economic ladder? In a world where the U.S. is no longer the dominant economy, the privilege of never-ending capital goes away. We go down the tubes, right behind Europe.
Once Pax Americana is gone, someone else will be writing the new rule book. At that point it will be far too late to strengthen our position in the world. Who pays for the social programs then? | 5t56cr | CMV: The current conservative ideology of the US Republican Party (GOP) is objectively worse than the progressive modern-liberal ideology (within the US Democratic party) because it’s bound to lead to socioeconomic failure and risks environmental failure. | There is a [joke of reality having a well-known liberal bias](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert). A lot of the world's most prestigious awards in academia go to liberal works ([journalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize#Criticism_and_studies), peace, economics etc.). [Steven Pinker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker) mentioned that academia also has a liberal bias. [Jim Simons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harris_Simons) mentioned, indirectly, that his Democratic views represent a different **opinion** than that of some his colleagues. My claim is that the current ideology of the US Republican Party is **objectively untenable** because it enforces factors that lead to socioeconomic - and, potentially, environmental - failure, and any fair-minded (i.e., empathetic and informed) person will reject it.
I’d like to emphasize that the comparison is relative to *progressive* Democrats, not *corporate* Democrats. I claim that even the corporate Democrats would lead us to failure, but it would take much longer. Highly progressive Democrats are likely able to stop this process completely with a minor and progressive [wealth based tax](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL-YUTFqtuI), universal basic income, proactively enforcing [anti-trust laws]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law) to lower barriers to entry along with stopping other [market failures]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure), compensating against [economic rents]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent), discouraging [negative externalities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative) and information asymmetries (better investment information) at the top in a progressive fashion, etc. There’s also the counter-argument about the rich just offshoring pollution or expatriating themselves in response to tax laws. My point is that the progressive Democrats will be able to push the slider as much as possible without things getting out of hand, and engaging in dialog with foreign countries to develop global agreements to prevent loopholes.
EDIT: I'd like to further emphasize that **I'm not talking about comparing communism/socialism with libertarian/anarchic laissez-faire free market economies** in a binary fashion. The theme of this CMV concerns the long-term effects of conservative ideologies on key [preferential attachment processes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment): wealth distribution and global warming.
**Observation 1:** The objective of the US government is to maximize the welfare and “fairness” (liberty, justice, defense) in both the present and the future.
You could probably formalize this statement with a bunch of mathematical expressions and compare it to what the US Constitution promulgates and there would still be some vagueness. For the sake of argument, I’m willing to throw the Republicans a bone and adopt their obscene interpretation of “fairness” where two Americans with equal DNA, equal merit (g-factor, effort etc.), and/or equal conscious streams deserve different rewards based on who their parents are. Even if you think that welfare is not as important relative to fairness presently, my argument is that it will lead to a failure in the future that will obliterate both welfare and fairness (my interpretation of the latter).
**Observation 2:** The goal of the current Republicans is to reduce taxes and regulations for businesses and the wealthy (relative to the status quo), expand the military, reduce benefits of the lower class (unions, minimum wages, social support) while maintaining Judeo-Christian values socially (pro-life, anti-gay; anti-sex ed, anti-contraception, anti-evolution, anti-geology, pro-religion, pro-right, pro-voucher, pro-prayer in education).
Some of these are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States) Listing Gallup poll results and legislative bills that the Republicans have sponsored and voted for would probably bolster Observation 2 further.
**Observation 3:** The socio-economic policies of the Republicans lower the aggregate quality of life.
Economically, their policies lower social mobility, increase inequality (and [associated social problems](https://youtu.be/cZ7LzE3u7Bw?t=4m11s)), increase market failures, and are unsustainable. As a small example, just consider the relaxation of Dodd-Frank in which uninformed lenders can be taken advantage of. They also advocate for other financial deregulation. Environmentally, their lack of concern for CO2 causes global warming to become worse, risking lives (disasters, heat, pollution, extinctions, lowered agricultural yield, migrations, potential catastrophe). Socially, their policies facilitate the poor to have more kids with less education; less informed means less likely to vote efficiently (due to religion intermingling of politics and ignorance) or vote at all (busy with other things, like surviving).
Even if we were living in a bubble and there would be no incoming technological unemployment from automation in the lower and middle classes, the trends are unsustainable. If return to capital and economic growth continue to stay like they have been, it’s a [mathematical fact]( https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/macroeconomics/gdp-topic/piketty-capital/v/piketty-spreadsheet-1) that we reach levels of inequality where the masses will live in poverty and ignorance, while a small dynasty of plutocrats will own virtually everything.
From a social conservative perspective, our current social and educational programs are already doing a poor job. The poor are reproducing faster than the rich (the kids of poor people have poor quality of life and education) and the Judeo-Christian values from Observation 2 only accelerate this pattern.
The state where the masses are poor and we have plutocracy is certainly a negative representation of welfare. Personally, I’d argue that it’s also unfair and gradually suppresses the reward of merit. A brilliant, curious, diligent kid from the ghetto will find it hard to experience reward, while a dumb, uninterested, lazy child of the royalty will be able experience the full utility of her trust/inheritance/estate.
| 1,486,699,779 | Helicobacter | ddkob1j | ddkd3xj | 19 | 9 |
CMV: Trump is actually the most american president because America was never a democracy and freedom and equality were never its true values.
Note: I do not support trump or his policy's.
I often hear people say that people like trump are un-American. But if you have read a history book than you will know that Trump is probably our most "American" president in a while. Immigration bans and racism have always existed in American history and politics. From the ban on Chinese immigrants to slavery you will see that America was never truly free. And the electoral college has always existed so we always were a republic not a democracy. Even with things like women's rights America was pretty late half of Europe had granted women suffrage by 1905. So the cold hard truth is Trump is the most American president in a while.
| Personally, I think there are too many good criticisms of Trump to get tripped up in something like using silly insults like this one, that as you state, doesn't really have a lot of meaning.
But I think it's clear that for most people who talk about his un-American-ness they aren't talking about how he matches up with slave owners, but how he mismatches to the American *ideal*, which is all about freedom of opportunity and equality. Now you can argue that this is silly since America has never *truly* upheld those things for all people. But I think the disparity is greater since not only is he just upholding the status quo but he is actively *regressing* so many of our protections and freedoms that are in line with the American dream/ideal that it makes him seem very much more un-American than other politicians. | A representative democracy is still a democracy. A country/government can be a democratic republic as well. Representative democracy is an efficient compromise so that people still have some control but we divide the labor of governing to a smaller group of people instead of trying the nigh-impossible task of making governmental decisions with the entire population weighing in on individual issues many will have little to no knowledge of.
Freedom and equality were always values, we just excluded extending them to certain groups in American history for cultural, political, and economic reasons. Persuasive individuals were still able to appeal to these values to change that. A country can still have true values without having achieved them in an ideal form. | 5t57by | CMV: Trump is actually the most american president because America was never a democracy and freedom and equality were never its true values. | Note: I do not support trump or his policy's.
I often hear people say that people like trump are un-American. But if you have read a history book than you will know that Trump is probably our most "American" president in a while. Immigration bans and racism have always existed in American history and politics. From the ban on Chinese immigrants to slavery you will see that America was never truly free. And the electoral college has always existed so we always were a republic not a democracy. Even with things like women's rights America was pretty late half of Europe had granted women suffrage by 1905. So the cold hard truth is Trump is the most American president in a while.
| 1,486,700,161 | Declanfeeney3 | ddk9gwi | ddk9e4m | 10 | 3 |
CMV: Cockroaches are objectively the worst creatures in the world
I have based this view on a few factors:
1. They are found freaking everywhere. They are in the garden, in the shed, in your bedroom, in your kitchen, in your baby room, in your walls, under your floors, in your roof, everywhere.
2. Unlike ants it isn't obvious where they are coming from. Ants generally follow a trail that is quite easy to track and eliminate. There may be more of them, but you can quickly eliminate their road once it's identified. This also means that in the case of cockroaches, you have no idea what they have and haven't touched in your house. There is a good chance that they are crawling all over your glasses, mugs, plates, bowls, food etc.
3. They leave an invisible trail for other cockroaches to follow. This means that there is almost NEVER just one cockroach, there are many many more. You kill one and another takes it's place.
4. The trail they leave is toxic and can lead to asthma, especially in children. Although the general rule is that cockroaches are only as dirty as their environment, this is mostly specific to bacteria and germs. No matter how clean your environment, they leave a harmful trail behind them that not only attracts more of the bastards, but is also toxic to humans.
5. They mostly come out at night. The filthy cowards can't even face me like a man, they have to wait until I'm less of a threat to drag their filthy disgusting heads out of the holes they call homes.
6. They look absolutely horrible. They look ugly. I want them all dead.
7. Other creatures are reasonably easy to stay away from/ prevent. Many/most spiders try to keep to themselves. Sharks can only attack you if you put yourself in their environment. etc etc. Cockroaches? They come to YOU!!
All of these factors have helped me come to the only rational conclusion, that cockroaches are the worst creatures in the entire world.
--EDIT--
I have come to the realization that although gross and ugly, cockroaches are in the greater scheme of things quite mild danger and inconvenience wise. Thank you all for your comments. | I wouldn't mind sleeping with a cockroach lurking in my bedroom somewhere. I'd freak out, yes, and I might not sleep because I freaking hate cockroaches. But they're scavengers. You know what's worse? Predators and parasites. Here are a few venomous creatures:
* Giant Japanese wasps.
* Fire ants.
* Black widows.
* Brown recluse spiders.
You wouldn't mind being bitten by one of those, I guess?
[The 5 most horrifying bugs in the world](http://www.cracked.com/article_15816_the-5-most-horrifying-bugs-in-world.html), courtesy of Cracked.
And then come parasites:
* Leeches. They crawl, stick their circular teeth in your skin and start sucking blood
* In the amazon, there's a parasite creature that crawls inside your urethra.
* Earworms. They crawl into your ear and start digging there.
* African parasitic flies. They lay their eggs inside your skin, and the larvae start eating you inside until they mature and another parasitic fly comes out.
* A new species of parasitic wasp was discovered this year, that infects other parasitic wasps, their larvae eat the host alive and when it tries to come out of their tree bark, they get stuck because their heads are too small for the hole. The parasite keeps eating until they come out of the host's head! No, I'm not making this shit up.
* Your everyday tapeworm. Some eggs reach your brain!
* Speaking of brains, there's a parasitic fungus that infects ants and controls their brains so they seek high places and die scorched by the sun. Then the fungus erupts and makes its spores fly.
* The cat parasite, forgot its name, is the reason crazy cat ladies are a stereotype: it gives you schizophrenia.
* Did I forget to mention the worms that live inside your eyeballs?
Edit: Ready for round two? Here's a Cracked article: [The 7 most horrifying parasites on the planet.](http://www.cracked.com/article_17199_the-7-most-horrifying-parasites-planet.html) (NSFL)
Cockroaches? Give me a break, kid. These parasitic motherfuckers make cockroaches look like fucking Bambi. And in my personal opinion, they're one of the reasons I'm convinced that if there's a god, he's a fucking sadist who actually divinely inspired HR Giger and HP Lovecraft.
Edit: Bambi. | Surely there are plenty of far worse little critters, like those spiders which bite you and cause years of pain and suffering, or those jellyfish which sting you and cause unbearable pain and the kind of near-death which makes you wish you were dead. | 5t57hw | CMV: Cockroaches are objectively the worst creatures in the world | I have based this view on a few factors:
1. They are found freaking everywhere. They are in the garden, in the shed, in your bedroom, in your kitchen, in your baby room, in your walls, under your floors, in your roof, everywhere.
2. Unlike ants it isn't obvious where they are coming from. Ants generally follow a trail that is quite easy to track and eliminate. There may be more of them, but you can quickly eliminate their road once it's identified. This also means that in the case of cockroaches, you have no idea what they have and haven't touched in your house. There is a good chance that they are crawling all over your glasses, mugs, plates, bowls, food etc.
3. They leave an invisible trail for other cockroaches to follow. This means that there is almost NEVER just one cockroach, there are many many more. You kill one and another takes it's place.
4. The trail they leave is toxic and can lead to asthma, especially in children. Although the general rule is that cockroaches are only as dirty as their environment, this is mostly specific to bacteria and germs. No matter how clean your environment, they leave a harmful trail behind them that not only attracts more of the bastards, but is also toxic to humans.
5. They mostly come out at night. The filthy cowards can't even face me like a man, they have to wait until I'm less of a threat to drag their filthy disgusting heads out of the holes they call homes.
6. They look absolutely horrible. They look ugly. I want them all dead.
7. Other creatures are reasonably easy to stay away from/ prevent. Many/most spiders try to keep to themselves. Sharks can only attack you if you put yourself in their environment. etc etc. Cockroaches? They come to YOU!!
All of these factors have helped me come to the only rational conclusion, that cockroaches are the worst creatures in the entire world.
--EDIT--
I have come to the realization that although gross and ugly, cockroaches are in the greater scheme of things quite mild danger and inconvenience wise. Thank you all for your comments. | 1,486,700,216 | arkonum | ddkna8p | ddkl9ui | 3 | 1 |
CMV: Republicans who oppose women's health are not misogynists, they have reasons they can't state out loud
For a long time I viewed the Republicans who oppose women's health as some kind of evil strawmen. Clearly they hated women because they would give tax breaks or healthcare coverage to condoms and viagra, but not to female contraception or tampons.
But then I thought - while there are bound to be SOME misogynists (because population stats), everyone has a mom and some people have sisters and wives and daughters and surely they aren't so twisted as to believe those women are evil. So I looked around various Republican places and found at least two examples of things you have to use political dog whistles for (like instead of saying let's arrest all black people you say you support "law and order") instead of coming out and saying them because it wouldn't allow them to be elected by the broadest Republican coalition.
Example 1: "Family Values" dog whistle. From what I've read this seems to stem from a group of people that seems to overlap with Evangelicals (at least the evangelical church I attended as a kid was a strong advocate) where they want to create a situation that makes it preferable for women to be stay at home moms. So they tend to support things that keep women from being independent - access to healthcare that lets them control when and how many babies, access to incomes that would allow them to divorce at will because they aren't dependent on the man's income, etc
Example 2: "American Race Purists" People like someone who commented to me on this subreddit about how if we allow white women to limit their birth abilities, then the minorities will have more kids and America won't be a white majority nation anymore.
| Believing that women's place is in the home or that women are supposed to have babies is still misogyny - misogyny isn't just a clear "hatred" of women (in the same way that homophobia isn't just a clear "fear" of gay people) but "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women" (Dictionary.com). While believing and furthering stereotypes against women more commonly falls under sexism as a whole, it also falls into the category of misogyny. | So they're not arseholes because they hate women, they're arseholes because they think women that want an abortion are heretics or they're making a mockery of white supremacy.
No. Not buying it. They're using excuses to impose their will on other people. | 5t6zf6 | CMV: Republicans who oppose women's health are not misogynists, they have reasons they can't state out loud | For a long time I viewed the Republicans who oppose women's health as some kind of evil strawmen. Clearly they hated women because they would give tax breaks or healthcare coverage to condoms and viagra, but not to female contraception or tampons.
But then I thought - while there are bound to be SOME misogynists (because population stats), everyone has a mom and some people have sisters and wives and daughters and surely they aren't so twisted as to believe those women are evil. So I looked around various Republican places and found at least two examples of things you have to use political dog whistles for (like instead of saying let's arrest all black people you say you support "law and order") instead of coming out and saying them because it wouldn't allow them to be elected by the broadest Republican coalition.
Example 1: "Family Values" dog whistle. From what I've read this seems to stem from a group of people that seems to overlap with Evangelicals (at least the evangelical church I attended as a kid was a strong advocate) where they want to create a situation that makes it preferable for women to be stay at home moms. So they tend to support things that keep women from being independent - access to healthcare that lets them control when and how many babies, access to incomes that would allow them to divorce at will because they aren't dependent on the man's income, etc
Example 2: "American Race Purists" People like someone who commented to me on this subreddit about how if we allow white women to limit their birth abilities, then the minorities will have more kids and America won't be a white majority nation anymore.
| 1,486,729,400 | thedjotaku | ddkzgpq | ddkz3hp | 43 | 11 |
CMV: I literally cannot understand most Republican social views.
So this is an idea I've had in my head for a while now. In light of everything that's been happening, I've been trying to be more empathetic to differing political views and to try and understand how people are thinking that leads them to hold the views they hold, but I'm finding it almost impossible to wrap my head around the majority of Republican social views. Financial views, I can understand more. I may disagree, but I at least know where they're coming from. But with other views, I just cannot understand it, I think largely because most of their views are either contradictory to other views they claim to hold, or because the views are completely unfounded in evidence.
**LGBT Rights:**
Many republicans are still fighting hard against same-sex marriage. There is literally no reason to oppose same-sex marriage rights unless you use religion to do so. And since the vast majority of Republicans also claim to be strict adherents to the constitution, this is a contradictory view, since the establishment clause prohibits the government from making laws based on religion.
I also can't understand the bathroom bill passed in NC a few years ago that got national attention. [There is no evidence to suggest that letting transgender people use the bathroom they want leads to increased assault on anyone](http://www.npr.org/2016/05/15/477954537/when-a-transgender-person-uses-a-public-bathroom-who-is-at-risk). This bill was not created to address any problem, it was made to create a wedge issue republicans could use to scare their base into voting for them more.
**Civil Rights:**
Specifically BLM. The Republican party is strongly opposed to the Black Lives Matter movement. And while I can understand frustration at riots that may happen after some protests, many republicans outright deny that there is a problem in the police force at all. This is completely contrary to the evidence that says that ["Blacks are being shot at a rate that's 2.5 times higher than whites" by police](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36826297). This is a clear indication that something is wrong, but many republicans won't even admit that there's a problem to begin with.
**Immigration:**
Despite the fact that the number of people illegally immigrating from Mexico [has been falling in recent years](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/) and that the states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants don't even share a border with Mexico, many republicans are still in favor of increased border security, and some even want a $19 billion wall to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
**Refugees:**
Even though [there have been 0 fatal attacks by refugees in the US](http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/us/refugee-terrorism-trnd/) the majority of republicans are against taking in any more refugees. And despite the fact that it's already [incredibly difficult to attain asylum in the US](http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process), many push for even more restrictions on refugees. As a humanitarian issue, I find it deplorable that so many prominent politicians can refuse to help those in most need and be met with thunderous applause, despite all the evidence saying that refugees are not dangerous and [will either have little to no impact on the economy, or possibly even a positive effect](http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21688938-europes-new-arrivals-will-probably-dent-public-finances-not-wages-good-or).
**Climate Change:**
Climate change is real, and any denying that is anti-science. We know the effects will be catastrophic, and yet we still have [Republican politicians bringing snowballs onto the floor of Congress](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8) to somehow prove climate change isn't real. Steps must be taken to curtail our effects on the environment, and the republican insistence that there is no problem is just straight up dangerous.
**Planned Parenthood:**
Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use federal money to perform abortions. Planned Parenthood is a health clinic like any other. And yet Republicans want to remove their Title X status for no reason except that the facility sometimes performs abortions. This is really just stupid and doesn't make any sense at all. For one, if you truly did want to lower the number of abortions, then you would support measures to make sexual health education more available, and yet these same politicians will support abstinence-only programs in schools which have been thoroughly proven to be completely ineffective and even increase the rate of teen pregnancy. Second, Planned Parenthood provides more than just abortions, and denying people access to cheap healthcare will only lead to more abortions, more babies, and more people using government assistance to survive.
So help me understand what these people are thinking. I don't need you to prove the Republicans are right on any of these issues (because they're decidedly not on almost all of them), I just want to try and work out how these people can actually think these things. I have family who are Republican and think a lot of what I've written here, and it sucks not even being able to comprehend their positions. Show me some of these views aren't actually contradictory, or walk me through the process that leads them to think this way, and my view will be changed. | I hate to bring up a jerk like John Haidt, but some of his ideas are a very useful baseline for understanding key political differences between liberals and conservatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
Don't focus too much on the nuts and bolts (they get complex and honestly a lot of it is bullshit) but an important aspect is: Conservatives put moral weight on things like preserving social structures, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity.... things that liberals just don't think are moral. So the answer to a lot of these issues is: Conservatives are worried it would usurp legitimate authority to do the thing you want, and they think usurping legitimate authority is bad and you don't.
Another thing (from a somewhat different line of research) is that conservatives are far more individually focused than liberals are. You'll be all focused on some big-picture social trend, and conservatives are just much more apt to prioritize the aspects of the issue that relate to specific, individual people's behavior. | > Blacks are being shot at a rate that's 2.5 times higher than whites" by police. This is a clear indication that something is wrong
Is it? Blacks commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than whites. It makes sense that police would be shooting at blacks more. What kind of people do police shoot at? Violent people usually. So if blacks are more likely to be violent it's reasonable that they'd be more likely to be shot at. That's not discrimination. | 5t708c | CMV: I literally cannot understand most Republican social views. | So this is an idea I've had in my head for a while now. In light of everything that's been happening, I've been trying to be more empathetic to differing political views and to try and understand how people are thinking that leads them to hold the views they hold, but I'm finding it almost impossible to wrap my head around the majority of Republican social views. Financial views, I can understand more. I may disagree, but I at least know where they're coming from. But with other views, I just cannot understand it, I think largely because most of their views are either contradictory to other views they claim to hold, or because the views are completely unfounded in evidence.
**LGBT Rights:**
Many republicans are still fighting hard against same-sex marriage. There is literally no reason to oppose same-sex marriage rights unless you use religion to do so. And since the vast majority of Republicans also claim to be strict adherents to the constitution, this is a contradictory view, since the establishment clause prohibits the government from making laws based on religion.
I also can't understand the bathroom bill passed in NC a few years ago that got national attention. [There is no evidence to suggest that letting transgender people use the bathroom they want leads to increased assault on anyone](http://www.npr.org/2016/05/15/477954537/when-a-transgender-person-uses-a-public-bathroom-who-is-at-risk). This bill was not created to address any problem, it was made to create a wedge issue republicans could use to scare their base into voting for them more.
**Civil Rights:**
Specifically BLM. The Republican party is strongly opposed to the Black Lives Matter movement. And while I can understand frustration at riots that may happen after some protests, many republicans outright deny that there is a problem in the police force at all. This is completely contrary to the evidence that says that ["Blacks are being shot at a rate that's 2.5 times higher than whites" by police](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36826297). This is a clear indication that something is wrong, but many republicans won't even admit that there's a problem to begin with.
**Immigration:**
Despite the fact that the number of people illegally immigrating from Mexico [has been falling in recent years](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/) and that the states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants don't even share a border with Mexico, many republicans are still in favor of increased border security, and some even want a $19 billion wall to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
**Refugees:**
Even though [there have been 0 fatal attacks by refugees in the US](http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/us/refugee-terrorism-trnd/) the majority of republicans are against taking in any more refugees. And despite the fact that it's already [incredibly difficult to attain asylum in the US](http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process), many push for even more restrictions on refugees. As a humanitarian issue, I find it deplorable that so many prominent politicians can refuse to help those in most need and be met with thunderous applause, despite all the evidence saying that refugees are not dangerous and [will either have little to no impact on the economy, or possibly even a positive effect](http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21688938-europes-new-arrivals-will-probably-dent-public-finances-not-wages-good-or).
**Climate Change:**
Climate change is real, and any denying that is anti-science. We know the effects will be catastrophic, and yet we still have [Republican politicians bringing snowballs onto the floor of Congress](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8) to somehow prove climate change isn't real. Steps must be taken to curtail our effects on the environment, and the republican insistence that there is no problem is just straight up dangerous.
**Planned Parenthood:**
Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use federal money to perform abortions. Planned Parenthood is a health clinic like any other. And yet Republicans want to remove their Title X status for no reason except that the facility sometimes performs abortions. This is really just stupid and doesn't make any sense at all. For one, if you truly did want to lower the number of abortions, then you would support measures to make sexual health education more available, and yet these same politicians will support abstinence-only programs in schools which have been thoroughly proven to be completely ineffective and even increase the rate of teen pregnancy. Second, Planned Parenthood provides more than just abortions, and denying people access to cheap healthcare will only lead to more abortions, more babies, and more people using government assistance to survive.
So help me understand what these people are thinking. I don't need you to prove the Republicans are right on any of these issues (because they're decidedly not on almost all of them), I just want to try and work out how these people can actually think these things. I have family who are Republican and think a lot of what I've written here, and it sucks not even being able to comprehend their positions. Show me some of these views aren't actually contradictory, or walk me through the process that leads them to think this way, and my view will be changed. | 1,486,729,730 | thatoneguy54 | ddkzky5 | ddkyya8 | 86 | -2 |
CMV:Most US conservatives would, if not literally kill me, smile and nod along if one of them did.
First, I should probably affirm that, yes, I actually do think this and yes, I am open to changing my mind on it. Anxiety is a bitch and I'd appreciate the help. Believing this to be true is an extremely unpleasant experience and I would like it to stop.
I am transgender, a socialist, a feminist, a BLM supporter, and a political operative for a major US political party. I think that antifa is doing an important, but dirty job. I think that because my existence is basically partisan, most conservatives could find at least one reason to not be particularly bothered by my being shot in the back by a right wing person and left to bleed out, though I also think most would prefer to forcibly convert me to conservative ideology and force me to live like them, so that they wouldn't need to be confronted with the fact my existence, which they find unpleasant.
This is not a conclusion I have reasoned to deductively, but rather something I have come to believe from talking to conservative people, reading their discussions online, observing the behavior of their elected representatives, considering the theoretical foundations of conservative ideology as written by conservative people, reviewing the history of right wing political violence, and spending time considering preconditions necessary for political unity.
Before this I believed that most conservatives just want to live their lives free of interference and would dislike the idea of killing me basically because they dislike the idea of killing people generally, but I find that I can no longer believe this after actually spending time and paying attention to their communities.
I also think that, to a certain extent, political unity requires a certain commitment from both sides to making a point to live in the same society, and after a lot of thought I have been unable to see conservative America willing to make such a commitment, and those conservative people from whom I have requested such a commitment from have been, at best, noncommittal.
There is a very strong non-rational emotional and survival component to this belief. I do not wish to be a victim of violence or subject to disturbing 'traditional values' that would demand my detransition or unwilling subservience to a male partner or relative. I am unsure it would be wholly safe to give up this belief in the near future.
If I were to invent an argument to back up my position, it would probably be something of the form "The right doesn't seem to have any clear policy goals besides damaging and tearing down the things that seem to make society barely function for me, and some of the more vocal parts seem to like the idea of enacting violence on me for a variety of reasons, so most probably would consider me acceptable collateral damage."
I am aware that I am being hysterical, but I have not, thus far, found this awareness to be helpful in shedding this belief. Please help. This sucks.
| How often do you think the average conservative thinks about trans people?
First of all, most people in the US are stubbornly apolitical: they don't know or care much about politics, and they vote the way they always have or the way the people in their communities are voting. This is especially true about white people and older people, two groups that are more likely to be conservative.
An important thing about that is DISTANCE. You ever hear of the Will and Grace Effect? It's the idea that gay marriage became accepted and legal because gay people were on TV enough for familiarity and comfort to set in. If you were getting attacked visibly in front of people, then most conservatives would be horrified, because your suffering wouldn't be invisible and distant anymore.
The other thing is, a major, major difference between conservatives and liberals in the US is how wide-lens their viewpoint is. Liberals focus on trends and patterns and subtle influences, but conservatives very apt to prioritize the individual level. That's why you'll say something like "Women suffer in rape culture," and conservatives reply with "Why are you calling me a rapist?"
Direct, physical violence is individual-level: conservatives care about that stuff. That's bad behavior someone chose to do for malicious reasons; that's in fact especially something a conservative would find appalling. | >who refuses to affirm my right to exist in the same society as them?
This is right back to the murder thing right? The people who don't think you have a right to exist are people who think you should die. I don't think there are very many of those people (but STILL more than zero).
I think most of the time, you have an opinion you believe to be right, they have an opinion they believe to be right, then you both attack each other of it.
Here is an example. You support Black Lives Matter. It is their idea that Blacks are attacked and murdered by the police and that EVERY black person is in danger from EVERY police officer (whether or not something bad happens, there is always a danger).
Someone who is AGAINST Black Lives Matter is NOT someone who things that blacks *should* be killed, they just don't think that the danger is as real as is being displayed by the media. Things that support that viewpoint are the stories about riots that start after a person with a long history of crimes gets shot after quickly reaching for his waistband.
It is **easy** to mistake someone who is against BLM for someone who is literally in favor of attacking blacks, but it is VERY rarely the truth of the other person's position. | 5t76x8 | CMV:Most US conservatives would, if not literally kill me, smile and nod along if one of them did. | First, I should probably affirm that, yes, I actually do think this and yes, I am open to changing my mind on it. Anxiety is a bitch and I'd appreciate the help. Believing this to be true is an extremely unpleasant experience and I would like it to stop.
I am transgender, a socialist, a feminist, a BLM supporter, and a political operative for a major US political party. I think that antifa is doing an important, but dirty job. I think that because my existence is basically partisan, most conservatives could find at least one reason to not be particularly bothered by my being shot in the back by a right wing person and left to bleed out, though I also think most would prefer to forcibly convert me to conservative ideology and force me to live like them, so that they wouldn't need to be confronted with the fact my existence, which they find unpleasant.
This is not a conclusion I have reasoned to deductively, but rather something I have come to believe from talking to conservative people, reading their discussions online, observing the behavior of their elected representatives, considering the theoretical foundations of conservative ideology as written by conservative people, reviewing the history of right wing political violence, and spending time considering preconditions necessary for political unity.
Before this I believed that most conservatives just want to live their lives free of interference and would dislike the idea of killing me basically because they dislike the idea of killing people generally, but I find that I can no longer believe this after actually spending time and paying attention to their communities.
I also think that, to a certain extent, political unity requires a certain commitment from both sides to making a point to live in the same society, and after a lot of thought I have been unable to see conservative America willing to make such a commitment, and those conservative people from whom I have requested such a commitment from have been, at best, noncommittal.
There is a very strong non-rational emotional and survival component to this belief. I do not wish to be a victim of violence or subject to disturbing 'traditional values' that would demand my detransition or unwilling subservience to a male partner or relative. I am unsure it would be wholly safe to give up this belief in the near future.
If I were to invent an argument to back up my position, it would probably be something of the form "The right doesn't seem to have any clear policy goals besides damaging and tearing down the things that seem to make society barely function for me, and some of the more vocal parts seem to like the idea of enacting violence on me for a variety of reasons, so most probably would consider me acceptable collateral damage."
I am aware that I am being hysterical, but I have not, thus far, found this awareness to be helpful in shedding this belief. Please help. This sucks.
| 1,486,732,423 | Larima | ddky5ik | ddkt8er | 27 | 6 |
CMV: Jail time for unpaid child support is a modern day debtor's prison and also doesn't make sense as a concept.
Hey CMV folks! I've been baffled by this practice for a while and I want to see if there's certain information I'm missing about it.
To start with, I absolutely believe that child support is necessary; if one parent is doing the majority of the caring for the child, the other person should be supporting the child financially. If one parent is responsible for making food for the kid and feeding them, the other is at least partially responsible for putting that food on the table and so on.
The part about child support laws that loses me is that someone who does not pay it gets sent to jail.
The reasons I disagree with it:
1. The logic seems to be, "You can't afford to make this payment, so now, the government is going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to lock you up and make it even harder for you to afford this payment."
2. Giving someone a criminal record because they can't or won't pay something makes it harder for them to afford it given how many employers check criminal records before or when hiring someone.
3. Aren't debtor's prisons illegal?
Edit: Wow, this blew up!
I have, as I've said in replies, changed my view somewhat. I'm glad there's more room in the system to screw up than I thought, and that things such as good faith payments exist. I also realized, from some of the stories people provided, that I have to change the view I had going in that everyone is inherently a good person and that there are two sides to a story- sometimes, people just suck.
I still don't fully agree with the concept of jail time for unpaid child support as it has such a harmful effect on the person's ability to make future payments- criminal record, employment gap, potentially losing a job because of inability to work, potentially losing a bed in a homeless shelter, being ineligible for public assistance in the future- but those are on the whole problems with our justice and employment laws than with child support laws.
Thanks guys for the discussion! | I strongly disagree with this for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, if we're going to apply civil standards to child support proceedings, then the attendant consequences also need to mirror normal civil procedure. Nobody gets jailed because they don't pay a judgment from a credit card company who sues them.
In ordinary civil procedure, the bar for showing contempt is quite high, and to get to the point of jailing someone in respect to a contempt allegation arising from a civil suit, you need to go through what amounts to criminal proceedings, proving beyond a doubt that they willfully violated the court's order.
Failing to show up for the hearing is not sufficient, as that would be a trial in abesntia.
Moreover, requiring that someone affirmatively petition to have their support requirement reduced, or else face jail time, offends the basic notions of due process and presumption of innocence that are foundational to our legal system. It is not the defendant's obligation to prove he cannot pay and therefore noncompliance is not willful. It is rather the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has the means to comply with the court's order, and has willfully failed to comply with it.
Imprisonment is a fundamentally criminal punishment which should only be meted out after full criminal procedure is given to the defendant. There are certainly cases of willful contempt of support orders which would be criminally prosecutable, but the process matters. The only time when it is appropriate to sentence a person to imprisonment is after they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with all of the protections afforded under the constitution relating to criminal prosecution available to them. | I have a cousin who unrepentantly did not pay child support. He accused his wife of cheating, not using birth control; even though their agreement was condoms. He had two kids by her before they divorced. One kid looked just like him, the other didn't. This was before paternity tests.
Then he had two more kids with another girl, pulled the same shit.
After his divorce and the girlfriend he owed massive amounts of child support and back child support.
He's 62 and still owes $65000. His oldest must be 40. They later did court ordered DNA and all 4 kids were his.
He avoided paying by being a contractor/ day laborer. He also dealt drugs. But his wife and girlfriend would take him to court if they found out he was working. Both moms collected WIC and food stamps.
What they did is threw him in jail for a year. Then they gave him parole and said: get a job where you get a W2. That way we can garnish checks.
Call it what you want, but:
1) the kids need support, and I shouldn't have to pay.
2) there's very few options for the state to get the dad to pay, so coercion is a must.
3) the guy is an immoral prick (and an evangelical to boot) so I'm not upset at his situation
4) sticking your dick places has a cost.
5) people like him ruin for other dads who are just having trouble making it work or did get fucked over.
If it comes to jail for most of these guys we have to default that they're deadbeats. Let's not automatically assume child support = victimized dad. | 5t76yy | CMV: Jail time for unpaid child support is a modern day debtor's prison and also doesn't make sense as a concept. | Hey CMV folks! I've been baffled by this practice for a while and I want to see if there's certain information I'm missing about it.
To start with, I absolutely believe that child support is necessary; if one parent is doing the majority of the caring for the child, the other person should be supporting the child financially. If one parent is responsible for making food for the kid and feeding them, the other is at least partially responsible for putting that food on the table and so on.
The part about child support laws that loses me is that someone who does not pay it gets sent to jail.
The reasons I disagree with it:
1. The logic seems to be, "You can't afford to make this payment, so now, the government is going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to lock you up and make it even harder for you to afford this payment."
2. Giving someone a criminal record because they can't or won't pay something makes it harder for them to afford it given how many employers check criminal records before or when hiring someone.
3. Aren't debtor's prisons illegal?
Edit: Wow, this blew up!
I have, as I've said in replies, changed my view somewhat. I'm glad there's more room in the system to screw up than I thought, and that things such as good faith payments exist. I also realized, from some of the stories people provided, that I have to change the view I had going in that everyone is inherently a good person and that there are two sides to a story- sometimes, people just suck.
I still don't fully agree with the concept of jail time for unpaid child support as it has such a harmful effect on the person's ability to make future payments- criminal record, employment gap, potentially losing a job because of inability to work, potentially losing a bed in a homeless shelter, being ineligible for public assistance in the future- but those are on the whole problems with our justice and employment laws than with child support laws.
Thanks guys for the discussion! | 1,486,732,443 | KnightWhoSaysNi1 | ddkvc5v | ddkuioo | 37 | 26 |
CMV: Eventually, no one will ever need to work again.
Using automation, we can reduce labor to the point that no one needs to work. This is already happening with autonomous vehicles eventually unemploying an entire industry of people who drive for a living. Eventually, every single job on the planet will be done by a computer or have a reasonable computer analog.The mounting unemployment that this trend will cause will create significant social upheaval that will necessitate universal income. This means that people will have a baseline income without actually working. Instead of working to survive, people will only work for prestige or for fulfillment. The majority of this will happen in the next forty years.
| > Using automation, we can reduce labor to the point that no one needs to work.... Eventually, every single job on the planet will be done by a computer or have a reasonable computer analog.
It may not be as economical as having human labor. Manufactories are a good place for automation where economies of scale help make them cheaper than using humans, but this isn't true for all jobs.
Outside of a manufactory you would need fairly advanced robots to carry out the kind of labor that humans normally carry out. These robots will cost money and raw resources, most notably heavy metals. They will also require a great deal of maintenance. On the other hand, humans are cheap, live off basically a few morsels of bread, and they copy themselves automatically. Building one robot to do the job of thousand humans would still likely cost far more in terms of pollution and resource consumption than just having a thousand disposable humans do the job. I think you are heavily underestimating the massive hierarchy of labor below our rich western service economies, and just how many trillions of man hours **outside** of manufactories that are used to prop those economies up. What do you think those people in India are running around for with banana's and bricks on their head? They aren't doing it for their health.
Even though many electronics have enjoyed cost reductions throughout the last few decades, this is largely due to readily available heavy metals and cheap plastics. These resources are no different than oil (plastic actually comes from oil so you will need more of it), there is a finite supply and when you start using more than can be produced the price goes up. Heavy metals are rare, and if you inflict the million fold increase in the consumption of those resources which would be required to build the robots to replace all human labor then it is going to be incredibly expensive and resource intensive. It will likely result in major wars between powerful nations over those resources. At the end of the day you will just end up with a couple powerful nations that replace all their labor and most of the rest of the world supporting them in poverty (much like we have now). | There are very few situations where most people need to use physical strength. We're not in a situation where nobody ever needs to exercise again. You've mentioned people working for prestige and fulfillment, but most people don't exercise for those things, they just do it to maintain a basic level of health.
I don't think people spending their whole lives not working would be healthy, I think people need work and get majorly depressed when they don't have it. I think we could easily wind up in a situation where people are working jobs that aren't technically necessary just because it keeps them active and involved with their community.
Right now I would say people need to exercise. By the same token I would say people need to work. | 5t7q2y | CMV: Eventually, no one will ever need to work again. | Using automation, we can reduce labor to the point that no one needs to work. This is already happening with autonomous vehicles eventually unemploying an entire industry of people who drive for a living. Eventually, every single job on the planet will be done by a computer or have a reasonable computer analog.The mounting unemployment that this trend will cause will create significant social upheaval that will necessitate universal income. This means that people will have a baseline income without actually working. Instead of working to survive, people will only work for prestige or for fulfillment. The majority of this will happen in the next forty years.
| 1,486,738,913 | taqfu | ddm8sv7 | ddl0uvw | 1 | 0 |
CMV:I feel really sorry for Ivanka Trump because of her family, especially her father
First I want to say that I'm anti Donald Trump and his entire presidency. I get that people want to boycott anything Trump. I get that Nordstrom dropped her brand because of ‘declining sales’. I’m all for boycotting her brand if Donald’s company profits from her company, which I’m assuming it does but I don’t really know that relationship. But why do I see a lot of hate for her personally? I haven’t heard much about her personal opinions on issues. To me she just seems like someone that was stuck having to help her dad campaign. To me she seems like someone that would be taking very large risks if she spoke in defiance to anything regarding her dad or husband. So maybe she’s just trying to lay low, play it safe, ride it out? Which I know some would say is reason to not support her and others would say she is just trying to protect herself.
Please help me understand why so much hate for her, not her brand but for her. I’m not saying I support her or not. If anything I feel really sorry for her. I’m just trying to understand more about her personal views and opinions. Is she anything like her dad or is she a submissive person not strong enough to stand up for what she really believes?
| * Ivanka Trump went to a $55,000/year tuition boarding school.
* Her mother was a model, and Ivanka inherited her looks.
* She was on the cover of Seventeen magazine when she was only 16 years old.
* She was a legacy admit to an Ivy League school.
* She got an executive job at her dad's company after college.
* She is a billionaire heiress whose dad is now president of the United States.
* Her husband is also a billionaire heir, whose father paid 2.5 million dollars for him to be admitted to Harvard.
Ivanka's father has hurt a lot of people, and Ivanka has been the biggest beneficiary from his misdeeds. Ivanka had everything in life handed to her on a silver platter. She inherited her looks, money, connections, etc. directly from her parents.
Either Ivanka shares her father's sense of morality, or she realizes she has too much to lose if she speaks out in favor of what she really believes in. Maybe she's in a difficult position, but given how many people are suffering because of her father, both in America and around the world, it's hard for me to feel sorry for her. | Its pretty common among people to subtly not acknowledge the agency of women. If you see a poor woman living on the street you think aww its not her fault she is there, but if it were a man in the same situation you think its his fault, he's a loser or lazy. The opposite applies to women in the position of power. People will think she didn't earn that she fucked her way to the top, or people just like her because she is pretty. Its hard to ignore these things and project your own relationships onto other people.
She is an adult she makes her own decisions. She has not only posed for pictures with her dad on the campaign trail, she has put herself in the center of US politics by being meetings in with other heads of state with her dad. A person in this position is going to be criticized by everyone regardless of whose daughter they are, often times for completely opposite reasons and they should be. She has the First Lady's office in the White House so she is not trying to stay out of politics. She is also not trying to distance herself from her business. She is trying to do both at once which is the definition of corruption.
| 5t9b6e | CMV:I feel really sorry for Ivanka Trump because of her family, especially her father | First I want to say that I'm anti Donald Trump and his entire presidency. I get that people want to boycott anything Trump. I get that Nordstrom dropped her brand because of ‘declining sales’. I’m all for boycotting her brand if Donald’s company profits from her company, which I’m assuming it does but I don’t really know that relationship. But why do I see a lot of hate for her personally? I haven’t heard much about her personal opinions on issues. To me she just seems like someone that was stuck having to help her dad campaign. To me she seems like someone that would be taking very large risks if she spoke in defiance to anything regarding her dad or husband. So maybe she’s just trying to lay low, play it safe, ride it out? Which I know some would say is reason to not support her and others would say she is just trying to protect herself.
Please help me understand why so much hate for her, not her brand but for her. I’m not saying I support her or not. If anything I feel really sorry for her. I’m just trying to understand more about her personal views and opinions. Is she anything like her dad or is she a submissive person not strong enough to stand up for what she really believes?
| 1,486,754,533 | extraextraextra123 | ddl88q2 | ddl53u5 | 22 | 8 |
CMV Stephen Gotskowski is the most overrated kicker in the NFL because of the team he plays on.
Gotskowski is one of the most popular kickers in the league because he plays for the Patriots, which have the best offense in the league, which in turn leads to more extra point and field goal attempts. This also makes him the top kicker in fantasy football just for the sheer number of points he scores per week. However, his FG and XP percentage is pretty low compared to other kickers in the league. In total points scored, he ranks 9th in the league behind guys like Hauschka, and he had three missed XP attempts in the 2016 regular season, and tap on the Super Bowl missed XP attempt on top of that. He's not consistently awful like Mike Nugent, but there's at least a half dozen kickers that I would have more confidence in than Gotskowski any given Sunday. Justin Tucker is probably the greatest kicker in the NFL right now. | He's 4th all-time in FG percentage: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/fg_perc_career.htm
He had a down year this year for sure, so I guess you could say he didn't meet his pre-season expectations, but historically he is one of the most accurate kickers.
Saying "he's not consistently awful" is completely wrong and an insult to him. He's consistently one of the most accurate, highest scoring kickers in the league. You can blame the "highest scoring" on the offense he is in, but his FG percentage indicates he's also one of the most accurate kickers ever.
Also, prior to this year when he finished 9th in points scored, he was 1st in points scored from 2012 to 2015. | I mean the guy kicked two Super Bowl winning Field Goals and many other clutch kicks in the playoffs. Yes he's famous for being a Patriot, but he made kicks at the highest zenith of pressure. Gostkowski hasn't done so, mostly because he hasn't had the same chances, so I feel that Vinatieri is okay being held in such a high standard. I can't remember ever seeing the guy miss a game tying or winning kick | 5t9bd3 | CMV Stephen Gotskowski is the most overrated kicker in the NFL because of the team he plays on. | Gotskowski is one of the most popular kickers in the league because he plays for the Patriots, which have the best offense in the league, which in turn leads to more extra point and field goal attempts. This also makes him the top kicker in fantasy football just for the sheer number of points he scores per week. However, his FG and XP percentage is pretty low compared to other kickers in the league. In total points scored, he ranks 9th in the league behind guys like Hauschka, and he had three missed XP attempts in the 2016 regular season, and tap on the Super Bowl missed XP attempt on top of that. He's not consistently awful like Mike Nugent, but there's at least a half dozen kickers that I would have more confidence in than Gotskowski any given Sunday. Justin Tucker is probably the greatest kicker in the NFL right now. | 1,486,754,589 | NefariousBanana | ddlc7qp | ddl7e93 | 43 | 7 |
CMV: Brown liquors are for drinking. Clear liquor's are for mixing.
Clear liquor's are designed to be mixed with other fluids. They either have no taste or an awful taste that would put off a dog eating its own shit. You absolutely have to mix these with juice or tonic, something to take away from the disgusting flalvors.
Brown liquors on the other hand have distinct flavors, notes that even the untrained pallet can make out. Brown liquors have their taste taken away when you mix them. You are robbing Whiskey/Scotch/Bourbon of what it truly can be when you mix it with anything.
Brown liquors are made for drinking.
Clear liquor's are made to mix.
Change my view | Bacardi 151 is a brown liquor, and pretty much anyone who drinks it (or rather, used to) will agree that you need to either mix it, take shots with it, or just use it to light other drinks on fire. Any flavor it does have is overwhelmed by the 75.5% alcohol content. | You're right in that clear liquors are generally ones that haven't been aged and should be mixed as they're usually not as smooth. But really, aged liquors are for drinking, everything else is for mixing. | 5t9pjf | CMV: Brown liquors are for drinking. Clear liquor's are for mixing. | Clear liquor's are designed to be mixed with other fluids. They either have no taste or an awful taste that would put off a dog eating its own shit. You absolutely have to mix these with juice or tonic, something to take away from the disgusting flalvors.
Brown liquors on the other hand have distinct flavors, notes that even the untrained pallet can make out. Brown liquors have their taste taken away when you mix them. You are robbing Whiskey/Scotch/Bourbon of what it truly can be when you mix it with anything.
Brown liquors are made for drinking.
Clear liquor's are made to mix.
Change my view | 1,486,758,530 | pfabs | ddlfbhx | ddldjx8 | 17 | 1 |
CMV: The "left" is also culpable for Trump getting elected.
There are three reasons I can think of as to why the Left indirectly helped get President Trump into office. I am hoping to understand differing views better because I believe progress will only occur when we have mutual accountability and find common ground.
1. I have quite a few Right-leaning friends who said there was no way they were going to see another Clinton in the White House. They say they were disgusted with Bill's extra-marital affairs and HRC's treatment of the whistleblowers. They also believe her to have knowledge of Benghazi and hate her for it. This made them come out to vote.
2. They told me that they are disgusted with the way the media and those on the Left have treated conservatives and their religious views. They feel that Liberals are inclusive as long as you are not a white Christian man. This made them come out to vote.
3. The DNC played games to get HRC as their candidate. Subsequent a large demographic who supported Sen Sanders just stayed home or voted third party on Election Day.
I have tried to discuss with my FB liberal friends and that was met with insulting and hateful replies. Which kinda reinforced my thoughts that the left are also driving that wedge deeper. I seriously walked into that storm.
I want to have faith in humanity that reasonable discussion will only help us and we need to analyze our behaviors into to grow positively.
In full disclosure so you can understand you audience (me), I lean libertarian and voted third party. I look at both sides and see good as well as bad. I lose every election so I understand the left's pain just for different reasons.
Note : FB politics have left a very sour taste in my mouth. Since this is a super heated topic, please please remember the rules to not be rude to others. On that note, I tried to choose my words such that they would not offend. If they did would you please comment or message me as to why so I can adjust my communication style to promote reasonable discourse.
Please help CMV that the Left is also responsible their role in current affairs.
Edit:
OP here. I am a Reddit newb and this is my first CMV. I am trying to reply to everyone but it seems to be near impossible. Plus I think my kids are outside scavenging for their food. I guess I need to feed them. :)
I am blown away in a positive way at the responses here. You all ran a broad range of how to reply to me. I saw facts used. I saw people use language similar to my views but were able to twist it enough to let me see it differently, some questioned the basis of my views which helped me understand I had some weaknesses there. This last point was so impactful for my as I got to experience firsthand the effectiveness of the Socratic Method. Holy cow this was awesome. Please don't be offended if I don't reply to your questions. I will make as much effort as possible; however, I need to go be a parent and I think some answers will require me to do research in order effectively respond. Holy cow, thank you for such a positive experience.
| > I have quite a few Right-leaning friends who said there was no way they were going to see another Clinton in the White House. They say they were disgusted with Bill's extra-marital affairs and HRC's treatment of the whistleblowers. They also believe her to have knowledge of Benghazi and hate her for it. This made them come out to vote.
Seeing as how these are all huge talking points on rightwing radio, I don't really understand what "the left" has done to be blamed for it.
> They told me that they are disgusted with the way the media and those on the Left have treated conservatives and their religious views. They feel that Liberals are inclusive as long as you are not a white Christian man.
In your view, precisely what could and should liberals do to be true to their liberal views of egalitarianism and social justice without making people feel this way?
> The DNC played games to get HRC as their candidate. Subsequent a large demographic who supported Sen Sanders just stayed home or voted third party on Election Day
Could you explain exactly what games the DNC played that resulted in Clinton instead of Sanders becoming the candidate?
Because unless you know something I don't, there was a huge fuss made out of smoke despite the fact that no fire ever existed. | I'm following this thread because primarily, as a Canadian, the DNC favouring the money and wanting Hillary instead of Sanders was their biggest mistake. However, there is a part of your argument I want to address:
It seems odd but at least from my PoV why does it matter that Bill's affairs have anything to do with Hillary? You weren't voting for a Clinton pair to run the US but rather Hillary. The FLOTUS (Or FMOTUS in this case) doesn't have any real power. | 5th9wy | CMV: The "left" is also culpable for Trump getting elected. | There are three reasons I can think of as to why the Left indirectly helped get President Trump into office. I am hoping to understand differing views better because I believe progress will only occur when we have mutual accountability and find common ground.
1. I have quite a few Right-leaning friends who said there was no way they were going to see another Clinton in the White House. They say they were disgusted with Bill's extra-marital affairs and HRC's treatment of the whistleblowers. They also believe her to have knowledge of Benghazi and hate her for it. This made them come out to vote.
2. They told me that they are disgusted with the way the media and those on the Left have treated conservatives and their religious views. They feel that Liberals are inclusive as long as you are not a white Christian man. This made them come out to vote.
3. The DNC played games to get HRC as their candidate. Subsequent a large demographic who supported Sen Sanders just stayed home or voted third party on Election Day.
I have tried to discuss with my FB liberal friends and that was met with insulting and hateful replies. Which kinda reinforced my thoughts that the left are also driving that wedge deeper. I seriously walked into that storm.
I want to have faith in humanity that reasonable discussion will only help us and we need to analyze our behaviors into to grow positively.
In full disclosure so you can understand you audience (me), I lean libertarian and voted third party. I look at both sides and see good as well as bad. I lose every election so I understand the left's pain just for different reasons.
Note : FB politics have left a very sour taste in my mouth. Since this is a super heated topic, please please remember the rules to not be rude to others. On that note, I tried to choose my words such that they would not offend. If they did would you please comment or message me as to why so I can adjust my communication style to promote reasonable discourse.
Please help CMV that the Left is also responsible their role in current affairs.
Edit:
OP here. I am a Reddit newb and this is my first CMV. I am trying to reply to everyone but it seems to be near impossible. Plus I think my kids are outside scavenging for their food. I guess I need to feed them. :)
I am blown away in a positive way at the responses here. You all ran a broad range of how to reply to me. I saw facts used. I saw people use language similar to my views but were able to twist it enough to let me see it differently, some questioned the basis of my views which helped me understand I had some weaknesses there. This last point was so impactful for my as I got to experience firsthand the effectiveness of the Socratic Method. Holy cow this was awesome. Please don't be offended if I don't reply to your questions. I will make as much effort as possible; however, I need to go be a parent and I think some answers will require me to do research in order effectively respond. Holy cow, thank you for such a positive experience.
| 1,486,844,451 | spainabney | ddmhplw | ddmhg5w | 36 | 2 |
CMV: The reason people aren't successful is because they are scared to do what they want to
Ok hear me out I'm technically a liberal and understand that just cause you work hard doesn't automatically mean you will be successful, but I am sick of people being scared to do that they want to do. They always search on the internet what jobs are good and what not like come on majoring or doing something you are passionate about will benefit you so much in the long run then just doing something cause it's a better "outlook" if you truly want something you can go get it stop asking randoms on the Internet if this is a good career choice or not. It's your life and it's your fault if your life doesn't fall according to plan. This is coming from a guy who finally decided to go for his passion and realizing I can do it and become successful in it. | I was an extremely successful waiter when I was younger. I loved the interactions with people, I liked how my hard work was immediately rewarded with cash, my co-workers and repeat customers respected me. By any measure one could say I was extremely successful at this job.
However, despite all of the success, I still never made more than 50k a year at most. Also, eventually the work was going to take a toll on my wrist (carrying heavy stuff) and my feet (speed walking for long hours all the time). Also, I wanted to do more stuff when I wasn't working that required me to make more money.
Today I am a business systems analyst, making a little more than 90k a year. I'm good at my work, but I'm certainly not as successful as I was as a waiter. I also don't enjoy the work as much.
However, I'm much happier because I have more money. Being able to go on vacations, play golf much more often, and be in a baseball league is great. But the real thing that makes me happy is the security.
If I get injured, I can still work. If I get seriously injured, I'll still get my regular paycheck every week. The extra money means that I can make small purchases without having to check my bank account first. The feeling of just being able to go to the grocery store, spend about a hundred dollars getting food for the week, and not even have to think about my bank account is amazing.
So given the choice between a low paying job I love, and a higher paying job I can tolerate, I'll always choose the latter. | I'm happy that you've taken a leap and things are working out. They don't work out for everyone. There are lots of great ideas that just can't be well monetized and there are lots of people with ideas that sound great but are actually really dumb. Ideas, especially for businesses, take a long time to validate and often people don't learn whether or not something can be successful until they've sunk significant time and money.
I don't know your history or situation but if you feel that the only thing that set you up for success was your courage and great idea, I'd suggest reconsidering (again, I don't mean this as a personal attack, I don't know you). Entrepreneurship (or doing anything novel) usually requires having some seed capital, even if it's just having enough cash to buy ramen and code. [Entrepreneurs from wealthy families tend to build more successful businesses](http://fortune.com/2015/07/17/entrepreneurs-family-money/) because they can accept more failures and leverage more capital in a friends and family round. They also tend to be better educated, connected, and able to go some time without income. Doing what you're scared of is risky, that's why it's scary. Lots of people simply can't afford to take that risk. Lots of people aren't smart enough or are simply wrong about what success will be.
TL;DR: Access and luck are not evenly distributed. There are many, many reasons why people aren't successful. | 5thy53 | CMV: The reason people aren't successful is because they are scared to do what they want to | Ok hear me out I'm technically a liberal and understand that just cause you work hard doesn't automatically mean you will be successful, but I am sick of people being scared to do that they want to do. They always search on the internet what jobs are good and what not like come on majoring or doing something you are passionate about will benefit you so much in the long run then just doing something cause it's a better "outlook" if you truly want something you can go get it stop asking randoms on the Internet if this is a good career choice or not. It's your life and it's your fault if your life doesn't fall according to plan. This is coming from a guy who finally decided to go for his passion and realizing I can do it and become successful in it. | 1,486,851,887 | BradBrady | ddms8fg | ddmnley | 7 | 3 |
CMV: The media and people in general need to be very careful about how much they're making fun of Trump.
There are a few different reasons, and when considered together, they explain why I feel this way.
It is quite obvious that Trump is deeply insecure. Deep down inside, he just wants to be liked and accepted. Despite his tough exterior, I think it truly hurts him when he sees all of the flak that he gets. His obsessive seeking of more power and authority has really been him seeking respect, which is all he really wants. He thinks that getting richer and more powerful will finally get people to like him, and it really upsets him that it's not working. He hired people to applaud at his speeches... I mean come on...
Secondly, he is not mentally stable. He is clearly not very emotionally intelligent, and he has a habit of lashing out, mostly via immature twitter rants. The guy actually lets an SNL skit get under his skin and gets legitimately upset about it. This guy is clearly not secure in himself, and he does not know how to brush things off. He holds grudges. He is not above lashing out in some really immature, childish way.
Lastly, he is arguably the most powerful person in the world right now. As much as I hate to encourage people to reel in their free-speech in order to appease a sociopath, I think this situation may call for it. He is mentally unstable, known to lash out and, in general, be impulsive, and he has the power to pretty much do whatever the hell he wants.
When a person like him is backed into a corner and mocked and laughed at and not given the respect that he so desperately wants, people like that eventually snap. Being POTUS has got to be one of the most stressful jobs in the world. That combined with all my previous points makes me think that we are poking a bear. Normally, making fun of someone like that to the point that they "snap" wouldn't matter because they wouldn't have the means to do anything crazy. But Trump does have the means to do a huge amount of damage. He is fucking crazy, and he pretty much has the means to do whatever the fuck he wants.
I don't know... I think we need to start showing more compassion towards him, and dare I say, empathize with his situation. Here is a quote another redditor posted that sums it up quite nicely.
"Imagine the pain and fear of those who spout such views.
How awful their life must be, truly living in fear of anyone who looks different from them.
How limiting it must be to only have one perspective, and never be exposed to another.
How tiresome it must be to always feel attacked by outsiders, when you truly believe they're there to harm you.
How painful it must be to see the world evolving and progressing without you.
Everyone has a reason for their views, regardless of how absurd or incorrect those views are. That reason is frequently rooted in pain, fear, or anger. Have compassion for their experiences that turned them into what they are today."
We're not going to make him a better person by making fun of him. We need to have compassion. If we keep poking this mentally unstable person, there's no telling how he's going to lash out next.
_____
| If he were to have a psychotic episode due to his emotional fragility, that would almost guarantee his removal from office under the 25th Amendment. Which, if you're rooting for impeachment right now, isn't a bad consolation prize.
To put it differently, if the president is an emotional weakling, wouldn't it be better for us to spin him out of control and get him out of office quickly, rather than let him continue to damage the country while he slowly succumbs to the pressure? | Do you really believe that he would break down over other's criticisms? I understand that the position he is in is a stressful one, but if he was really sensitive to being mocked, why would he have run in the first place? Why would he keep saying deliberately inflammatory things and not doing his research? It seems to me he is overly confident in himself and his abilities to the point where he completely dismisses arguments made against him.
Also, what is the worst thing that he could realistically due? | 5ti7su | CMV: The media and people in general need to be very careful about how much they're making fun of Trump. | There are a few different reasons, and when considered together, they explain why I feel this way.
It is quite obvious that Trump is deeply insecure. Deep down inside, he just wants to be liked and accepted. Despite his tough exterior, I think it truly hurts him when he sees all of the flak that he gets. His obsessive seeking of more power and authority has really been him seeking respect, which is all he really wants. He thinks that getting richer and more powerful will finally get people to like him, and it really upsets him that it's not working. He hired people to applaud at his speeches... I mean come on...
Secondly, he is not mentally stable. He is clearly not very emotionally intelligent, and he has a habit of lashing out, mostly via immature twitter rants. The guy actually lets an SNL skit get under his skin and gets legitimately upset about it. This guy is clearly not secure in himself, and he does not know how to brush things off. He holds grudges. He is not above lashing out in some really immature, childish way.
Lastly, he is arguably the most powerful person in the world right now. As much as I hate to encourage people to reel in their free-speech in order to appease a sociopath, I think this situation may call for it. He is mentally unstable, known to lash out and, in general, be impulsive, and he has the power to pretty much do whatever the hell he wants.
When a person like him is backed into a corner and mocked and laughed at and not given the respect that he so desperately wants, people like that eventually snap. Being POTUS has got to be one of the most stressful jobs in the world. That combined with all my previous points makes me think that we are poking a bear. Normally, making fun of someone like that to the point that they "snap" wouldn't matter because they wouldn't have the means to do anything crazy. But Trump does have the means to do a huge amount of damage. He is fucking crazy, and he pretty much has the means to do whatever the fuck he wants.
I don't know... I think we need to start showing more compassion towards him, and dare I say, empathize with his situation. Here is a quote another redditor posted that sums it up quite nicely.
"Imagine the pain and fear of those who spout such views.
How awful their life must be, truly living in fear of anyone who looks different from them.
How limiting it must be to only have one perspective, and never be exposed to another.
How tiresome it must be to always feel attacked by outsiders, when you truly believe they're there to harm you.
How painful it must be to see the world evolving and progressing without you.
Everyone has a reason for their views, regardless of how absurd or incorrect those views are. That reason is frequently rooted in pain, fear, or anger. Have compassion for their experiences that turned them into what they are today."
We're not going to make him a better person by making fun of him. We need to have compassion. If we keep poking this mentally unstable person, there's no telling how he's going to lash out next.
_____
| 1,486,854,936 | 8Electrons | ddmqhay | ddmp6l9 | 28 | 1 |
CMV: I don't think it's accurate to describe Milo Yiannopoulos as a Nazi
To lay it out up front: I *do* think he's an asshole; I totally respect his legal right to free speech; I *don't* think that that entitles him to any particular platform; I don't give a shit about whether he's allowed to speak on college campuses or not; I don't think he has anything all that original or interesting to say. All of that's irrelevant.
The point at hand: I think it's sloppy to call this dude a Nazi, and I think it's bad news to be sloppy on that front--we don't want people getting punched for the wrong reasons here, guys.
(For the purpose of this discussion, I'll borrow from [Wikipdia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism): Nazism is "a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism" that "aim[s] to overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous society, unified on the basis of 'racial purity.'")
To start with, I think part of the reason he's called a Nazi is because of his association with the "Alt Right." It seems to me that there are two distinct definitions of that term out right now: on one hand, you have the troll-y Trumpy memed up cartoon version of basic ass Fox News "conservatism," and then you have your actual hard core white supremacists. Compare [Yiannopoulos's intro to the Alt Right](http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/) with the [Daily Stormer's](http://www.dailystormer.com/a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-right/): there's a lot of overlap, sure, but the acceptance/rejection of racial purity as a central tennet is clearly a point of contention, and Yiannopoulos would seem to be pretty unambiguously on the un-Nazi side of it. By the same token (no pun intended), here he is arguing that "[white nationalism is not the answer](http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/01/26/milo-white-nationalism-is-not-the-answer/)."
To signal my own virtues here: Yiannopoulos's flirtation with hard core bigots is pretty fucking weird/trashy/repulsive. But whenever he's been pushed into a yes-Nazi or no-Nazi binary, he's chosen no-Nazi. He's no hero, but he's also not a Nazi on that count.
The most direct evidence I've seen of literal Nazi sympathies is [this image](https://i.reddituploads.com/84bf50fe7e9a4f0eb935650bdb0bfafd?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=cd00ce56f32ac6fdfe2196817119b6df). A few things about it:
* I can't find a source for those images.
* I have no sense of context, e.g. wearing an Iron Cross around town as a witless joke is very different from wearing one to a march.
* I think it's weird that the Nazi paraphernalia appears in separate pictures--or, more broadly, I have a blanket mistrust of internet photos as credible sources in and of themselves.
* Assuming this can be confirmed to be Yiannopoulos, that still only really makes him as much of a Nazi as [Prince Harry](http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/royal_gaffes/harry_nazi.jpg) without additional information.
To sum up: the Alt Right umbrella *does* refer to Nazis, but not always, and not (as far as I can tell) in Yiannopoulos's case. His social/political positions are backwards and dumb, but they comport almost entirely with Ann Coulter's rather than Adolph Hitler's. He's just the same old boring neocon nonsense, unworthy Nazi-level scorn or notoriety.
| Let me refer you to [this picture](https://i.redd.it/kx9fpj14tffy.jpg). If he's not a Nazi, why is he obsessed with wearing and publicly showing Nazi symbols and icons? | I mean he could be a Nazi deep down, but that's irrelevant what you are looking for evidence in is his public persona he uses to make money | 5tifeq | CMV: I don't think it's accurate to describe Milo Yiannopoulos as a Nazi | To lay it out up front: I *do* think he's an asshole; I totally respect his legal right to free speech; I *don't* think that that entitles him to any particular platform; I don't give a shit about whether he's allowed to speak on college campuses or not; I don't think he has anything all that original or interesting to say. All of that's irrelevant.
The point at hand: I think it's sloppy to call this dude a Nazi, and I think it's bad news to be sloppy on that front--we don't want people getting punched for the wrong reasons here, guys.
(For the purpose of this discussion, I'll borrow from [Wikipdia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism): Nazism is "a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism" that "aim[s] to overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous society, unified on the basis of 'racial purity.'")
To start with, I think part of the reason he's called a Nazi is because of his association with the "Alt Right." It seems to me that there are two distinct definitions of that term out right now: on one hand, you have the troll-y Trumpy memed up cartoon version of basic ass Fox News "conservatism," and then you have your actual hard core white supremacists. Compare [Yiannopoulos's intro to the Alt Right](http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/) with the [Daily Stormer's](http://www.dailystormer.com/a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-right/): there's a lot of overlap, sure, but the acceptance/rejection of racial purity as a central tennet is clearly a point of contention, and Yiannopoulos would seem to be pretty unambiguously on the un-Nazi side of it. By the same token (no pun intended), here he is arguing that "[white nationalism is not the answer](http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/01/26/milo-white-nationalism-is-not-the-answer/)."
To signal my own virtues here: Yiannopoulos's flirtation with hard core bigots is pretty fucking weird/trashy/repulsive. But whenever he's been pushed into a yes-Nazi or no-Nazi binary, he's chosen no-Nazi. He's no hero, but he's also not a Nazi on that count.
The most direct evidence I've seen of literal Nazi sympathies is [this image](https://i.reddituploads.com/84bf50fe7e9a4f0eb935650bdb0bfafd?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=cd00ce56f32ac6fdfe2196817119b6df). A few things about it:
* I can't find a source for those images.
* I have no sense of context, e.g. wearing an Iron Cross around town as a witless joke is very different from wearing one to a march.
* I think it's weird that the Nazi paraphernalia appears in separate pictures--or, more broadly, I have a blanket mistrust of internet photos as credible sources in and of themselves.
* Assuming this can be confirmed to be Yiannopoulos, that still only really makes him as much of a Nazi as [Prince Harry](http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/royal_gaffes/harry_nazi.jpg) without additional information.
To sum up: the Alt Right umbrella *does* refer to Nazis, but not always, and not (as far as I can tell) in Yiannopoulos's case. His social/political positions are backwards and dumb, but they comport almost entirely with Ann Coulter's rather than Adolph Hitler's. He's just the same old boring neocon nonsense, unworthy Nazi-level scorn or notoriety.
| 1,486,857,546 | ted_k | ddnfnkq | ddmtekd | 1 | -1 |
CMV:I Don't Think OJ Simpson Murdered His Ex Wife or the Waiter (At least not beyond a reasonable doubt)
So basically, I was just watching that OJ Simpson trial thing on Netflix and decided to do some of my own research along with it, and I just don't think that we can reasonably say he did it. He was demonized by the media and everyone, but we have Fuhrman admitting that not only he, but many other members of the LAPD have assaulted black people, planted evidence, etc. previously. This knowledge alone in my mind is enough to cast reasonable doubt. Moreover, OJ's ex-wife apparently wasn't exactly hanging out with the best group of people, she was a drug addict and just had a pretty sleazy lifestyle. Would it not be surprising if she got into an altercation or had debts to pay to some less than friendly people? As for the hair and blood evidence, I would say that it is completely possible for the police to fabricate it. Moreover, the blood sample was in fact left in the police officer's car and brought home to what was seen as a racist neighborhood. We cannot know whether it was tampered with or not. The hair I'm sure could easily be found in his house and planted. Knowing the LAPD's history with black people, I would say that it is beyond reasonable to believe that OJ was framed (along with the fact that Fuhrman refused to answer when asked whether he tampered with evidence in this case) | There is reasonable doubt. But that was only created by the shit show that was the prosecutors. Yes Fruhman was a racist and his past definitely was sketchy but there still isn't any logical reason as to how the dna of goldman and brown got inside of the Bronco. Also the bloody foot prints of a size 12 very rare expensive shoe on the scene? That OJ owned. The evidence even without Furhman is still overwhelming.
The best way I've heard the case described is that they framed a guilty man. Also go check out "If I Did It" By OJ. That's essentially one big confession. The prosecutors really botched this case though. | Uh, just to clarify is your position "I believe there is reasonable doubt that OJ killed his ex-wife" or is it "I believe that OJ was framed by the LAPD." Because at different points in your post you kinda say both. | 5tiwgu | CMV:I Don't Think OJ Simpson Murdered His Ex Wife or the Waiter (At least not beyond a reasonable doubt) | So basically, I was just watching that OJ Simpson trial thing on Netflix and decided to do some of my own research along with it, and I just don't think that we can reasonably say he did it. He was demonized by the media and everyone, but we have Fuhrman admitting that not only he, but many other members of the LAPD have assaulted black people, planted evidence, etc. previously. This knowledge alone in my mind is enough to cast reasonable doubt. Moreover, OJ's ex-wife apparently wasn't exactly hanging out with the best group of people, she was a drug addict and just had a pretty sleazy lifestyle. Would it not be surprising if she got into an altercation or had debts to pay to some less than friendly people? As for the hair and blood evidence, I would say that it is completely possible for the police to fabricate it. Moreover, the blood sample was in fact left in the police officer's car and brought home to what was seen as a racist neighborhood. We cannot know whether it was tampered with or not. The hair I'm sure could easily be found in his house and planted. Knowing the LAPD's history with black people, I would say that it is beyond reasonable to believe that OJ was framed (along with the fact that Fuhrman refused to answer when asked whether he tampered with evidence in this case) | 1,486,863,467 | LoveMashine69 | ddmu13y | ddmtffo | 17 | 8 |
CMV: Most Employers and the Military should be allowed to discriminate genders for physical/biological reasons
Science has proven that men and women are physically different from each other. Men tend to be stronger, larger, and faster while women tend to be more flexible, shorter, and more slender. Many jobs that require the employee to perform physically which in most cases mean that men would be better because of their tendency to be stronger. In the military, the PT standard for women is lower than that of men meaning that if everything else was equal, they would get the same job. Additionally, women can become pregnant which would mean they wouldn't be able to work for several months. However, I also think that employers should not be allowed to discriminate if the job has no relation to physical performance, like a basic desk job.
Change my view
| You're saying that they should be allowed to discriminate based on gender because there are differences in strength, on average, between genders. What you're neglecting is that the variation is pretty high. Not all men are stronger than all women. Why should employers be allowed to discriminate based on gender and hire a weaker man over a stronger woman?
I think your argument is better suited for the thesis "employers should be able to discriminate based on strength, regardless of gender." | Let's talk about the military. It's true that they have physical requirements that people need to meet because being strong is one aspect of the job. But it's important to realize that it isn't the only aspect of the job. Our military doesn't only get in fist fights or need to be able to make 100 mile long treks. Sure being able to carry heavy things and walk long distances is important, but they do a lot of humanitarian missions, a lot of strategic planning, and a lot of other work. All of this work benefits from having people of both genders involved. Diversity helps teams function better, it helps them be more innovative and creative, it helps their productivity.
If they upped the physical requirements to be the same for both men and women then the consequence would be that the already skewed gender imbalance within their ranks would become even more skewed, and this would hurt their operations. | 5tj2wz | CMV: Most Employers and the Military should be allowed to discriminate genders for physical/biological reasons | Science has proven that men and women are physically different from each other. Men tend to be stronger, larger, and faster while women tend to be more flexible, shorter, and more slender. Many jobs that require the employee to perform physically which in most cases mean that men would be better because of their tendency to be stronger. In the military, the PT standard for women is lower than that of men meaning that if everything else was equal, they would get the same job. Additionally, women can become pregnant which would mean they wouldn't be able to work for several months. However, I also think that employers should not be allowed to discriminate if the job has no relation to physical performance, like a basic desk job.
Change my view
| 1,486,865,908 | Mobius_1_ISAF | ddmw2eg | ddmvv2r | 122 | 15 |
CMV: I think Sam Harris' argument against Islam is logically inconsistent
This is the video that prompted my view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60
Not part of my view, but just want to be clear that I think Affleck acted like an idiot in that "debate". He just threw labels at Harris and a bunch of the people on the left acted like Ben had achieved some great victory.
Here's the problem I have with Harris' argument:
1) He initially states that his issue is specific with the Islamic ideology itself, not Muslim people. Okay, following so far...
2) But then he supports his argument by referencing polls. Polls have to do with people; You can't poll an ideology. He references a few poll results that show a significant number of Muslims believe in oppression or violent acts.
So, already he's stuck. You can't make the argument that an ideology is dangerous *and that we need to do something about it* without bringing Muslims into it.
Unlike Christians, the vast majority of Muslims all happen to be a single ethnicity, Arab. This is why Ben is technically correct (although likely accidentally) to say that Harris' arguments are about race. If the Islamic ideology was exactly the same, but literally no one believed in it, or fundamentalist Muslims didn't exist, Sam surely would not be on Bill's show talking about this.
If the issue Sam had was truly only with the ideology itself, and not Muslims, then he wouldn't reference polls. He'd also be equally concerned with Christianity, since there is plenty of oppressive and violent stuff in that ideology as well. | > the vast majority of Muslims all happen to be a single ethnicity, Arab
This is [not true.](http://equip.sbts.edu/article/islam-and-ethnic-identity/) Quote:
> Likewise, the largest Muslim populations in the world are all in non-Arabic speaking countries: Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India, among others. **The majority of Muslims in the world are not Arabic in language or ethnic identity.** | Polls are demonstrative to show how ideology affects people, though. It's not inconsistent, it's just the only measure to demonstrate things - otherwise you're just having an argument in the abstract, which would have little to no utility. | 5tj3mn | CMV: I think Sam Harris' argument against Islam is logically inconsistent | This is the video that prompted my view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60
Not part of my view, but just want to be clear that I think Affleck acted like an idiot in that "debate". He just threw labels at Harris and a bunch of the people on the left acted like Ben had achieved some great victory.
Here's the problem I have with Harris' argument:
1) He initially states that his issue is specific with the Islamic ideology itself, not Muslim people. Okay, following so far...
2) But then he supports his argument by referencing polls. Polls have to do with people; You can't poll an ideology. He references a few poll results that show a significant number of Muslims believe in oppression or violent acts.
So, already he's stuck. You can't make the argument that an ideology is dangerous *and that we need to do something about it* without bringing Muslims into it.
Unlike Christians, the vast majority of Muslims all happen to be a single ethnicity, Arab. This is why Ben is technically correct (although likely accidentally) to say that Harris' arguments are about race. If the Islamic ideology was exactly the same, but literally no one believed in it, or fundamentalist Muslims didn't exist, Sam surely would not be on Bill's show talking about this.
If the issue Sam had was truly only with the ideology itself, and not Muslims, then he wouldn't reference polls. He'd also be equally concerned with Christianity, since there is plenty of oppressive and violent stuff in that ideology as well. | 1,486,866,175 | ZeusThunder369 | ddmv8co | ddmv7kd | 30 | 10 |
CMV: Renaming Calhoun College, Yale sets a dangerous precedent in recognizing historical figures
Yale University has taken the decision to rename Calhoun College to Grace Hopper College after continued pressure due to the controversy surrounding John C Calhoun's pro-slavery views.
While I am in agreement that his positions and policies were racist and deeply unethical, Calhoun was a typical Southerner of his time given he lived and died 15 years before the 13^th Amendment was ratified.
Calhoun made a significant contribution to Yale University during his studies there. He was a noted member of the Brothers in Unity debating society and graduated valedictorian in 1804. After graduating, he studied at Tapping Reeve Law School and enjoyed a distinguished political career. Calhoun was elected Vice President twice in 1824 and 1828 under Presidents John Adams and Andrew Jackson.
It is unremarkable for an institution such as Yale University to name a college after a man with such a distinguished academic and political career. For better or worse, Calhoun was a significant alumni with a political legacy.
The precedent set by this renaming implies that only historical figures judged to be ethical or acceptable in modern times are fit for contemporary recognition. I believe this concept overlooks any personal contribution made by a significant individual to an institution in an attempted to retroactively purify the historical figures honored and recognized today.
I believe there is value in having Calhoun's name on a college at Yale as it serves as a reminder of our own dark and destructive past while recognizing the good impression he left at Yale.
Recognizing figures in their historical context is very important. The late John Glen testified that women were unfit to be astronauts, is this sexist remark enough to prevent him from being recognized for his numerous achievements in manned spaceflight?
| Here's an excerpt from the email the president of Yale sent to the student body outlining the principles that guided their decision: "The Witt committee outlines four principles that should guide any consideration of renaming: (1) whether the namesake’s principal legacy fundamentally conflicts with the university’s mission; (2) whether that principal legacy was contested during the namesake’s lifetime; (3) the reasons the university honored that person; and (4) whether the building so named plays a substantial role in forming community at Yale. In considering these principles, it became clear that Calhoun College presents an exceptionally strong case—perhaps uniquely strong—that allows it to overcome the powerful presumption against renaming articulated in the report."
So Calhoun college was renamed because 1) Calhoun was an outspoken white supremacist and that was part of his *principle* legacy (unlike for example, George Washington) 2) He was controversial within his time. 3) Choosing Calhoun's name was in conflict Yale's stated values even at the time they chose the name 4) Calhoun college is a residential college, meaning it's supposed to be a name that students rally around as their identifier, like a mascot of sorts or the Hogwart's houses. Can you imagine being a black student placed in Calhoun college? It's one thing if it's the name of an obscure building on campus, it's another if it's central to student life.
So all these taken together, I think it makes sense to rename the building. It's not obscuring history, it's just not giving him the name of an important building that students are supposed to feel is their home.
edited for spelling, formatting | >I believe there is value in having Calhoun's name on a college at Yale as it serves as a reminder of our own dark and destructive past while recognizing the good impression he left at Yale.
>Recognizing figures in their historical context is very important. The late John Glen testified that women were unfit to be astronauts, is this sexist remark enough to prevent him from being recognized for his numerous achievements in manned spaceflight?
There are plenty of ways to recognize someone's contributions and achievements and to have reminders of our dark past other than having educational institutions named after them. The name can represent the values of the college.
Plenty of important historical figures held beliefs that are offensive by modern standards. But it is not their defining characteristic. Glen made a sexist is remark but is known for being an astronaut. Calhoun supported slavery and is known for being a politician that actively opposed the abolition movement. | 5tknjw | CMV: Renaming Calhoun College, Yale sets a dangerous precedent in recognizing historical figures | Yale University has taken the decision to rename Calhoun College to Grace Hopper College after continued pressure due to the controversy surrounding John C Calhoun's pro-slavery views.
While I am in agreement that his positions and policies were racist and deeply unethical, Calhoun was a typical Southerner of his time given he lived and died 15 years before the 13^th Amendment was ratified.
Calhoun made a significant contribution to Yale University during his studies there. He was a noted member of the Brothers in Unity debating society and graduated valedictorian in 1804. After graduating, he studied at Tapping Reeve Law School and enjoyed a distinguished political career. Calhoun was elected Vice President twice in 1824 and 1828 under Presidents John Adams and Andrew Jackson.
It is unremarkable for an institution such as Yale University to name a college after a man with such a distinguished academic and political career. For better or worse, Calhoun was a significant alumni with a political legacy.
The precedent set by this renaming implies that only historical figures judged to be ethical or acceptable in modern times are fit for contemporary recognition. I believe this concept overlooks any personal contribution made by a significant individual to an institution in an attempted to retroactively purify the historical figures honored and recognized today.
I believe there is value in having Calhoun's name on a college at Yale as it serves as a reminder of our own dark and destructive past while recognizing the good impression he left at Yale.
Recognizing figures in their historical context is very important. The late John Glen testified that women were unfit to be astronauts, is this sexist remark enough to prevent him from being recognized for his numerous achievements in manned spaceflight?
| 1,486,893,033 | RedMedi | ddndgr0 | ddna4n7 | 242 | 36 |
CMV: It is selfish to confess romantic feelings to someone who is potentially or certainly unable to reciprocate. It only makes yourself feel better while placing an unnecessary burden on them to be responsible for your feelings.
As stated I do not see a purpose to confessing unrequited love. It may potentially make you feel better to get it off your chest but it will not produce any positive gain to your target or your relationship with them. Consider for example the following scenario:
Person A has a crush on Person B. Person B is gay. Person A is straight.
Person A confesses that they have romantic feelings towards person B that they know person B is incapable of reciprocating.
Person A feels better, like they got a big secret burden off of their chest.
Person B is now questioning every innocuous facet of their relationship and whether isolated incidents had more than surface level meaning to them.
"There was that one time they called me cute, I took it platonically but maybe they meant more by it?"
"I dont know if I can be comfortable with platonic physical affection anymore knowing it is not platonic for them."
"The relationship feels awkward for me now, I don't know how to act around them anymore".
"Have I led them on somehow?"
"Should I be alone with them anymore?"
Person B may experience everything from undeserved guilt to frustration, anger, or doubt. These feelings would be exacerbated if person A and person B had a particularly close friendship.
What did person A get out of it?
Person A could have had multiple different motivations, potentially concurrent.
"Maybe just maybe they'll feel the same".
The problem with this reasoning is that you shouldn't go from 0 to 60 without putting the car through a few gears first. If you have a romantic interest in someone and believe there is the possibility they could reciprocate, you ask them out. Confessing feelings for someone you've never so much as been on a bona fide date with yet is the wrong approach to romance in general. If you ask them out and they decline, there is no real loss to the relationship as long as you take the rejection gracefully. However if you confess feelings and they do not reciprocate you will put strain on the relationship.
By confessing feelings you are increasing the burden placed on them to either reject or accept your advances, and it is a selfish and overwhelming approach.
"I know they cant reciprocate but it's killing me feeling this way and having to hide it. It would make me feel better to out all of the cards on the table."
You are making yourself feel better. You're doing no favors for your target. The emotional burden of your feelings is yours and yours alone and by confessing them as if you were confessing a sin you are trying to force your friend to help you carry the burden.
"They have a right to know."
They probably don't want to know. They aren't lying awake at night wondering if you secretly harbor feelings for them. They probably haven't given it much thought. Yesterday they did not have this problem on their plate and today they do.
In summation I really strongly disagree with common advice doled out on relationship subreddits dealing with unrequited love. I do not believe a confession of those feelings is the right approach. Rather I believe the feelings should be dealt with like any other inappropriate feelings you should not act on, with the extreme end being to address the feelings in therapy if they are problematic enough
Edit: I've awarded multiple deltas and considerably softened my view. | Ah. This is a classic. Having been both Person A and Person B, let me take a fairly extreme stance: Believing this will work is *arrogant* of A.
If you suppose that A will be able to completely suppress their feelings, without causing strain elsewhere in the relationship, without having to distancee themselves, without confusing B and without B figuring some things out on their own (especially if B knows A's sexuality), then sure. It could work out, I guess.
Even if it worked, A would still be underestimating B's ability to deal with, frankly, something that B is going to have to deal with in life. A would be being overprotective. An outside observer who has no reason to discount A's feelings in comparison to B's would not agree that it is the best solution. Still, if A wanted to do that, it would be alright.
But it doesn't work. That tension does not go nowhere. The *absolute best* case is that B sees their friend suffering and doesn't know why and will pushed away when they try. More likely the tension will leak to other areas,.
A must be honest with themselves about what they are capable of. Perhaps A is able to stop liking this person, and maybe that's the best route. But if they aren't, the suppression you suggest isn't going to help anything. It is not actually an option, it is an illusion. A will simply redistribute the tension in the relationship until it is in areas that A does not notice (but B will.)
**TL;DR**
Presuming that A is unable to overcome their feelings in reasonable time and effort, which would make the question moot:
- A is vastly underestimating B, and overestimating how much damage they will cause by confessing their feelings.
- A is vastly overestimating themselves. A is *not* taking the burden upon themselves. A is taking an illusory option that depends on abilities they don't yet know they don't possess, and ultimately being selfish by hurting B in ways that A won't notice and that B has no control over. They are avoiding the feeling of having hurt someone, *not avoiding hurting someone.* | >What if their sexual orientation is incompatible to your own?
What if it is? You're giving *them* the opportunity to decide that, rather than assuming. It isn't that uncommon for people who consider themselves as one sexual orientation to give the other side a try, given the right parameters. Meanwhile, it is actually quite common for people to make public representations about their sexuality that are either intentionally inaccurate or simply a result of personal inexperience or ignorance.
>Any lesbian can tell you how obnoxious and rife the male world is with the attitude thay every lesbian just needs to find the right dick.
Sure, and that is a pretty obnoxious attitude. But that's hardly a confession of love, more like a bad pick up line.
> I consider sexual orientation to be a fundamental boundary. A straight guy should not confess feelings to a lesbian. A lesbian should not confess feelings to a straight girl.
I think that's ill-considered for a number of reasons. First, whether or not the subject of the feelings can respond in kind, they might well simply wish to know in order to better understand the context of their relationship, or better understand the experiences and desires of the other person.
Second, many valuable romantic relationships do form "accidentally" in this way - between people who would never have expected to be attracted to each other. In those situations, both parties may experience cognitive dissonance and confusion, and possibly fear of social stigma and other concerns (gay sub-communities can be just as ostracizing to sexual orientation "apostates" as any Mormon town). The perception of and value that the subject places on love could well be a deciding factor, and to me it seems wrong to deny them this opportunity.
>Alternatively, what If they are in a relationship and your confession would most likely mean having to cut your friendship for the sake of respecting their partner?
That's their choice, and in actuality, isn't it much more selfish to deny them the right to do what you know they would choose, if you didn't keep them in the dark? | 5tlcgx | CMV: It is selfish to confess romantic feelings to someone who is potentially or certainly unable to reciprocate. It only makes yourself feel better while placing an unnecessary burden on them to be responsible for your feelings. | As stated I do not see a purpose to confessing unrequited love. It may potentially make you feel better to get it off your chest but it will not produce any positive gain to your target or your relationship with them. Consider for example the following scenario:
Person A has a crush on Person B. Person B is gay. Person A is straight.
Person A confesses that they have romantic feelings towards person B that they know person B is incapable of reciprocating.
Person A feels better, like they got a big secret burden off of their chest.
Person B is now questioning every innocuous facet of their relationship and whether isolated incidents had more than surface level meaning to them.
"There was that one time they called me cute, I took it platonically but maybe they meant more by it?"
"I dont know if I can be comfortable with platonic physical affection anymore knowing it is not platonic for them."
"The relationship feels awkward for me now, I don't know how to act around them anymore".
"Have I led them on somehow?"
"Should I be alone with them anymore?"
Person B may experience everything from undeserved guilt to frustration, anger, or doubt. These feelings would be exacerbated if person A and person B had a particularly close friendship.
What did person A get out of it?
Person A could have had multiple different motivations, potentially concurrent.
"Maybe just maybe they'll feel the same".
The problem with this reasoning is that you shouldn't go from 0 to 60 without putting the car through a few gears first. If you have a romantic interest in someone and believe there is the possibility they could reciprocate, you ask them out. Confessing feelings for someone you've never so much as been on a bona fide date with yet is the wrong approach to romance in general. If you ask them out and they decline, there is no real loss to the relationship as long as you take the rejection gracefully. However if you confess feelings and they do not reciprocate you will put strain on the relationship.
By confessing feelings you are increasing the burden placed on them to either reject or accept your advances, and it is a selfish and overwhelming approach.
"I know they cant reciprocate but it's killing me feeling this way and having to hide it. It would make me feel better to out all of the cards on the table."
You are making yourself feel better. You're doing no favors for your target. The emotional burden of your feelings is yours and yours alone and by confessing them as if you were confessing a sin you are trying to force your friend to help you carry the burden.
"They have a right to know."
They probably don't want to know. They aren't lying awake at night wondering if you secretly harbor feelings for them. They probably haven't given it much thought. Yesterday they did not have this problem on their plate and today they do.
In summation I really strongly disagree with common advice doled out on relationship subreddits dealing with unrequited love. I do not believe a confession of those feelings is the right approach. Rather I believe the feelings should be dealt with like any other inappropriate feelings you should not act on, with the extreme end being to address the feelings in therapy if they are problematic enough
Edit: I've awarded multiple deltas and considerably softened my view. | 1,486,905,194 | Osricthebastard | ddnqba4 | ddnfmuz | 145 | 58 |
CMV: We already have a school voucher system, but there is only one place kids can take their voucher: their local public school.
I am a public school teacher who supports a full, 100% school voucher system. I have spoken with numerous colleagues and administrators about this issue, and they all oppose vouchers. Many support school choice within the construct of public schools (such as magnet schools), but almost none support vouchers.
The problem is, none of them can formulate a decent rebuttal to my position. Most of them just oppose vouchers because they're supposed to, or if I'm being really cynical, because their jobs are at stake and they are being selfish.
The thing is, a true voucher system, which other countries like Belgium already do, isn't some loony, right-wing idea. The idea is very simple: the money should follow the child, not the school. As it is now, schools get funded by how many students enroll in their school. The amount of money that the state has is distributed to the districts, which then divide the money up according to their by-laws to each school, almost always based on attendance records. So in other words, we already have a de facto voucher system. When a kid goes to a school, the state gives that school money for that. The only difference between what we have and what I want is that there is only one option for the kid to give that voucher to, so he/she always gives it to the local public school, and either attends there or pays extra money and goes to a private school.
I feel that if people simply understood that being against vouchers is being for a monopoly, they'd break party lines and fight against that monopoly. It's failing our most vulnerable students and the data gets worse every time you look at it.
The ironic thing is, of course, that teachers and the left, two groups who claim to support equality the most, are fighting so strongly against vouchers.
In order to change my view, I'd have to be shown that public schools are not a de facto monopoly in a a de facto voucher system. Any pedantry and nit-picking won't change my view. I'd like to see the issue in a different light, because if I'm wrong, I don't want to continue pushing for something that will hurt the kids I work with and care for every day. | The opposition is pretty simple.
The voucher system will take money currently going to public schools and give a significant portion of that money to parents who are currently sending their children to private school. So after the voucher system is put in place, a lot less money will go to children who can't afford private schools.
It's a way to take money going to poor and middle class kids and siphon it to upper-middle class and wealthy kids.
The "voucher" idea can be summarized as follows: The poor get poorer, the rich get richer. | It's difficult to debate about the specifics of your system when you don't specify what country you're in. But assuming you're in the US, then I think your description is at least partially wrong.
You say: "As it is now, schools get funded by how many students enroll in their school. The amount of money that the state has is distributed to the districts, which then divide the money up according to their by-laws to each school, almost always based on attendance records."
But Wikipedia says: "Because a large portion of school revenues come from local property taxes, public schools vary widely in the resources they have available per student."
The fundamental idea behind a voucher system is that each student gets a fixed amount, which goes to the school they choose. But that's not what's happening - rather, much of the funding to schools is based off the property taxes in their area, instead of the number of students. So this isn't a de facto voucher system.
You might say "Ah, in that case, it's a de facto voucher system with different-sized vouchers and a monopoly." I guess so, but since the only defining features of a voucher system are choice and equal funding for students, then when you take both away then the claim would become a bit meaningless. | 5tmqi4 | CMV: We already have a school voucher system, but there is only one place kids can take their voucher: their local public school. | I am a public school teacher who supports a full, 100% school voucher system. I have spoken with numerous colleagues and administrators about this issue, and they all oppose vouchers. Many support school choice within the construct of public schools (such as magnet schools), but almost none support vouchers.
The problem is, none of them can formulate a decent rebuttal to my position. Most of them just oppose vouchers because they're supposed to, or if I'm being really cynical, because their jobs are at stake and they are being selfish.
The thing is, a true voucher system, which other countries like Belgium already do, isn't some loony, right-wing idea. The idea is very simple: the money should follow the child, not the school. As it is now, schools get funded by how many students enroll in their school. The amount of money that the state has is distributed to the districts, which then divide the money up according to their by-laws to each school, almost always based on attendance records. So in other words, we already have a de facto voucher system. When a kid goes to a school, the state gives that school money for that. The only difference between what we have and what I want is that there is only one option for the kid to give that voucher to, so he/she always gives it to the local public school, and either attends there or pays extra money and goes to a private school.
I feel that if people simply understood that being against vouchers is being for a monopoly, they'd break party lines and fight against that monopoly. It's failing our most vulnerable students and the data gets worse every time you look at it.
The ironic thing is, of course, that teachers and the left, two groups who claim to support equality the most, are fighting so strongly against vouchers.
In order to change my view, I'd have to be shown that public schools are not a de facto monopoly in a a de facto voucher system. Any pedantry and nit-picking won't change my view. I'd like to see the issue in a different light, because if I'm wrong, I don't want to continue pushing for something that will hurt the kids I work with and care for every day. | 1,486,921,261 | Garrotxa | ddnmxni | ddnmsta | 7 | 5 |
CMV: If the political split in the USA erupted into a civil war, it would be hopelessly one-sided in favor of conservatives/Trump supporters
Okay, so, let me say I don't necessarily hold this view. I was in a debate with my brother and I couldn't really rebutt his points, so I thought "where can I present these points and get them rebutted?" And then it came to me: the smartest people in the world, /r/ChangeMyView.
On to my actual points:
I don't have any facts to back up my points, just the general feelings I have based on experience, biases and cable news. If you have facts (polls, etc) that prove my points to be invalid, please present your evidence.
First, let's broadly split the USA into two groups. Group 1 ("G1") is the conservative Trump supporters and Group 2 ("G2") is the liberal anti-Trump crowd.
When it comes to weaponry, it's not a contest. G1 has wayyyy more guns. Many G1 folks have more than guns. They have larger weapons, body armor, maybe even explosives and stuff. So if it's an armed conflict, G1 has it, no question.
When it comes to training, G1 has people who know how to handle the guns they have, including many veterans and police officers. And even the ones who aren't formally trained are a lot of people who have spent time using guns and knives and stuff. So if it's about training, it's probably gonna go to G1.
Now, let's say there is no armed conflict. Let's say the two groups just split. Like, the red states secede or whatever. When it comes to survival after the split, G1 has coal, oil, tons and tons of farm land to grow food and raise animals. That is, G1 largely controls the parts of the country where things are produced. And G2 is just the opposite. G2 is consumers. G2 eats the food, burns the oil, etc. Without G1's farmland, G2 would starve.
G2 largest contributions to our country is administrative stuff. And also arts and entertainment, but if we are talking about winning a war, arts and entertainment aren't really a huge asset.
G2 controls almost all of the coasts, except the Gulf coast. So I guess G2 could conduct international trade much better than G1. And this matters in a war. So I guess G2 has this one.
G2 used to have factories and production, which would help in producing more bullets and guns to fight the war. G2 probably has greater technology at their disposal. But none of that matters if you're starving or have been struck my a bullet fired by a G1 weapon.
So it seems to me in an all out war (which is not going to happen, I know), G1 will have all of the advantages.
Please help me with this one. Cmybrother'sV. | Advantages of G2.
1) Banking centers. G2 has all the money.
2) Media centers. Hollywood and NYC will make far better propaganda than Bronson, MO. Any G1 people tired of watching Trump TV and sneak in Netflix, HBO, or the latest Iron Man movie will be clobbered with media portraying their own side as evil and G2 as justified and sympathetic.
3) Brain drain. G1 has staked itself out as the anti-intellectualism group, but they will suffer greatly when all the people who are smart and have knowledge are on the other side. Just the tech sector alone gives G2 a huge advantage.
4) Competent leadership - The side that makes decisions based on actual facts on the ground will have a huge advantage over the side whose leadership prefers intuition, conspiracy theories on twitter, and alternative facts.
5) Those guys with all the guns in G1? We saw in that recent takeover a Federal park those guys couldn't last a week without wanting to shoot each other. G1 has people collecting guns out of paranoia, while G2 has people collecting guns because they are actually out on the streets shooting people.
6) Urban warfare is far more difficult. Holding a major city under martial law will require tons of manpower for decades. Holding every major city under martial law? Impossible, especially since G2 owns the banking centers so how are you paying your 5 million man army for years on end?
7) Patriotisim. G2 is simply not going to split with G1 as long as the Constitution is maintained. That's not G2's style. We are committed to the Constitution. If there is a split, it will be because G1 ignores the courts or otherwise declares itself a dictator. In a long war, the value of being on the side of right cannot be understated. Those fighting for the preservation of democracy have a huge advantage over those fighting to end democracy.
To summarize, G2 has all the money, all the intelligence, all the know-how, all the competent leadership, (like you mentioned) dominates shipping centers, and all the right ideas.
Racism, authoritarianism, anti-intellectualism....what you are seeing is the final push for these dying ideas as they are wiped off the planet for good. Human civilization is on a forward progressive march. Evil may start with more guns and some militia groups (who are all uber-paranoid and can't work with others) but good will prevail. | >I don't have any facts to back up my points, just the general feelings I have based on experience, biases and cable news.
Modern American politics summed up in a single line. Depressing.
First of all, Civil wars don't just happen overnight. People aren't just going to take to the streets and start murdering people with different political opinions than them. Civil wars happen when a pre-existing group has a grievance that isn't being addressed by the ruling government. Not a group like black lives matter or the tea party, but a formal, organized structure that could already pass for a state in and of itself. Entire states, paramilitary organizations, or military defectors make civil wars. If there's to be an american civil war, either California has to secede, or a large para-military group has to arise overnight.
But to address your view more directly "conservatives would beat liberals in a civil war". This is so incredibly vague that you can't argue against it. Define conservatives? Define liberals? What are they fighting over? What's the scale? Are entire states fighting or just groups? What's the military doing? The national guard? The police? Trump? Congress? Is there any foreign involvement? Is it an election year? Is it winter? Is Pisces in retrograde?
There are a thousand questions that you could ask that would drastically change the outcome of any civil war. The fact that Trump supporters on the whole have more guns than Bernie supporters is almost irrelevant.
| 5tmr76 | CMV: If the political split in the USA erupted into a civil war, it would be hopelessly one-sided in favor of conservatives/Trump supporters | Okay, so, let me say I don't necessarily hold this view. I was in a debate with my brother and I couldn't really rebutt his points, so I thought "where can I present these points and get them rebutted?" And then it came to me: the smartest people in the world, /r/ChangeMyView.
On to my actual points:
I don't have any facts to back up my points, just the general feelings I have based on experience, biases and cable news. If you have facts (polls, etc) that prove my points to be invalid, please present your evidence.
First, let's broadly split the USA into two groups. Group 1 ("G1") is the conservative Trump supporters and Group 2 ("G2") is the liberal anti-Trump crowd.
When it comes to weaponry, it's not a contest. G1 has wayyyy more guns. Many G1 folks have more than guns. They have larger weapons, body armor, maybe even explosives and stuff. So if it's an armed conflict, G1 has it, no question.
When it comes to training, G1 has people who know how to handle the guns they have, including many veterans and police officers. And even the ones who aren't formally trained are a lot of people who have spent time using guns and knives and stuff. So if it's about training, it's probably gonna go to G1.
Now, let's say there is no armed conflict. Let's say the two groups just split. Like, the red states secede or whatever. When it comes to survival after the split, G1 has coal, oil, tons and tons of farm land to grow food and raise animals. That is, G1 largely controls the parts of the country where things are produced. And G2 is just the opposite. G2 is consumers. G2 eats the food, burns the oil, etc. Without G1's farmland, G2 would starve.
G2 largest contributions to our country is administrative stuff. And also arts and entertainment, but if we are talking about winning a war, arts and entertainment aren't really a huge asset.
G2 controls almost all of the coasts, except the Gulf coast. So I guess G2 could conduct international trade much better than G1. And this matters in a war. So I guess G2 has this one.
G2 used to have factories and production, which would help in producing more bullets and guns to fight the war. G2 probably has greater technology at their disposal. But none of that matters if you're starving or have been struck my a bullet fired by a G1 weapon.
So it seems to me in an all out war (which is not going to happen, I know), G1 will have all of the advantages.
Please help me with this one. Cmybrother'sV. | 1,486,921,432 | Ramza_Claus | ddnmrmn | ddnmbdz | 12 | 4 |
CMV: the spork is an inferior utensil
First, you have to look at the design. Its tines are simply too small to impale anything that a regular spoon couldn't either simply pick up or divide using its edge. So its main gimmick is essentially useless. However, some may argue that however small it's advantage may be, it is still a step up from a normal spoon. From a practical perspective, this is false, as the space created by the times makes any liquid held in the spoon more liable to fall out, creating a downside as opposed to simply bringing both a spoon and fork. Then, it is necessary to look at aesthetics. Although this is very subjective, it is an objective fact that no prominent, traditional restaurants use this supposedly advantageous instrument, probably because it looks tacky. I would also hazard a guess that, given the choice, everyone reading this now would prefer a spoon and fork given the choice. All in all, the downsides outweigh any positives. | Sporks are advantageous when eating ramen, noodles or similar dishes, because the spoon-part allows the soup/liquid to be consumed at the same time as the fork-part 'grips' the noodles. [This spork](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2051946/thumbs/o-RAMEN-SPOON-570.jpg?22) is designed specifically to allow for the consumption of a complete ramen dish with only one utensil. If you use a different utensil - like a fork, or chopsticks - you're forced to drink the soup from the bowl at the end, which isn't a very socially acceptable method of eating. Equally, using a spoon would make it very difficult to eat the noodles themselves, because of how notoriously slippy they are. | The spork is a superior utensil for backpacking, because it allows you to stab and scoop with one instrument rather than two, cutting down on weight. | 5tnn07 | CMV: the spork is an inferior utensil | First, you have to look at the design. Its tines are simply too small to impale anything that a regular spoon couldn't either simply pick up or divide using its edge. So its main gimmick is essentially useless. However, some may argue that however small it's advantage may be, it is still a step up from a normal spoon. From a practical perspective, this is false, as the space created by the times makes any liquid held in the spoon more liable to fall out, creating a downside as opposed to simply bringing both a spoon and fork. Then, it is necessary to look at aesthetics. Although this is very subjective, it is an objective fact that no prominent, traditional restaurants use this supposedly advantageous instrument, probably because it looks tacky. I would also hazard a guess that, given the choice, everyone reading this now would prefer a spoon and fork given the choice. All in all, the downsides outweigh any positives. | 1,486,928,600 | NecessaryPiglet | ddnq9jo | ddnq1sd | 20 | 4 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.