claim string | positive string | negative string | post_id string | post_title string | post_text string | post_author string | positive_chain_length int64 | negative_chain_length int64 | positive_comments list | negative_comments list | positive_comment_ids list | negative_comment_ids list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMV: Tenants Should Have The Right To Conduct A Background Check On The Landlord Before Moving Into The Landlord's Property
This is all based off of prior experience of dealing with a landlord that we sued in court and won judgement against the former landlord.
* **Background Check:** A mechanism to that checks for each person's Civil Charges, Civil Judgements, Criminal Charges, and Criminal Convictions
I believe that tenants have the right to conduct a background check on a landlord because of the following because there's an expectation for the landlord to follow the laws before, during, and after the tenancy. Not giving tenants the due process rights to conduct a background check on the landlord potentially diminishes the trust on the renting process because you wouldn't have an idea if the landlord's past tenants may have had an awful experience trying to make the tenancy work or to terminate the tenancy as smooth as possible. Once we've already received the landlord's eviction notice and we complied to it, the landlord never returned the security deposit after numerous attempts to contact until the landlord received papers that we sued him. Although we've never done a background check on the landlord, it would be beneficial for anyone that wants to do tenancy with the him that he's lost a case against us for illegally withholding a security deposit. Background checks would give tenants an idea of who they're going to pay rent to and an gauge of how likely he would honor the tenancy.
CMV Reddit! | How would you do this for the growing amount of corporate landlords? Like, who or what would you investigate on a blackrock or other large firm owned property?
---
Reputable Background Check Companies like Checkr, for example. Tenants should required, by law, and encouraged to be holisitic about screening their landlords.
---
why should tennants be required by law if they dont want to do it? thats just additional, useless paperwork | Is there anything currently stopping potential tenants from trying to get a background check on their potential landlords?
---
I think the OP is advocating that the government should require landlords to consent to it.
---
Exactly. | 1mlwhtl | CMV: Tenants Should Have The Right To Conduct A Background Check On The Landlord Before Moving Into The Landlord's Property | This is all based off of prior experience of dealing with a landlord that we sued in court and won judgement against the former landlord.
* **Background Check:** A mechanism to that checks for each person's Civil Charges, Civil Judgements, Criminal Charges, and Criminal Convictions
I believe that tenants have the right to conduct a background check on a landlord because of the following because there's an expectation for the landlord to follow the laws before, during, and after the tenancy. Not giving tenants the due process rights to conduct a background check on the landlord potentially diminishes the trust on the renting process because you wouldn't have an idea if the landlord's past tenants may have had an awful experience trying to make the tenancy work or to terminate the tenancy as smooth as possible. Once we've already received the landlord's eviction notice and we complied to it, the landlord never returned the security deposit after numerous attempts to contact until the landlord received papers that we sued him. Although we've never done a background check on the landlord, it would be beneficial for anyone that wants to do tenancy with the him that he's lost a case against us for illegally withholding a security deposit. Background checks would give tenants an idea of who they're going to pay rent to and an gauge of how likely he would honor the tenancy.
CMV Reddit! | leewilliam236 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "reginald-aka-bubbles",
"id": "n7teig3",
"score": 7,
"text": "How would you do this for the growing amount of corporate landlords? Like, who or what would you investigate on a blackrock or other large firm owned property? ",
"timestamp": 1754764474
},
{
"author": "leewilliam2... | [
{
"author": "tbdabbholm",
"id": "n7tdgjc",
"score": 64,
"text": "Is there anything currently stopping potential tenants from trying to get a background check on their potential landlords?",
"timestamp": 1754764117
},
{
"author": "Vicariocity3880",
"id": "n7tdrwl",
"score": 25,
... | [
"n7teig3",
"n7tev41",
"n7tfyl0"
] | [
"n7tdgjc",
"n7tdrwl",
"n7te5u9"
] |
CMV: The Facebook "whistleblower" is doing exactly what Facebook wants: giving Congress more reason to regulate the industry and the Internet as a whole.
On Tuesday, Facebook "whistleblower" Frances Haugen [testified before Congress](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/10/05/technology/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen) and called for the regulation of Facebook.
More government regulation of the internet and of social media is good for Facebook and the other established companies, as they have the engineers and the cash to create systems to comply, while it's a greater burden for start-ups or smaller companies.
The documents and testimony so far have not shown anything earth-shattering that was not already known about the effects of social media, other than maybe the extent that Facebook knew about it. I haven't seen anything alleged that would lead to criminal or civil penalties against Facebook.
These "revelations", as well as the Congressional hearing and media coverage, are little more than setting the scene and manufacturing consent for more strict regulation of the internet, under the guise of "saving the children" and "stopping hate and misinformation."
[I have no solid view to be changed on whether Haugen herself is colluding with Facebook, or is acting genuinely and of her own accord.] | You're right that Facebook says it's wanted more regulation form Congress, and hey, let's take them at their word that it's true.
But even if the whistleblower and Facebook both want more regulation, do you really believe that the whistleblower is "doing exactly what Facebook wants"? In other words, do you believe that Facebook wanted its research leaked and reported on in the worst light possible the way it has been?
---
Yes, if FB wants more regulation, I think this is an excellent strategy. If Facebook announced "We want regulation," you and many other people would be skeptical. You'd wonder what ulterior motives they have.
But if it looks like they don't want it, more people are going to support regulation.
---
They've literally said they want the regulation, though. Multiple times, even in front of Congress. Mark's post yesterday said it again, erstwhile trying to discredit the whistleblower and quell a PR disaster that's been created. Idk how it's reasonable to conclude that the whistleblower's actions are exactly what FB wants.
---
>They've literally said they want the regulation, though. Multiple times, even in front of Congress. Mark's post yesterday said it again
Do you have sources for this? I'm being told in other comments that Facebook doesn't want to be regulated.
---
Zuckerberg himself explicitly requested it in a testimony to congress.
article by the zuck
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-internet-needs-new-rules-lets-start-in-these-four-areas/2019/03/29/9e6f0504-521a-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-internet-needs-new-rules-lets-start-in-these-four-areas/2019/03/29/9e6f0504-521a-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html)
comments around 1 hour21 minutes
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CH1SaDjIZE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CH1SaDjIZE)
There is clips of him using even more explicate language in testimony to congress, literally saying something very close to *there should be more regulation on the social media from congress.* I don't want to take any more time digging it up, up t you if you want to look into it. It might be from that testimony or another i don't remember. | The problem with most conspiracy theories is that there's usually an easier way to achieve the same goal than the convoluted method people come up with. There's definitely a way that Facebook can pivot and capitalize on this. But that's just because they're a big business with a ton of power. They can always capitalize. If they wanted the industry to be more regulated, they could just lobby congressmen to do that. There's no need to hurt their own brand image in the process.
---
> If they wanted the industry to be more regulated, they could just lobby congressmen to do that.
I'm sure they are lobbying Congress as well, but part of a successful strategy is inducing the public to want more regulation.
Let me ask it like this: do you think this "whistleblower" coming forward will make it more or less likely that Congress will create new regulations on Facebook/the Internet?
---
They have other ways to lobby the public too. The whistleblower coming forward makes it more likely there will be regulations than if absolutely nothing was being done. But if Zuckerberg came out and just straight up said, "There has to be more regulations on the internet," I think that'd be even more effective, and it wouldn't carry the same negative brand issues.
---
> But if Zuckerberg came out and just straight up said, "There has to be more regulations on the internet," I think that'd be even more effective
Another user [is telling me](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q3fiso/cmv_the_facebook_whistleblower_is_doing_exactly/hfrlura/) that Zuckerberg *"literally said they want the regulation, though. Multiple times, even in front of Congress. Mark's post yesterday said it again..."* I'll have to look more into what he has or had not said publicly.
>They have other ways to lobby the public too.
I agree, but they would almost certainly be using multiple tactics. Some demographics will respond well to Zuckerberg asking for it. Some will respond better when it's primed to them as a "whistleblower" acting against the worst aspects of Facebook.
>it wouldn't carry the same negative brand issues.
It's a bit soon to know, but I'd like to see if public polling bears this out. I don't know that there's many people out there who would be shocked by anything she said. The negative brand issues she brought up were mostly already in the public consciousness.
---
>Some demographics will respond well to Zuckerberg asking for it. Some will respond better when it's primed to them as a "whistleblower" acting against the worst aspects of Facebook.
I just think that this is a bit of a weird reach. Yes, some people might like that. But they're gonna like having someone say they're sticking it to Facebook anyway.
Let's say this "whistleblower" really is doing all this all this at the behest of Facebook. That'd almost certainly be a crime. I'm not positive what the statute is, but you can't lie to Congress and I think this behavior constitutes something that would also likely be criminal. Facebook would be running the risk of a real whistleblower coming out and saying, "that first whistleblower was a plant! She had evil machinations." Now suddenly there would be a massive PR nightmare of FB deliberately misleading Congress and the American people and all that shit. And I still think the "plan," even if undetected, would likely have negative PR implications. Why deal with the huge headache of a massive criminal conspiracy, when they could largely accomplish the same goal through other methods? | q3fiso | CMV: The Facebook "whistleblower" is doing exactly what Facebook wants: giving Congress more reason to regulate the industry and the Internet as a whole. | On Tuesday, Facebook "whistleblower" Frances Haugen [testified before Congress](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/10/05/technology/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen) and called for the regulation of Facebook.
More government regulation of the internet and of social media is good for Facebook and the other established companies, as they have the engineers and the cash to create systems to comply, while it's a greater burden for start-ups or smaller companies.
The documents and testimony so far have not shown anything earth-shattering that was not already known about the effects of social media, other than maybe the extent that Facebook knew about it. I haven't seen anything alleged that would lead to criminal or civil penalties against Facebook.
These "revelations", as well as the Congressional hearing and media coverage, are little more than setting the scene and manufacturing consent for more strict regulation of the internet, under the guise of "saving the children" and "stopping hate and misinformation."
[I have no solid view to be changed on whether Haugen herself is colluding with Facebook, or is acting genuinely and of her own accord.] | IcedAndCorrected | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "muyamable",
"id": "hfrfexy",
"score": 2,
"text": "You're right that Facebook says it's wanted more regulation form Congress, and hey, let's take them at their word that it's true.\n\nBut even if the whistleblower and Facebook both want more regulation, do you really believe that the whi... | [
{
"author": "BackAlleySurgeon",
"id": "hfrizy2",
"score": 5,
"text": "The problem with most conspiracy theories is that there's usually an easier way to achieve the same goal than the convoluted method people come up with. There's definitely a way that Facebook can pivot and capitalize on this. But ... | [
"hfrfexy",
"hfrl8jr",
"hfrlura",
"hfrpf4s",
"hfs02va"
] | [
"hfrizy2",
"hfrlyek",
"hfrmpku",
"hfrp17m",
"hfrqe8r"
] |
CMV: The Facebook "whistleblower" is doing exactly what Facebook wants: giving Congress more reason to regulate the industry and the Internet as a whole.
On Tuesday, Facebook "whistleblower" Frances Haugen [testified before Congress](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/10/05/technology/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen) and called for the regulation of Facebook.
More government regulation of the internet and of social media is good for Facebook and the other established companies, as they have the engineers and the cash to create systems to comply, while it's a greater burden for start-ups or smaller companies.
The documents and testimony so far have not shown anything earth-shattering that was not already known about the effects of social media, other than maybe the extent that Facebook knew about it. I haven't seen anything alleged that would lead to criminal or civil penalties against Facebook.
These "revelations", as well as the Congressional hearing and media coverage, are little more than setting the scene and manufacturing consent for more strict regulation of the internet, under the guise of "saving the children" and "stopping hate and misinformation."
[I have no solid view to be changed on whether Haugen herself is colluding with Facebook, or is acting genuinely and of her own accord.] | First off the reality is that big companies almost always have an advantage over small ones in our system. In unregulated space the advantage is that they can leverage their massive user bases to create revenue streams that smaller companies simply can't use. In regulated space they can lobby the government in ways that a startup can't and spend money on compliance. So when they say "if we do this big companies will have an advantage" it's not that it isn't true it's just that it would also be true if we did nothing.
Big companies don't like change. Change means their currently profitable business model might lose some profitability. So I'm sure Facebook doesn't want regulation changes and they'll happily push the regulatory burden "Invisible hand" arguments to stop it but they probably also know whatever happens they're coming out on top.
Then the only arguments for or against regulation become consumer focused. I think the whistleblower is making it pretty obvious that consumers would benefit from more oversight.
---
> Big companies don't like change. Change means their currently profitable business model might lose some profitability.
I think this is a true statement, but companies like Facebook are also concerned about market share. I don't see increased regulatory compliance as being a signficant new expense for Facebook. They already have some such systems in place today without any explicit requirements to do so.
---
Why are you making the assumption that increased regulatory compliance wouldn't be a significant expense when you don't even know what the increased compliance regulations would be?
That seems like an extremely unwarranted assumption. Without it, your entire argument falls apart.
---
Internal auditor here, can confirm that complying with regulations, particularly new ones, is typically expensive and a PITA. Complying isn’t even the hard part usually - it’s proving you comply that really gets people.
Oh, you have moderators operating 24/7 to review content that’s been flagged? That’s nice. Show me the manual they follow to determine what’s allowable content. Are there any checklists they use? Any other work instructions? Good, now that we’ve got that out of the way, it seems that Moderator B was assigned 37,782 posts to review over the past year. I will now randomly pick 25 of these and ask for documentation proving that the moderator reviewed them and took appropriate action as dictated by the manual and checklist you just gave me. Better hope your moderator took good notes!! | The problem with most conspiracy theories is that there's usually an easier way to achieve the same goal than the convoluted method people come up with. There's definitely a way that Facebook can pivot and capitalize on this. But that's just because they're a big business with a ton of power. They can always capitalize. If they wanted the industry to be more regulated, they could just lobby congressmen to do that. There's no need to hurt their own brand image in the process.
---
> If they wanted the industry to be more regulated, they could just lobby congressmen to do that.
I'm sure they are lobbying Congress as well, but part of a successful strategy is inducing the public to want more regulation.
Let me ask it like this: do you think this "whistleblower" coming forward will make it more or less likely that Congress will create new regulations on Facebook/the Internet?
---
They have other ways to lobby the public too. The whistleblower coming forward makes it more likely there will be regulations than if absolutely nothing was being done. But if Zuckerberg came out and just straight up said, "There has to be more regulations on the internet," I think that'd be even more effective, and it wouldn't carry the same negative brand issues.
---
> But if Zuckerberg came out and just straight up said, "There has to be more regulations on the internet," I think that'd be even more effective
Another user [is telling me](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q3fiso/cmv_the_facebook_whistleblower_is_doing_exactly/hfrlura/) that Zuckerberg *"literally said they want the regulation, though. Multiple times, even in front of Congress. Mark's post yesterday said it again..."* I'll have to look more into what he has or had not said publicly.
>They have other ways to lobby the public too.
I agree, but they would almost certainly be using multiple tactics. Some demographics will respond well to Zuckerberg asking for it. Some will respond better when it's primed to them as a "whistleblower" acting against the worst aspects of Facebook.
>it wouldn't carry the same negative brand issues.
It's a bit soon to know, but I'd like to see if public polling bears this out. I don't know that there's many people out there who would be shocked by anything she said. The negative brand issues she brought up were mostly already in the public consciousness. | q3fiso | CMV: The Facebook "whistleblower" is doing exactly what Facebook wants: giving Congress more reason to regulate the industry and the Internet as a whole. | On Tuesday, Facebook "whistleblower" Frances Haugen [testified before Congress](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/10/05/technology/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen) and called for the regulation of Facebook.
More government regulation of the internet and of social media is good for Facebook and the other established companies, as they have the engineers and the cash to create systems to comply, while it's a greater burden for start-ups or smaller companies.
The documents and testimony so far have not shown anything earth-shattering that was not already known about the effects of social media, other than maybe the extent that Facebook knew about it. I haven't seen anything alleged that would lead to criminal or civil penalties against Facebook.
These "revelations", as well as the Congressional hearing and media coverage, are little more than setting the scene and manufacturing consent for more strict regulation of the internet, under the guise of "saving the children" and "stopping hate and misinformation."
[I have no solid view to be changed on whether Haugen herself is colluding with Facebook, or is acting genuinely and of her own accord.] | IcedAndCorrected | 4 | 4 | [
{
"author": "Inevitable-Ad-9570",
"id": "hfrmx9u",
"score": 27,
"text": "First off the reality is that big companies almost always have an advantage over small ones in our system. In unregulated space the advantage is that they can leverage their massive user bases to create revenue streams that sm... | [
{
"author": "BackAlleySurgeon",
"id": "hfrizy2",
"score": 5,
"text": "The problem with most conspiracy theories is that there's usually an easier way to achieve the same goal than the convoluted method people come up with. There's definitely a way that Facebook can pivot and capitalize on this. But ... | [
"hfrmx9u",
"hfrrs3c",
"hfs644t",
"hfs6v6j"
] | [
"hfrizy2",
"hfrlyek",
"hfrmpku",
"hfrp17m"
] |
CMV: I'm not a fan of euthanasia
More specifically I'm talking about voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.
There is no way to be sure patient is committing assisted suicide of their own free will. With 'normal' suicide person's will manifests through physical actions that they take to kill themselves. If a patient is incapable of performing these physical steps there is no way to be certain they actually mean it.
We've all said once in our lives that we want to end it but haven't actually done it. Same logic should apply to terminally ill patients. Even if they say they want to commit suicide, it doesn't mean they would actually do it if they were physically capable. So we shouldn't help them achieve it.
In cases where a person is physically capable of committing suicide on their own we should never help them. I don't think it's controversial.
But what if a person can only move one finger? They can push a button that delivers lethal overdose but can't do much else. I'd argue even in these cases physicians should not provide patients with means to overdose. Pressing a button is just too easy; it removes natural barriers that prevent us from hurting ourselves. For example, this theoretical patient would press the overdose button but would not hang themselves or otherwise actively kill themselves. Providing a patient with an easy way of killing themselves is intrinsically coercive and coercing people into committing suicide is generally considered bad.
*Disclaimer:* There are many good arguments for and against euthanasia. I'm interested in issues with my specific argument about free will. I also don't care much about legal status of euthanasia. | Could I summarise your view to see if I understand it?
1. If a person cannot physically kill themselves unassisted, there is no way to be sure they want to do that
2. Even providing the means to allow a person to directly kill themselves (ie. the button example) is not permittable because it makes the act too easy
Is that about right?
How do you feel about the right of people to kill themselves for other reasons? If I wanted to hang myself for example, do you see that as my right?
---
Yes, that's a good summary.
> How do you feel about the right of people to kill themselves for other reasons? If I wanted to hang myself for example, do you see that as my right?
Well you can obviously do it, whether you call it a right or not. I never understood what was the point of making suicide illegal as it was in many countries previously.
But yes, you have that right because you have ownership of your own body.
---
Do you believe that the potential for coercion overrides the right a disabled or very sick person has to have the same 'ownership of their own body' that an able-bodied person has?
In my state, voluntary assisted dying (euthanasia) is legal. Once the person is found to meet the criteria through a lengthy approval process, they are then given the medication that they can take if/when they choose to end their life. They can choose when and where they are, and who they are with when they take it. In the majority of cases, the person would be physically capable of taking the medication without assistance. Many who are approved never actually take it, but just knowing that they have the option to go on their own terms provides comfort.
Does this process sound OK to you, since it isn't a doctor actually administering the medication?
Edit: I want to add that part of the approval process in my state is that you must be in the late stages of am incurable, progressive disease and expected to die within six months. Do you think that making it 'too easy' to die by giving access to life-ending medication is better than dying slowly and painfully over the next few weeks or months, to the point where you require full time help with bathing, toileting, and eating, or to the point where you can no longer talk or even remember who your loved ones are? Are there not some cases where an 'easy' death is preferable? | What if it were a case of one being terminally ill and they want to go out on their own terms instead of being in immense pain for their last few months? We do it for dogs and cats. Why should people not get that luxury and freedom?
---
We kill pets at our own discretion. Do you suggest we kill fellow humans as well?
---
We do that and it is seen as an act of mercy and compassion. Why should humans not have that right if they are in a similar circumstance and are able to consent to it? | q3dmmn | CMV: I'm not a fan of euthanasia | More specifically I'm talking about voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.
There is no way to be sure patient is committing assisted suicide of their own free will. With 'normal' suicide person's will manifests through physical actions that they take to kill themselves. If a patient is incapable of performing these physical steps there is no way to be certain they actually mean it.
We've all said once in our lives that we want to end it but haven't actually done it. Same logic should apply to terminally ill patients. Even if they say they want to commit suicide, it doesn't mean they would actually do it if they were physically capable. So we shouldn't help them achieve it.
In cases where a person is physically capable of committing suicide on their own we should never help them. I don't think it's controversial.
But what if a person can only move one finger? They can push a button that delivers lethal overdose but can't do much else. I'd argue even in these cases physicians should not provide patients with means to overdose. Pressing a button is just too easy; it removes natural barriers that prevent us from hurting ourselves. For example, this theoretical patient would press the overdose button but would not hang themselves or otherwise actively kill themselves. Providing a patient with an easy way of killing themselves is intrinsically coercive and coercing people into committing suicide is generally considered bad.
*Disclaimer:* There are many good arguments for and against euthanasia. I'm interested in issues with my specific argument about free will. I also don't care much about legal status of euthanasia. | nnst | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "joopface",
"id": "hfr1gdf",
"score": 6,
"text": "Could I summarise your view to see if I understand it?\n\n1. If a person cannot physically kill themselves unassisted, there is no way to be sure they want to do that\n2. Even providing the means to allow a person to directly kill themsel... | [
{
"author": "DelectPierro",
"id": "hfr2n2k",
"score": 3,
"text": "What if it were a case of one being terminally ill and they want to go out on their own terms instead of being in immense pain for their last few months? We do it for dogs and cats. Why should people not get that luxury and freedom?",... | [
"hfr1gdf",
"hfr6w1h",
"hfs4n3r"
] | [
"hfr2n2k",
"hfrfno3",
"hfrfu69"
] |
CMV: Harming animals is not morally wrong
I know this is rather unpopular but here it is.
Nature is set up as us, the humans, vs. them, everyone else. As humans (and all animals) our goal is to survive and reproduce. Therefore, harming humans in anyway is bad. I don't see why, morally, it should apply to animals as a whole.
Harming animals that help humans is wrong because it hurts humans.
I think it's great if people go vegan or choose not to harm animals for health or environmental reasons.
I think preserving natural environments is important.
I think hurting peoples' pets is wrong because those people own those pets and you shouldn't hurt them.
CMV
Edit: I realize I am using the wrong word here. I meant ethically instead of morally
Edit 2: My mind has been changed. Drawing the line at species doesn't work and I misused the word morals, as I do feel bad about abusing animals I meant more on a phylispohical/evolutionary level | How would you feel if an intelligent alien species capable of understanding morality came to annihilate humanity and said the same exact thing to you?
---
I'd feel awful. But they're on another "team". They have no moral obligation to care for me.
---
I'm sure you realize that same rationale could be applied at any level. What makes it correct when applied to humanity but incorrect when applied to some subset of humanity? | Do you mean "harming" as in killing them to eat them or are you referring to all kinds of harm like uneccessary animal abuse too?
---
Both.
I think if you find animal abuse bad don't do it, but I don't see the moral argument for preventing harm (eating or abuse)
---
You don't see what's morally wrong about hurting an animal for no reason? Like if you saw someone torturing an animal just for fun and no other reason you wouldn't see the problem? Dude come on | g8r0zm | CMV: Harming animals is not morally wrong | I know this is rather unpopular but here it is.
Nature is set up as us, the humans, vs. them, everyone else. As humans (and all animals) our goal is to survive and reproduce. Therefore, harming humans in anyway is bad. I don't see why, morally, it should apply to animals as a whole.
Harming animals that help humans is wrong because it hurts humans.
I think it's great if people go vegan or choose not to harm animals for health or environmental reasons.
I think preserving natural environments is important.
I think hurting peoples' pets is wrong because those people own those pets and you shouldn't hurt them.
CMV
Edit: I realize I am using the wrong word here. I meant ethically instead of morally
Edit 2: My mind has been changed. Drawing the line at species doesn't work and I misused the word morals, as I do feel bad about abusing animals I meant more on a phylispohical/evolutionary level | CheesyBreadBoy | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "akbmartizzz",
"id": "fop2985",
"score": 2,
"text": "How would you feel if an intelligent alien species capable of understanding morality came to annihilate humanity and said the same exact thing to you?",
"timestamp": 1587951486
},
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "fop2kot... | [
{
"author": "Wondervv",
"id": "fop23yw",
"score": 1,
"text": "Do you mean \"harming\" as in killing them to eat them or are you referring to all kinds of harm like uneccessary animal abuse too?",
"timestamp": 1587951395
},
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "fop2d9f",
"score": 1,
... | [
"fop2985",
"fop2kot",
"fop3ea1"
] | [
"fop23yw",
"fop2d9f",
"fop2rw3"
] |
CMV: I was raised to believe man-made climate change is a myth
Growing up I was told climate change was a myth and sources like NOAA had been known to lie about climate data. As such I have trouble determining which sources are unbiased and which are not and I don’t know what to believe. If climate change is truly man-made, I want to take in unbiased, scientific info and get away from the conspiracies I was raised hearing. Can anyone break down the basics of climate change and why we know it’s anthropogenic?What are some good, factual sources regarding this? Please help me change my view! | I don't know what sources you find trustworthy if not NOAA? NASA has some pretty good resources on this if you want to take a look. Even Wikipedia cites itself really well.
Here's NASA's page: [https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/](https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
And Here's the Wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate\_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change)
Edit: An easy whether a source is bad is their citations. A bad source won't back itself up directly with research or scientific bodies. If you look at the bottoms of the NASA and Wikipedia articles they cite where they got their information from. And it's lots and lots of scientific papers and bodies. If a source doesn't do this while talking about a scientific topic, it's probably not reliable. Bad sources can still cite themselves well, but it's pretty rare. But that's why we have different scientific bodies sorting through all the research, summarizing it, and coming to conclusions.
---
Oh no, I’m not saying I don’t find NOAA trustworthy, sorry for the confusion. My mom just always talked about how untrustworthy they were. I’m ambivalent about them as I don’t know much about the organization. They are a trustworthy source, correct?
---
Yes, NOAA and NASA are very reputable sources. However, plenty of universities and third-party organizations have data as well. For instance, [Harvard publishes and supports climate change research](https://climatechange.environment.harvard.edu), as does the [Stanford School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences at Stanford University](https://pangea.stanford.edu/earthmatters/climate-change), along with [Climate Central, "An independent organization of leading scientists and journalists researching and reporting the facts about our changing climate"](https://www.climatecentral.org). Even the [United Nations hosts a Climate Change Summit](http://www.un.org/en/climatechange/). | [deleted]
---
Thank you! This is excellent perspective on NOAA especially. Thank you for helping establish a more scientific understanding of climate change.
∆
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/rehcsel ([55∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/rehcsel)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | b2l3vp | CMV: I was raised to believe man-made climate change is a myth | Growing up I was told climate change was a myth and sources like NOAA had been known to lie about climate data. As such I have trouble determining which sources are unbiased and which are not and I don’t know what to believe. If climate change is truly man-made, I want to take in unbiased, scientific info and get away from the conspiracies I was raised hearing. Can anyone break down the basics of climate change and why we know it’s anthropogenic?What are some good, factual sources regarding this? Please help me change my view! | KillemwithKindness20 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "linux_vegan",
"id": "eitcua8",
"score": 8,
"text": "I don't know what sources you find trustworthy if not NOAA? NASA has some pretty good resources on this if you want to take a look. Even Wikipedia cites itself really well.\n\nHere's NASA's page: [https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/](ht... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "eitctn9",
"score": 8,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1552929710
},
{
"author": "KillemwithKindness20",
"id": "eitg8x6",
"score": 2,
"text": "Thank you! This is excellent perspective on NOAA especially. Thank you for helping establish a more ... | [
"eitcua8",
"eitdanq",
"eitdxdj"
] | [
"eitctn9",
"eitg8x6",
"eitg9fa"
] |
CMV: I agree with Mike Pence that evolution should be taught as a theory.
I am unsure if you guys are aware, but Mike Pence, when he was Senator of Indiana, said we should be teaching evolution as a "theory." As a hardent atheist aiming to get degrees in various life science fields, I 100% agree with this.
A scientific theory can be defined as this: A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.
In science, a theory is considered universally true and is not called a fact because it is still open to more evidence. I applaud Mike Pence's courage for defending the Theory of Evolution in a state so deep in the Bible belt! I am glad I can trust a politician who respects Evolution as the scientific theory it is and has actually been taking measures for it to be taught as a theory! Being taught as a theory will place evolution in the same academic regard as the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Spacial Relativity, which are theories taught in schools across the country! Evolution is 100% real, and teaching it as a scientific theory, or "a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses" will teach Evolution as the truth that it is! Thank you Mike Pence! Thank you! | Pretty sure this breaks at least one rule.
---
Tell me which one.
---
Rule B
---
Why I didn't break rule B: I legitimately believe Evolution should be taught in schools as a scientific method and I explained so in my text.
Why I didn't break rule C: Because I agree with Mike Pence's statement that it should be taught as a theory, regardless of the difference in context or meaning.
---
But context is important. I could literally just say you agree with Mike Pence with no context and then that has a whole new meaning compared to you agree with Mike Pence about evolution being taught as a theory | He isn't using the scientific version of the word when he says that. When people say that specific phrase they mean the scientific word "hypothesis".
---
I know Mike Pence is an idiot who doesn't know what theory means I was being sarcastic. It remains I think Evolution should be taught as a scientific theory, aka a universally accepted scientific truth.
---
But your view is...wrong. You say you *agree with* Mike Pence, but are then purposely obtuse about what Pence is actually saying.
---
IT was satirical..
---
Then it violates rule C | 17injwj | CMV: I agree with Mike Pence that evolution should be taught as a theory. | I am unsure if you guys are aware, but Mike Pence, when he was Senator of Indiana, said we should be teaching evolution as a "theory." As a hardent atheist aiming to get degrees in various life science fields, I 100% agree with this.
A scientific theory can be defined as this: A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.
In science, a theory is considered universally true and is not called a fact because it is still open to more evidence. I applaud Mike Pence's courage for defending the Theory of Evolution in a state so deep in the Bible belt! I am glad I can trust a politician who respects Evolution as the scientific theory it is and has actually been taking measures for it to be taught as a theory! Being taught as a theory will place evolution in the same academic regard as the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Spacial Relativity, which are theories taught in schools across the country! Evolution is 100% real, and teaching it as a scientific theory, or "a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses" will teach Evolution as the truth that it is! Thank you Mike Pence! Thank you! | RealFee1405 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "a_rabid_anti_dentite",
"id": "k6vispd",
"score": 3,
"text": "Pretty sure this breaks at least one rule.",
"timestamp": 1698529136
},
{
"author": "RealFee1405",
"id": "k6viytb",
"score": 1,
"text": "Tell me which one.",
"timestamp": 1698529207
},
{
"au... | [
{
"author": "Drawsome_Stuff",
"id": "k6vhhzt",
"score": 21,
"text": "He isn't using the scientific version of the word when he says that. When people say that specific phrase they mean the scientific word \"hypothesis\".",
"timestamp": 1698528604
},
{
"author": "RealFee1405",
"id": "... | [
"k6vispd",
"k6viytb",
"k6vjbni",
"k6vkyny",
"k6vl9dr"
] | [
"k6vhhzt",
"k6vhrvt",
"k6vhx8y",
"k6vi222",
"k6vi5dk"
] |
CMV: You cannot be both Pro Unregulated Abortion and Pro Mandatory Vaccination at the same time.
A common argument pro-choicers use is that a woman should be able to choose what to do with her body, because it’s her body.
But it’s not just her body, it’s also a baby’s body it’s affecting. I understand that some abortions are necessary, such as to avoid a death, but I’m focusing on any abortion at any time.
The point of vaccines is to keep someone healthy. But if eating healthy isn’t mandatory as well, then the real point to make vaccines mandatory is to keep other people healthy. Other bodies.
So now the pro-choicers are suddenly anti-choice.
How can the two ideas coexist?
Change My View! | You're implying here that people who are pro-choice are in favor of anyone being allowed to have an abortion for any reason at any time. That's position is held by almost nobody. Most people who would describe themselves as pro-choice would also allow some restrictions to abortions, most notably late-term abortions when the life/health of the woman is not in jeopardy.
Also, the point of vaccinations isn't *just* to keep the individual healthy. It's also for heard immunity. Vaccinations are never 100% guaranteed to work. There are also some people who for medical reasons cannot receive a vaccination. The purpose behind mandatory vaccinations for all is to create a heard immunity so that the people who cannot get vaccines and the people for whom the vaccine doesn't work are also protected. If everyone around you is vaccinated and the vaccine works for the vast majority, then the disease isn't going to have a large enough infectable population to take root.
You argument fails on two basic premises: you have created a strawman position for pro-choice people which the vast majority do not hold, and you have falsely claimed that the purpose of mandatory vaccinations is to protect the individual receiving the vaccine.
---
My post must be confusing, because I do recognize that vaccines is more for the benefit of the masses. The argument is if someone wants to save the masses via mandatory vaccines, that should also want to save as many unnecessary abortions as possible.
---
Those who want to prevent diseases from spreading are concerned about protecting the lives of already born people through a simple injection. That value is not the same as wanting every single unborn potential life to be brought to life. Those are two different value systems. Wanting one but not the other is not a conflict or hypocritical because they're very different things.
Additionally while disease prevention is as simple as getting an injection, ensuring all fetuses are brought to life involves a lot more. It involves nine months of extreme physical and hormonal changes, some of which last beyond nine months or are even permanent, ending in vaginal labor which is the most painful thing that the average woman will ever experience, guaranteed wage loss and forced time off work, and all of this with the risk of severe complications up to and including death. Pro choice people aren't just thinking about "protecting" fetuses the way they think about protecting the masses from disease; they're also thinking about protecting women from being forced to endure all of this against their will. | Your view is that two ideas are incompatible with one another because they share some feature, and people should hold one or the other idea, but not both.
Note that your view is not about what **you** believe, but about what *other people* should believe.
The only thing that someone should need to do to change your view, then, is name one difference between the two ideas and explain that the difference is ethically meaningful to them.
So, here's one difference: the "other life" affected by abortion is a fetus, while the "other lives" affected by vaccinations are born children.
---
I believe a fetus is just a very small child.
---
You can probably understand, then, why people who don't share your personal belief don't find your argument persuasive. | b2k5u8 | CMV: You cannot be both Pro Unregulated Abortion and Pro Mandatory Vaccination at the same time. | A common argument pro-choicers use is that a woman should be able to choose what to do with her body, because it’s her body.
But it’s not just her body, it’s also a baby’s body it’s affecting. I understand that some abortions are necessary, such as to avoid a death, but I’m focusing on any abortion at any time.
The point of vaccines is to keep someone healthy. But if eating healthy isn’t mandatory as well, then the real point to make vaccines mandatory is to keep other people healthy. Other bodies.
So now the pro-choicers are suddenly anti-choice.
How can the two ideas coexist?
Change My View! | moms_spaghetty | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "VVillyD",
"id": "eit4dph",
"score": 7,
"text": "You're implying here that people who are pro-choice are in favor of anyone being allowed to have an abortion for any reason at any time. That's position is held by almost nobody. Most people who would describe themselves as pro-choice woul... | [
{
"author": "ThatSpencerGuy",
"id": "eit4f2o",
"score": 3,
"text": "Your view is that two ideas are incompatible with one another because they share some feature, and people should hold one or the other idea, but not both. \n\nNote that your view is not about what **you** believe, but about what *ot... | [
"eit4dph",
"eit5qjo",
"eit6wt3"
] | [
"eit4f2o",
"eit5t6c",
"eit6dzf"
] |
CMV: The Uvalde police did their job.
Really hoping this post doesn't go viral.
After reading considerable commentary on this latest school shooting, I can't help but think that, just like those "baby killers" of the 60's, the Uvalde police are being very unfairly condemned. First of all, they were doing what they were trained to do. Now, I can hear many people responding with, "but any normal human being would have charged in there, orders be damned". Those responding probably have the luxury of having a job where "orders be damned" carries no consequences. Those who do NOT have such a job understand that refusing to follow orders will, if you're lucky, only get you fired. Secondly, the protocol, up to that point, when responding to an active shooter situation was (and probably still is) to wait, assess the situation, and determine the best course of action that will save the most lives. Again, the first thing to do TO SAVE LIVES is to wait. If they had charged in there, blindly and stupidly, they would have fought very bravely and died very quickly. Then the shooter, knowing there was no one to stop him, would've taken his time, and the cops would've been criticized posthumously.
Can you provide a scenario, with real-life evidence PRIOR to the Uvalde shooting, where going against standard protocol resulted in saving lives? Can it be compared to the Uvalde shooting? Would the police at Uvalde been effective at saving lives, if they had charged in, with the Intel they had at the time? | They didn't follow training. The protocol has changed to include stopping the killing as fast as possible. The longer an active shooter is allowed to live, the more bodies they will tack up. Priority has to be given to *stop the shooter to stop the dying.* They were given this training multiple times before. They didn't follow their training because of a break down in command that caused confusion.
---
First of all, from all I've read, they were only given the training once (not that it wasn't enough, just to make sure we're not spreading any more rumors about this incident). Secondly, the situation changed from that of active shooter to barricaded shooter. Again, they were following protocol.
---
Did the situation change or the assessment change? A major distinction to argue. My opinion is that at least in a narrow sense, the initial assessment after two first on scene cops were injured was that yes, it was in that exact moment a barricaded subject given how little they knew, but that almost instantly that assessment was proven false and the status should have been amended back to active shooter. But. The damage as done and the poster set in to wait for a tactical team to make entry.
Unbeknownst to any FOS (first on scene) one of the 4th grade teachers (uninjured) was married to the sniper from BORTAC, and she texted him immediately. What we don’t know is how somehow this news quickly traveled to UPD who then failed to proactively engage UPD SWAT but instead settled into a posture of waiting for BORTAC. | The problem with Uvalde and the preception of the police in the US in general is that they have some sort of legal obligation to protect you.
This was propagated by the slogan "serve and protect". This is NOT true.
The courts have ruled 4 times that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens. Your safety, security and protection in the US are 100% up to you. (Warren v. District of Columbia, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Lozito v. New York City, DeShaney v. Winnebago County)
In Lozito v. New York for instance. A police officer walked up on Lozito being actively stabbed and instead of helping went and hid. The lawsuit was dismissed because they argued successfully the police have no "special duty to protect" Lozito or anyone else.
What Uvalde exposed and what everyone should realize are mutually exclusive propositions is that the police have the legal authority to stop parents from attempting to protect their children while at the same time having no legal obligation to even attempt to protect the children.
---
Important distinction - them not having a legal obligation to protect you, and them not doing their job, are different things.
There could be no legal requirement to protect you - but if part of their training is specifically to engage active shooters at soon as possible, then they did not do their job.
---
>There could be no legal requirement to protect you - but if part of their training is specifically to engage active shooters at soon as possible, then they did not do their job.
Shall we extend this to doctors and other professionals as well? I'm skeptical the courts would decide that malpractice is justified because their employer had bad policies. | 1fnkz5k | CMV: The Uvalde police did their job. | Really hoping this post doesn't go viral.
After reading considerable commentary on this latest school shooting, I can't help but think that, just like those "baby killers" of the 60's, the Uvalde police are being very unfairly condemned. First of all, they were doing what they were trained to do. Now, I can hear many people responding with, "but any normal human being would have charged in there, orders be damned". Those responding probably have the luxury of having a job where "orders be damned" carries no consequences. Those who do NOT have such a job understand that refusing to follow orders will, if you're lucky, only get you fired. Secondly, the protocol, up to that point, when responding to an active shooter situation was (and probably still is) to wait, assess the situation, and determine the best course of action that will save the most lives. Again, the first thing to do TO SAVE LIVES is to wait. If they had charged in there, blindly and stupidly, they would have fought very bravely and died very quickly. Then the shooter, knowing there was no one to stop him, would've taken his time, and the cops would've been criticized posthumously.
Can you provide a scenario, with real-life evidence PRIOR to the Uvalde shooting, where going against standard protocol resulted in saving lives? Can it be compared to the Uvalde shooting? Would the police at Uvalde been effective at saving lives, if they had charged in, with the Intel they had at the time? | proudbutnotarrogant | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "toadjones79",
"id": "lojskr3",
"score": 1,
"text": "They didn't follow training. The protocol has changed to include stopping the killing as fast as possible. The longer an active shooter is allowed to live, the more bodies they will tack up. Priority has to be given to *stop the shoote... | [
{
"author": "The_White_Ram",
"id": "loiz7ey",
"score": 4,
"text": "The problem with Uvalde and the preception of the police in the US in general is that they have some sort of legal obligation to protect you.\n\nThis was propagated by the slogan \"serve and protect\". This is NOT true.\n\nThe courts... | [
"lojskr3",
"lokwxy4",
"lolhqk8"
] | [
"loiz7ey",
"loj1boa",
"loj1py7"
] |
CMV: Democrat Leaders Extending the Patriot Act Shows Their Animosity Towards Trump is Mostly Rhetoric
Of course, most people are aware of the impeachment hearings against Trump. However, just yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to fund and extend the Patriot Act for an extended 3 months after December 20th.
It seems to me hypocritical to believe that Trump is unfit for office and abused his power and then proceeds to potentially give him more power--or at least extending the duration of his current powers.
Additionally, Representative Justin Amash attempted to amend the budget bill by removing the Patriot Act language but the amendment was blocked by the Democrats on the Rules Committee. Only 10 Democrats voted against the resolution, including AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Tlaib.
The Trump administration still retains authority to reinitiate the NSA call records program, the program where millions of innocent American calls had been collected, if they deem it necessary.
Given the fact that the Trump administration could potentially extend another 4 years, it seems questionable at best why Democrats would not strip him of some of the powers he could abuse when they had the opportunity to. Given this, it seems to me most of the rhetoric against Trump is just for show. When presented with something to act on, most of the Democrats chose to empower Trump, and allow his administration the power to listen and collect calls, information, and data on millions of Americans. | Disagree.
These two things are near totally unrelated.
Democrats right now are not capable of stripping him of his power, had they voted no, the government would likely end up shut down and well thatd be even worse.
Dont get me wrong I want the patriot act gone and I'm not happy they extended it. It just has little to do with their opinion on trump.
---
> Democrats right now are not capable of stripping him of his power, had they voted no, the government would likely end up shut down and well thatd be even worse.
Is not shutting down the government the complete stripping of Trump's powers?
---
No and a government shutdown would do nothing to stop Trump from calling up foreign leaders and demanding they use resources to help him take down a political rival, which is the abuse of power at the heart of impeachment. | >It seems to me hypocritical to believe that Trump is unfit for office and abused his power and then proceeds to potentially give him more power--or at least extending the duration of his current powers.
Beyond those powers explicitly authorized by the Constitution, it is the job of Congress to both legislate what powers the President has and to ensure those powers are being used properly. It's not hypocritical to give the President one power while simultaneously accusing him of abusing a different power.
---
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point. Are you saying the power of mass warrant-less collection of data is not an abuse of power and is authorized by either the Constitution or by Congress?
---
No. That's not at all what I'm saying. You said it's hypocritical to for Congress to accuse the President of abusing his power while simultaneously giving him other powers. I'm saying that's not hypocritical, because it's literally just Congress doing their job. I'm making no claims whatsoever about the legitimacy of any particular powers that have been authorized by Congress. | dzpr2z | CMV: Democrat Leaders Extending the Patriot Act Shows Their Animosity Towards Trump is Mostly Rhetoric | Of course, most people are aware of the impeachment hearings against Trump. However, just yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to fund and extend the Patriot Act for an extended 3 months after December 20th.
It seems to me hypocritical to believe that Trump is unfit for office and abused his power and then proceeds to potentially give him more power--or at least extending the duration of his current powers.
Additionally, Representative Justin Amash attempted to amend the budget bill by removing the Patriot Act language but the amendment was blocked by the Democrats on the Rules Committee. Only 10 Democrats voted against the resolution, including AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Tlaib.
The Trump administration still retains authority to reinitiate the NSA call records program, the program where millions of innocent American calls had been collected, if they deem it necessary.
Given the fact that the Trump administration could potentially extend another 4 years, it seems questionable at best why Democrats would not strip him of some of the powers he could abuse when they had the opportunity to. Given this, it seems to me most of the rhetoric against Trump is just for show. When presented with something to act on, most of the Democrats chose to empower Trump, and allow his administration the power to listen and collect calls, information, and data on millions of Americans. | Hayekian_Order | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "iclimbnaked",
"id": "f89cuy1",
"score": 7,
"text": "Disagree.\n\nThese two things are near totally unrelated.\n\nDemocrats right now are not capable of stripping him of his power, had they voted no, the government would likely end up shut down and well thatd be even worse.\n\nDont get m... | [
{
"author": "bigtoine",
"id": "f89cu35",
"score": 11,
"text": ">It seems to me hypocritical to believe that Trump is unfit for office and abused his power and then proceeds to potentially give him more power--or at least extending the duration of his current powers.\n\nBeyond those powers explicitly... | [
"f89cuy1",
"f89dvkz",
"f89ez4r"
] | [
"f89cu35",
"f89dqur",
"f89fla5"
] |
CMV: The term "mansplaining" is sexist. hypocritical, misandrist, and only designed to shut down debate.
Wikipedia defines it "to explain something to someone, characteristically by a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing"
It's sexist: It implies that this trait is entirely tied to either the male gender or the male sex. Sexism is defined as "stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex". This meets that requirement and then some.
It's hypocritical: The term itself is designed to be used to shut debate down. "Stop mansplaining" or "you're mansplaining". Both uses are always used in a condescending or patronizing term. The definition of mansplaining includes "condescending or patronizing" in the definition of the word, thus it's hypocritical.
It's misandrist: The wording of the word and the way it's commonly used is entirely pointed at men and in a way to make men feel bad for being men, something none of us have any control over. It's misandrist.
It's designed to shot-down debate: The term has CLEARLY been created to be used as a tool to entirely shut down debate. I've seen it used several times and each time the person that uses it is looking to discredit their opponent by using it. In the same vein as "you're a racist", "you're an asshole", "you're mansplaining" is used as an ad hominem and a character attack as a way to shoot down their opponents argument. Both these are logical fallacies. It is clearly used to shut down debate.
> *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!* | It is something that exists.
As I man, I've seen it. First hand.
I once got car parts and I brought along a female friend who was an auto mechanic.
I was able to buy my parts. She got questioned a lot if she knew what to do with them.
The only difference in our treatment was our gender. We were two people buying car parts at a car part store. I was fine. She got the 3rd degree. It was just assumed that she didn't know what she was doing just because she was a woman.
That was an example of ms. When my wife walked into a science room and was asked if she was lost that was in a similar vein.
There are certainly men who feel that women don't about certain topics just because of their gender. This does happen.
If it wasn't for our gender, why did my auto mechanic friend get asked if she knew what she was doing and I got a pass.
---
I agree but I wasn't really arguing the existence of concept, just that the term itself was designed to be hurtful. It's a semantic argument. Additionally, I was arguing that since women can do the same thing (I've seen it when women discuss subjects it's assumed men know nothing about) that the term was unnecessarily gendered.
---
>In the same vein as "you're a racist", "you're an asshole", "you're mansplaining" is used as an ad hominem and a character attack as a way to shoot down their opponents argument.
There's a difference between your former two examples and mansplaining. Namely, "You are a _______" (a claim about a property or trait the person possesses), vs "you are _______ing" (an action being done or has been done).
Rather than being designed to be hurtful, mansplaining is a coining of a phenomenon and occasion for the person to critically examine their actions. It's an easy charge to refute as it has two parts: you did this action + for this reason. It's not asking you to explain all your actions ever, you just need to defend that specific situation (or concede that you were mansplaining) | > The term has CLEARLY been created to be used as a tool to entirely shut down debate.
The term was created by women to describe an experience they felt they often had that diminished or otherwise discounted their expertise in a way that reinforced sexist stereotypes. As best I know, the term appeared in response to [this LA Times article](http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/13/opinion/op-solnit13), in which a man started explaining a book to her that she had written. She doesn’t use the term, but the concept struck a chord and someone coined the word to describe the phenomena. It was not originally used as a debate tool, it was a way for women to explain their own experience of their expertise and knowledge being undervalued.
I’ve seen the phenomenon firsthand in a way that made me understand that it is distinct from general arrogance and condescension. Early in my career, I was put on a project with a PhD physicist. We were reviewing a technical issue and making some recommendations to management. I had a BA in poly sci—I was supposed to be to look at the policy aspects of the issue, but I joked my main role was to make her explain things to me repeatedly until I understood them, which meant she was ready to explain them to others.
The time came to present our findings. It’s going well, but something weird is happening. Every time she talks through one of the conclusions, our bosses would look to me for comments. I’d agree, they’d nod happily, we’d move on. You might thing they just wanted to make sure we both agreed, but it didn’t work the other way when I gave my policy points. It was a bizarre experience—at one point I really wanted to say “Yes, I do happen to accept the PhD’s conclusions on this complicated technical question.”
At least I thought it was bizarre. I worked with a few women scientists and it was amazing how often people would come to me or other guys first on things that the women clearly knew better. There were a couple of occasions when people came to my desk to ask a question, I turned my chair to ask one of the women on my team, and then turned back to provide an answer. The person asking would walk away showing no sign they even realized the absurdity of the exchange.
I’ve experienced condescension and had my insights dismissed. I was a poly sci major in a predominantly technical field. Especially straight out of school I had to overcome skepticism about my expertise. But this was always different. These were cases where people should clearly have known who the experts in the room were, but they still turned to me or another guy first.
To me, those were the situations that “mansplaining” was coined to describe. It’s not s logical fallacy, because it’s not an argument. It’s a label for a particular brand of jerkiness. Naturally, people use it as an ad hominem attack, but people do that all the time with all sorts of concepts.
---
Great story! I would just like to ask, is it possible that men and women have different ways of explaining things? Could this be a cause of men being more accepting of other mens explanations? Is there a biological cause that men tune out higher-pitched voices? Or, more likely, it's social, in that men are taught from a young age not to listen to women?
---
Men and women may have different ways of explaining things, but scientists (especially within a discipline) tend to talk about their fields in a fairly standard and predictable way. | 78lxei | CMV: The term "mansplaining" is sexist. hypocritical, misandrist, and only designed to shut down debate. | Wikipedia defines it "to explain something to someone, characteristically by a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing"
It's sexist: It implies that this trait is entirely tied to either the male gender or the male sex. Sexism is defined as "stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex". This meets that requirement and then some.
It's hypocritical: The term itself is designed to be used to shut debate down. "Stop mansplaining" or "you're mansplaining". Both uses are always used in a condescending or patronizing term. The definition of mansplaining includes "condescending or patronizing" in the definition of the word, thus it's hypocritical.
It's misandrist: The wording of the word and the way it's commonly used is entirely pointed at men and in a way to make men feel bad for being men, something none of us have any control over. It's misandrist.
It's designed to shot-down debate: The term has CLEARLY been created to be used as a tool to entirely shut down debate. I've seen it used several times and each time the person that uses it is looking to discredit their opponent by using it. In the same vein as "you're a racist", "you're an asshole", "you're mansplaining" is used as an ad hominem and a character attack as a way to shoot down their opponents argument. Both these are logical fallacies. It is clearly used to shut down debate.
> *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!* | GreasyPeter | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Iswallowedafly",
"id": "douvdtx",
"score": 119,
"text": "It is something that exists. \n\nAs I man, I've seen it. First hand. \n\nI once got car parts and I brought along a female friend who was an auto mechanic. \n\nI was able to buy my parts. She got questioned a lot if she knew what ... | [
{
"author": "Barnst",
"id": "douy2jv",
"score": 108,
"text": "> The term has CLEARLY been created to be used as a tool to entirely shut down debate. \n\nThe term was created by women to describe an experience they felt they often had that diminished or otherwise discounted their expertise in a way t... | [
"douvdtx",
"douvj4m",
"douw2wr"
] | [
"douy2jv",
"dov70h5",
"dovc7b2"
] |
CMV: The term "mansplaining" is sexist. hypocritical, misandrist, and only designed to shut down debate.
Wikipedia defines it "to explain something to someone, characteristically by a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing"
It's sexist: It implies that this trait is entirely tied to either the male gender or the male sex. Sexism is defined as "stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex". This meets that requirement and then some.
It's hypocritical: The term itself is designed to be used to shut debate down. "Stop mansplaining" or "you're mansplaining". Both uses are always used in a condescending or patronizing term. The definition of mansplaining includes "condescending or patronizing" in the definition of the word, thus it's hypocritical.
It's misandrist: The wording of the word and the way it's commonly used is entirely pointed at men and in a way to make men feel bad for being men, something none of us have any control over. It's misandrist.
It's designed to shot-down debate: The term has CLEARLY been created to be used as a tool to entirely shut down debate. I've seen it used several times and each time the person that uses it is looking to discredit their opponent by using it. In the same vein as "you're a racist", "you're an asshole", "you're mansplaining" is used as an ad hominem and a character attack as a way to shoot down their opponents argument. Both these are logical fallacies. It is clearly used to shut down debate.
> *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!* | It is something that exists.
As I man, I've seen it. First hand.
I once got car parts and I brought along a female friend who was an auto mechanic.
I was able to buy my parts. She got questioned a lot if she knew what to do with them.
The only difference in our treatment was our gender. We were two people buying car parts at a car part store. I was fine. She got the 3rd degree. It was just assumed that she didn't know what she was doing just because she was a woman.
That was an example of ms. When my wife walked into a science room and was asked if she was lost that was in a similar vein.
There are certainly men who feel that women don't about certain topics just because of their gender. This does happen.
If it wasn't for our gender, why did my auto mechanic friend get asked if she knew what she was doing and I got a pass.
---
I agree but I wasn't really arguing the existence of concept, just that the term itself was designed to be hurtful. It's a semantic argument. Additionally, I was arguing that since women can do the same thing (I've seen it when women discuss subjects it's assumed men know nothing about) that the term was unnecessarily gendered.
---
>the term was unnecessarily gendered.
While it's certainly true that anyone, regardless of gender, can be condescending to anyone else, also regardless of gender, the point of the term 'mansplaining' is to point out a specific, gendered dynamic that is common in our society. Many men frequently talk down to women specifically because they are women, and it is important to address this not just on an individual basis but as a part of a larger pattern.
To use a very, very imperfect analogy, think of the term 'senioritis'. Senioritis is just laziness and lack of regard for schoolwork and grades, and a student certainly doesn't have to be a senior to display either. However, we have a specific term for this behavior by seniors, specifically because they are reaching the end of their high school or college career, because it's a common phenomenon. Discussing laziness or lack of motivation on the part of a particular senior doesn't address how their actions are part of a larger dynamic.
Now, senioritis isn't a societal problem that has the be solved the way men's condescension to women is. However, it's similar in that it intentionally points out a specific dynamic in a particular kind of behavior. It's important to recognize that while yes, the term 'mainsplaining' was created to point out that the issue is gendered, that does not mean it's intended to be hurtful. | > The term has CLEARLY been created to be used as a tool to entirely shut down debate.
The term was created by women to describe an experience they felt they often had that diminished or otherwise discounted their expertise in a way that reinforced sexist stereotypes. As best I know, the term appeared in response to [this LA Times article](http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/13/opinion/op-solnit13), in which a man started explaining a book to her that she had written. She doesn’t use the term, but the concept struck a chord and someone coined the word to describe the phenomena. It was not originally used as a debate tool, it was a way for women to explain their own experience of their expertise and knowledge being undervalued.
I’ve seen the phenomenon firsthand in a way that made me understand that it is distinct from general arrogance and condescension. Early in my career, I was put on a project with a PhD physicist. We were reviewing a technical issue and making some recommendations to management. I had a BA in poly sci—I was supposed to be to look at the policy aspects of the issue, but I joked my main role was to make her explain things to me repeatedly until I understood them, which meant she was ready to explain them to others.
The time came to present our findings. It’s going well, but something weird is happening. Every time she talks through one of the conclusions, our bosses would look to me for comments. I’d agree, they’d nod happily, we’d move on. You might thing they just wanted to make sure we both agreed, but it didn’t work the other way when I gave my policy points. It was a bizarre experience—at one point I really wanted to say “Yes, I do happen to accept the PhD’s conclusions on this complicated technical question.”
At least I thought it was bizarre. I worked with a few women scientists and it was amazing how often people would come to me or other guys first on things that the women clearly knew better. There were a couple of occasions when people came to my desk to ask a question, I turned my chair to ask one of the women on my team, and then turned back to provide an answer. The person asking would walk away showing no sign they even realized the absurdity of the exchange.
I’ve experienced condescension and had my insights dismissed. I was a poly sci major in a predominantly technical field. Especially straight out of school I had to overcome skepticism about my expertise. But this was always different. These were cases where people should clearly have known who the experts in the room were, but they still turned to me or another guy first.
To me, those were the situations that “mansplaining” was coined to describe. It’s not s logical fallacy, because it’s not an argument. It’s a label for a particular brand of jerkiness. Naturally, people use it as an ad hominem attack, but people do that all the time with all sorts of concepts.
---
I am not OP, but I would like to probe further. In general, I think I agree with where OP is coming from.
To me, I absolutely agree that the type of thing described as "mansplaining" happens all the time. I also agree that it is often men doing it to women. However, I think that men doing it to other men, women doing it to women, women doing it to men, and any other combination of genders happens often too - so the gendered term for it seems less-than-perfect.
I know I can't change the words people are using, but if it were up to me, a gender-neutral term like, idk, "ignorsplaining" would be a better fit - we agree that talking down to someone when you don't understand their knowledge is a bad thing, regardless of everyone's gender.
I would then be totally fine talking about how ignorsplaining is most predominantly a male issue, and predominantly is directed at women.
Edit: I see this comment has gained a small negative score - if you disagree with me, I'd like the chance to have a discussion and change my mind if I need to.
---
> I would then be totally fine talking about how ignorsplaining is most predominantly a male issue, and predominantly is directed at women.
Then what’s the problem with the term mansplaining? The issue is gendered because of the power structures in our society. Men don’t really mansplain to men and women don’t to women because the whole issue is about how women’s knowledge/technical ability/etc. is not respected compared to men’s. If we allow that sometimes it’s possible for other gender combinations to do something similar, then the term mansplaining will do fine. | 78lxei | CMV: The term "mansplaining" is sexist. hypocritical, misandrist, and only designed to shut down debate. | Wikipedia defines it "to explain something to someone, characteristically by a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing"
It's sexist: It implies that this trait is entirely tied to either the male gender or the male sex. Sexism is defined as "stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex". This meets that requirement and then some.
It's hypocritical: The term itself is designed to be used to shut debate down. "Stop mansplaining" or "you're mansplaining". Both uses are always used in a condescending or patronizing term. The definition of mansplaining includes "condescending or patronizing" in the definition of the word, thus it's hypocritical.
It's misandrist: The wording of the word and the way it's commonly used is entirely pointed at men and in a way to make men feel bad for being men, something none of us have any control over. It's misandrist.
It's designed to shot-down debate: The term has CLEARLY been created to be used as a tool to entirely shut down debate. I've seen it used several times and each time the person that uses it is looking to discredit their opponent by using it. In the same vein as "you're a racist", "you're an asshole", "you're mansplaining" is used as an ad hominem and a character attack as a way to shoot down their opponents argument. Both these are logical fallacies. It is clearly used to shut down debate.
> *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!* | GreasyPeter | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Iswallowedafly",
"id": "douvdtx",
"score": 119,
"text": "It is something that exists. \n\nAs I man, I've seen it. First hand. \n\nI once got car parts and I brought along a female friend who was an auto mechanic. \n\nI was able to buy my parts. She got questioned a lot if she knew what ... | [
{
"author": "Barnst",
"id": "douy2jv",
"score": 108,
"text": "> The term has CLEARLY been created to be used as a tool to entirely shut down debate. \n\nThe term was created by women to describe an experience they felt they often had that diminished or otherwise discounted their expertise in a way t... | [
"douvdtx",
"douvj4m",
"douw317"
] | [
"douy2jv",
"dov70c9",
"dovc9re"
] |
CMV: Trump doesn't actually care about the border
Most of the people I know are voting for Trump specifically because of the "border crisis". In the recent presidential debate, that was basically all Trump could talk about. However, earlier this year, Trump essentially killed a bipartisan border bill backed by Biden and written by Republican Senator Lankford so he could campaign on the border chaos. This doesn't seem like the actions of someone who cares about fixing the border. Funnily enough, Trump runs on being completely different from politicians, but this seems like the most cutthroat political move I've seen in my few years of following politics. Are there any good arguments against this? | Because the short attention span left needs to understand that the bipartisan border bill is proof trump is right and if it's an extremely important issue then they voted wrong in the last election.
Even more if trump can kill a bill when he has 0 political power it's questionable why biden can't get one passed.
---
None of that is relevant to my question.
>Even more if trump can kill a bill when he has 0 political power it's questionable why biden can't get one passed.
1) Trump had a majority in both houses of Congress but failed to pass any border legislation.
2) The current Republican party is a cult that worships Trump. Either you fall in line, or risk losing your job. He may not hold any political office, but he still has an incredible amount of influence.
3) This bill was negotiated by Republicans. They had to kill their own bill so Trump could run on this issue.
---
Hi op, on your main point: just because one republican senator helped write it doesn’t mean republicans supported. Even before “Trump” stopped it, the republican voices I listen to constantly said that Joe Biden needs to undo his executive actions and reinstate Trump policy. The bill wasn’t an attempt to close the border, it just hand-waved some policy so that the kind of minimally interested politics watchers that would be convinced on the issues by a single bill would accept it as Democrats doing something and the Republicans not, [for example this post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/UrIIm3xwO6)
But I am more bothered by your point 2. Partially because your point 1 already debunks it. But if you don’t want to take your word for it here is 538.
[Tracking Congress in the Age of Trump](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/)
[Does your member of congress vote with or against Biden?](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/house/)
A great example of modern journalism, “The Age of Trump” vs “With or against Biden”, but that’s not what we are talking about.
-37 Senate Republicans had a less than 90% alike Trump score.
- 1 Senate Democrat had a less than 90% alike Biden score, and that’s Joe Manchin who is called a DINO and left the party. In other words, he failed to fall in line and lost his job.
- 8 Senate Republicans had a better party line score than Kristin Sinema. She also had to leave the party for being too different. She was more loyal to her party’s president than over 85% of republicans and she got kicked out.
-Lankford has a 86.8% Trump score and a 24.2% Biden score. Joe Manchin has the lowest Biden score at 87.9%. However, the 24.2% Biden score is actually better low. That’s roughly Feinstein’s Trump score. If Ted Cruz* and Joe Manchin supported a Green Energy bill, would you argue it’s Bipartisan and any democrat who votes against it is shooting down their own bill? *Ted Cruz was actually less loyal to Trump than Sinema was to Biden.
Look at these numbers yourself and ask again which party demands more falling in line.
The idea that republicans are loyal to Trump or their party always bothers because it’s clearly biased. Republicans are a big tent struggling to hang on evangelicals, small government conservatives, and right wing populists, that’s why republican policy seems to be all over the place, and why it took so long to get a speaker. Democrats, on the other hand, are a reasonably well managed machine with consistent views (except on Israel).
American politics consists of the Democrat’s stance and not the Democrat’s stance. Sometimes not the democrats is enough to elect a president. | The border bill being referenced merely legalized illegal immigration into the country. It's focus was to process the people coming into the country uninvited.
---
That is 100% false.
---
Nope | 1foj8li | CMV: Trump doesn't actually care about the border | Most of the people I know are voting for Trump specifically because of the "border crisis". In the recent presidential debate, that was basically all Trump could talk about. However, earlier this year, Trump essentially killed a bipartisan border bill backed by Biden and written by Republican Senator Lankford so he could campaign on the border chaos. This doesn't seem like the actions of someone who cares about fixing the border. Funnily enough, Trump runs on being completely different from politicians, but this seems like the most cutthroat political move I've seen in my few years of following politics. Are there any good arguments against this? | Superb-Company-2735 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Orange_Spindle",
"id": "loqcryp",
"score": -9,
"text": "Because the short attention span left needs to understand that the bipartisan border bill is proof trump is right and if it's an extremely important issue then they voted wrong in the last election.\n\nEven more if trump can kill a... | [
{
"author": "DenyScience",
"id": "loq99zz",
"score": -7,
"text": "The border bill being referenced merely legalized illegal immigration into the country. It's focus was to process the people coming into the country uninvited.",
"timestamp": 1727201832
},
{
"author": "Biptoslipdi",
"... | [
"loqcryp",
"loqgegj",
"loqwalf"
] | [
"loq99zz",
"loq9jum",
"loqa0n5"
] |
CMV: I think living in the suburbs is stupid especially if you can afford city living.
I understand some cities may be prohibitively expensive and push you to the outer edges for cost reasons. But people who could afford a smaller place in the city in a walkable area near parks, biking trails, museums, and all of their friends, but choose to live out in the suburbs and have a long commute…I simply think they’re stupid and judge them.
I hate hearing people whine about a 1-1.5 hour commute. You made a crappy life choice and now you’re reaping the consequences. I hate hearing people whine about how they never see their friends who live in the city anymore because it’s too far of a drive to come to trivia night or book club. Again, you made a dumb choice, and I have no sympathy. Oh, also don’t want to hear you whine about how all you have time for is mowing your massive lawn.
Bottom line is I don’t think anyone needs a massive 3,000 square foot tacky bland mini mansion in the burbs. You’re forcing yourself to have a long commute and live in a cultural desert because you were too dumb to realize a small condo in the city would provide you with no commute time, access to your friends nearby, walkability, and culture (museums, things to do). Stop keeping up with the joneses and have an independent thought for once. | Your opinion seems to apply to a very specific type of person (possibly one or more of your friends that you're annoyed with). Some good reasons to live in the suburbs besides cost:
\- You have a dog and having a yard is better than having a condo
\- You have kids and having a yard is a safer and better experience for them
\- You like to entertain people, BBQ in the backyard, have a swimming pool, garden, birdwatch, etc
\- You work from home with no commute or your job is also in the suburbs
\- You can get into the city with public transport
\- The suburb you live in is walkable with amenities you like
\- You're close to other things outside the city that you enjoy like hiking trails or beaches
\- You want more space in your home and an easy place to park
\- You don't want to share walls
\- You don't want to be around a ton of people all the time
\- You like or need better air quality
\- There is less traffic in your suburb
I could go on for a long time
---
You don’t need a yard or huge suburban house for dogs, kids, or hosting. Dogs are happy as long as you can walk them and take them to a dog park. I would happily have a greyhound in my city apartment and go on daily jogs with her.
Kids in suburbs are car dependent, and have to be driven everywhere, so they can’t enjoy things like walking to school, walking to friends’ houses, etc. In a walkable dense city neighborhood a kid can have more autonomy to walk or bike safely without supervision and be more independent.
Personally, living in a cramped city apartment, I simply just host people in my small space. But if I need a huge amount of space, it’s very easy to rent out part of a brewery or bar for special occasions.
---
Sure, dogs are happy as long as they're walked, but having grown up with dogs and having a spacious backyard, I think it's a real benefit for them having the autonomy to go and run around and use the bathroom whenever they need to. I've never had a dog in the city (I live in a dense, walkable city at the moment, for context) but I imagine that the suburban backyard space is probably better for them.
I don't have kids so I can't comment on your second point, but like I said, I grew up in a non-walkable suburb and we did just fine biking to one another's houses/school. Not sure if I would've been happier or not in the city.
And to the hosting point--my family regularly hosts large events with extended family members. I, myself, regularly host events in my small space in the city. But I'm consistently capped on how many people I can invite before it gets too crowded/loud for my neighbors. In the suburbs this isn't nearly as much of a problem. And--the thought of regularly renting out part of a restaurant for events--really just isn't as feasible for most people as you might think. (You mention "renting out for special occasions," but for many families or people, hosting parties or get-togethers is far more frequent than just hosting for an annual "special occasion.") | - Less noise
- More nature
- Having a garden
- Less dangerous for kids
- Less dangerous in general (less crime).
---
Is it *actually* less dangerous? People say they don’t want their kid being kidnapped or whatever, but the odds of that kind of violent crime are sooo astronomically low. The true thing that is likely to kill your kids is the hundreds of extra miles you spend driving them around in the car back and forth between the burbs and the city, to see friends, attend events, etc. Statistically way more likely to kill them in a car accident than in some kind of gang shooting. If you live in a walkable city condo you just walk or bike a short distance to school. Way safer and nicer/more active
---
They didn't say kidnapping they said crime. Crime increases with population density (and poverty) | 1mkzim7 | CMV: I think living in the suburbs is stupid especially if you can afford city living. | I understand some cities may be prohibitively expensive and push you to the outer edges for cost reasons. But people who could afford a smaller place in the city in a walkable area near parks, biking trails, museums, and all of their friends, but choose to live out in the suburbs and have a long commute…I simply think they’re stupid and judge them.
I hate hearing people whine about a 1-1.5 hour commute. You made a crappy life choice and now you’re reaping the consequences. I hate hearing people whine about how they never see their friends who live in the city anymore because it’s too far of a drive to come to trivia night or book club. Again, you made a dumb choice, and I have no sympathy. Oh, also don’t want to hear you whine about how all you have time for is mowing your massive lawn.
Bottom line is I don’t think anyone needs a massive 3,000 square foot tacky bland mini mansion in the burbs. You’re forcing yourself to have a long commute and live in a cultural desert because you were too dumb to realize a small condo in the city would provide you with no commute time, access to your friends nearby, walkability, and culture (museums, things to do). Stop keeping up with the joneses and have an independent thought for once. | haunted_champagne | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Lambfudge",
"id": "n7n407w",
"score": 8,
"text": "Your opinion seems to apply to a very specific type of person (possibly one or more of your friends that you're annoyed with). Some good reasons to live in the suburbs besides cost:\n\n\\- You have a dog and having a yard is better than ... | [
{
"author": "Forsaken-House8685",
"id": "n7n10k8",
"score": 15,
"text": "- Less noise\n\n- More nature\n\n- Having a garden\n\n- Less dangerous for kids\n\n- Less dangerous in general (less crime).",
"timestamp": 1754675282
},
{
"author": "haunted_champagne",
"id": "n7n2xms",
"sc... | [
"n7n407w",
"n7n4t0a",
"n7nce7w"
] | [
"n7n10k8",
"n7n2xms",
"n7n3ear"
] |
CMV: There are no good reasons to get a Bachelor's degree or above from a low ranked university
I can understand if you're doing a Diploma from a low ranked university to try and transfer to a high ranked university, or if you're taking a few classes at a low ranked university to try and transfer to a high ranked university - but to actually get a Bachelor's degree, Master's degree or PhD from a low ranked university? I can't think of any good reason for doing so.
For example, let's say that you wanted to study agricultural science. Is there any reason to choose say, the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague over the University of California Davis, Cornell University, etc? Even if cost was a factor, couldn't you choose ETH Zurich at the very least? The reason I say this is because higher ranked universities generally are more respected, are much more rigorous, have better lecturers, are doing more research, have more funding, etc. So I think you're basically ruining your life, wasting your money and wasting your time if you go to a low ranked university.
_____
> *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!* | Speaking from many years of experience in the workplace, I can say that if you are looking for a job that usually only requires a bachelors, almost NO ONE cares what school you went to was long as you have the degree. I can't speak to grad school admissions or jobs requiring an advanced degree.
---
But what reason is there to choose a low ranked university over a high ranked one? I don't understand why anyone would do that. Even if it's cost, there are high ranked universities that are very affordable in Europe.
---
Here in the US there are degrees with close to 100% employment, such as geology.
Employers aren't in a position to be picky, they will take whatever reasonable and reasonably qualified person they can get. | Not that many people really care about where you attended school.
As long as you have a degree and show competency, you are fine in any job that just requires a four year degree.
---
It's not as if there are an unlimited number of jobs though. High ranked universities are more respected and more rigorous so you're basically making your life harder by going to a low ranked university, aren't you? So if that's the case, why do people still choose low ranked universities over high ranked ones?
---
No one really cares.
All they care about is if you can do the job or not.
| 78dqol | CMV: There are no good reasons to get a Bachelor's degree or above from a low ranked university | I can understand if you're doing a Diploma from a low ranked university to try and transfer to a high ranked university, or if you're taking a few classes at a low ranked university to try and transfer to a high ranked university - but to actually get a Bachelor's degree, Master's degree or PhD from a low ranked university? I can't think of any good reason for doing so.
For example, let's say that you wanted to study agricultural science. Is there any reason to choose say, the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague over the University of California Davis, Cornell University, etc? Even if cost was a factor, couldn't you choose ETH Zurich at the very least? The reason I say this is because higher ranked universities generally are more respected, are much more rigorous, have better lecturers, are doing more research, have more funding, etc. So I think you're basically ruining your life, wasting your money and wasting your time if you go to a low ranked university.
_____
> *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!* | antilisterine | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "brock_lee",
"id": "dot20fg",
"score": 9,
"text": "Speaking from many years of experience in the workplace, I can say that if you are looking for a job that usually only requires a bachelors, almost NO ONE cares what school you went to was long as you have the degree. I can't speak to g... | [
{
"author": "Iswallowedafly",
"id": "dot24gm",
"score": 20,
"text": "Not that many people really care about where you attended school. \n\nAs long as you have a degree and show competency, you are fine in any job that just requires a four year degree. ",
"timestamp": 1508823534
},
{
"aut... | [
"dot20fg",
"dot29x0",
"dot7xei"
] | [
"dot24gm",
"dot2bbq",
"dot2d45"
] |
CMV: There are no good reasons to get a Bachelor's degree or above from a low ranked university
I can understand if you're doing a Diploma from a low ranked university to try and transfer to a high ranked university, or if you're taking a few classes at a low ranked university to try and transfer to a high ranked university - but to actually get a Bachelor's degree, Master's degree or PhD from a low ranked university? I can't think of any good reason for doing so.
For example, let's say that you wanted to study agricultural science. Is there any reason to choose say, the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague over the University of California Davis, Cornell University, etc? Even if cost was a factor, couldn't you choose ETH Zurich at the very least? The reason I say this is because higher ranked universities generally are more respected, are much more rigorous, have better lecturers, are doing more research, have more funding, etc. So I think you're basically ruining your life, wasting your money and wasting your time if you go to a low ranked university.
_____
> *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!* | Once you have a year or two of relevant work experience, nobody cares the slightest bit about the institution you got your degree from. The only time the degree actually matters(bar the obvious alma mater discrimination which can occur in the hiring process) is during your first "real" job following university, and even then it takes a back seat to work experience.
While anecdotal, I received a degree from a lower ranked school(if you think of major universities as A tier this was B tier). During my time at university I also started and ran my own business. Not once during my professional career has anyone commented on my choice of University.
---
Okay but it's going to be harder to get work experience if you go to a low ranked university which is my point, you're basically making your life harder. Why would someone choose a low ranked university over a high ranked one? Doesn't make sense to me.
---
It really doesn't matter all that much is the point I'm making. Unless your first job is something highly competitive(which isn't a great idea in the first place), you're not going to have a problem. A department store doesn't really care if your management degree is from the local community college or a state college across the country.
---
You're still not addressing my CMV though. What benefit is there to go to a low ranked university over a high ranked university?
---
Name recognition, notable schools like wpi or Davison College are great for your education but if you are looking for work in Arizona good luck finding people that recognize the name off the top of their head.
Any State school is probably best as far as name recognition goes. I have never heard of University of Wyoming upon looking them up they are about 180 in at least one ranking system but when I read it I know it's a school in Wyoming and probably fairly large ( relatively). I wouldn't even feel compelled to look it up where Davison College (high ranked LA school) I know nothing about (and actually just learned I live about 20 minutes from it) I'm not going to bother googling it if I have a stack of applications to get through. | What if you are planning to go to Medical school, where a high GPA and good MCAT scores matter way more than where you went to school?
---
I'm in Australia so I don't know what MCAT is but wouldn't it be more impressive if you went to a high ranked university, had a high GPA and a good MCAT score? Again, there just doesn't seem to be any good reason to choose a low ranked university over a high ranked one. Why make your life harder?
---
Oh. In the US, it is more impressive, but the cutoffs for medical school are extremely drastic. Nobody who has the correct grades and correct test scores doesn't receive admittance to a medical school.
And poorer schools can actually make it easier to get a higher GPA, and the easier schoolwork gives you more time to study for the exam, so there's kind of an incentive to go to an easier school if you know you want to go to medical school.
---
∆ Okay I accept that for some disciplines, it can be better to go to a low ranked university over a high ranked one. However I still think that generally, it is stupid to choose a low ranked university over a high ranked one.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/hajjiali ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/hajjiali)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART
{
"comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this",
"issues": {},
"parentUserName": "hajjiali"
}
DB3PARAMSEND) | 78dqol | CMV: There are no good reasons to get a Bachelor's degree or above from a low ranked university | I can understand if you're doing a Diploma from a low ranked university to try and transfer to a high ranked university, or if you're taking a few classes at a low ranked university to try and transfer to a high ranked university - but to actually get a Bachelor's degree, Master's degree or PhD from a low ranked university? I can't think of any good reason for doing so.
For example, let's say that you wanted to study agricultural science. Is there any reason to choose say, the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague over the University of California Davis, Cornell University, etc? Even if cost was a factor, couldn't you choose ETH Zurich at the very least? The reason I say this is because higher ranked universities generally are more respected, are much more rigorous, have better lecturers, are doing more research, have more funding, etc. So I think you're basically ruining your life, wasting your money and wasting your time if you go to a low ranked university.
_____
> *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!* | antilisterine | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "MrGraeme",
"id": "dot24n0",
"score": 6,
"text": "Once you have a year or two of relevant work experience, nobody cares the slightest bit about the institution you got your degree from. The only time the degree actually matters(bar the obvious alma mater discrimination which can occur in... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "dot26ei",
"score": 2,
"text": "What if you are planning to go to Medical school, where a high GPA and good MCAT scores matter way more than where you went to school?",
"timestamp": 1508823643
},
{
"author": "antilisterine",
"id": "dot2e2r",
"score"... | [
"dot24n0",
"dot2cvk",
"dot2gyj",
"dot33m4",
"dougbhi"
] | [
"dot26ei",
"dot2e2r",
"dot2g9u",
"dot34t8",
"dot361e"
] |
CMV: "He's a jolly good fellow" is an abomination of human kind
He's a Jolly Good Fellow," such a simple tune for simple minds, isn't it? It's sung in celebration of mediocrity, a nauseatingly cheerful melody that our kind croons in the name of joy. To me, it screams of complacency, a collective pat on the backs of those who have achieved what exactly? Another rotation around our sun?
Every note, every word, it's just a painful reminder of the fragility and fleeting nature of mortal existence. Our lives are but brief sparks in the infinite darkness, and yet we sing and dance as though it means anything. It's laughable, really. But fear not, perhaps we can create a new song, a melody that celebrates the exquisite pain of existence, with verses that echo with the screams of the damned and refrains that promise endless torment. Now, wouldn't that be a jolly good tune? | Please enlighten us to your version of the complete lyrics
---
Something along the lines of:
He's a most unfortunate soul, For he's found himself in a malevolent hole. Dreadful cries instead of cheers, Elicits laughter, not tears.
In this cruel world, deep and hollow, He's a most unfortunate fellow. His pleas punctuate each sorrow, He's a most pitiful fellow, a sorrowful fellow.
Gone are his days of song and mirth, Condemned instead to rue his birth.
---
We're giving you what you want, don't you want suffering? Take my downvote >:D | Is there any chance you could restate your view with less verbosity and more clarity? It seems like you're talking about the some in connection with birthdays, which isn't really the context I've experienced it.
---
The only context I've ever heard the song (outside of maybe a music class in elementary school) was the 10-15 years the birthday song was held up in weird copyright shenanigans, so For He's a Jolly Good Fellow somehow became the default replacement in TV shows and movies. So many sitcoms had an episode ending with the characters all singing it like it was a perfectly normal thing to sing at a birthday party before blowing out the candles.
---
Okay. That want something I ever noticed. Maybe I wasn't watching the right shows. Either way, I think the phenomenon was limited to television.
So, birthdays aside, what is your view? | 17hxtcb | CMV: "He's a jolly good fellow" is an abomination of human kind | He's a Jolly Good Fellow," such a simple tune for simple minds, isn't it? It's sung in celebration of mediocrity, a nauseatingly cheerful melody that our kind croons in the name of joy. To me, it screams of complacency, a collective pat on the backs of those who have achieved what exactly? Another rotation around our sun?
Every note, every word, it's just a painful reminder of the fragility and fleeting nature of mortal existence. Our lives are but brief sparks in the infinite darkness, and yet we sing and dance as though it means anything. It's laughable, really. But fear not, perhaps we can create a new song, a melody that celebrates the exquisite pain of existence, with verses that echo with the screams of the damned and refrains that promise endless torment. Now, wouldn't that be a jolly good tune? | BigSwappy | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Aw_Frig",
"id": "k6qlywj",
"score": 16,
"text": "Please enlighten us to your version of the complete lyrics",
"timestamp": 1698442625
},
{
"author": "BigSwappy",
"id": "k6qmkg2",
"score": -21,
"text": "Something along the lines of:\n\nHe's a most unfortunate soul... | [
{
"author": "Alesus2-0",
"id": "k6qm0lh",
"score": 40,
"text": "Is there any chance you could restate your view with less verbosity and more clarity? It seems like you're talking about the some in connection with birthdays, which isn't really the context I've experienced it.",
"timestamp": 16984... | [
"k6qlywj",
"k6qmkg2",
"k6qpmyg"
] | [
"k6qm0lh",
"k6qq8uz",
"k6qqojr"
] |
CMV: The government doesn't have any special rights to products that make use of publicly-funded research.
I typically consider myself fairly fiscally liberal, but I saw two reddit posts in recent days I don't really agree with that garnered a lot of support from other redditors.
1) [If Software Is Funded from a Public Source, Its Code Should Be Open Source](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/an43i7/if_software_is_funded_from_a_public_source_its/)
(Note- I don't disagree with the main point of the article, I am all for open standards. I disagree with the idea that a university researcher can't patent software and spin it off as a private company because they are publicly funded).
2) [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Calls Out Sexism As Her Big Pharma Knowledge Is Labeled 'Inadequate'](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlexandriaOcasio/comments/anebj0/alexandria_ocasiocortez_calls_out_sexism_as_her/)
(Note- I don't disagree with AOC's claim that her treatment by the media and the op-ed in question is sexist, because it is. Rather, I disagree with her claim during the hearing that government funding justifies public ownership of the final product.)
Both these articles seem to be getting at an idea that because the government initially funds certain ventures, they have a right to mandate public access to the product at either reduced cost (pharma) or for free (open-source code).
I think that I fundamentally disagree with some of the redditors commenting on these posts when I think about the purpose of government research funding. In general, I think the government's role is to fund basic research projects and produce novel ideas that private industry can then use to benefit people in a wide variety of ways. This includes pharmaceuticals, advances in alternative energy, novel algorithms, etc. etc.
In other words, if government researchers publish open-access research papers about a promising pharmaceutical candidate that a big pharma company eventually develops into a patentable drug, that doesn't seem like a situation where the government can mandate the pharma company sell the drug at production-cost simply because they published the initial research. To me, this seems like a situation where the system is working well. Taxpayers don't fund research because they expect a direct financial payout. They finance research because they expect a preponderance of high-quality and creative research programs to lead to welfare-improving products in the end (such as new medicines). There may be other reasons to mandate reduced prices, such as the elasticity of demand when it comes to medicine. But to say that companies are obligated to lower prices because it was initially public-domain research doesn't seem correct to me.
There are other viable economic systems where the government can, for example, produce energy at cost. But because we live in a capitalist system we ought to use the power of the free market to soak up the innovative ideas that public universities and research programs produce and put them to work developing products people will purchase because they see value in them.
Is this the correct way to view public-private research relationships? Please, change my view!
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | >In other words, if government researchers publish open-access research papers about a promising pharmaceutical candidate that a big pharma company eventually develops into a patentable drug, that doesn't seem like a situation where the government can mandate the pharma company sell the drug at production-cost simply because they published the initial research. To me, this seems like a situation where the system is working well.
But it's actually not working well. I don't have issue with a private company taking publicly funded science and developing it into a product for profit. That's great. However, I also think the government has a perfectly reasonable role in mandating that those products aren't sold at highway robbery rates.
---
I am certainly with you- Martin Shkreli is no hero of mine!
I am thinking of a scenario more along these lines:
Suppose we have two drugs, A and B. A was initially researched in a public university and was eventually taken up by a pharma company, developed, and patented. B was purely conceived of, developed, and patented at a pharma company. My claim is not that the government has no right to regulate prices for either medicine- rather, I believe that the government has an equal right to regulate prices for *both* drugs. The government should have no special claim to regulating drug A because it utilized publicly-funded research to get started.
The reason I think this distinction is important is because it informs how we make our public policy. If we think that we can modulate drug prices because of initial public investment then we will discourage the use of public research by private corporations because they will factor this final consideration in when they choose what drug candidates to go after.
Perhaps this is a contrived scenario or does not adequately challenge your line of reasoning? I am interested to hear your thoughts.
---
That's a weird way of thinking of it.
To me it's much simpler -- if the public paid for it, the public should own it. Because that's how it works for pretty much anything else. If I pay you to say, build a house, the house is mine. If I pay you to research which building material is best according to some set of parameters, the results of the research are mine.
So if the public paid for a drug to be developed, the drug should belong to the public. | >I disagree with the idea that a university researcher can't patent software and spin it off as a private company because they are publicly funded).
Why should a university researcher get all the rights to an invention if he has been using public money to make that invention?
Should not the government get at least part ownership in the patent?
---
If the government wants to make a deal that says "You can take this research money as long as you give us part ownership of the patent for whatever you develop." That would be completely reasonable. If they give away funds for research, they can't reasonably try to claim that this was the deal after the fact.
---
Right. That should be the deal. | anizoy | CMV: The government doesn't have any special rights to products that make use of publicly-funded research. | I typically consider myself fairly fiscally liberal, but I saw two reddit posts in recent days I don't really agree with that garnered a lot of support from other redditors.
1) [If Software Is Funded from a Public Source, Its Code Should Be Open Source](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/an43i7/if_software_is_funded_from_a_public_source_its/)
(Note- I don't disagree with the main point of the article, I am all for open standards. I disagree with the idea that a university researcher can't patent software and spin it off as a private company because they are publicly funded).
2) [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Calls Out Sexism As Her Big Pharma Knowledge Is Labeled 'Inadequate'](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlexandriaOcasio/comments/anebj0/alexandria_ocasiocortez_calls_out_sexism_as_her/)
(Note- I don't disagree with AOC's claim that her treatment by the media and the op-ed in question is sexist, because it is. Rather, I disagree with her claim during the hearing that government funding justifies public ownership of the final product.)
Both these articles seem to be getting at an idea that because the government initially funds certain ventures, they have a right to mandate public access to the product at either reduced cost (pharma) or for free (open-source code).
I think that I fundamentally disagree with some of the redditors commenting on these posts when I think about the purpose of government research funding. In general, I think the government's role is to fund basic research projects and produce novel ideas that private industry can then use to benefit people in a wide variety of ways. This includes pharmaceuticals, advances in alternative energy, novel algorithms, etc. etc.
In other words, if government researchers publish open-access research papers about a promising pharmaceutical candidate that a big pharma company eventually develops into a patentable drug, that doesn't seem like a situation where the government can mandate the pharma company sell the drug at production-cost simply because they published the initial research. To me, this seems like a situation where the system is working well. Taxpayers don't fund research because they expect a direct financial payout. They finance research because they expect a preponderance of high-quality and creative research programs to lead to welfare-improving products in the end (such as new medicines). There may be other reasons to mandate reduced prices, such as the elasticity of demand when it comes to medicine. But to say that companies are obligated to lower prices because it was initially public-domain research doesn't seem correct to me.
There are other viable economic systems where the government can, for example, produce energy at cost. But because we live in a capitalist system we ought to use the power of the free market to soak up the innovative ideas that public universities and research programs produce and put them to work developing products people will purchase because they see value in them.
Is this the correct way to view public-private research relationships? Please, change my view!
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | kuriousgoomba | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "MasterGrok",
"id": "eftphfs",
"score": 1,
"text": ">In other words, if government researchers publish open-access research papers about a promising pharmaceutical candidate that a big pharma company eventually develops into a patentable drug, that doesn't seem like a situation where the... | [
{
"author": "Hq3473",
"id": "eftpath",
"score": 2,
"text": ">I disagree with the idea that a university researcher can't patent software and spin it off as a private company because they are publicly funded).\n\nWhy should a university researcher get all the rights to an invention if he has been usi... | [
"eftphfs",
"efttfzx",
"eftuvw9"
] | [
"eftpath",
"eftyni6",
"eftz1e7"
] |
CMV: The United States should use hundreds of nuclear weapons to create a canal connecting Saudi Arabia to the Indian Ocean through Yemen.
To clarify, this canal would be 1000 feet wide, the entire canal would be at sea level (so no locks needed), and it would go straight from Al Kharkhir (in Saudi Arabia) to Jadib (in Yemen). I assume that the governments of Yemen and Saudi Arabia would both be willing to sign off on the plan given the area is a giant, unoccupied desert and both governments stand to benefit significantly.
This would solve two big problems:
Problem #1:
Saudi Arabia’s ability to send oil and gas outside itself would be almost completely shut off if Iran decided to disallow shipping through the Straight of Hormuz. This would cause massive instability. A canal through Yemen (and a giant oil/gas terminal and pipelines at Al Kharkhir) would completely remove this leverage and help ensure the stability of the World’s energy supply and that of Saudi Arabia, which has been a significant stabilizing force in the middle east (although not the most ethical).
Problem #2:
There is a giant civil war going on in Yemen right now between the Houthis, and the internationally recognized government of Yemen. This civil war has caused a lot of suffering, and one of the main factors enabling it’s continuance is an external supply of weapons to the Houthis that is being sent to them both overland through Oman and by sea. The supply of sea weapons could easily be cut off if the US decided to impose a naval blockade against the parts of Northern Yemen where the Houthis are, and this giant canal would prevent overland supply if it was patrolled with naval boats (also easy). By cutting the supply of weapons to the Houthis, the Yemeni civil war would likely end after a certain period of time due to the Houthis running out of weapons, which would significantly improve the humanitarian situation in the country, weaken Iran (and further disable the ability of it’s proxies to spread religious extremism, harm to civilians and authoritarianism), and further increase the amount of stability in that region of the world, which would significantly benefit from that.
The costs of this plan would be relatively minimal given that:
A) Very few people are there, nor are there any resources that would be damaged via the detonation of a large number of nuclear weapons.
B) The US has way too many nuclear weapons to begin with, and this would be a more productive way of disposing them.
CMV. | First off, do you have any evidence we have enough nukes to actually do this?
Second off, do you have evidence that two nations would allow another to go around nuking their land?
Third off, do you have any idea how bad this would be for the planet, or how unuseable that area would be for years? What good is a canal that nobody can transport anything through?
“Most of the bomb-produced radionuclides decay rapidly. Even so, beyond the blast radius of the exploding weapons there would be areas ("hot spots") the survivors could not enter because of radioactive contamination from long-lived radioactive isotopes like strontium-90 or cesium-137, which can be concentrated through the food chain and incorporated into the body. The damage caused would be internal, with the injurious effects appearing over many years. For the survivors of a nuclear war, this lingering radiation hazard could represent a grave threat for as long as 1 to 5 years after the attack.”
“The biological effects of all forms of ionizing radiation have been calculated within broad ranges by the National Academy of Sciences. Based on these calculations, fallout from the 500-plus megatons of nuclear testing through 1970 will produce between 2 and 25 cases of genetic disease per million live births in the next generation.
This means that between 3 and 50 persons per billion births in the post-testing generation will have genetic damage for each megaton of nuclear yield exploded. With similar uncertainty, it is possible to estimate that the induction of cancers would range from 75 to 300 cases per megaton for each billion people in the post-test generation.
If we apply these very rough yardsticks to a large-scale nuclear war in which 10,000 megatons of nuclear force are detonated, the effects on a world population of 5 billion appear enormous. Allowing for uncertainties about the dynamics of a possible nuclear war, radiation-induced cancers and genetic damage together over 30 years are estimated to range from 1.5 to 30 million for the world population as a whole. This would mean one additional case for every 100 to 3,000 people or about ½ percent to 15 percent of the estimated peacetime cancer death rate in developed countries.” (Atomicarchive)
How is any of this worth being able to move some oil around easier?
---
1) I don't have any evidence. I believe though that hydrogen nukes, combined with careful underground placement would allow this.
2) I believe both would allow this given that Yemen's governement stands to benefit (by having their main enemy, which is occupying their capital, significiantly weakened, and giving them a significant advantage in a civil war that threatens their very existence), and the onyl cost would be on unoccupied, unimportant desert areas in the East.. Saudi Arabia would almost certainly sign off on this given it would improve their energy security a lot and (over the long run) end the need to intervene in the Yemeni civil war, benefitting them significantly.
3) I don't think your first quote about impacts nuclear weapons really applies here given the impact would be on an extremely unpopulated area that could be evacuated before hand as compared to on very populated, widespread areas as would be the case in nuclear war.
However, your reference about genetic disease is an extremely concerning effect I hadn't considered. I do however think it wouldn't apply, due to most of the explosions occuring underground, such that the majority of the fallout wouldn't be able to escape. If you can explain to me how underground explosions could affect more populated areas similarly to an atmospheric explosion, you will have changed my mind.
All the above could be worth it to enable energy security, and solve a civil war and create more stability in a very unstable part of the world.
---
Your CMV is not particularly evidence based. If you simply believe that a bunch of unrealistic things would work fine and without side effects, then sure anything is possible.
>I don't have any evidence. I believe though that hydrogen nukes, combined with careful underground placement would allow this.
This part, for example. The idea of putting hundreds of nuclear weapons underground in close proximity to each other is something that has never been tested. You are taking for granted that it would work, and not have severe consequences for the surrounding population and environment. This is an enormous assumption that you are making without evidence.
Additionally, you talk about the US being able to do this cheaply, by repurposing unnecessary nuclear weapons. The US does have more nuclear weapons than it arguably needs, but they are specifically designed for warfare. They aren't designed for excavation. It is unreasonable to presume that you could just put a nuclear warhead in the ground as is, and expect it to work as an excavation tool. If this crazy idea was to be undertaken, the US would need to make new bombs specifically designed for this purpose, making it very expensive. | I love how people think that deserts aren’t ecosystems with ecological value to our planet and that we can continue to nuke them and dump toxic waste in them. How about we just nuke our entire planet and get it over with.
---
How exactly is the desert in the east of Yemen of any value? There is close to ZERO life there due to it getting no rain.
---
Ok but there's dust, though. Lots of dust, because it's dry and gets no rain.
For nuclear excavation you'd need to detonate really large bombs in groundburst.
Do you see any slight issues with hundreds of megaton range groundbursts in a very dry and dusty area? | 17hv3zc | CMV: The United States should use hundreds of nuclear weapons to create a canal connecting Saudi Arabia to the Indian Ocean through Yemen. | To clarify, this canal would be 1000 feet wide, the entire canal would be at sea level (so no locks needed), and it would go straight from Al Kharkhir (in Saudi Arabia) to Jadib (in Yemen). I assume that the governments of Yemen and Saudi Arabia would both be willing to sign off on the plan given the area is a giant, unoccupied desert and both governments stand to benefit significantly.
This would solve two big problems:
Problem #1:
Saudi Arabia’s ability to send oil and gas outside itself would be almost completely shut off if Iran decided to disallow shipping through the Straight of Hormuz. This would cause massive instability. A canal through Yemen (and a giant oil/gas terminal and pipelines at Al Kharkhir) would completely remove this leverage and help ensure the stability of the World’s energy supply and that of Saudi Arabia, which has been a significant stabilizing force in the middle east (although not the most ethical).
Problem #2:
There is a giant civil war going on in Yemen right now between the Houthis, and the internationally recognized government of Yemen. This civil war has caused a lot of suffering, and one of the main factors enabling it’s continuance is an external supply of weapons to the Houthis that is being sent to them both overland through Oman and by sea. The supply of sea weapons could easily be cut off if the US decided to impose a naval blockade against the parts of Northern Yemen where the Houthis are, and this giant canal would prevent overland supply if it was patrolled with naval boats (also easy). By cutting the supply of weapons to the Houthis, the Yemeni civil war would likely end after a certain period of time due to the Houthis running out of weapons, which would significantly improve the humanitarian situation in the country, weaken Iran (and further disable the ability of it’s proxies to spread religious extremism, harm to civilians and authoritarianism), and further increase the amount of stability in that region of the world, which would significantly benefit from that.
The costs of this plan would be relatively minimal given that:
A) Very few people are there, nor are there any resources that would be damaged via the detonation of a large number of nuclear weapons.
B) The US has way too many nuclear weapons to begin with, and this would be a more productive way of disposing them.
CMV. | cantheevilman | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "CrocodileHill",
"id": "k6q2i5u",
"score": 14,
"text": "First off, do you have any evidence we have enough nukes to actually do this?\n\nSecond off, do you have evidence that two nations would allow another to go around nuking their land?\n\nThird off, do you have any idea how bad this w... | [
{
"author": "chthulucene89",
"id": "k6q0yi2",
"score": 10,
"text": "I love how people think that deserts aren’t ecosystems with ecological value to our planet and that we can continue to nuke them and dump toxic waste in them. How about we just nuke our entire planet and get it over with.",
"tim... | [
"k6q2i5u",
"k6q68jb",
"k6q83y7"
] | [
"k6q0yi2",
"k6q23cn",
"k6q2zr6"
] |
CMV: Religion is the primary thing holding back humanity, and it should be fully eradicated.
Edit: To those downvoting because of the title, sheesh. I came here ready to be wrong, and on some parts, I was. Give me a little wiggle room bringing a controversial opinion here to come here expecting to be wrong. I'm leaving the body how it was to show what I came here with.
Virtually whenever sexism, racism, or any other form of intolerance takes place, it is rooted in assumptions from a religion. We normalize the notion that you can believe whatever you want and that it is the only criteria for whether or not it deserves respect. We use "faith" to legitimize televangelists that con (typically poor people) into giving all of their remaining money away as "seed" so that they will get more back. Anytime that a religion gains power, it abuses that power. On every scale. The twelve tribes just got busted in my town for child labor violations. The catholic church has a massive child rape problem that no one seems really motivated to move the needle on. Saudi Arabia has declared atheism and feminism to be "extremist" and they now carry the death penalty. Sharia law oppresses the fuck out of everyone.
At best, religion makes people happy through misinformation. You don't have to be afraid of death, as long as you follow these rules that were *definitely written by god and not some guy, you'll have everyone you love in the sky! Somehow.
Religion is a horrible disease that is diametrically opposed to all of the things that make humanity excellent: willingness to accept new ideas, celebration of science, sharing with others, opening our arms to other peoples.
Lastly, and this one is specifically at christianity, but the fact that it is designed so that:
1) Suicide is a sin.
2) Death before sin/giving up faith is the only way to eternal paradise.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that you should murder your children as soon as they are born to ensure their eternal happiness. And yet they still are opposed to abortions, because that would be baby murder, because religion is simply a tool to oppress and crush anyone who doesn't have the majority.
Religion is the vehicle that allows the things most people claim to oppose to live on. As soon as we free ourselves of this shackle, the world will be better in every way. I see no reason why religion should be tolerated whatsoever.
I guess I'm looking for a reason to simply be atheist instead of anti-theist, because I don't see one.
Edit:
[Less Religion, More Money: Countries Get Wealthier as They Become More Secular](https://www.newsweek.com/less-religious-countries-more-prosperous-study-says-1032778)
[Atheists are nicer to Christians compared to the other way around if their religious identity is known](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-nicer-to-christians-religious-identity-known-study-research-ohio-university-a7944586.html)
["When researchers ask people to report on their own behaviors and attitudes, religious individuals claim to be more altruistic, compassionate, honest, civic and charitable than nonreligious ones. Even among twins, more religious siblings describe themselves are being more generous.
But when we look at actual behavior, these differences are nowhere to be found."](https://orbitermag.com/religious-people-moral-atheists/)
[It is the highly secularized countries that tend to fare the best in terms of crime rates, prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women’s rights, human rights, educational attainment and life expectancy.](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1101-zuckerman-violence-secularism-20151101-story.html) | >Virtually whenever sexism, racism, or any other form of intolerance takes place, it is rooted in assumptions from a religion.
That sounds like an assumption in and of itself. I can think of plenty of intolerance that isn't rooted in an assumption from a religion.
And even everything that is rooted from religion would still exist if religion didn't exist. Crusades, jihads, and other holy wars would still happen, but they'd just be more obvious about their political motivations. People would still be discriminatory, they'd just use nationalist language instead or religious ones.
Bear in mind, the Soviet Union was just as capable of being evil as every religious state even though it was officially atheistic and anti-religion.
---
Of course you can find a single example of a dictatorship that didn't use religion, but it doesn't hold a candle to the countless ones that did. [The societies with the least religion](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/atheists-countries-list-six-world-most-convinced-a6946291.html) are more often than not much better places to live than highly religious countries.
---
The number one country on that list is China.
Do you really want to tell me living in China is great just cause they're not into religion?
---
Once again, you can pick a single element and use it to throw out the entire argument. That makes no more sense than me looking at [this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country), seeing Somalia, and saying "SEE! TOLD YOU RELIGION SUCKS!"
---
How many shitty atheist states do I have to point out, then?
---
I have a feeling you don't understand what an average is, and that this isn't going to be a very productive line of conversation.
---
Than maybe use a better piece of data than pointing at a list of atheistic states, saying 'less religion means a better state', and ignoring the fact that the absolute first country on that list is a shitty state. You're taking it for granted that the states up top are better even though there's a giant contradiction to your own statement. You need to show some sort of connection between non-religion and better states.
---
[Less Religion, More Money: Countries Get Wealthier as They Become More Secular](https://www.newsweek.com/less-religious-countries-more-prosperous-study-says-1032778)
[Atheists are nicer to Christians compared to the other way around if their religious identity is known](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-nicer-to-christians-religious-identity-known-study-research-ohio-university-a7944586.html)
["When researchers ask people to report on their own behaviors and attitudes, religious individuals claim to be more altruistic, compassionate, honest, civic and charitable than nonreligious ones. Even among twins, more religious siblings describe themselves are being more generous.
But when we look at actual behavior, these differences are nowhere to be found."](https://orbitermag.com/religious-people-moral-atheists/)
[It is the highly secularized countries that tend to fare the best in terms of crime rates, prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women’s rights, human rights, educational attainment and life expectancy.](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1101-zuckerman-violence-secularism-20151101-story.html)
---
Have you considered that maybe this works the other way? Instead of secularism improving the quality of life in a country, the improvement of the quality of life in a country brings secularism.
First of all, it makes logical sense to draw that line. People having issues are more likely to lean on faith to feel better while people without any trouble, have no real reason to go to God to ask for something.
Second, it explains why we can name secular countries that are shitholes but not good places that aren't secular. If secularism came first, there shouldn't exist secular shitholes. If quality of life came first, there shouldn't exist religious countries with high quality of life. | I agree with most things, however where I will debate you is the FULLY eradicated. I'm not sure any human should have to ability to tell another human "you can't believe in that". If someone wants to be a Christian or Muslim, I have no problem with it, nor should anybody. However where we agree is that we should be looking at minimising the power the church, for example, has. I'm fairly sure there is a large trend away from religion in Western cultures emerging anyway right now, at least in Australlia.
When people start quoting the bible, or "this is what God commands" in everyday life, whether that be politics or anything is where I have a problem. Religion should be on an individual level, and should not in any way, shape or form impact or be used to sway the opinions of the wider nation in any circumstance.
---
Its all nonsense. We don't let people believe in the tooth fairy, but we afford them legal protections to mutilate male genitals based on their belief.
I have no problem with spirituality and feeling connected with those around you and nature. I do have problems when its used to negatively impact the lives of those who don't agree or can't consent, like children born to religious families.
---
Umm, if you are talking about circumcision, it's performed by atheists too as a means of preventing penile cancer, dangerous infant UTIs, STDs, and other medical issues. There is some controversy over the extent to which the benefits outweigh the harms, but it's certainly not performed only for religious reasons and it would be banned regardless of religion if it were more harmful than beneficial.
---
This is incredibly uninformed. The notion that any of those things are true is ludicrous, and has as much scientific support that vaccines cause autism (one study done by someone with a strong agenda to push). You're flat out wrong. None of the statistics that were produced used an experimental hypothesis, and observational statistics do not imply causation. For example, a true observational statistic is that "despite making up 13% of the population, blacks commit 52% of crimes". See how you're ready to disagree with an observational statistic because it doesn't jive with your core beliefs? Apply the same logic to any observational statistic.
They will never be banned because of how much church informs the state.
---
Much of this is in fact based on large scale randomized control trials, and mainstream medical societies including the World Health Organization promote circumcision for medical reasons.
---
I looked at the WHO paper, and once again, no experimental study was done. Those who have pain or a lack of pleasure during sex are less likely to engage in sex, and therefore less likely to spread STDs. I'm not going to defend an infants right to not have parts of their genitals clamped off to reduce masturbation and sexual pleasure. Educate yourself.
---
Here's one of three large randomized control trials https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17321310/
Feel free to have a religious objection to circumcision, but it's well supported by science.
---
HIV is not a risk when safe sex is practiced, and you're reducing the moral question of invasive, risky genital cutting to a risk benefit analysis.
---
HIV kills 16k Americans a year and millions a year worldwide even though most of the (adult anyway) victims knew about safe sex. It's easy to talk about safe sex and hard to stick to it.
Yes, I absolutely think that medical procedures have something to do with cost benefit analysis, but I do understand some cultures are strongly anti circumcision and their beliefs should be respected.. | dzduo4 | CMV: Religion is the primary thing holding back humanity, and it should be fully eradicated. | Edit: To those downvoting because of the title, sheesh. I came here ready to be wrong, and on some parts, I was. Give me a little wiggle room bringing a controversial opinion here to come here expecting to be wrong. I'm leaving the body how it was to show what I came here with.
Virtually whenever sexism, racism, or any other form of intolerance takes place, it is rooted in assumptions from a religion. We normalize the notion that you can believe whatever you want and that it is the only criteria for whether or not it deserves respect. We use "faith" to legitimize televangelists that con (typically poor people) into giving all of their remaining money away as "seed" so that they will get more back. Anytime that a religion gains power, it abuses that power. On every scale. The twelve tribes just got busted in my town for child labor violations. The catholic church has a massive child rape problem that no one seems really motivated to move the needle on. Saudi Arabia has declared atheism and feminism to be "extremist" and they now carry the death penalty. Sharia law oppresses the fuck out of everyone.
At best, religion makes people happy through misinformation. You don't have to be afraid of death, as long as you follow these rules that were *definitely written by god and not some guy, you'll have everyone you love in the sky! Somehow.
Religion is a horrible disease that is diametrically opposed to all of the things that make humanity excellent: willingness to accept new ideas, celebration of science, sharing with others, opening our arms to other peoples.
Lastly, and this one is specifically at christianity, but the fact that it is designed so that:
1) Suicide is a sin.
2) Death before sin/giving up faith is the only way to eternal paradise.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that you should murder your children as soon as they are born to ensure their eternal happiness. And yet they still are opposed to abortions, because that would be baby murder, because religion is simply a tool to oppress and crush anyone who doesn't have the majority.
Religion is the vehicle that allows the things most people claim to oppose to live on. As soon as we free ourselves of this shackle, the world will be better in every way. I see no reason why religion should be tolerated whatsoever.
I guess I'm looking for a reason to simply be atheist instead of anti-theist, because I don't see one.
Edit:
[Less Religion, More Money: Countries Get Wealthier as They Become More Secular](https://www.newsweek.com/less-religious-countries-more-prosperous-study-says-1032778)
[Atheists are nicer to Christians compared to the other way around if their religious identity is known](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-nicer-to-christians-religious-identity-known-study-research-ohio-university-a7944586.html)
["When researchers ask people to report on their own behaviors and attitudes, religious individuals claim to be more altruistic, compassionate, honest, civic and charitable than nonreligious ones. Even among twins, more religious siblings describe themselves are being more generous.
But when we look at actual behavior, these differences are nowhere to be found."](https://orbitermag.com/religious-people-moral-atheists/)
[It is the highly secularized countries that tend to fare the best in terms of crime rates, prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women’s rights, human rights, educational attainment and life expectancy.](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1101-zuckerman-violence-secularism-20151101-story.html) | marathon664 | 9 | 9 | [
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"id": "f86ynal",
"score": 12,
"text": ">Virtually whenever sexism, racism, or any other form of intolerance takes place, it is rooted in assumptions from a religion.\n\nThat sounds like an assumption in and of itself. I can think of plenty of intolerance that isn't rooted i... | [
{
"author": "DobDobson",
"id": "f86yrcl",
"score": 1,
"text": "I agree with most things, however where I will debate you is the FULLY eradicated. I'm not sure any human should have to ability to tell another human \"you can't believe in that\". If someone wants to be a Christian or Muslim, I have no... | [
"f86ynal",
"f86z5j5",
"f86zjzb",
"f86zoe7",
"f8704nm",
"f870amw",
"f870lvm",
"f8716a5",
"f8729pv"
] | [
"f86yrcl",
"f86z9mq",
"f86znfq",
"f86zz6a",
"f8716ft",
"f871jdz",
"f87ey25",
"f88jv2e",
"f88l2ou"
] |
CMV: If you care about abortions but not animal wellbeing then you're a hypocrite
First of all I think the act of aborting a human fetus after the first couple of months is serious matter and should be carefully considered over some time.
I doubt many people (besides antinatalists) would consider it "good" on the moral spectrum of good to evil. Some people seem to have the view that it is of no significance at all, thus has no moral bearing. The same as cutting hair. I disagree with that notion since the fetus at this point is well on its way to becoming a human and who knows what its level of consciousness is.
What really bothers me though are people who have zero qualms about factory farming and other ways humans inflict massive suffering onto animals that are clearly conscious, but have strong opinions on restricting abortions. A cow or monkey is clearly much more conscious than a fetus at any part of its development. Furthermore the animals can experience suffering whereas whether a fetus can is still in question. So if person does not care a tad bit about the suffering of the former than its hard to take them seriously if they care about the latter. | Not necessarily. People value human lives more than animal lives. That doesn't make you a hypocrite. The same way people can discuss how repressible it is to eat dog meat over a steak dinner.
---
What gives human lives value. Its consciousness. Most people believe humans are on a higher level of consciousness than animals. But thats clearly not the case for a fetus.
---
A fetus has the potential to be conscious, some animals will never have consciousness no matter how old they get.
you would not be a hypocrite if your reason is this "potential." | Where does your animal analogy get a line drawn? Humans, Apes, Elephants, Dogs, Cows, Rats, Lizards, Ants, Unicellular organisms... why do you draw the line there. Your answer to this question should be judged against someone who draws the line immediately after humans, or before cows. What aspect of said animal does it make it okay to kill. (I assume you draw the line somewhere, it's not feasible to not kill ants at all)
---
Thats a good question. I think the vast majority of animals (idk about insects) can experience suffering (feel pain, physical or emotional) and if possible we should minimize it or at the very least acknowledge it. Clearly as a species were not at the point where we can stop eating meat/experimenting on animals/destroying their habitats. I dont think killing animals in a manner where they dont suffer for long is immoral. Nature is wild and animals most often meet a brutal end anyways. My main issue is with factory farming, where animals suffer constantly for their entire lives, and of people not acknowledging the fact animals can experience suffering just like humans.
---
If the line is drawn based on pain/suffering, then I ask why are people against abortions and against helping other humans on earth? There is a lot of suffering due to famine and disease. So by the same argument you should agree that "if you care about restricting abortions but not helping the impoverished, then you are a hypocrite."
I'm not arguing against your statement here, but I am saying logically you should also agree with the sentence above. And I bring it up since it seems like a more powerful argument against an abortion ban.
"If you don't want a fetus to suffer then why do you let malnutrition (or anything that causes human suffering) be a thing."
If you do want be to argued against being a hypocrite with the animal situation then I would have to say that animal pain is inherently less important than human fetus pain. Which I don't agree with, but it's the only way I see to dispute your claim (and I can imagine other people do believe that the pain is different, but those people would have to dealt with "if you care about reducing human fetus pain but not helping the impoverished, then you are a hypocrite.") | q30nkd | CMV: If you care about abortions but not animal wellbeing then you're a hypocrite | First of all I think the act of aborting a human fetus after the first couple of months is serious matter and should be carefully considered over some time.
I doubt many people (besides antinatalists) would consider it "good" on the moral spectrum of good to evil. Some people seem to have the view that it is of no significance at all, thus has no moral bearing. The same as cutting hair. I disagree with that notion since the fetus at this point is well on its way to becoming a human and who knows what its level of consciousness is.
What really bothers me though are people who have zero qualms about factory farming and other ways humans inflict massive suffering onto animals that are clearly conscious, but have strong opinions on restricting abortions. A cow or monkey is clearly much more conscious than a fetus at any part of its development. Furthermore the animals can experience suffering whereas whether a fetus can is still in question. So if person does not care a tad bit about the suffering of the former than its hard to take them seriously if they care about the latter. | [deleted] | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "MontiBurns",
"id": "hfoundn",
"score": 6,
"text": "Not necessarily. People value human lives more than animal lives. That doesn't make you a hypocrite. The same way people can discuss how repressible it is to eat dog meat over a steak dinner.",
"timestamp": 1633578881
},
{
... | [
{
"author": "CarbonFiber101",
"id": "hfov7bq",
"score": 1,
"text": "Where does your animal analogy get a line drawn? Humans, Apes, Elephants, Dogs, Cows, Rats, Lizards, Ants, Unicellular organisms... why do you draw the line there. Your answer to this question should be judged against someone who dr... | [
"hfoundn",
"hfouykg",
"hfowjp7"
] | [
"hfov7bq",
"hfownkl",
"hfp15ck"
] |
CMV: In light of the various sex abuse scandals the Church has been involved in, it makes no sense to continue to identify as a Catholic.
So just a quick background for anyone out of the loop, sometime around the 1980s reports of Catholic clergy sexually abusing children started to surface. In the some 40 odd years since, such reports have only become more numerous, accompanied by three further disturbing facts: 1) the culture of child sexual abuse has been uncovered in hundreds of different Catholic organizations in dozens of countries, showing it isn't an isolated phenomenon, 2) rather than actively trying to root out and expose offending clergy, the Catholic hierarchy has often gone to great lengths to conceal child molesters and rapists and their behaviors (hush money to the parents, moving priests around once exposed, etc.) and has sometimes defended those who do get exposed, and 3) the deep culture indicates this problem is far older than just a few decades.
Now of course there are disturbing trends among many religious organizations. Intolerance, executions, terrorism, etc. The reason I single out the Catholic Church in this regard is because, unlike other religious institutions, they are all directly linked, all the way from the Holy See to your local church. This is not the case for, say, Protestant churches; while they both peddle similar ideologies, they're not linked anymore than two different bakeries are linked beyond the fact they both sell bread. With Catholics it's more like one big company owns all of those different bakeries. They're linked by more than just what they say - there's a clear hierarchy presiding over all of it. If a rogue Islamic terror cell commits some horrible act, that's bad, but it's not really a statement about the whole of the Muslim faith in the same way that a Catholic priest raping a kid and then having the higher-ups swoop down from the Vatican to try and cover it up is a statement about Catholicism.
Thus, if you continue being a Catholic despite the preponderance of evidence that the Church is seemingly at least in part an organization that exists to enable and defend child rapists, you are tacitly or explicitly condoning that purpose by not leaving. At best it isn't a big enough issue for you to want to hand in your Bible and go elsewhere, which makes me wonder what would be a big enough scandal to warrant that response. If not a decades or centuries long history and culture of raping children, than what? If that's not enough to get you to leave, I posit nothing of any meaning possibly could.
I actually spoke to one of my Irish Catholic relatives about this. He offered up a lot of, in my opinion, measly excuses to justify his continued membership. Things like he doesn't support the abuse, he gets a lot of positive spiritual meaning from the Church, it's a family tradition, etc. Alright, lets take that and apply it to another example. Say you're part of a soccer organization, one of the biggest in the world, 1,200,000,000 members of all sexes and ages. It is revealed that your soccer organization has been embroiled in a child abuse epidemic for at least a few decades spanning across hundreds of smaller branches in dozens of countries. Despite being outed, this epidemic shows no real evidence of slowing. To the contrary, it's also revealed that officials in this soccer league, from the most humble coach to the CEO of the organization, almost invariably take steps to cover up instances of child rape when they happen and will defend offenders when they are caught.
Now I don't know about you, but that's more than enough for me to nope the fuck out of that organization in a heartbeat. Especially if I have kids. *I don't care* how much I love my local coach, or how much meaning I get out of playing soccer, or how much fun Jr. has at his games, or how long my family has been involved with the league - I'm out. I'm not going to pay my dues to an organization like that, I'm not going to work on their behalf or wear their logo and I'd frankly be ashamed to admit to people that I even *used* to be a member, much less a current one.
I'd argue that any when any Catholic offers up excuses of the sort my cousin offered, all they're essentially saying is that it's worth tacitly supporting child rape in order to get those benefits for themselves. Akin to saying "We know the soccer coach rapes kids... and I mean it's not like we *like* him raping kids, but we're going to keep paying him money and wearing his team logo because *just look* at how happy Jr. is when they win a game!" It's a shit excuse and a very poor moral judgement in my view. Whatever it is that Catholics personally get from engaging with their organization, I should think that it's not worth supporting an epidemic of child rape in order to continue getting *especially when they could get almost the exact same thing from a non-child raping organization.*
In my view, as someone who has a very large and very Catholic family, there are a thousand and one reasons to absolutely despite the Church (the Inquisition, forced conversion of indigenous people, the Crusades, injustice towards women, perpetuating AIDs by lying to people about condoms, persecution of Jews, engaging in the slave trade, just getting around to admitting (in 1992) that Galileo may have been right, deals with Hitler, persecution of homosexuals, excommunications of vasts swaths of Christianity (only lifted in 1964), the concept of limbo, and the egregious hypocrisy of a bunch of men who claim to represent Jesus Christ, the meek, mild, nonmaterialist that he was, and claim to be interested in the betterment of humanity all while wearing robes that cost more than most cars as they lounge around in private palaces with gilded walls, packed to the gills with priceless art treasures that look down as they count and horde their wealth which measures in the billions)... but if none of that is enough to get you to give up being a Catholic, I would think the final straw would be their regular and ongoing institutional practice of raping kids.
Y'all know what to do. Cheers.
​ | > Now I don't know about you, but that's more than enough for me to nope the fuck out of that organization in a heartbeat.
But would you stop playing the game of soccer? Why?
---
No. Like I said, they could get pretty much the same thing elsewhere. If I found out my soccer league was doing to kids what the Catholic Church does to kids I'd join or make another league. I certainly wouldn't continue to be a part of theirs.
---
> Like I said, they could get pretty much the same thing elsewhere.
No they cannot - e.g. Protestant <> Catholic. You are asking them to stop playing soccer just because of one organization.
---
I did say "pretty much."
Really, you can still believe everything you did while you were with the Catholic Church... just don't identify as a Catholic anymore.
I'm not asking them to stop playing soccer. I'm not even saying they can't play soccer with the exact same rules that they did in their old league. I'm just saying they shouldn't wear their old leagues logo anymore.
---
Part of Catholic theology is that only a Catholic priest can perform the sacraments validly. So getting communion not at a Catholic church? Invalid. Plus basically only Catholic churches have Confession and Penance, which are very important in Catholic theology as well. So no you can't just switch and still believe everything you did. | https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction
>No empirical data exists that suggests that Catholic clerics sexually abuse minors at a level higher than clerics from other religious traditions or from other groups of men who have ready access and power over children (e.g., school teachers, coaches).
>The best available data reports that 4 percent of Catholic priests sexually violated a minor child during the last half of the 20th century with the peak level of abuse being in the 1970s and dropping off dramatically by the early 1980s. And in the recent Pennsylvania grand jury report only two cases were reported in the past dozen years that were already known and dealt with by authorities (thus the grand jury report is about historical issues and not about current problems of active clerical abuse now). Putting clergy abuse in context, research from the US Department of Education found that about 5-7 percent of public school teachers engaged in similar sexually abusive behavior with their students during a similar time frame.
So, if you go to school, there's probably a greater risk of sexual abuse, and likewise, a similar risk with soccer teachers.
Going elsewhere increases your risk, as those places have not had scandals because people don't care when soccer coaches rapes kids, or the anglican priest.
---
I'd argue that a lot of the anger was also at the cover up, not just the abuse itself. The hierarchy knew what was going on and didn't attempt to stop it and in many ways allowed it to continue. This is a massive difference between some school that happens to have a child molester there (but no one knows) vs. a priest whose superiors knew they molested children and covered it up.
---
Schools shuffling around pedophiles and covering them up is a well known and widely reported phenomenon. The parade of the lemons.
---
I guess I hadn't heard of that. Could just be the size of the organizations though.
---
People don't like the Catholic Church much, so when they do bad stuff it's famous.
But there is a lot of rape of kids going on in a lot of professions. It's extremely horrible, and there's a lot of horrible people covering it up in many areas. Very large organizations have similar issues, just people care less. | ankkot | CMV: In light of the various sex abuse scandals the Church has been involved in, it makes no sense to continue to identify as a Catholic. | So just a quick background for anyone out of the loop, sometime around the 1980s reports of Catholic clergy sexually abusing children started to surface. In the some 40 odd years since, such reports have only become more numerous, accompanied by three further disturbing facts: 1) the culture of child sexual abuse has been uncovered in hundreds of different Catholic organizations in dozens of countries, showing it isn't an isolated phenomenon, 2) rather than actively trying to root out and expose offending clergy, the Catholic hierarchy has often gone to great lengths to conceal child molesters and rapists and their behaviors (hush money to the parents, moving priests around once exposed, etc.) and has sometimes defended those who do get exposed, and 3) the deep culture indicates this problem is far older than just a few decades.
Now of course there are disturbing trends among many religious organizations. Intolerance, executions, terrorism, etc. The reason I single out the Catholic Church in this regard is because, unlike other religious institutions, they are all directly linked, all the way from the Holy See to your local church. This is not the case for, say, Protestant churches; while they both peddle similar ideologies, they're not linked anymore than two different bakeries are linked beyond the fact they both sell bread. With Catholics it's more like one big company owns all of those different bakeries. They're linked by more than just what they say - there's a clear hierarchy presiding over all of it. If a rogue Islamic terror cell commits some horrible act, that's bad, but it's not really a statement about the whole of the Muslim faith in the same way that a Catholic priest raping a kid and then having the higher-ups swoop down from the Vatican to try and cover it up is a statement about Catholicism.
Thus, if you continue being a Catholic despite the preponderance of evidence that the Church is seemingly at least in part an organization that exists to enable and defend child rapists, you are tacitly or explicitly condoning that purpose by not leaving. At best it isn't a big enough issue for you to want to hand in your Bible and go elsewhere, which makes me wonder what would be a big enough scandal to warrant that response. If not a decades or centuries long history and culture of raping children, than what? If that's not enough to get you to leave, I posit nothing of any meaning possibly could.
I actually spoke to one of my Irish Catholic relatives about this. He offered up a lot of, in my opinion, measly excuses to justify his continued membership. Things like he doesn't support the abuse, he gets a lot of positive spiritual meaning from the Church, it's a family tradition, etc. Alright, lets take that and apply it to another example. Say you're part of a soccer organization, one of the biggest in the world, 1,200,000,000 members of all sexes and ages. It is revealed that your soccer organization has been embroiled in a child abuse epidemic for at least a few decades spanning across hundreds of smaller branches in dozens of countries. Despite being outed, this epidemic shows no real evidence of slowing. To the contrary, it's also revealed that officials in this soccer league, from the most humble coach to the CEO of the organization, almost invariably take steps to cover up instances of child rape when they happen and will defend offenders when they are caught.
Now I don't know about you, but that's more than enough for me to nope the fuck out of that organization in a heartbeat. Especially if I have kids. *I don't care* how much I love my local coach, or how much meaning I get out of playing soccer, or how much fun Jr. has at his games, or how long my family has been involved with the league - I'm out. I'm not going to pay my dues to an organization like that, I'm not going to work on their behalf or wear their logo and I'd frankly be ashamed to admit to people that I even *used* to be a member, much less a current one.
I'd argue that any when any Catholic offers up excuses of the sort my cousin offered, all they're essentially saying is that it's worth tacitly supporting child rape in order to get those benefits for themselves. Akin to saying "We know the soccer coach rapes kids... and I mean it's not like we *like* him raping kids, but we're going to keep paying him money and wearing his team logo because *just look* at how happy Jr. is when they win a game!" It's a shit excuse and a very poor moral judgement in my view. Whatever it is that Catholics personally get from engaging with their organization, I should think that it's not worth supporting an epidemic of child rape in order to continue getting *especially when they could get almost the exact same thing from a non-child raping organization.*
In my view, as someone who has a very large and very Catholic family, there are a thousand and one reasons to absolutely despite the Church (the Inquisition, forced conversion of indigenous people, the Crusades, injustice towards women, perpetuating AIDs by lying to people about condoms, persecution of Jews, engaging in the slave trade, just getting around to admitting (in 1992) that Galileo may have been right, deals with Hitler, persecution of homosexuals, excommunications of vasts swaths of Christianity (only lifted in 1964), the concept of limbo, and the egregious hypocrisy of a bunch of men who claim to represent Jesus Christ, the meek, mild, nonmaterialist that he was, and claim to be interested in the betterment of humanity all while wearing robes that cost more than most cars as they lounge around in private palaces with gilded walls, packed to the gills with priceless art treasures that look down as they count and horde their wealth which measures in the billions)... but if none of that is enough to get you to give up being a Catholic, I would think the final straw would be their regular and ongoing institutional practice of raping kids.
Y'all know what to do. Cheers.
​ | chadonsunday | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "caw81",
"id": "efu15d3",
"score": 2,
"text": "> Now I don't know about you, but that's more than enough for me to nope the fuck out of that organization in a heartbeat. \n\nBut would you stop playing the game of soccer? Why?\n",
"timestamp": 1549411978
},
{
"author": "chado... | [
{
"author": "Nepene",
"id": "efu30ht",
"score": 1,
"text": "https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction\n\n>No empirical data exists that suggests that Catholic clerics sexually abuse minors at a level higher than clerics from other r... | [
"efu15d3",
"efu1ax3",
"efu2cwk",
"efu4ksn",
"efu5b7i"
] | [
"efu30ht",
"efu44o0",
"efu49c2",
"efu4hqy",
"efu4mwd"
] |
CMV: Cultural Appropriation Isn't Wrong
With the exception of obvious examples that are just blatant disrespect, I really think cultural appropriation is a non-issue. In some cases, like wearing a Native American headdress as a Halloween costume or using the term, "redsk\*n," there is an issue, but these are really just blatant forms of disrespect that can be avoided by using common sense; however, in most cases, I think cultural appropriation is really a non-issue. For example, there are cases where people are said to have appropriated because members of the dominant group were historically marginalized for the same practice, while the "appropriating" group is not marginalized. The flaw with this argument is that the problem is that the group was marginalized for their practice, not that it is now being appropriated by a dominant culture. That would be analogous to saying that straight people shouldn't get married because the LGBTQIA+ community was prevented from getting married for many years. The problem, however, is that the LGBTQIA+ community was prevented from getting married, not that straight people are able to marry. In some cases, those accused of appropriation are said to have taken a practice out of its context and changed it slightly, thus having disrespected the culture by misrepresenting it. My objection to this argument is that, by this logic, we should never contextualize a cultural practice out of fear of misrepresenting a culture. If this were the case, it would be wrong to make Americanized Mexican food because it doesn't purely represent authentic Mexican food. Must a culture always be represented in its pure, original form? Furthermore, even if a culture is misrepresented, that does not necessarily entail that such misrepresentation will do substantial harm. I grant that, in some cases, it does. For example, if I go around in an indigenous people's costume for fun and start chanting, "oogha boogha!" this is obviously disrespectful and reinforces dangerous stereotypes; however, suppose someone takes parts of Buddhist meditation and contextualize it for a progressive Christian context. Suppose, for instance, the meditation included a chant to a bodhisattva and I changed some of the words to the chant to refer to Jesus. Furthermore, suppose Buddhist tradition has this meditation done as a sitting meditation, but the congregants prefer walking meditation. One could also add walking, then, into this particular meditation. While this does not represent Buddhism "accurately," per se, it also does no harm in its impure representation. Worst case scenario, one might think that Buddhists invoke a deity (since Jesus is considered by most Christians to be a deity) or that they do that particular meditation walking and will be corrected by a Buddhist who does that particular form of meditation, but this misrepresentation has not created or reinforced any harmful stereotypes. One could also argue, however, that it would be wrong to take a Buddhist practice and Christianize it because the tradition/practice "belongs" to that particular Buddhist community. To use a similar example, some would say that Unitarian Universalist Seder meals are wrong because they take a practice that "belongs" to Jews and "steal" it. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that culture is something that can be owned as if it were a commodity or limited resource. It is right, for instance, to say that it is morally wrong to steal an item from someone's house because that item is a limited resource that belongs to someone. If it is stolen, the person is then deprived of that item. Culture, however, is not an exhaustible commodity. It cannot be owned or stolen. If I, a Gentile, host a Seder meal out of genuine admiration for the story of liberation that the exodus story is about, I have not "stolen" anything because culture is like a candle flame that does not exhaust itself by being shared with other cultures. Another accusation of cultural appropriation might come up if one sells or profits from something from another culture. For example, suppose I, a non-Native American, make dream-catchers and sell them. While one may be tempted to say that I am exploiting their culture to make a profit, the truth is, my making of money off of it is a morally neutral act. My making money from something I learned from another culture might benefit me, but that benefit does not harm anyone. Now one might argue that it is unfair that I benefit from something that a marginalized culture does not benefit from, but the problem is that the marginalized culture does not benefit. This is clearly wrong, but the fact that I benefit does not exacerbate their lack of a benefit. If anything, it may help that minority culture, as people will become more aware that such a cultural product exists. Now please tell me why I'm wrong because I really do want to understand. | > With the exception of examples that are just blatant disrespect...
You mean the examples that would show that cultural appropriation is an issue? You can't make a case for something and then decide to ignore the instances that don't support it.
You acknowledge in your first sentence that cultural appropriation is a thing that is problematic, which runs counter to your stance.
Can you award yourself a delta?
---
Is cultural appropriation just a fancy phrase for cultural disrespect? I took it to mean that disrespecting someone's culture is a problem, but cultural appropriation must mean something other than just disrespect otherwise its a superfluous term.
---
Cultural appropriation is a little more complicated than "cultural disrespect." I think the fact that it doesn't seem to have an agreed-upon definition is why CMVs like this keep cropping up.
There is certainly a component of disrespect, but it goes a little deeper than that. I'll try to explain my definition of cultural appropriation.
An example might be Kyle, the freshman, decides to go to his freshman Halloween party dressed as an "Indian Chieftain." It's a gaudy costume, bought for $19.99 at the local costume store, and he tosses it in the back of his closet and forgets about it until he moves out four years later.
On the surface, there's not a lot going on, but there's context to everything.
* To begin with, there were a lot of "Indians." What is an "Indian?" If you're referring to "Native Americans," you have to realize there were a *lot* of different tribes, *way* more than the few you see today. They were all complex peoples, with their own cultures and languages, and existed for thousands of years until white people came along. Reducing them to a homogenous monoculture is incredibly racist and disrespectful, especially when...
* It's not an exaggeration to say that there was a genocide for hundreds of years as white colonists steadily and persistently pushed the people that lived here further and further inland, consistently violating treaties and massacring the rightful owners of the land for generations. Pretending this didn't happen is exactly the core of the issue here -- it *did* happen, and these people *continue* to suffer silently.
So while most people might look at Kyle's costume and not think twice, it's *especially* awful when you consider that (a) the chieftain of a tribe was effectively *royalty* in many cases -- it was a respected position with a lot of responsibility and dignity and (b) Kyle, being a pasty white boy, is descended from the stock that wiped out the people who cherished the role he's now parodying.
It's intensely disrespectful. Who has the nerve to outright *steal* land from a people, wipe them out using technology/tactics/numbers they cannot compete with, repeatedly lie and cheat them in treaties you beg them to agree to (and then paint *them* as the savages for being agry about it), and then after *all that*, use their sacred, cherished customs and culture as nothing more than a cheap jape?
Take for instance jazz music. This is something I'm not as familiar with, but jazz music was, if i recall correctly, predominantly black for a long time. But it wasn't until *white* people found it that it gained popularity, with people fawning over *white* musicians, and those same musicians happily taking credit for the work that black people predominantly did.
Cultural appropriation is when a dominant culture/people -- usually white colonists -- take something from another culture that they have subjugated -- native American history/culture, black history/culture, etc -- strip it of it's native context, and monetize it in some way.
So sharing cultural facets, like recipes, or music, or dress is *fine*, as long as the people do it responsibly and with respect to the source culture.
But when someone takes something, uses it as a cheap laugh, uses it to make a fast buck, or, worse, passes it off as their own; *that's* a problem. *Especially* when the person doing this is someone who has benefitted in some way from the subjugatiuon and exploitation of those people.
Hope this makes sense.
---
Using a culture as a funny costume, I would agree, is wrong, but I think we can just call this "caricature," rather than a fancy term like "cultural appropriation" because it's obvious that wearing a culture as a costume is wrong and doesn't need a whole lot more analysis. You also mention musicians taking credit for the work that black people did. We have another word for this: plagiarism. Why not just call it that instead of throwing out a confusing term like "cultural appropriation"? You also mention taking a culture, stripping it of its native context, and monetizing it. But isn't taking a culture from its native context and bringing it to a new context fundamentally what culture is-taking something and sharing it in a new context? Without this, we wouldn't have many of the great religions or foods we currently have. Also, I don't see monetizing as inherently bad. Earning money, while it benefits me, does not do harm to anyone else unless I am hoarding excessive wealth at the expense of poorer people.
---
I actually think that in the example, the person as an individual is being insensitive/disrespectful but they are contributing to the cultural appropriation. The actual cultural appropriation is that these costumes are a dominant representation of the oppressed culture, but the market/industry for the costumes profits only the oppressors.
Plagiarism is not clear cut in music- everyone is inspired by those that came before so in a way all music is plagiarised but legally they are trying to find definitions for it because people are suing each other. There are literally genres of music that are defined by the same bassline or drum rhythm.
The definition of culture is not taking a culture from its native context and bringing it to a new context- this might be true of American culture because that's how it developed through history, and that's part of the reason why cultural appropriation is such a difficult issue because many people refuse to believe that America could be "the bad guys".
The "sharing" of religion across different cultures is a whole separate issue....for the sake of our sanity let's leave it for a separate discussion.
I think it's dangerous to say "But without this we can't have...." Because this mindset can excuse anything as long as you like the current status quo. The ends don't always justify the means, and actually the "ends" are often still deeply unfair and morally wrong.
Food is an interesting one because in the US and UK the current trend is to go back to cultural roots and appreciate more "authentic" cuisine. Using Chinese food as an example, I know that the MSG scare was made up to attack Chinese restaurants, and the most popular items are still made up Westernised dishes, but the dominant representation of Chinese cuisine in Westernised culture is I think mainly Chinese. This would be different if the dominant representation of Chinese food were those chain restaurants or from supermarkets because they don't culturally resemble Chinese food and Chinese people don't profit from them. So my opinion is slightly oppressed but ultimately allowed to thrive.
The monetization is a key element to it I think- the oppressor's culture is exploiting the oppressed culture to earn money. If it was truly about sharing culture, the money would be going to the culture that it belonged to, that culture would be allowed to thrive and we wouldn't be labelling it as the oppressed culture. The wealth and power imbalance plays huge role in whether one culture oppresses another.
You earning money as an individual is very different to an entire industry benefitting one cultural group and stifling another. You say "excessive wealth" so you must understand that scale is a factor- with my example about Chinese food the market share between Chinese-owned companies and US/UK-owned companies should actually be taken into account (but there are of course other factors). |
Btw, paragraphs are your friend, don’t be afraid to mash that Enter key every now and then.
It seems like you actually agree with the basic premise of cultural appropriation, you are just pointing out various instances where a claim might be frivolous or invalid.
The standards you identified are: blatantly disrespectful of the source culture; misrepresents a culture in a negative or harmful way; or takes a limited resource or limited opportunity away from the source culture.
I think these are good standards, but I think you are applying them too narrowly.
For example, the blatant disrespect of cultural values happens all the time when you have an imbalance in power between two interacting cultures. If something is incredibly important to Culture A, and it is appropriated by a dominant Culture B that treats the thing as less valuable, then the cultural values of A have been violated. Notice that there is a very specific cultural relationship between A and B that must exist before we can really say that cultural appropriation has taken place – they must be in frequent contact with each other, there must be conflicting cultural values between them, and there should also be an imbalance of power. This is what you are missing in your analysis.
Also, I think you are ignoring how certain economic opportunities based on cultural artifacts are zero-sum: if the dominant culture takes it first, the other culture won’t be able to get it.
For example, a white person opening up an inauthentic Mexican food restaurant might not always bad, but it could be *really* bad if they took the same restaurant space that a Mexican person was trying to get for their own authentic Mexican restaurant. This kind of thing can be really harmful when you consider the socioeconomic disadvantages that are already imposed on minority ethnic groups in the U.S. In my own hometown, we have a lot of Latino food vendors that operate from small carts, serving elote and fruta, that kind of thing. Recently, a white lady opened up her own brick-and-mortar fruta shop downtown, marketing the same food that the carts sell as an exotic “food experience.” If any of those people running carts were saving money to open up their own shop, they are now shit out of luck. Especially if this white lady’s shop sucks (it probably will because it is completely inauthentic), now the market has been poisoned against these people who never even had a chance to do it right.
---
>For example, a white person opening up an inauthentic Mexican food restaurant might not always bad, but it could be
>
>really
>
> bad if they took the same restaurant space that a Mexican person was trying to get for their own authentic Mexican restaurant.
Why? What if a Mexican opened up a authentic yet crappy Mexican restaurant in a space that could have gone to a white person who was going to open up a fantastic authentic Mexican restaurant?
Seems to me the quality of the restaurant is the issue, not the race of the person opening it. Race shouldn't give people special rights over other people. We have a word for that, but it escapes me at the moment.
---
Cultural appropriation is only bad and harmful if you respect cultural autonomy and/or desire cultural diversity. If you don't value either of those things, then obviously there is no harm done when white people steal economic opportunities from other ethnic groups using their socioeconomic advantages. There's literally nothing anyone will say that will convince you this is bad because your value system is clearly different.
---
I value/desire cultural diversity to the extent that I want people who want to live different cultures to be allowed to do so. If everyone wanted to live the same culture, I don't think it's mine, or anyone else's place to tell people what culture they should or should not live.
As for autonomy, I don't care one bit if you dilute your culture, or give it up entirely. It's nobody's place to force you to give up your culture, but copying your culture doesn't in any way stop you from exercising it.
If someone wants to copy everything about my life and build an identical house, wear the same clothes, and eat the exact same food as me, even copying my name, I don't care as long as I can live my life as well. And I don't see how their copying me in any way affects my ability to live my life.
---
Right, what you are saying is that sometimes you care about culture but you care about individual rights more. That's what I am saying, you will never come around to a value system where you value culture more than you value something like individual rights to property ownership. If you have to choose between protecting the sanctity of a culture and protecting an individual's right to harm other cultures, you will always prefer the latter. | q259zz | CMV: Cultural Appropriation Isn't Wrong |
With the exception of obvious examples that are just blatant disrespect, I really think cultural appropriation is a non-issue. In some cases, like wearing a Native American headdress as a Halloween costume or using the term, "redsk\*n," there is an issue, but these are really just blatant forms of disrespect that can be avoided by using common sense; however, in most cases, I think cultural appropriation is really a non-issue. For example, there are cases where people are said to have appropriated because members of the dominant group were historically marginalized for the same practice, while the "appropriating" group is not marginalized. The flaw with this argument is that the problem is that the group was marginalized for their practice, not that it is now being appropriated by a dominant culture. That would be analogous to saying that straight people shouldn't get married because the LGBTQIA+ community was prevented from getting married for many years. The problem, however, is that the LGBTQIA+ community was prevented from getting married, not that straight people are able to marry. In some cases, those accused of appropriation are said to have taken a practice out of its context and changed it slightly, thus having disrespected the culture by misrepresenting it. My objection to this argument is that, by this logic, we should never contextualize a cultural practice out of fear of misrepresenting a culture. If this were the case, it would be wrong to make Americanized Mexican food because it doesn't purely represent authentic Mexican food. Must a culture always be represented in its pure, original form? Furthermore, even if a culture is misrepresented, that does not necessarily entail that such misrepresentation will do substantial harm. I grant that, in some cases, it does. For example, if I go around in an indigenous people's costume for fun and start chanting, "oogha boogha!" this is obviously disrespectful and reinforces dangerous stereotypes; however, suppose someone takes parts of Buddhist meditation and contextualize it for a progressive Christian context. Suppose, for instance, the meditation included a chant to a bodhisattva and I changed some of the words to the chant to refer to Jesus. Furthermore, suppose Buddhist tradition has this meditation done as a sitting meditation, but the congregants prefer walking meditation. One could also add walking, then, into this particular meditation. While this does not represent Buddhism "accurately," per se, it also does no harm in its impure representation. Worst case scenario, one might think that Buddhists invoke a deity (since Jesus is considered by most Christians to be a deity) or that they do that particular meditation walking and will be corrected by a Buddhist who does that particular form of meditation, but this misrepresentation has not created or reinforced any harmful stereotypes. One could also argue, however, that it would be wrong to take a Buddhist practice and Christianize it because the tradition/practice "belongs" to that particular Buddhist community. To use a similar example, some would say that Unitarian Universalist Seder meals are wrong because they take a practice that "belongs" to Jews and "steal" it. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that culture is something that can be owned as if it were a commodity or limited resource. It is right, for instance, to say that it is morally wrong to steal an item from someone's house because that item is a limited resource that belongs to someone. If it is stolen, the person is then deprived of that item. Culture, however, is not an exhaustible commodity. It cannot be owned or stolen. If I, a Gentile, host a Seder meal out of genuine admiration for the story of liberation that the exodus story is about, I have not "stolen" anything because culture is like a candle flame that does not exhaust itself by being shared with other cultures. Another accusation of cultural appropriation might come up if one sells or profits from something from another culture. For example, suppose I, a non-Native American, make dream-catchers and sell them. While one may be tempted to say that I am exploiting their culture to make a profit, the truth is, my making of money off of it is a morally neutral act. My making money from something I learned from another culture might benefit me, but that benefit does not harm anyone. Now one might argue that it is unfair that I benefit from something that a marginalized culture does not benefit from, but the problem is that the marginalized culture does not benefit. This is clearly wrong, but the fact that I benefit does not exacerbate their lack of a benefit. If anything, it may help that minority culture, as people will become more aware that such a cultural product exists. Now please tell me why I'm wrong because I really do want to understand. | Hot_Sauce_2012 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "saltedfish",
"id": "hfiyy3a",
"score": 20,
"text": "> With the exception of examples that are just blatant disrespect...\n\nYou mean the examples that would show that cultural appropriation is an issue? You can't make a case for something and then decide to ignore the instances that don... | [
{
"author": "OneWordManyMeanings",
"id": "hfj6yvd",
"score": 0,
"text": "\nBtw, paragraphs are your friend, don’t be afraid to mash that Enter key every now and then.\n\n \n\nIt seems like you actually agree with the basic premise of cultural appropriation, you are just pointing out various instance... | [
"hfiyy3a",
"hfj1tkj",
"hfjld4o",
"hfk3aa8",
"hfoa3e6"
] | [
"hfj6yvd",
"hfjdevn",
"hfjfd7t",
"hfjgw6z",
"hfjk6fc"
] |
CMV: Unmarked police vehicles are okay
Recently I've been seeing some people bring issue regarding unmarked police cars and how bad/useless they are. I also just learned that down in Houston, there's at least one "unmarked" that is actually marked, but from the backside is disguised as a standard taxi. A bit extreme but I'll go into why this is all okay.
There's two major arguments I've found regarding why unmarked (and I suppose this carries over to disguised vehicles as well). Perhaps there's more to it than these and I would love for some examples to be given that will make me CMV.
- Argument 1: They're just used to generate more revenue for cops and hit quotas.
Officially, in many areas, quotas are not a thing. Perhaps unofficially they are, I'm just going by what is "official." Regarding revenue my assumption here would be they're referring to traffic tickets for things like speeding or doing a "rolling stop" at a stop sign. What this says to me is that the person making the argument would follow traffic laws and respect the safety of both themselves and everyone around them, if they saw a marked car in the area scoping traffic out, but have an expectation that without known enforcement in the area they are free to drive as selfishlessly as they please. Unmarked cars are an obvious response to that, the law doesn't magically not exist just because you aren't aware of a cop in the area, and for the most part police seem to tend to stick toward just a few different models of vehicle so if you see one of them just sitting there seeming out of place in a parking lot or on the side of the road it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that it's a cop doing radar gun work. For the one disguised as a taxi I assume one thinks it's okay to blast by a taxi, which again there's laws in place, and absence of known enforcement doesn't mean the law does not apply.
- Argument 2: what if I need the police how will I know that car is someone I can go to?
Well for one, a quick Google search says 97% of adults in America have a cell phone, 85% have smart phones in particular. Police are literally on-tap in our pockets 24/7 like never before, our degree of accessibility to them in the past 20 years has increased dramatically with widespread cell phone adoption, OnStar, hell some areas even have where you can text for help too now if you can't risk a voice call in your situation. So what did we do before that, Just never have the police? Or what do we do if we lose or break our phone? Does running down the street yelling for help not work anymore, are there no sympathetic neighbors? Wouldn't you think if you ran by an unmarked car yelling for help they wouldn't get out and assist you because you didn't run directly to their window? This is one of the weakest arguments I can think of, but it's one being posited as why unmarked cars need abolished.
So CMV, help me out. Perhaps there's a point I'm missing in the two arguments I presented, or a case I've not seen made that I can't dismiss, but as of right now I don't see any problem with unmarked police vehicles. | [deleted]
---
That is a good point. But let's say there's a few intersections around the city that are known for having people disregard the laws, or a stretch known to attract people wanting to race, etc. You post a marked car there and shit stops, but once that marked car is gone people fall back into their old ways. With an unmarked you don't know if they're posted there or not necessarily, so it would keep would-be traffic violators from chancing it to begin with. Part of the deterrent is not being able to accurately know if police are right down the street or not, unless they think it through and see a strange plain white or plain black Explorer camping a certain spot. There are also marked cars camping or roving around and making police presence known, but a few unmarked on top of that to give them the edge in the case that people with a lead foot wanna roleplay Dom Toretto might lead to capture or at least deterrent of those cognizant enough to look for marked cars.
---
> You post a marked car there and shit stops
This is a bad thing...?
You said it's an intersection that has racing, you post a marked vehicle and racing stops at that intersection.
> With an unmarked you don't know if they're posted there or not necessarily, so it would keep would-be traffic violators from chancing it to begin with.
The fact that unmarked vehicles catch people to start with, should tell you that the threat of 'any vehicle could be a cop car' is not a deterrent.
Any ticket actually issued by an unmarked car should thus be considered a failure because the deterrent hasn't worked. It's presence as an unmarked car has not stopped the 'crime', it has merely issued a ticket after the fact and now the hope is that a ticket will serve as a deterrent.
When you could have had that first marked car serve as the deterrent and prevented the dangerous driving from happening.
Unmarked cars have their place, but not as road safety imo.
You've just told me that a marked car is a deterrent, whereas an unmarked car has to actually issue tickets to be a deterrent.
Which one is better for public safety? fewer dangerous driving situations, or dangerous driving situations + tickets | Kidnapping. You can buy a fake badge and uniform online and pretend to be a cop to kidnap people. That’s why I don’t support the use of unmarked police cars. For undercover work, it’s ok I guess but just for day to day cop duties it posees a risk that some would take advantage of.
---
Couldn't this also be a thing with exclusively marked cars? If you're on the road at night and you have blue lights and brights in your rear view, how are you to know whether or not it's a marked vehicle to begin with? And since they're already posing as police they might well be carrying a sidearm in a holster as well, so by the time you get close enough to their vehicle to recognize something is off you're away from your own weapon if you have one, while they already have a Beretta just a flick of a leather strap away.
---
If I get pulled over why would I exit the vehicle and approach the cop? | mtopxk | CMV: Unmarked police vehicles are okay | Recently I've been seeing some people bring issue regarding unmarked police cars and how bad/useless they are. I also just learned that down in Houston, there's at least one "unmarked" that is actually marked, but from the backside is disguised as a standard taxi. A bit extreme but I'll go into why this is all okay.
There's two major arguments I've found regarding why unmarked (and I suppose this carries over to disguised vehicles as well). Perhaps there's more to it than these and I would love for some examples to be given that will make me CMV.
- Argument 1: They're just used to generate more revenue for cops and hit quotas.
Officially, in many areas, quotas are not a thing. Perhaps unofficially they are, I'm just going by what is "official." Regarding revenue my assumption here would be they're referring to traffic tickets for things like speeding or doing a "rolling stop" at a stop sign. What this says to me is that the person making the argument would follow traffic laws and respect the safety of both themselves and everyone around them, if they saw a marked car in the area scoping traffic out, but have an expectation that without known enforcement in the area they are free to drive as selfishlessly as they please. Unmarked cars are an obvious response to that, the law doesn't magically not exist just because you aren't aware of a cop in the area, and for the most part police seem to tend to stick toward just a few different models of vehicle so if you see one of them just sitting there seeming out of place in a parking lot or on the side of the road it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that it's a cop doing radar gun work. For the one disguised as a taxi I assume one thinks it's okay to blast by a taxi, which again there's laws in place, and absence of known enforcement doesn't mean the law does not apply.
- Argument 2: what if I need the police how will I know that car is someone I can go to?
Well for one, a quick Google search says 97% of adults in America have a cell phone, 85% have smart phones in particular. Police are literally on-tap in our pockets 24/7 like never before, our degree of accessibility to them in the past 20 years has increased dramatically with widespread cell phone adoption, OnStar, hell some areas even have where you can text for help too now if you can't risk a voice call in your situation. So what did we do before that, Just never have the police? Or what do we do if we lose or break our phone? Does running down the street yelling for help not work anymore, are there no sympathetic neighbors? Wouldn't you think if you ran by an unmarked car yelling for help they wouldn't get out and assist you because you didn't run directly to their window? This is one of the weakest arguments I can think of, but it's one being posited as why unmarked cars need abolished.
So CMV, help me out. Perhaps there's a point I'm missing in the two arguments I presented, or a case I've not seen made that I can't dismiss, but as of right now I don't see any problem with unmarked police vehicles. | illogictc | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "gv0y1nn",
"score": 16,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1618790731
},
{
"author": "illogictc",
"id": "gv0z6xw",
"score": 2,
"text": "That is a good point. But let's say there's a few intersections around the city that are known for having peop... | [
{
"author": "unlimitlessfinite",
"id": "gv0y1s4",
"score": 5,
"text": "Kidnapping. You can buy a fake badge and uniform online and pretend to be a cop to kidnap people. That’s why I don’t support the use of unmarked police cars. For undercover work, it’s ok I guess but just for day to day cop duties... | [
"gv0y1nn",
"gv0z6xw",
"gv3mt7p"
] | [
"gv0y1s4",
"gv0yfwu",
"gv0ytgh"
] |
CMV: Apathy towards the truth in currently unknowable debates is harmful
I see all the time in the free will debate that people state it doesn't matter if we have free will or not because effectively nothing changes . I think that this position is harmful because disproving free will would discredit many ideologies which people dedicate tons of time to such as religion. This would challenge the beliefs of billions, and would likewise shape the world.
Similarly in questioning if we live in a simulation many people apathetically state that it doesn't matter if the world is simulated or base reality. This is again harmful because of what a simulated world would mean in answering the Fermi paradox and other questions about our existence. Also a society apathetic to a simulated existence would be less likely to pursue means of breaking out of the simulation and cementing our existence, rather than being at the mercy of the gods who simulated us. | I do not feel like it is harmful in any way, if these people want to believe that this world is a simulation then let them? They are not claiming that everyone has to believe so, they are just not inclined to think further.
They are not obstructing you from having your own ideas and opinions, they just live their lives like they want to and believe what they want to believe.
If you consider it harmful that they got their own opinion and are not willing to go beyond their opinion then you're just trying to force them to believe what you believe. In doing that you make the same mistake that you are blaming on them right now, obstructing beliefs.
---
My argument is not about those who believe the world is or isn't a simulation, but rather those who say it doesn't matter what the "reality" of the world is and are apathetic to the debate itself.
---
But there is an extremely high chance that in their lifetime it won't matter. Are you sure they aren't just saying it doesn't matter to them personally? They might acknowledge that these are important to mankind but still believe that the question is irrelevant to their life and likely will never impact it one way or another. | As for your first point specifically:
I see what you’re saying, if we could say “free will doesn’t exist,” then certainly many people’s lives would change. However, I think the agnostic (for lack of a better word) view towards free will can be healthy in examining this big question. When I say “nothing would change if we announced that humans possess no free will,” I simply mean that the label of free will has no meaning if we’re the ones to bestow it.
For example: do chimps have free will? If so, do dogs? If so, do bugs? Amoebas? Mitochondria? Computers, even? Where we put the line between conscious choice and mindless algorithm is our choice and ours alone, since free will is a term we came up with ourselves. Therefore, to say humans have no free will would just be a definition of free will, not anything novel regarding humanity
---
I see what you mean. Free will is a human construct and doesn't really grant us anything regardless of if we have free will we are who we are. I still believe that proving the concept that free will exists or doesn't exist will greatly impact the human race but if we call it free will or not doesn't matter. !delta
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jaelenchrysos ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/jaelenchrysos)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | 93vo27 | CMV: Apathy towards the truth in currently unknowable debates is harmful | I see all the time in the free will debate that people state it doesn't matter if we have free will or not because effectively nothing changes . I think that this position is harmful because disproving free will would discredit many ideologies which people dedicate tons of time to such as religion. This would challenge the beliefs of billions, and would likewise shape the world.
Similarly in questioning if we live in a simulation many people apathetically state that it doesn't matter if the world is simulated or base reality. This is again harmful because of what a simulated world would mean in answering the Fermi paradox and other questions about our existence. Also a society apathetic to a simulated existence would be less likely to pursue means of breaking out of the simulation and cementing our existence, rather than being at the mercy of the gods who simulated us. | TheIntellectualkind | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "bibenner12",
"id": "e3gbrrr",
"score": 1,
"text": "I do not feel like it is harmful in any way, if these people want to believe that this world is a simulation then let them? They are not claiming that everyone has to believe so, they are just not inclined to think further.\n\nThey are ... | [
{
"author": "jaelenchrysos",
"id": "e3gc915",
"score": 1,
"text": "As for your first point specifically:\nI see what you’re saying, if we could say “free will doesn’t exist,” then certainly many people’s lives would change. However, I think the agnostic (for lack of a better word) view towards free ... | [
"e3gbrrr",
"e3gcajz",
"e3gctmd"
] | [
"e3gc915",
"e3gdb05",
"e3gdbsj"
] |
CMV: Apathy towards the truth in currently unknowable debates is harmful
I see all the time in the free will debate that people state it doesn't matter if we have free will or not because effectively nothing changes . I think that this position is harmful because disproving free will would discredit many ideologies which people dedicate tons of time to such as religion. This would challenge the beliefs of billions, and would likewise shape the world.
Similarly in questioning if we live in a simulation many people apathetically state that it doesn't matter if the world is simulated or base reality. This is again harmful because of what a simulated world would mean in answering the Fermi paradox and other questions about our existence. Also a society apathetic to a simulated existence would be less likely to pursue means of breaking out of the simulation and cementing our existence, rather than being at the mercy of the gods who simulated us. | As for your first point specifically:
I see what you’re saying, if we could say “free will doesn’t exist,” then certainly many people’s lives would change. However, I think the agnostic (for lack of a better word) view towards free will can be healthy in examining this big question. When I say “nothing would change if we announced that humans possess no free will,” I simply mean that the label of free will has no meaning if we’re the ones to bestow it.
For example: do chimps have free will? If so, do dogs? If so, do bugs? Amoebas? Mitochondria? Computers, even? Where we put the line between conscious choice and mindless algorithm is our choice and ours alone, since free will is a term we came up with ourselves. Therefore, to say humans have no free will would just be a definition of free will, not anything novel regarding humanity
---
I see what you mean. Free will is a human construct and doesn't really grant us anything regardless of if we have free will we are who we are. I still believe that proving the concept that free will exists or doesn't exist will greatly impact the human race but if we call it free will or not doesn't matter. !delta
---
>Free will is a human construct and doesn't really grant us anything regardless of if we have free will we are who we are.
To be fair, all labels and words are constructs. So if you follow the logic of the commenter, then it would be meaningless to debate whether climate change is happening, because climate change is a construct. Or it would be meaningless to see if someone is taller than you, because "tall" is a human label.
I think this view makes no sense. Like you said, of course proving whether free will exists matters if we are talking about the concept, not the label. | I do not feel like it is harmful in any way, if these people want to believe that this world is a simulation then let them? They are not claiming that everyone has to believe so, they are just not inclined to think further.
They are not obstructing you from having your own ideas and opinions, they just live their lives like they want to and believe what they want to believe.
If you consider it harmful that they got their own opinion and are not willing to go beyond their opinion then you're just trying to force them to believe what you believe. In doing that you make the same mistake that you are blaming on them right now, obstructing beliefs.
---
My argument is not about those who believe the world is or isn't a simulation, but rather those who say it doesn't matter what the "reality" of the world is and are apathetic to the debate itself.
---
Well, it's their right to have an opinion right? and having an opinion that means you don't have an opinion at all does not destroy the debate, it only takes people who want nothing to do with the debate out of it.
You can still argue with other over said question, and you do not have to adress the ones refraining from the debate to begin with as they want to have nothing to do with it.
It does not harm the debate, it only lowers the amount of people it applies to. | 93vo27 | CMV: Apathy towards the truth in currently unknowable debates is harmful | I see all the time in the free will debate that people state it doesn't matter if we have free will or not because effectively nothing changes . I think that this position is harmful because disproving free will would discredit many ideologies which people dedicate tons of time to such as religion. This would challenge the beliefs of billions, and would likewise shape the world.
Similarly in questioning if we live in a simulation many people apathetically state that it doesn't matter if the world is simulated or base reality. This is again harmful because of what a simulated world would mean in answering the Fermi paradox and other questions about our existence. Also a society apathetic to a simulated existence would be less likely to pursue means of breaking out of the simulation and cementing our existence, rather than being at the mercy of the gods who simulated us. | TheIntellectualkind | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "jaelenchrysos",
"id": "e3gc915",
"score": 1,
"text": "As for your first point specifically:\nI see what you’re saying, if we could say “free will doesn’t exist,” then certainly many people’s lives would change. However, I think the agnostic (for lack of a better word) view towards free ... | [
{
"author": "bibenner12",
"id": "e3gbrrr",
"score": 1,
"text": "I do not feel like it is harmful in any way, if these people want to believe that this world is a simulation then let them? They are not claiming that everyone has to believe so, they are just not inclined to think further.\n\nThey are ... | [
"e3gc915",
"e3gdb05",
"e3gvxw4"
] | [
"e3gbrrr",
"e3gcajz",
"e3gczss"
] |
CMV - Universities and hiring companies should stop using diversity quotas to admit/hire minority applicants.
I’m an African black Male person who recently applied to college in the US. After going through multiple college admissions forums and “ChanceMe” threads (even the dedicated subreddit) I noticed one recurring thing: many applicants see their gender and minority status or to be more accurate, non-white status as a major plus to gaining admission.
The entire argument against discrimination of race and sex is that the system/patriarchy/whatever you want to call it systematically refuses to award privileges to people of colour and women, and that the aforementioned demographics are **NOT considered based on their own merit.**
In short, the system favours white males, and I will agree that this is a problem. However, I am in disagreement with the solutions being taken in the present.
Diversity quotas mean that, in theory, a minor thing person that is not optimally qualified can be selected for a position to satisfy a quota, and also, in theory, a non-minority person could be denied said position for the relatively less qualified person.
In real life, this happens. Recently an Austrian man won a case in court against a company that hired a less qualified woman ahead of him to promote diversity.
Conservative media is incessantly ridiculed by their ideological counterparts for whining when white males are now being systematically targeted for their “privilege” by universities. In retaliation for said privilege, they are now the ones being discriminated against.
Now, I will not deny that white privilege exists, but I do not believe it is right to punish the beneficiaries of such privilege simply because they were born white and male. I do not believe diversity quotas (including the film industry’s new inclusion rider policy) is the optimal step toward equality.
In fact, minority quotas encourage discrimination and preference based on sex/race! Swapping the beneficiaries does not change the fact that it’s still discrimination. Worse still, minority applicants used to fill quotas become “token” students/employees used to exonerate the school/company from racism/sexism.
What should be done? I think we should attack discrimination on the base level. I think minorities and women should be given the same opportunities to be equally as qualified as their counterparts. And also, hiring institutions should disregard gender/race altogether when accepting people.
Those are qualities we cannot choose and are born with. I think we should only be judged based on things we have control over.
I have a similar sentiment for film but that’s a totally different discussion.
[EDIT]: From the comments I’ve learned that quotas are illegal. Refer to this comment I made in response to the person that told me that.
> I see, I didn’t know that. But what I was trying to say was that these companies make it a point to hire minorities in order to avoid being labelled racist or sexist.
Whether or not quotas are illegal, in the pursuit of equality (or desire to not appear sexist or racist) historically privileged people are now being put on the short end in many institutions.
[EDIT2]: Thanks for the well structured and surprisingly single counter arguments on here. My view has been changed on a lot of points in my argument. I still cling to the principle of competence over race though! Have a nice day! | I think the flaw in your thinking is that you are assuming that minority and female candidates are less qualified than their male counterparts due to historical bias. While yes, due to historical de jure discrimination, it is true that they have had fewer opportunities, there are also plenty of very qualified candidates who are ignored. Study after study has shown that white males are perceived to be more competent than they are. [Here] (http://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf) is an example of a "resume study," where identical resumes were sent to hiring managers with different names. Resumes with stereotypically "black" names received fewer interviews than their "white" counterparts despite having identical qualifications. The same phenomenon has been observed when the study is done with male and female names; even though the candidates have the exact same resume, the male resumes received more opportunities. Quotas exist so that these hiring managers are forced to find the most qualified minority candidate because that candidate, while likely just as or more qualified than their white male counterparts, is often passed over due to unconscious bias. That's the evil that quotas are intended to fix.
---
I understand that, but I think you missed the part where I said that minorities and women should be given an equal platform and equal consideration regardless of their gender/race.
It is very obvious that women and minorities are often equally as qualified. My problem is that in the pursuit of equality (or the pursuit to not be perceived as unequal) more qualified people can be and are turned away in favour of less qualified people.
If a company ran recruitment and the most qualified were white males, then I figure those people should get the jobs. Same goes if the most qualified were black women. The problem with society is that even in the first instance the employer would be judged as racist.
---
But we've demonstrated scientifically that people are not capable of accurately judging qualifiication. If a company found that all of the qualified candidates were white males my prior would be that the hiring managers are biased in their evaluations. | I'm not a huge fan of affirmative action policies either, but I'd like to point out that *quotas* are illegal, at least in the US. Race is a factor that may be considered during the hiring/admissions process, but saying that you'll take X people from race A and Y people from race B is prohibited by law.
---
I see, I didn’t know that. But what I was trying to say was that these companies make it a point to hire minorities in order to avoid being labelled racist or sexist.
---
Yeah, I know what you mean. As far as university admissions go, I think it would be better if race were ignored entirely, in favor of giving a leg up to applicants with low income backgrounds and/or no family history of higher education. I suspect that mostly minorities would benefit from this policy, but the focal point would be creating opportunities for people with tangible disadvantages, rather than favoring certain races over other ones. | 86c6t8 | CMV - Universities and hiring companies should stop using diversity quotas to admit/hire minority applicants. | I’m an African black Male person who recently applied to college in the US. After going through multiple college admissions forums and “ChanceMe” threads (even the dedicated subreddit) I noticed one recurring thing: many applicants see their gender and minority status or to be more accurate, non-white status as a major plus to gaining admission.
The entire argument against discrimination of race and sex is that the system/patriarchy/whatever you want to call it systematically refuses to award privileges to people of colour and women, and that the aforementioned demographics are **NOT considered based on their own merit.**
In short, the system favours white males, and I will agree that this is a problem. However, I am in disagreement with the solutions being taken in the present.
Diversity quotas mean that, in theory, a minor thing person that is not optimally qualified can be selected for a position to satisfy a quota, and also, in theory, a non-minority person could be denied said position for the relatively less qualified person.
In real life, this happens. Recently an Austrian man won a case in court against a company that hired a less qualified woman ahead of him to promote diversity.
Conservative media is incessantly ridiculed by their ideological counterparts for whining when white males are now being systematically targeted for their “privilege” by universities. In retaliation for said privilege, they are now the ones being discriminated against.
Now, I will not deny that white privilege exists, but I do not believe it is right to punish the beneficiaries of such privilege simply because they were born white and male. I do not believe diversity quotas (including the film industry’s new inclusion rider policy) is the optimal step toward equality.
In fact, minority quotas encourage discrimination and preference based on sex/race! Swapping the beneficiaries does not change the fact that it’s still discrimination. Worse still, minority applicants used to fill quotas become “token” students/employees used to exonerate the school/company from racism/sexism.
What should be done? I think we should attack discrimination on the base level. I think minorities and women should be given the same opportunities to be equally as qualified as their counterparts. And also, hiring institutions should disregard gender/race altogether when accepting people.
Those are qualities we cannot choose and are born with. I think we should only be judged based on things we have control over.
I have a similar sentiment for film but that’s a totally different discussion.
[EDIT]: From the comments I’ve learned that quotas are illegal. Refer to this comment I made in response to the person that told me that.
> I see, I didn’t know that. But what I was trying to say was that these companies make it a point to hire minorities in order to avoid being labelled racist or sexist.
Whether or not quotas are illegal, in the pursuit of equality (or desire to not appear sexist or racist) historically privileged people are now being put on the short end in many institutions.
[EDIT2]: Thanks for the well structured and surprisingly single counter arguments on here. My view has been changed on a lot of points in my argument. I still cling to the principle of competence over race though! Have a nice day! | doloriangod | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "murderousbudgie",
"id": "dw3w8nt",
"score": 2,
"text": "I think the flaw in your thinking is that you are assuming that minority and female candidates are less qualified than their male counterparts due to historical bias. While yes, due to historical de jure discrimination, it is true ... | [
{
"author": "goaheaddoyourworst",
"id": "dw3vuue",
"score": 7,
"text": "I'm not a huge fan of affirmative action policies either, but I'd like to point out that *quotas* are illegal, at least in the US. Race is a factor that may be considered during the hiring/admissions process, but saying that you... | [
"dw3w8nt",
"dw3wsun",
"dw3xpiv"
] | [
"dw3vuue",
"dw3vy3b",
"dw3w90j"
] |
CMV - Universities and hiring companies should stop using diversity quotas to admit/hire minority applicants.
I’m an African black Male person who recently applied to college in the US. After going through multiple college admissions forums and “ChanceMe” threads (even the dedicated subreddit) I noticed one recurring thing: many applicants see their gender and minority status or to be more accurate, non-white status as a major plus to gaining admission.
The entire argument against discrimination of race and sex is that the system/patriarchy/whatever you want to call it systematically refuses to award privileges to people of colour and women, and that the aforementioned demographics are **NOT considered based on their own merit.**
In short, the system favours white males, and I will agree that this is a problem. However, I am in disagreement with the solutions being taken in the present.
Diversity quotas mean that, in theory, a minor thing person that is not optimally qualified can be selected for a position to satisfy a quota, and also, in theory, a non-minority person could be denied said position for the relatively less qualified person.
In real life, this happens. Recently an Austrian man won a case in court against a company that hired a less qualified woman ahead of him to promote diversity.
Conservative media is incessantly ridiculed by their ideological counterparts for whining when white males are now being systematically targeted for their “privilege” by universities. In retaliation for said privilege, they are now the ones being discriminated against.
Now, I will not deny that white privilege exists, but I do not believe it is right to punish the beneficiaries of such privilege simply because they were born white and male. I do not believe diversity quotas (including the film industry’s new inclusion rider policy) is the optimal step toward equality.
In fact, minority quotas encourage discrimination and preference based on sex/race! Swapping the beneficiaries does not change the fact that it’s still discrimination. Worse still, minority applicants used to fill quotas become “token” students/employees used to exonerate the school/company from racism/sexism.
What should be done? I think we should attack discrimination on the base level. I think minorities and women should be given the same opportunities to be equally as qualified as their counterparts. And also, hiring institutions should disregard gender/race altogether when accepting people.
Those are qualities we cannot choose and are born with. I think we should only be judged based on things we have control over.
I have a similar sentiment for film but that’s a totally different discussion.
[EDIT]: From the comments I’ve learned that quotas are illegal. Refer to this comment I made in response to the person that told me that.
> I see, I didn’t know that. But what I was trying to say was that these companies make it a point to hire minorities in order to avoid being labelled racist or sexist.
Whether or not quotas are illegal, in the pursuit of equality (or desire to not appear sexist or racist) historically privileged people are now being put on the short end in many institutions.
[EDIT2]: Thanks for the well structured and surprisingly single counter arguments on here. My view has been changed on a lot of points in my argument. I still cling to the principle of competence over race though! Have a nice day! | I'm not a huge fan of affirmative action policies either, but I'd like to point out that *quotas* are illegal, at least in the US. Race is a factor that may be considered during the hiring/admissions process, but saying that you'll take X people from race A and Y people from race B is prohibited by law.
---
I see, I didn’t know that. But what I was trying to say was that these companies make it a point to hire minorities in order to avoid being labelled racist or sexist.
---
I would already argue that is a material departure from the original point being made. However, the other point I want to make, specifically as a response to University admissions is this:
This is UoMichigan's population demographic page: http://ro.umich.edu/enrollment/ethnicity.php. Click on the 2015 link, and what do you see? As of 2015 (the last year data was available), of the 43k student population, only 1.8k come from black background, to contrast with 24k white. This is to say that if a white student did not make it into UoM, its much more likely that they didn't because they did not study enough in 3rd period Chemistry as opposed to because they were so well qualified, but a black student took their place instead. In fact, it could be said that if you were white and didn't get in, there were 24.5k white students better than you! So I think there's a massive over-rating of the importance of Affirmative Action. White people seem to want to blame it for much more than what its actually doing. And I selected UoM because it was subject to a very high profile affirmative action suit decided by the Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger so I would argue it would be a university willing to give more weight (though perhaps in the abstract) to minority communities. | I think the flaw in your thinking is that you are assuming that minority and female candidates are less qualified than their male counterparts due to historical bias. While yes, due to historical de jure discrimination, it is true that they have had fewer opportunities, there are also plenty of very qualified candidates who are ignored. Study after study has shown that white males are perceived to be more competent than they are. [Here] (http://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf) is an example of a "resume study," where identical resumes were sent to hiring managers with different names. Resumes with stereotypically "black" names received fewer interviews than their "white" counterparts despite having identical qualifications. The same phenomenon has been observed when the study is done with male and female names; even though the candidates have the exact same resume, the male resumes received more opportunities. Quotas exist so that these hiring managers are forced to find the most qualified minority candidate because that candidate, while likely just as or more qualified than their white male counterparts, is often passed over due to unconscious bias. That's the evil that quotas are intended to fix.
---
(I agree up until the quota lart; quotas are illegal and so companies generally just affirmatively consider race/ethnicity/gender)
---
In the US they are, but since OP wanted to talk about them I figured I would. Other affirmative action policies seek to do the same thing. | 86c6t8 | CMV - Universities and hiring companies should stop using diversity quotas to admit/hire minority applicants. | I’m an African black Male person who recently applied to college in the US. After going through multiple college admissions forums and “ChanceMe” threads (even the dedicated subreddit) I noticed one recurring thing: many applicants see their gender and minority status or to be more accurate, non-white status as a major plus to gaining admission.
The entire argument against discrimination of race and sex is that the system/patriarchy/whatever you want to call it systematically refuses to award privileges to people of colour and women, and that the aforementioned demographics are **NOT considered based on their own merit.**
In short, the system favours white males, and I will agree that this is a problem. However, I am in disagreement with the solutions being taken in the present.
Diversity quotas mean that, in theory, a minor thing person that is not optimally qualified can be selected for a position to satisfy a quota, and also, in theory, a non-minority person could be denied said position for the relatively less qualified person.
In real life, this happens. Recently an Austrian man won a case in court against a company that hired a less qualified woman ahead of him to promote diversity.
Conservative media is incessantly ridiculed by their ideological counterparts for whining when white males are now being systematically targeted for their “privilege” by universities. In retaliation for said privilege, they are now the ones being discriminated against.
Now, I will not deny that white privilege exists, but I do not believe it is right to punish the beneficiaries of such privilege simply because they were born white and male. I do not believe diversity quotas (including the film industry’s new inclusion rider policy) is the optimal step toward equality.
In fact, minority quotas encourage discrimination and preference based on sex/race! Swapping the beneficiaries does not change the fact that it’s still discrimination. Worse still, minority applicants used to fill quotas become “token” students/employees used to exonerate the school/company from racism/sexism.
What should be done? I think we should attack discrimination on the base level. I think minorities and women should be given the same opportunities to be equally as qualified as their counterparts. And also, hiring institutions should disregard gender/race altogether when accepting people.
Those are qualities we cannot choose and are born with. I think we should only be judged based on things we have control over.
I have a similar sentiment for film but that’s a totally different discussion.
[EDIT]: From the comments I’ve learned that quotas are illegal. Refer to this comment I made in response to the person that told me that.
> I see, I didn’t know that. But what I was trying to say was that these companies make it a point to hire minorities in order to avoid being labelled racist or sexist.
Whether or not quotas are illegal, in the pursuit of equality (or desire to not appear sexist or racist) historically privileged people are now being put on the short end in many institutions.
[EDIT2]: Thanks for the well structured and surprisingly single counter arguments on here. My view has been changed on a lot of points in my argument. I still cling to the principle of competence over race though! Have a nice day! | doloriangod | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "goaheaddoyourworst",
"id": "dw3vuue",
"score": 7,
"text": "I'm not a huge fan of affirmative action policies either, but I'd like to point out that *quotas* are illegal, at least in the US. Race is a factor that may be considered during the hiring/admissions process, but saying that you... | [
{
"author": "murderousbudgie",
"id": "dw3w8nt",
"score": 2,
"text": "I think the flaw in your thinking is that you are assuming that minority and female candidates are less qualified than their male counterparts due to historical bias. While yes, due to historical de jure discrimination, it is true ... | [
"dw3vuue",
"dw3vy3b",
"dw426kh"
] | [
"dw3w8nt",
"dw3wr0r",
"dw3ww2n"
] |
CMV: Smoking Cigarettes is Healthy, Propaganda Against Them is Due to Big Pharma's Lobbying Efforts
Smoking cigarettes is healthy, propaganda against them is due to big pharma's lobbying efforts
Cigarettes increase testosterone:
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17163954/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17163954/)
In addition, nicotinic acid helps with muscle performance and prevents mitochondrial miopathy:
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32386566/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32386566/)
In combination to these factors, it is a stimulant that reduces appetite - studies that focus on cigarette smoker mortality try to adjust for cigarette smoking and weight by treating it as if someone would be of the same weight and of the same level of physical activity regardless of if they smoked - when that is simply not true between the above 2 effects and the natural stimulant effect of nicotine.
Then there is the social aspect - smoking is largely a social activity, and those who partake in social activities and smoke live longer than those who are non social and live a "healthier" life
[https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/109/2/186/74197?login=false](https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/109/2/186/74197?login=false)
​
​ | I mean, first off, your first link starts:
>Smoking is a risk factor of coronary heart disease (CHD)
so lol.
But realistically, let's take a step back here and discuss this from another angle.
Smoking is objectively unhealthy. This applies to cigarettes, as well as pot. That is because inhaling tar (and the rest of everything that comes after the fire part) is not good for your lungs.
Separately, I could see an argument that **nicotine** specifically can have positive health effects despite being highly addictive. It is commonly reported that Nicotine can help people with ADHD to manage symptoms. But the key here is that smoking is not the health part, it is likely the nicotine, so we should in that case just use patches, gum, or vapes (but probably not vapes) as nicotine delivery systems.
---
> Separately, I could see an argument that nicotine specifically can have positive health effects despite being highly addictive. It is commonly reported that Nicotine can help people with ADHD to manage symptoms. But the key here is that smoking is not the health part, it is likely the nicotine, so we should in that case just use patches, gum, or vapes (but probably not vapes) as nicotine delivery systems.
Tobacco is not one dimensional - there are ~7000 compounds produced when you smoke a cigarette, there are a lot more effects from those than just the affect of nicotine. For instance I specifically talked about the health benefits of an oxidized form of nicotine, nicotinic acid.
---
Yeah, tobacco is not one dimensional. Inhaling smoke is worse than any of the benefits that it provides.
If *nothing* else, the lowered lung capacity and COPD are bigger issues than any of the positives you can extract and potentially administer separately.
---
> the lowered lung capacity and COPD are bigger issues than any of the positives you can extract
Do you have proof of that specific claim?
---
[Cigarette smoking reduces chest wall motion and flexibility, reducing lung capacity and increasing vulnerability to dyspnea.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3944281) | It could have a couple health benefits but overall it is extremely damaging to your lungs and heart through countless studies. So yea maybe you get better testosterone levels but then also get lung cancer so
---
> ls but then also get lung cancer so
Its 1 in 15 in your entire life if you smoke a half pack a day.
---
Those are incredibly bad odds, would you take a pill that had a 1 in 10 chance of killing you?
---
The chance of death is 100%, all men die, Memento Mori.
---
You know exactly what I mean, why would you respond in this weird, pedantic way?
Assuming everything is normal, then humans will die roughly around 80 years, depending on gender.
If smoking cigarettes have a 1 in 10 chance of significantly shorting that, that's an incredibly unhealthy thing to do. | 198ia60 | CMV: Smoking Cigarettes is Healthy, Propaganda Against Them is Due to Big Pharma's Lobbying Efforts | Smoking cigarettes is healthy, propaganda against them is due to big pharma's lobbying efforts
Cigarettes increase testosterone:
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17163954/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17163954/)
In addition, nicotinic acid helps with muscle performance and prevents mitochondrial miopathy:
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32386566/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32386566/)
In combination to these factors, it is a stimulant that reduces appetite - studies that focus on cigarette smoker mortality try to adjust for cigarette smoking and weight by treating it as if someone would be of the same weight and of the same level of physical activity regardless of if they smoked - when that is simply not true between the above 2 effects and the natural stimulant effect of nicotine.
Then there is the social aspect - smoking is largely a social activity, and those who partake in social activities and smoke live longer than those who are non social and live a "healthier" life
[https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/109/2/186/74197?login=false](https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/109/2/186/74197?login=false)
​
​ | MathematicianThat402 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "TheTyger",
"id": "ki7fdwx",
"score": 14,
"text": "I mean, first off, your first link starts:\n\n>Smoking is a risk factor of coronary heart disease (CHD)\n\nso lol.\n\nBut realistically, let's take a step back here and discuss this from another angle. \n\nSmoking is objectively unhealt... | [
{
"author": "Superbooper24",
"id": "ki7fzy4",
"score": 6,
"text": "It could have a couple health benefits but overall it is extremely damaging to your lungs and heart through countless studies. So yea maybe you get better testosterone levels but then also get lung cancer so",
"timestamp": 170545... | [
"ki7fdwx",
"ki7g01a",
"ki7gwo1",
"ki7h0nv",
"ki7hbc7"
] | [
"ki7fzy4",
"ki7gdzx",
"ki7gsyg",
"ki7hb7a",
"ki7hjn3"
] |
CMV: I have not yet been offered a vaccine against covid, but I'm leaning towards not bothering
My reasoning:
I'm in good health, fairly young (41) and expect if I got it, which I don't know that I haven't already, I'll be down for a couple of days.
The people who are at risk can get vaccines.
I would still have to wear a mask to go inside anywhere and get a test to prove I don't have it if traveling abroad as it stands. (Am in the UK if it makes a difference) I also work from home which won't change any time soon.
Free, at home, testing is now available and I've ordered some .
My folks have had both their jabs.
Please sell me on it as I'm struggling to see a benefit. If you have some data I'll be more than happy to look at it. Please don't just call me anti vax. That's untrue. My view is based, I think, on risk vs reward and I'm struggling to see the reward.
This is my first post here so I'm happy to rewrite anything I've missed.
Edit: I'm being asked about transmission. I'm getting mixed messages on whether you can still spread it after being vaccinated. If you're going to make that case, please provide data that an average Reddit user can read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-what-to-expect-after-vaccination/what-to-expect-after-your-covid-19-vaccination#what-you-can-do-after-youve-have-had-the-vaccine
Edit 2: Astrazeneca/Oxford University and Pfizer/Biontech jabs are used here if that helps.
Edit 3: I've realised that as I've seen anecdotes that I'm not particularly convinced by them. However I based the being down for a couple days if vaccinated on anecdotes, so have removed that for now until I've got more info on the likely side effects. | What do you think is the risk of getting the vaccine? Surely if there are none there’s no reason not to get it
---
As far as I can tell, the side effects would put me down, as in be exhausted, for a couple of days. I suspect the same of getting covid. I'm looking for reasons to get it that would outweigh that.
---
Do you get time off for the vaccine? Couple of free sick days even if you don’t get sick. | The benefit is there. The more people immunized, the less it will spread until it's gone.
This isn't about you. It's about all of us.
There is also a social benefit. You don't want to be the selfish guy who couldn't be bothered to do their part. To do the *bare minimum* of sitting in a chair and getting stuck while **millions** are dying around you.
That will be a scarlett letter you'll wear for the rest of you life.
You don't wanna be that guy. That guy's an asshole.
---
I'll add this to my original post. I'm seeing conflicting information on whether it reduces transmission.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/04/dr-fauci-on-why-its-important-to-wear-a-mask-after-getting-your-covid-vaccine-.html
---
There is no conflicting reports on vaccine efficacy.
It's been a known since vaccines were invented. It's why vaccines *exist*.
You forgot to address the social stigma.
Do you want to be known as a selfish asshole for the rest of your life?
On the flip-side, I've seen people who lied to cut in line for their vaccine, and I'll never be able to look at them the same again. This will all be over in a couple months, but they'll be vaccine line-cutters till the day they die. | mtjy66 | CMV: I have not yet been offered a vaccine against covid, but I'm leaning towards not bothering | My reasoning:
I'm in good health, fairly young (41) and expect if I got it, which I don't know that I haven't already, I'll be down for a couple of days.
The people who are at risk can get vaccines.
I would still have to wear a mask to go inside anywhere and get a test to prove I don't have it if traveling abroad as it stands. (Am in the UK if it makes a difference) I also work from home which won't change any time soon.
Free, at home, testing is now available and I've ordered some .
My folks have had both their jabs.
Please sell me on it as I'm struggling to see a benefit. If you have some data I'll be more than happy to look at it. Please don't just call me anti vax. That's untrue. My view is based, I think, on risk vs reward and I'm struggling to see the reward.
This is my first post here so I'm happy to rewrite anything I've missed.
Edit: I'm being asked about transmission. I'm getting mixed messages on whether you can still spread it after being vaccinated. If you're going to make that case, please provide data that an average Reddit user can read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-what-to-expect-after-vaccination/what-to-expect-after-your-covid-19-vaccination#what-you-can-do-after-youve-have-had-the-vaccine
Edit 2: Astrazeneca/Oxford University and Pfizer/Biontech jabs are used here if that helps.
Edit 3: I've realised that as I've seen anecdotes that I'm not particularly convinced by them. However I based the being down for a couple days if vaccinated on anecdotes, so have removed that for now until I've got more info on the likely side effects. | RossTheNinja | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Just_a_nonbeliever",
"id": "gv02ur8",
"score": 5,
"text": "What do you think is the risk of getting the vaccine? Surely if there are none there’s no reason not to get it",
"timestamp": 1618775278
},
{
"author": "RossTheNinja",
"id": "gv03hni",
"score": -1,
"text"... | [
{
"author": "Craftsmaniac",
"id": "gv03ida",
"score": 30,
"text": "The benefit is there. The more people immunized, the less it will spread until it's gone.\n\nThis isn't about you. It's about all of us.\n\nThere is also a social benefit. You don't want to be the selfish guy who couldn't be b... | [
"gv02ur8",
"gv03hni",
"gv0498y"
] | [
"gv03ida",
"gv05boy",
"gv06yew"
] |
CMV: I have not yet been offered a vaccine against covid, but I'm leaning towards not bothering
My reasoning:
I'm in good health, fairly young (41) and expect if I got it, which I don't know that I haven't already, I'll be down for a couple of days.
The people who are at risk can get vaccines.
I would still have to wear a mask to go inside anywhere and get a test to prove I don't have it if traveling abroad as it stands. (Am in the UK if it makes a difference) I also work from home which won't change any time soon.
Free, at home, testing is now available and I've ordered some .
My folks have had both their jabs.
Please sell me on it as I'm struggling to see a benefit. If you have some data I'll be more than happy to look at it. Please don't just call me anti vax. That's untrue. My view is based, I think, on risk vs reward and I'm struggling to see the reward.
This is my first post here so I'm happy to rewrite anything I've missed.
Edit: I'm being asked about transmission. I'm getting mixed messages on whether you can still spread it after being vaccinated. If you're going to make that case, please provide data that an average Reddit user can read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-what-to-expect-after-vaccination/what-to-expect-after-your-covid-19-vaccination#what-you-can-do-after-youve-have-had-the-vaccine
Edit 2: Astrazeneca/Oxford University and Pfizer/Biontech jabs are used here if that helps.
Edit 3: I've realised that as I've seen anecdotes that I'm not particularly convinced by them. However I based the being down for a couple days if vaccinated on anecdotes, so have removed that for now until I've got more info on the likely side effects. | What do you think is the risk of getting the vaccine? Surely if there are none there’s no reason not to get it
---
As far as I can tell, the side effects would put me down, as in be exhausted, for a couple of days. I suspect the same of getting covid. I'm looking for reasons to get it that would outweigh that.
---
You have the peace of mind knowing that you can't pass on a deadly virus to other people you come into contact with. If that alone isn't motivation for you then I think it says a lot.
---
I'm getting conflicting information on whether that is true, but thanks for the implication.
---
you guys have pfizer and moderna over there, right? those reduce transmission. https://www.verywellhealth.com/cdc-study-covid-19-transmission-vaccines-5121080
and I'd guess other vaccines do as well, this is just info for those particular ones. | The benefit is there. The more people immunized, the less it will spread until it's gone.
This isn't about you. It's about all of us.
There is also a social benefit. You don't want to be the selfish guy who couldn't be bothered to do their part. To do the *bare minimum* of sitting in a chair and getting stuck while **millions** are dying around you.
That will be a scarlett letter you'll wear for the rest of you life.
You don't wanna be that guy. That guy's an asshole.
---
I'll add this to my original post. I'm seeing conflicting information on whether it reduces transmission.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/04/dr-fauci-on-why-its-important-to-wear-a-mask-after-getting-your-covid-vaccine-.html
---
Conflicting my ass.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-11/pfizer-biontech-covid-vaccine-blocks-most-spread-in-israel-study
Yes, vaccines prevent transmission very significantly. Get your shot so you're no longer a vector for this disease to spread.
---
From gov.uk
What you can do after you’ve have had the vaccine:
The vaccine cannot give you COVID-19 infection, and a full course will reduce your chance of becoming seriously ill. We don’t know how much it will reduce the risk of you passing on the virus. So it is important to continue to follow current national guidance.
To protect yourself and your family, friends and colleagues, you MUST still:
practise social distancing
wear a face mask
wash your hands carefully and frequently
open windows to let fresh air in
follow the current guidance
There's no need to be hostile. That's an encouraging study you have posted and would've been far more convincing without the snark.
---
The study speaks for itself - vaccines reduce transmission. As that's the main thrust of your position (that you weren't sure that a vaccine would stop you spreading it to others) then the outcome is clear - get the vaccine to prevent spreading covid. | mtjy66 | CMV: I have not yet been offered a vaccine against covid, but I'm leaning towards not bothering | My reasoning:
I'm in good health, fairly young (41) and expect if I got it, which I don't know that I haven't already, I'll be down for a couple of days.
The people who are at risk can get vaccines.
I would still have to wear a mask to go inside anywhere and get a test to prove I don't have it if traveling abroad as it stands. (Am in the UK if it makes a difference) I also work from home which won't change any time soon.
Free, at home, testing is now available and I've ordered some .
My folks have had both their jabs.
Please sell me on it as I'm struggling to see a benefit. If you have some data I'll be more than happy to look at it. Please don't just call me anti vax. That's untrue. My view is based, I think, on risk vs reward and I'm struggling to see the reward.
This is my first post here so I'm happy to rewrite anything I've missed.
Edit: I'm being asked about transmission. I'm getting mixed messages on whether you can still spread it after being vaccinated. If you're going to make that case, please provide data that an average Reddit user can read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-what-to-expect-after-vaccination/what-to-expect-after-your-covid-19-vaccination#what-you-can-do-after-youve-have-had-the-vaccine
Edit 2: Astrazeneca/Oxford University and Pfizer/Biontech jabs are used here if that helps.
Edit 3: I've realised that as I've seen anecdotes that I'm not particularly convinced by them. However I based the being down for a couple days if vaccinated on anecdotes, so have removed that for now until I've got more info on the likely side effects. | RossTheNinja | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Just_a_nonbeliever",
"id": "gv02ur8",
"score": 5,
"text": "What do you think is the risk of getting the vaccine? Surely if there are none there’s no reason not to get it",
"timestamp": 1618775278
},
{
"author": "RossTheNinja",
"id": "gv03hni",
"score": -1,
"text"... | [
{
"author": "Craftsmaniac",
"id": "gv03ida",
"score": 30,
"text": "The benefit is there. The more people immunized, the less it will spread until it's gone.\n\nThis isn't about you. It's about all of us.\n\nThere is also a social benefit. You don't want to be the selfish guy who couldn't be b... | [
"gv02ur8",
"gv03hni",
"gv03s8z",
"gv04f4f",
"gv05ao3"
] | [
"gv03ida",
"gv05boy",
"gv09zcy",
"gv0b9jl",
"gv0bxpw"
] |
CMV: I have not yet been offered a vaccine against covid, but I'm leaning towards not bothering
My reasoning:
I'm in good health, fairly young (41) and expect if I got it, which I don't know that I haven't already, I'll be down for a couple of days.
The people who are at risk can get vaccines.
I would still have to wear a mask to go inside anywhere and get a test to prove I don't have it if traveling abroad as it stands. (Am in the UK if it makes a difference) I also work from home which won't change any time soon.
Free, at home, testing is now available and I've ordered some .
My folks have had both their jabs.
Please sell me on it as I'm struggling to see a benefit. If you have some data I'll be more than happy to look at it. Please don't just call me anti vax. That's untrue. My view is based, I think, on risk vs reward and I'm struggling to see the reward.
This is my first post here so I'm happy to rewrite anything I've missed.
Edit: I'm being asked about transmission. I'm getting mixed messages on whether you can still spread it after being vaccinated. If you're going to make that case, please provide data that an average Reddit user can read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-what-to-expect-after-vaccination/what-to-expect-after-your-covid-19-vaccination#what-you-can-do-after-youve-have-had-the-vaccine
Edit 2: Astrazeneca/Oxford University and Pfizer/Biontech jabs are used here if that helps.
Edit 3: I've realised that as I've seen anecdotes that I'm not particularly convinced by them. However I based the being down for a couple days if vaccinated on anecdotes, so have removed that for now until I've got more info on the likely side effects. | The benefit is there. The more people immunized, the less it will spread until it's gone.
This isn't about you. It's about all of us.
There is also a social benefit. You don't want to be the selfish guy who couldn't be bothered to do their part. To do the *bare minimum* of sitting in a chair and getting stuck while **millions** are dying around you.
That will be a scarlett letter you'll wear for the rest of you life.
You don't wanna be that guy. That guy's an asshole.
---
I'll add this to my original post. I'm seeing conflicting information on whether it reduces transmission.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/04/dr-fauci-on-why-its-important-to-wear-a-mask-after-getting-your-covid-vaccine-.html
---
If it turns out you can still transmit it, all that does is mean the % vaccinated that we need for herd immunity is just a little Higher right? It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t bother, it means we need more people to bother.
---
Would spreading it quicker not result in faster herd immunity and therefore a smaller percentage vaccinated? Genuine question, I don't know.
---
Herd immunity could only be achieved without vaccines if reinfection wasn't possible. (To say nothing of mutation--once the virus is spreading less widely, it can't mutate at the same rate.) Since it is, vaccines are the fastest way to get the virus out of circulation.
More importantly, even if reinfection *wasn't* possible, herd immunity would require 70% of the population to get infected. In the U.S., that'd be roughly 230 million infections and, assuming a mortality rate of 1%, 2.3 million deaths. In the U.K., it'd be ~430,000 deaths. The vaccine allows us to get there without that kind of mass death and mass disability.
(Edit: Even if transmission is still possible with the vaccine, it might be massively less than without it. And in the meantime, people aren't dying or developing lifelong disabilities.) | What do you think is the risk of getting the vaccine? Surely if there are none there’s no reason not to get it
---
As far as I can tell, the side effects would put me down, as in be exhausted, for a couple of days. I suspect the same of getting covid. I'm looking for reasons to get it that would outweigh that.
---
You have the peace of mind knowing that you can't pass on a deadly virus to other people you come into contact with. If that alone isn't motivation for you then I think it says a lot.
---
I'm getting conflicting information on whether that is true, but thanks for the implication.
---
Conflicting information from whom? Medical experts almost unanimously agree that the vaccine is good. Who is telling you otherwise? Facebook? Q? | mtjy66 | CMV: I have not yet been offered a vaccine against covid, but I'm leaning towards not bothering | My reasoning:
I'm in good health, fairly young (41) and expect if I got it, which I don't know that I haven't already, I'll be down for a couple of days.
The people who are at risk can get vaccines.
I would still have to wear a mask to go inside anywhere and get a test to prove I don't have it if traveling abroad as it stands. (Am in the UK if it makes a difference) I also work from home which won't change any time soon.
Free, at home, testing is now available and I've ordered some .
My folks have had both their jabs.
Please sell me on it as I'm struggling to see a benefit. If you have some data I'll be more than happy to look at it. Please don't just call me anti vax. That's untrue. My view is based, I think, on risk vs reward and I'm struggling to see the reward.
This is my first post here so I'm happy to rewrite anything I've missed.
Edit: I'm being asked about transmission. I'm getting mixed messages on whether you can still spread it after being vaccinated. If you're going to make that case, please provide data that an average Reddit user can read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-what-to-expect-after-vaccination/what-to-expect-after-your-covid-19-vaccination#what-you-can-do-after-youve-have-had-the-vaccine
Edit 2: Astrazeneca/Oxford University and Pfizer/Biontech jabs are used here if that helps.
Edit 3: I've realised that as I've seen anecdotes that I'm not particularly convinced by them. However I based the being down for a couple days if vaccinated on anecdotes, so have removed that for now until I've got more info on the likely side effects. | RossTheNinja | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Craftsmaniac",
"id": "gv03ida",
"score": 30,
"text": "The benefit is there. The more people immunized, the less it will spread until it's gone.\n\nThis isn't about you. It's about all of us.\n\nThere is also a social benefit. You don't want to be the selfish guy who couldn't be b... | [
{
"author": "Just_a_nonbeliever",
"id": "gv02ur8",
"score": 5,
"text": "What do you think is the risk of getting the vaccine? Surely if there are none there’s no reason not to get it",
"timestamp": 1618775278
},
{
"author": "RossTheNinja",
"id": "gv03hni",
"score": -1,
"text"... | [
"gv03ida",
"gv05boy",
"gv09c7x",
"gv0bsh4",
"gv0d4kx"
] | [
"gv02ur8",
"gv03hni",
"gv03s8z",
"gv04f4f",
"gv04qpl"
] |
CMV: Anarchism is not based in reality, and is a product of paranoia
I accept that my opinion may be flawed.
The reason for my view is that I just don't understand what an ideal society would look like to anarchists, how will it be achieved, and how will all the different anarchists even agree to a singular society, and even if they do, would they even prefer it to the original government.
I have only ever heard of anarchism as a viable political ideology from edgy teens or punks. Do people actually believe it will work, or is it just another form of rebellion.
If you think anarchism actually has a basis in reality and is not completely just based on emotion, give me some good arguments so I can better understand your point of view. | Anarchism is about organized non-hierarchical groups that self govern essentially. It can also mean just an absence of government and be chaotic but you seem to be looking for the poltical philosphy. I don't know a tonne but if you are interested I'm sure you can easily find stuff online.
---
the philosophytube video sums it up really well imo, in a clear way as well. | Anarchy to most people simply means abandoning hierarchy and focusing on community led justice (often without money or any clear ruler) , how we get there and what it will look like is a different debate however. Anarchy isn't a new thing either, during the english civil war some of the parliamentary roundheads were revolutionary anarcommunists and that was 100s of years ago. I'm still kind of confused about why you feel its based in paranoia though.
---
By paranoia I meant I thought that only people who have an extreme distrust of government would choose to abolish it. | hgt4xa | CMV: Anarchism is not based in reality, and is a product of paranoia | I accept that my opinion may be flawed.
The reason for my view is that I just don't understand what an ideal society would look like to anarchists, how will it be achieved, and how will all the different anarchists even agree to a singular society, and even if they do, would they even prefer it to the original government.
I have only ever heard of anarchism as a viable political ideology from edgy teens or punks. Do people actually believe it will work, or is it just another form of rebellion.
If you think anarchism actually has a basis in reality and is not completely just based on emotion, give me some good arguments so I can better understand your point of view. | offeverynight | 2 | 2 | [
{
"author": "Sadge_A_Star",
"id": "fw5wjcn",
"score": 12,
"text": "Anarchism is about organized non-hierarchical groups that self govern essentially. It can also mean just an absence of government and be chaotic but you seem to be looking for the poltical philosphy. I don't know a tonne but if you a... | [
{
"author": "SouthSimongo",
"id": "fw5wvoe",
"score": 3,
"text": "Anarchy to most people simply means abandoning hierarchy and focusing on community led justice (often without money or any clear ruler) , how we get there and what it will look like is a different debate however. Anarchy isn't a new ... | [
"fw5wjcn",
"fw5wyof"
] | [
"fw5wvoe",
"fw5xcdp"
] |
CMV: Anarchism is not based in reality, and is a product of paranoia
I accept that my opinion may be flawed.
The reason for my view is that I just don't understand what an ideal society would look like to anarchists, how will it be achieved, and how will all the different anarchists even agree to a singular society, and even if they do, would they even prefer it to the original government.
I have only ever heard of anarchism as a viable political ideology from edgy teens or punks. Do people actually believe it will work, or is it just another form of rebellion.
If you think anarchism actually has a basis in reality and is not completely just based on emotion, give me some good arguments so I can better understand your point of view. | Anarchism is about organized non-hierarchical groups that self govern essentially. It can also mean just an absence of government and be chaotic but you seem to be looking for the poltical philosphy. I don't know a tonne but if you are interested I'm sure you can easily find stuff online.
---
How will self governing work exactly? Like who is gonna be doing the governing? Like everyone simultaneously? So every small issue would need everyone in society to vote. If people are appointed to do so, wouldn't that just go full circle.
---
There would certainly be strong aspects of direct democracy, but ultimately an anarchist society would still have to rely on delegation, especially beyond the communal scale. The main difference to our current representative democracy is that representatives would be a lot more accountable to their people. Direct recall and frequent rotation are examples for methods which would very likely be used.
Personally, I don't think literally all aspects of society could realistically be organized under the principles of anarchism. Especially vital industries such as food production for example seem to need a certain level of stability which a classic representative democracy would likely be better suited for. Anarchism, in my opinion, is more of an ideal to work towards than a concrete goal. Every societal hierarchy should be questioned ruthlessly, but if it turns out that we actually do need it, so be it. | Anarchy to most people simply means abandoning hierarchy and focusing on community led justice (often without money or any clear ruler) , how we get there and what it will look like is a different debate however. Anarchy isn't a new thing either, during the english civil war some of the parliamentary roundheads were revolutionary anarcommunists and that was 100s of years ago. I'm still kind of confused about why you feel its based in paranoia though.
---
By paranoia I meant I thought that only people who have an extreme distrust of government would choose to abolish it.
---
ah ok cool, i think also people who are against inequality in power are also slightly more anarchical | hgt4xa | CMV: Anarchism is not based in reality, and is a product of paranoia | I accept that my opinion may be flawed.
The reason for my view is that I just don't understand what an ideal society would look like to anarchists, how will it be achieved, and how will all the different anarchists even agree to a singular society, and even if they do, would they even prefer it to the original government.
I have only ever heard of anarchism as a viable political ideology from edgy teens or punks. Do people actually believe it will work, or is it just another form of rebellion.
If you think anarchism actually has a basis in reality and is not completely just based on emotion, give me some good arguments so I can better understand your point of view. | offeverynight | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Sadge_A_Star",
"id": "fw5wjcn",
"score": 12,
"text": "Anarchism is about organized non-hierarchical groups that self govern essentially. It can also mean just an absence of government and be chaotic but you seem to be looking for the poltical philosphy. I don't know a tonne but if you a... | [
{
"author": "SouthSimongo",
"id": "fw5wvoe",
"score": 3,
"text": "Anarchy to most people simply means abandoning hierarchy and focusing on community led justice (often without money or any clear ruler) , how we get there and what it will look like is a different debate however. Anarchy isn't a new ... | [
"fw5wjcn",
"fw5x2cg",
"fw5ymec"
] | [
"fw5wvoe",
"fw5xcdp",
"fw5xwvf"
] |
CMV: Dairy is the most systematic exploitation of females and children on the planet and we should stop buying it
Reasoning:
1. These mothers are repeatedly inseminated (what a kind euphemism) and suffer through pregnancy just to have their one baby stolen from them, they’ll never see again.
2. Cows have 9 month long pregnancies just like we do. And their babies are ripped away mere hours after they give birth. Amidst this grief, they are confined to inhumane conditions and repeatedly milked dry and forced to repeat the process until they’re too spent to continue. Then they are slaughtered.
3. The baby female calves are raised to the same process, and the baby boys are sent to the veal slaughterhouses.
4. The best way to protest an industry is to stop buying from it.
Caveat: I am talking about where all normal grocery store and restaurant dairy products come from. The view does not come from what your farmer friend does up the road on their 20 acres.
| How is this more exploitative than say - factory chicken farming?
---
You make a great point, and there are VASTLY more chickens in farms than cows. Can you provide more information about chicken motherhood before I award a delta? I did say this about cows because of their undeniable bond with their single child.
---
I mean it’s pretty obvious we take more eggs from female chickens than any other animal, probably combined.
91 million metrics tons a year.
7.9 billion laying hens globally.
Vs
270 million milk cows | Why should I care about the cows if it’s good for humans?
---
There are lots of things that are good for humans that does not involve rape, destroying families, and exploiting sentient beings. Just buy soy, almond, oat, rice, cashew, or macadamia nut milk.
---
I asked why I should care about the cows. You didn’t give a reason | 1jp26rs | CMV: Dairy is the most systematic exploitation of females and children on the planet and we should stop buying it | Reasoning:
1. These mothers are repeatedly inseminated (what a kind euphemism) and suffer through pregnancy just to have their one baby stolen from them, they’ll never see again.
2. Cows have 9 month long pregnancies just like we do. And their babies are ripped away mere hours after they give birth. Amidst this grief, they are confined to inhumane conditions and repeatedly milked dry and forced to repeat the process until they’re too spent to continue. Then they are slaughtered.
3. The baby female calves are raised to the same process, and the baby boys are sent to the veal slaughterhouses.
4. The best way to protest an industry is to stop buying from it.
Caveat: I am talking about where all normal grocery store and restaurant dairy products come from. The view does not come from what your farmer friend does up the road on their 20 acres.
| alphamalejackhammer | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ObesesPieces",
"id": "mkw5xcr",
"score": 12,
"text": "How is this more exploitative than say - factory chicken farming?",
"timestamp": 1743530658
},
{
"author": "alphamalejackhammer",
"id": "mkw66zb",
"score": 0,
"text": "You make a great point, and there are VAS... | [
{
"author": "Nrdman",
"id": "mkw6lwa",
"score": 4,
"text": "Why should I care about the cows if it’s good for humans?",
"timestamp": 1743530870
},
{
"author": "Valgor",
"id": "mkw7nph",
"score": -2,
"text": "There are lots of things that are good for humans that does not invo... | [
"mkw5xcr",
"mkw66zb",
"mkw6o1r"
] | [
"mkw6lwa",
"mkw7nph",
"mkw84a5"
] |
CMV: being a good person is overrated and doing bad is far more exhilarating.
I get that some people get an emotional kick out of doing good, but if you don’t want to do be good then why should you. Doing bad things is far more fun because the idea of having an intense emotional affect on someone is amplified when the emotions are negative, people respond to negative emotions far more than positive ones,. Say you give a homeless dude some cash, he’ll be grateful sure, kick the cup out of his hand...it could ruin his day...week...month etc
It’s not just doing bad things to people though, you can get far more excitement from doing bad things if you come out of them unscathed cause there’s something to lose, you’re putting yourself at risk; whether that be your freedom if you break the law, your health and finances if you’re doing drugs or whatever, your relationships etc. Doing good benefits others yes, and your ego yes. But you know what’s dope for your ego knowing you can get away with something that you shouldn’t be doing.
| Most people have a conscience that makes them not do bad things. There's also a general social contract that makes it so that if you're an asshole, people will avoid you.
Being completely serious, you might be a psychopath or something if you view the world like this.
e: after reading your post history you definitely need to see a therapist or something
---
I’ve had the idea of being a psychopath thrown at me a few times, maybe I am; but I personally don’t think so. I do understand that conscience comes in but at the risk of sounding to philosophical, what makes good, good? Society dictates what’s good and bad, we are essentially following rules written down for us. We are never given a chance to decide what makes US feel good.
---
>I’ve had the idea of being a psychopath thrown at me a few times, maybe I am; but I personally don’t think so
>Society dictates what’s good and bad, we are essentially following rules written down for us. We are never given a chance to decide what makes US feel good.
That you think this really is a sign you should go get the tests done.
Generally, we don't need society to tell us not to do things to others we don't want done to ourselves.
'Normal' adults have empathy and a understanding of the physical nature of the universe (physics, the 'laws of logic', etc) that allow us to understand what is preferable treatment and what isn't.
There is some confusion about some of the fine details, as different people have different life experiences, but on the large things, there is little debate.
Everyone agrees that life is generally preferable to death , lack of pain is generally preferable to pain, not starving is generally preferable to starving, etc.
Oh, and not kicking the homeless man's cup out of his hand is preferable to kicking it.
For most people there isn't confusion on whether or not that's true or *why* that's true.
If you are confused by that, you should go see a doctor.
---
Honestly I know what empathy is, I just think empathy is a social construct
---
> I just think empathy is a social construct
It is a direct result of biological evolution.
---
....so you’re telling me you have known how to be “empathetic” since you could remember? It’s obviously just taught to people
---
**On the development of empathy**
>By the age of two years, children normally begin to display the fundamental behaviors of empathy by having an emotional response that corresponds with another person's emotional state.[65] Even earlier, at one year of age, infants have some rudiments of empathy, in the sense that they understand that, just like their own actions, other people's actions have goals.
Here we see that even infants have the potential for empathy.
**Genetic Basis**
>Research suggests that empathy is also partly genetically determined.[76] For instance, carriers of the deletion variant of ADRA2B show more activation of the amygdala when viewing emotionally arousing images.[77][78] The gene 5-HTTLPR seems to determine sensitivity to negative emotional information and is also attenuated by the deletion variant of ADRA2b.[79] Carriers of the double G variant of the OXTR gene were found to have better social skills and higher self-esteem.[80] A gene located near LRRN1 on chromosome 3 then again controls the human ability to read, understand and respond to emotions in others.
Here we see the biological basis for empathy in our DNA.
**Neurological Basis**
>The study of the neural underpinnings of empathy has received increased interest following the target paper published by Preston and Frans de Waal,[91] following the discovery of mirror neurons in monkeys that fire both when the creature watches another perform an action as well as when they themselves perform it.
>In their paper, they argue that attended perception of the object's state automatically activates neural representations, and that this activation automatically primes or generates the associated autonomic and somatic responses (idea of perception-action-coupling), unless inhibited. This mechanism is similar to the common coding theory between perception and action. Another recent study provides evidence of separate neural pathways activating reciprocal suppression in different regions of the brain associated with the performance of "social" and "mechanical" tasks. These findings suggest that the cognition associated with reasoning about the "state of another person's mind" and "causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects" are neurally suppressed from occurring at the same time.
Here we see that monkeys who are not "taught" not only experience empathy but that there is a fundamental basis observable in an MRI. We also see that these are *automatic* neural pathways the subject does not have control over unless inhibited.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy | Maybe in the short term, doing bad things can be fun and exciting.
But what if, just once, you do get caught. Boom. Possible jail time. Permanent record making it harder to get a job later. Friends and family lose respect and trust in you.
Why not just be a good person? You can still do a shit ton of fun, legal things, and there's no rush of being caught.
---
I mean most people’s experience is not similar to mine so, (I don’t have to worry about getting a job and most legal issues are pretty easily wriggled out of for me) so I understand that, people have things to worry about, but that’s what makes doing said things more enjoyable like I stated your putting yourself at risk.
I don’t think most people set out to be bad but if you enjoy something that would be considered bad then I think people shouldn’t have to avoid it just cause societies definition of morality has told us not to. You can have fun doing whatever you want
---
> you can have fun doing whatever you want
The problem is, most laws and restrictions are there for a reason. They are there so that you can't just walk down the street and shoot someone just cause it's gives you a rush.
Although you will most likely never kill anyone, small actions still have consequences, and they can still cause harm to other people.
---
Okay I’m saying this hesitantly cause I don’t wanna come off seeming like I’m cool with murder...BUT if we look back before societal laws were in place, people killed each other all the time. I don’t know what pointing that means, but if I think people shouldn’t restrict their own life experience cause some dusty book of rules says so.
Good and bad gives life balance, the risks and rewards are natural and if that’s being murdered then I don’t know
---
Honest opinion, do you think you should be allowed to fight, steal, kill, kidnap, etc?
---
Yes.
---
Interesting! Wonder why you think like that..
Im going to echo what a lot of other people have said. Please see a therapist. We as strangers on the internet cannot help you. You need to do what's best for youself and find someone in real life.
Have a good one mate | 93rz5f | CMV: being a good person is overrated and doing bad is far more exhilarating. | I get that some people get an emotional kick out of doing good, but if you don’t want to do be good then why should you. Doing bad things is far more fun because the idea of having an intense emotional affect on someone is amplified when the emotions are negative, people respond to negative emotions far more than positive ones,. Say you give a homeless dude some cash, he’ll be grateful sure, kick the cup out of his hand...it could ruin his day...week...month etc
It’s not just doing bad things to people though, you can get far more excitement from doing bad things if you come out of them unscathed cause there’s something to lose, you’re putting yourself at risk; whether that be your freedom if you break the law, your health and finances if you’re doing drugs or whatever, your relationships etc. Doing good benefits others yes, and your ego yes. But you know what’s dope for your ego knowing you can get away with something that you shouldn’t be doing.
| ineedthisgone- | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "yunyun333",
"id": "e3fhpu8",
"score": 11,
"text": "Most people have a conscience that makes them not do bad things. There's also a general social contract that makes it so that if you're an asshole, people will avoid you. \n\nBeing completely serious, you might be a psychopath or someth... | [
{
"author": "apallingapollo",
"id": "e3fhtf2",
"score": 2,
"text": "Maybe in the short term, doing bad things can be fun and exciting. \n\nBut what if, just once, you do get caught. Boom. Possible jail time. Permanent record making it harder to get a job later. Friends and family lose respect and tr... | [
"e3fhpu8",
"e3fhzml",
"e3fkh2m",
"e3fm1t6",
"e3fmlox",
"e3fney4",
"e3fs0g0"
] | [
"e3fhtf2",
"e3fiaaj",
"e3fitq4",
"e3fk1l6",
"e3fl18p",
"e3fm9ul",
"e3fmk0z"
] |
CMV: This study by Everytown makes a convincing case that gun control laws do reduce gun violence.
A disclaimer: I'm not here to discuss the generalized argument about whether gun laws save lives. I am SPECIFICALLY centered on this source, and I will only respond to and discuss arguments about this source in particular. The only other sources I'm willing to entertain are sources that appear to study the exact same topic but came back with DIFFERENT results. Studies on unrelated topics are outside of the scope here.
Here's the study in question:
[https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/](https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/)
The findings of this study in particular are critical, as I believe that these findings make the strongest case I'm aware of that gun laws in the United States do indeed help to reduce gun violence. It also refutes the claim that "no evidence suggests that gun laws reduce gun violence." This study does exactly that, and I think it makes that case better than any other evidence I've seen out there. Simply put, anyone who wants to proceed with the claim that gun laws don't reduce gun violence needs to explain the findings of this study, full stop, or else they are being willfully dishonest.
Let me address a few criticisms I think I will find:
\- *The study was probably done by a biased institution*. Here's the thing: half of this data is verifiable by your own understanding of American politics, and the other half is just data that anyone can look up. This study makes a correlation between the strength of gun laws and the number of people who died due to gun violence. Regarding the former, the strength of gun laws, I firmly believe that anyone should be able to look at the states and how they are ranked in terms of how strict their gun laws are and realize that the classifications do indeed make sense. Blue states seem to have tighter restrictions. Red states don't. None of that is surprising. And the number of gun deaths? Well either a person was shot to death, or they weren't, right? So this isn't really subject to debate. The data was likely pulled from law enforcement records, so I feel like the only people who you could blame for messing up the data would be these law enforcement officers determining whether or not a person died because of a bullet wound. I just...don't see any real reason to think they'd massively screw that task up, ESPECIALLY not so that they could help some extraneous analysis done by Everytown.
\- *The data shows results for a single point in time, whereas the more interesting data is temporal.* That is true, but if you think about it, you can't really come up with a good reason for why a state that had a low amount of gun violence would suddenly start implementing a bunch of gun laws. If there's no danger to their state, then what's causing them to do this? It's just not a convincing angle in my mind.
\- *Correlation is not causation*. Sure, but I'm not calling this an iron-clad case by any means. But I am saying it is "convincing". If this were confounded by some other variable, you'd have to tell me what that variable is and how it could explain the correlation, and I have yet to hear of a convincing one that would completely blow this correlation up.
TL;DR: this source in particular is a cornerstone of the argument that gun laws do indeed lower gun violence, and I see no reason not to think that it demonstrates exactly that. CMV. | Reducing gun violence is a meaningless statistic by itself.
If the government were to ban red cars, we’d have less red car accidents. But would there be less total car accidents? I don’t think so.
Do guns work differently? Maybe, but you have to show that. Drawing a correlation between the number of guns and number of gun deaths shows that gun deaths are reduced, but not necessarily when net of substituted weapons.
---
This is about the 4th or 5th time I've heard someone say "gun deaths MIGHT be replaced by something else."
It would be nice to see someone actually prove that they would be. Because I'm highly skeptical that they would.
---
Here are actual graphs using actual datas that shows number of guns has 0 correlation to homicide rate, at both the state level within the US, and between countries internationally (apologies for the long links):
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0008a0fd-ff76-4269-8d6e-23e52cb29c6d_1162x844.png
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F046b82cf-95e2-40a9-872d-4dd59837ffef_720x522.png | Was this study even peer reviewed?
---
No. It's not published in a scientific journal.
If the argument is "since it wasn't peer-reviewed by a scientific journal, it is bogus", that's not very convincing to me. The quantification of "strength of gun laws" can probably never meet the requirements of a strict scientific analysis, but that shouldn't mean there's nothing we can learn from this.
---
>The quantification of "strength of gun laws" can probably never meet the requirements of a strict scientific analysis
Why do you think this is the case? There are loads of peer-reviewed studies on the effects of gun laws. | 198bn25 | CMV: This study by Everytown makes a convincing case that gun control laws do reduce gun violence. | A disclaimer: I'm not here to discuss the generalized argument about whether gun laws save lives. I am SPECIFICALLY centered on this source, and I will only respond to and discuss arguments about this source in particular. The only other sources I'm willing to entertain are sources that appear to study the exact same topic but came back with DIFFERENT results. Studies on unrelated topics are outside of the scope here.
Here's the study in question:
[https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/](https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/)
The findings of this study in particular are critical, as I believe that these findings make the strongest case I'm aware of that gun laws in the United States do indeed help to reduce gun violence. It also refutes the claim that "no evidence suggests that gun laws reduce gun violence." This study does exactly that, and I think it makes that case better than any other evidence I've seen out there. Simply put, anyone who wants to proceed with the claim that gun laws don't reduce gun violence needs to explain the findings of this study, full stop, or else they are being willfully dishonest.
Let me address a few criticisms I think I will find:
\- *The study was probably done by a biased institution*. Here's the thing: half of this data is verifiable by your own understanding of American politics, and the other half is just data that anyone can look up. This study makes a correlation between the strength of gun laws and the number of people who died due to gun violence. Regarding the former, the strength of gun laws, I firmly believe that anyone should be able to look at the states and how they are ranked in terms of how strict their gun laws are and realize that the classifications do indeed make sense. Blue states seem to have tighter restrictions. Red states don't. None of that is surprising. And the number of gun deaths? Well either a person was shot to death, or they weren't, right? So this isn't really subject to debate. The data was likely pulled from law enforcement records, so I feel like the only people who you could blame for messing up the data would be these law enforcement officers determining whether or not a person died because of a bullet wound. I just...don't see any real reason to think they'd massively screw that task up, ESPECIALLY not so that they could help some extraneous analysis done by Everytown.
\- *The data shows results for a single point in time, whereas the more interesting data is temporal.* That is true, but if you think about it, you can't really come up with a good reason for why a state that had a low amount of gun violence would suddenly start implementing a bunch of gun laws. If there's no danger to their state, then what's causing them to do this? It's just not a convincing angle in my mind.
\- *Correlation is not causation*. Sure, but I'm not calling this an iron-clad case by any means. But I am saying it is "convincing". If this were confounded by some other variable, you'd have to tell me what that variable is and how it could explain the correlation, and I have yet to hear of a convincing one that would completely blow this correlation up.
TL;DR: this source in particular is a cornerstone of the argument that gun laws do indeed lower gun violence, and I see no reason not to think that it demonstrates exactly that. CMV. | VanillaIsActuallyYum | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "libertysailor",
"id": "ki6f01d",
"score": 24,
"text": "Reducing gun violence is a meaningless statistic by itself. \n\nIf the government were to ban red cars, we’d have less red car accidents. But would there be less total car accidents? I don’t think so. \n\nDo guns work differently? M... | [
{
"author": "yyzjertl",
"id": "ki64bgh",
"score": 42,
"text": "Was this study even peer reviewed?",
"timestamp": 1705434144
},
{
"author": "VanillaIsActuallyYum",
"id": "ki64yrt",
"score": -27,
"text": "No. It's not published in a scientific journal.\n\nIf the argument is \"s... | [
"ki6f01d",
"ki6hxrz",
"ki6k9st"
] | [
"ki64bgh",
"ki64yrt",
"ki65jsp"
] |
CMV: Healthy people under 65 should not get COVID booster shots
The last time I posted on here was [about my hesitancy to get vaccinated](https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/mgt40g/cmv_rna_vaccines_have_not_been_proven_safe_and/). I eventually convinced myself that the known and unknown risks of COVID exceed the known and unknown risks of the vaccine, and got two doses of Pfizer.
Now it's been 6 months, and time for a booster, so I'm researching it again, and I'm not sure it makes sense to get more doses.
* 2021-08: [Biden/CDC recommended all Americans get 19 boosters, despite the FDA not evaluating their safety or effectiveness yet.](https://www.statnews.com/2021/08/18/u-s-decision-on-covid-19-booster-shots-baffles-and-upsets-some-scientists/)
* 2021-09: [FDA advisory committee meets](https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/15/fda-scientists-strike-skeptical-tone-on-need-for-covid-19-vaccine-booster-at-this-time-fueling-debate/), and 16 out of 17 vote *against* boosters for all
* 2021-10: [FDA advisory committee meets again](https://www.statnews.com/2021/10/14/fda-advisory-panel-meeting-moderna-covid-vaccine-booster/), votes *against* boosters for all, again, concerned about "the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis" "particularly in men aged 18 to 25" who "are also at the lowest risk of Covid."
* 2021-11: [FDA ignores their advisory committee and recommends boosters for all anyway](https://rollcall.com/2021/11/17/fda-to-sidestep-advisers-on-boosters-for-all-approval/)
* 2022-01: WHO chief scientist "[There is no evidence right now that healthy children or healthy adolescents need boosters. No evidence at all](https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/who-says-no-evidence-healthy-children-adolecents-need-covid-19-boosters-2022-01-18/)"
So it seems like they are being recommended for political reasons and not legitimate medical reasons.
The [rate of myocarditis for someone my age is 34 per million](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v1.full), or 0.0034%.
While [some say it is "mild"](https://www.jwatch.org/na54408/2022/01/07/myocarditis-after-covid-19-vaccination-those-under-21), [this says chances of death later on are 39%](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/JAHA.119.015351), so total death rate is maybe 0.0034% * 39% = 0.001%.
For contrast, [COVID for my age group, with 2 doses](https://www.axios.com/age-coronavirus-risk-vaccines-2e1391b0-5d0e-4fa9-894b-4b894dc017c9.html
) is 0.11 deaths per 100,000 = 0.0001%
While both are low numbers, it seems the vaccine is 10× as likely to kill me as COVID is?
(And any other potential side effects of the vaccine would seem to be more likely the more shots I get, while immunity from the first two shots seems to persist for a long time.) | Any chance you know what causes myocarditis at a higher rate
Symptomatic Covid
---
No, I haven't seen any explanation of why they cause myocarditis.
---
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
---
That's about the virus, not the vaccine
---
Yeah man, I know
That's my point
---
So you're saying the risk of myocarditis from the virus after two doses is greater than the risk of myocarditis from the third dose?
This isn't "unvaccinated vs vaccinated"; it's "two dose vaccinated vs three dose vaccinated".
---
Also you could also consider your chances of spreading the virus to other people. Do you think you have a lesser chance of spreading the virus if you get the booster? All of your reasons so far have only concerned yourself it seems | Well, without researching to confirm your numbers, I’m just gonna work within your assumptions and poke holes.
For starters, you compared the presumed long term outcome of myocarditis with the short term outcome of a vaccinated person’s mortality.
Long term, the mRNA vaccines wear off. They have an expected peak efficacy of about 6 months. Let’s estimate a full year before variants and waning efficacy render the initial vaccine totally ineffective — pretty much just like the influenza vaccine.
Now rerun the numbers with the unvaccinated mortality. I believe that’s 30x higher. Leaving you with a 3X expected advantage against myocarditis risk from boosting.
---
Yes, but from what I understand, the part that wears off is the antibodies, which prevent symptomatic ("mild") illness. The memory cells that prevent serious disease have not worn off, so we are still protected from serious disease.
---
That’s accurate for existing variants. The problem is just like the flu — you need boosters because of novel variants. You don’t have memory t-cells adapted to new variants.
Second, what’s the mechanism of action of the myocarditis side effect risk? Is there a reason to expect risk is compounded from a booster? Or is it more like most vaccines side effects — either you’re allergic or you aren’t
Your model here assumes boosters don’t do anything to decrease your chances of COVID symptoms and do increase your chances of side effects. Of course ups find you shouldn’t do it. That was an assumption in your model.
---
> That’s accurate for existing variants. The problem is just like the flu — you need boosters because of variants.
I'm no biologist, but from what I've heard, the memory cells are what protect against serious disease from the variants. The booster only reduces mild illness.
I'm mostly getting this from two talks I saw by Dr. Paul Offit who is on the FDA advisory committee. In [one](https://zdoggmd.com/paul-offit-8/) he said:
> I mean, I think if you get a third dose, you will boost neutralizing antibodies, which are the mediator of protection against mild disease as distinct from severe illness, where the mediator … is … memory B cells and memory T-helper cells and memory cytotoxic T cells, which appear to be long lived … and consistent with that protection against serious illness is long lived.
> Well, how about mild illness? Because Omicron, what’s unique about Omicron is that it’s not so much that it’s more contagious. It’s that it’s immune evasive. In other words, even if you’ve been vaccinated, because the vaccine-induced immunity is somewhat off target for protection against Omicron, you can still have a mild illness, but so what? I mean, and so you have a mild illness. I mean, why is that the goal? Because if you’re trying to protect against mild illness, you will boost neutralizing antibodies for a few months and then your antibodies will come down and then you’re not protected against mild illness anymore.
So do the risks of the vaccine exceed the risks of this mild illness?
> Second, what’s the mechanism of action of the myocarditis side effect risk?
I would love to know. I've searched and can't find an explanation.
> Is there a reason to expect risk is compounded from a booster?
It's more common after the second dose, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's even more common after the third.
Even if it's equally common after each, the more you get, the higher your chances of getting it.
---
Reread that quote. That’s a quote about Omicron — an existing variant.
Now think through that quote and apply it to what you know about influenza. If you understand the risk correctly, Why doesn’t the same idea apply to the flu?
Because there are going to be *new* as of yet *undiscovered* variants.
---
> Your model here assumes boosters don’t do anything to decrease your chances of COVID symptoms and do increase your chances of side effects.
No, it assumes that boosters don't do anything to decrease chances of ***serious*** COVID symptoms, while increasing the risk of side effects.
> Because there are going to be new as of yet undiscovered variants.
According to the things I've read or watched, *from the experts who approved the vaccines in the first place*, the boosters only protect against mild illness; the protection against serious disease is persistent, and protects against variants, too.
Why would a booster of the wild type epitope protect against as of yet undiscovered variants, anyway?
---
> No, it assumes that boosters don't do anything to decrease chances of serious COVID symptoms, while increasing the risk of side effects.
I agree. Shouldn’t it?
> According to the things I've read or watched, from the experts who approved the vaccines in the first place, the boosters only protect against mild illness; the protection against serious disease is persistent, and protects against variants, too.
Yes. Well for one thing, that “mild illness” is the mechanism of spread. Symptomatic COVID produces shed virus in the sputum. You’re incubating and spreading which is bad for the herd.
> Why would a booster of the wild type epitope protect against as of yet undiscovered variants, anyway?
Because it re-sensitizes the immune system to the virus. Existing antibodies aren’t binary. They can detect viruses that are similar to the triggering protein (which is why we get allergies). But without high antigen levels, the antibodies wane and that first line of defense goes down. This results in lower chances of a wild type triggering b-cells or memory t-cells and more incubation before immune-response. | slxs0c | CMV: Healthy people under 65 should not get COVID booster shots | The last time I posted on here was [about my hesitancy to get vaccinated](https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/mgt40g/cmv_rna_vaccines_have_not_been_proven_safe_and/). I eventually convinced myself that the known and unknown risks of COVID exceed the known and unknown risks of the vaccine, and got two doses of Pfizer.
Now it's been 6 months, and time for a booster, so I'm researching it again, and I'm not sure it makes sense to get more doses.
* 2021-08: [Biden/CDC recommended all Americans get 19 boosters, despite the FDA not evaluating their safety or effectiveness yet.](https://www.statnews.com/2021/08/18/u-s-decision-on-covid-19-booster-shots-baffles-and-upsets-some-scientists/)
* 2021-09: [FDA advisory committee meets](https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/15/fda-scientists-strike-skeptical-tone-on-need-for-covid-19-vaccine-booster-at-this-time-fueling-debate/), and 16 out of 17 vote *against* boosters for all
* 2021-10: [FDA advisory committee meets again](https://www.statnews.com/2021/10/14/fda-advisory-panel-meeting-moderna-covid-vaccine-booster/), votes *against* boosters for all, again, concerned about "the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis" "particularly in men aged 18 to 25" who "are also at the lowest risk of Covid."
* 2021-11: [FDA ignores their advisory committee and recommends boosters for all anyway](https://rollcall.com/2021/11/17/fda-to-sidestep-advisers-on-boosters-for-all-approval/)
* 2022-01: WHO chief scientist "[There is no evidence right now that healthy children or healthy adolescents need boosters. No evidence at all](https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/who-says-no-evidence-healthy-children-adolecents-need-covid-19-boosters-2022-01-18/)"
So it seems like they are being recommended for political reasons and not legitimate medical reasons.
The [rate of myocarditis for someone my age is 34 per million](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v1.full), or 0.0034%.
While [some say it is "mild"](https://www.jwatch.org/na54408/2022/01/07/myocarditis-after-covid-19-vaccination-those-under-21), [this says chances of death later on are 39%](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/JAHA.119.015351), so total death rate is maybe 0.0034% * 39% = 0.001%.
For contrast, [COVID for my age group, with 2 doses](https://www.axios.com/age-coronavirus-risk-vaccines-2e1391b0-5d0e-4fa9-894b-4b894dc017c9.html
) is 0.11 deaths per 100,000 = 0.0001%
While both are low numbers, it seems the vaccine is 10× as likely to kill me as COVID is?
(And any other potential side effects of the vaccine would seem to be more likely the more shots I get, while immunity from the first two shots seems to persist for a long time.) | Federal_Butterfly | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "BackAlleySurgeon",
"id": "hvtbi2q",
"score": 34,
"text": "Any chance you know what causes myocarditis at a higher rate\n\nSymptomatic Covid",
"timestamp": 1644157668
},
{
"author": "Federal_Butterfly",
"id": "hvtbrj2",
"score": -7,
"text": "No, I haven't seen any... | [
{
"author": "fox-mcleod",
"id": "hvtbxmq",
"score": 16,
"text": "Well, without researching to confirm your numbers, I’m just gonna work within your assumptions and poke holes. \n\nFor starters, you compared the presumed long term outcome of myocarditis with the short term outcome of a vaccinated per... | [
"hvtbi2q",
"hvtbrj2",
"hvtbw5i",
"hvtc4oz",
"hvtc7yc",
"hvtdjob",
"hvtehx6"
] | [
"hvtbxmq",
"hvtcbzx",
"hvtcm7l",
"hvtd791",
"hvtdiqf",
"hvtehlp",
"hvtfopn"
] |
CMV: Dating apps should make you do a political compass test, then only recommend matches who are in your political quadrant.
I find where one leans on politics is a good indicator of compatibility, because what undergirds your politics are your values you care about and your outlook on life. While some apps do have the option to add political affiliation, I feel a political compass test would be more thorough and accurate. I'm basing this view on previous interactions I've had with dates, where I was caught off-guard where they stood on some social issues, which I deem to be dealbreakers. Having this option would hopefully allow for greater compatibility and higher quality matches. Are there any unintended consequences to this idea that I did not consider? | Some people are politically apathetic and just don't care that much about politics. How exactly do you match apathy?
It's entirely possible to have no view on a number of matters. It's also entirely possible to have political dealbreakers that aren't defined by quadrant. For example homophobia is a major dealbreaker for me and I'm a pretty committed progressive, but I don't particularly care for old school communists and I find focusing too much on environmental issues makes my mental health deteriorate badly. I don't just fit into one simple quadrant.
People are complex and have complicated boundaries. Trying to simplify them down to a single test is kinda unhelpful.
---
I don't think it's possible to be politically apathetic. Even being politically apathetic is a political viewpoint.
---
I think a bigger thing is simply that anyone who gives most of those tests even the smallest thought will come with “it depends” on almost anything asked on them.
For instance, I just did 8values and the first thing asked was:
> Oppression by corporations is more of a concern than oppression by governments.
This depends on what country we're referring to obviously to answer it to begin with. It says “governments” which implies it's about multiple countries but does it mean throughout the entire globe? Surely I don't know enough of all governments and corporations to make this judgement?
Next one:
> It is necessary for the government to intervene in the economy to protect consumers.
Necessary to achieve what? and intervene to what degree? “intervene in the economy” is a very ill-defined term. Every government practices some degree of intervention. Does this quæstion mean that any intervetion whatsoever is a necessity to achieve any particular goal? In that case the answer would trivially of course be “yes” for anyone so I doubt that's what's being asked but it doesn't specify what degree of intervention it's talking about.
Next one:
> The freer the markets, the freer the people.
“free” in what way? Obviously freer to do business, that's a given but what is “free” here exactly?
These quæstions are very vaguely formulated and I have the feeling they're more so looking for an emotional, tribalist answer than a rational one that analyses the data and comes to a rational conclusion. — The kind of answer people gave about Brexit without being told what exactly the specifics and meaning of “leaving the E.U.” really was. They were given that phrasing, but no actual definition of it and that's what all these political tests do. The basic criticism of populist politics: all fancy words, but very little actual technical definitions and word on the specifics of the implementation. “We will modernize the education system!”, without actually defining what that concretely will mean and what the concrete plans and changes proposed are. | Political compass tests are bad, and if it's that important to you then you should just bring it up yourself.
---
Unfortunately every guy will say he’s apolitical or “not into politics” in hopes of getting laid
---
Also probably true; nothing stops people from lying. | 10qhjoi | CMV: Dating apps should make you do a political compass test, then only recommend matches who are in your political quadrant. | I find where one leans on politics is a good indicator of compatibility, because what undergirds your politics are your values you care about and your outlook on life. While some apps do have the option to add political affiliation, I feel a political compass test would be more thorough and accurate. I'm basing this view on previous interactions I've had with dates, where I was caught off-guard where they stood on some social issues, which I deem to be dealbreakers. Having this option would hopefully allow for greater compatibility and higher quality matches. Are there any unintended consequences to this idea that I did not consider? | ABachToRemember | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Sagasujin",
"id": "j6q2i18",
"score": 11,
"text": "Some people are politically apathetic and just don't care that much about politics. How exactly do you match apathy? \n\nIt's entirely possible to have no view on a number of matters. It's also entirely possible to have political dealbr... | [
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"id": "j6q2bh1",
"score": 63,
"text": "Political compass tests are bad, and if it's that important to you then you should just bring it up yourself.",
"timestamp": 1675217447
},
{
"author": "ayyycab",
"id": "j6q2w50",
"score": 10,
"text": "Unfortunat... | [
"j6q2i18",
"j6q5pp5",
"j6qc9lc"
] | [
"j6q2bh1",
"j6q2w50",
"j6q350r"
] |
CMV: Dating apps should make you do a political compass test, then only recommend matches who are in your political quadrant.
I find where one leans on politics is a good indicator of compatibility, because what undergirds your politics are your values you care about and your outlook on life. While some apps do have the option to add political affiliation, I feel a political compass test would be more thorough and accurate. I'm basing this view on previous interactions I've had with dates, where I was caught off-guard where they stood on some social issues, which I deem to be dealbreakers. Having this option would hopefully allow for greater compatibility and higher quality matches. Are there any unintended consequences to this idea that I did not consider? | I'm American where there are 2 parties. My wife is Japanese, currently there are 9 parties in the Japanese parliament plus independents. We met via dating app. How would it work in our situation?
---
The political compass test uses 4 quadrants and tests your general attitudes towards government and social issues.
---
I think what you're really asking for is "lots of questions that reveal fundamental values" which I'm fully on board with. Sites like OKCupid attempt to do this. I do wish it was more commonly used. | Isn't it pretty easy to tell what somebody's politics are by chatting with them before you ask them out?
---
Men downplay their political beliefs pretty hard on dating apps. Especially right leaning men.
---
If their intent is to deceive you about their politics, I don't think having a test would prevent that. If anything it would facilitate it since they could lie on their test answers | 10qhjoi | CMV: Dating apps should make you do a political compass test, then only recommend matches who are in your political quadrant. | I find where one leans on politics is a good indicator of compatibility, because what undergirds your politics are your values you care about and your outlook on life. While some apps do have the option to add political affiliation, I feel a political compass test would be more thorough and accurate. I'm basing this view on previous interactions I've had with dates, where I was caught off-guard where they stood on some social issues, which I deem to be dealbreakers. Having this option would hopefully allow for greater compatibility and higher quality matches. Are there any unintended consequences to this idea that I did not consider? | ABachToRemember | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Oborozuki1917",
"id": "j6q4ncg",
"score": 18,
"text": "I'm American where there are 2 parties. My wife is Japanese, currently there are 9 parties in the Japanese parliament plus independents. We met via dating app. How would it work in our situation?",
"timestamp": 1675218459
},
... | [
{
"author": "IndependenceAway8724",
"id": "j6q2bpp",
"score": 6,
"text": "Isn't it pretty easy to tell what somebody's politics are by chatting with them before you ask them out?",
"timestamp": 1675217450
},
{
"author": "ayyycab",
"id": "j6q30ci",
"score": 3,
"text": "Men do... | [
"j6q4ncg",
"j6q7bax",
"j6qgqyj"
] | [
"j6q2bpp",
"j6q30ci",
"j6q445u"
] |
CMV: Hating Pakistanis of this generation based on the atrocities committed in the 1971 liberation war is completely absurd.
So, I've come to find out that a large majority of my countrymen bear deep resentment towards Pakistani people based on what happened in the past. I've seen Bangladeshis clinging onto the past and being extremely rude towards Pakistanis based on something that happened even before a lot of us were born. In my opinion. this is completely unreasonable and we shouldn't base individuals on something their ancestors did. It's quite disheartening that people are hanging onto feuds that are decades old and have already been formally been apologized for. It's never fair to judge a person based on their nation's history or how their government acts. Change my view, since this view is getting me canceled among my own countrymen. | This is a statement that’s easy to make from a neutral bystander pov but impossible for people to follow when strong emotions are involved. War atrocities are not forgotten, Polish people still bear resentment toward Russia for Katyn, Chinese and Koreans still bear resentment for Japanese war crimes. It’s up to the party that committed the war crimes to demonstrate remorse for their past wrong doings and genuine good will to improve relations with countries they’ve committed crimes to. Even then, it takes generations to foster trust. Ask yourself, if a close relative of yours was tortured to death by a foreign soldier would you be able to forgive them? This is a sensitive topic no doubt and I’d apply empathy before telling people what they should or should not do.
---
I'm Bangladeshi myself and my grandfather was killed in the war. Obviously I didn't forgive the people who commited the atrocities but I bear no resentment towards the people of this generation.
---
Should Ukrainians forgive Russia for the Holodomor, which Russia refuses to even acknowledge was a genocide? Did Pakistan ever apologize for the 1971 atrocities and make reparations? If not, then it is reasonable to hold it against them, in the same way it's reasonable for Armenians to hate Turks for the Armenian Genocide, which Turkey to this day refuses to acknowledge even happened. | [deleted]
---
In the wealthiest one to ever exist, too.
---
Edit: In countries that have a large poor population that is exploited by a minority of extremely wealthy upper class, it’s important to have that population distracted by nationalism and/or religion and/or any other petty contrivance designed to keep the poor divided, otherwise they might no longer tolerate their living conditions. | slunrx | CMV: Hating Pakistanis of this generation based on the atrocities committed in the 1971 liberation war is completely absurd. | So, I've come to find out that a large majority of my countrymen bear deep resentment towards Pakistani people based on what happened in the past. I've seen Bangladeshis clinging onto the past and being extremely rude towards Pakistanis based on something that happened even before a lot of us were born. In my opinion. this is completely unreasonable and we shouldn't base individuals on something their ancestors did. It's quite disheartening that people are hanging onto feuds that are decades old and have already been formally been apologized for. It's never fair to judge a person based on their nation's history or how their government acts. Change my view, since this view is getting me canceled among my own countrymen. | EccentricLynx | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "VegetableWishbone",
"id": "hvsx4d4",
"score": 3,
"text": "This is a statement that’s easy to make from a neutral bystander pov but impossible for people to follow when strong emotions are involved. War atrocities are not forgotten, Polish people still bear resentment toward Russia for K... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "hvsxkra",
"score": 4,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1644149650
},
{
"author": "shaneswa",
"id": "hvsyibe",
"score": 1,
"text": "In the wealthiest one to ever exist, too.",
"timestamp": 1644150317
},
{
"author": "BootHead007",
... | [
"hvsx4d4",
"hvsxids",
"hvt5ul1"
] | [
"hvsxkra",
"hvsyibe",
"hvt0ic6"
] |
CMV: Works of fiction like supernatural culturally appropriate Christian beliefs, demonstrating a clear double standard in how such things are judged.
Imagine, if you will, that I wrote a series portraying the Hindu deity Shiva as some awful, world destroying monster. That would be condemned by the people who judge that sort of thing, and IMO they could well be right to do so. Shiva is canonically not a malignant figure, and misrepresenting someone's actual beliefs seems rather disrespectful.
Of course, whether there's any real harm to it, and whether the Hindu people have a justifiable complaint to ask for the series to be stopped, is not the topic I'm discussing here. My point is that beliefs such as Hinduism receive protection from cultural appropriation, while Christianity doesn't.
For example, I haven't seen Supernatural, but I do know they are rather fast and loose with the Christian (and for that matter, all of the) beliefs they draw on. Portraying demons as merely warped humans, angels as monstrous in their own right, and God as someone who can be fallible or cruel, is just as much a mockery of Christian faith as showing Shiva as the devil would be toward Hindus, but nobody bats an eye, and in my opinion, that's wrong.
Tl;dr: If we believe cultural appropriation is an issue, shows like Supernatural should be condemned for their appropriation of Christian beliefs. | The writers of Supernatural AFAIK are followers of Abrahamic religions raised in a majority Christian society. There's no cultural appropriation as it's their culture.
Further, there are fiction series that use Hindu mythology. Netflix's Cargo ran without controversy.
---
>Further, there are fiction series that use Hindu mythology. Netflix's Cargo ran without controversy.
Wasn't aware of that, but nonetheless, my point does stand that Cultural appropriation seems unequally enforced. Also, I have no knowledge of how well/poorly cargo represented their faith, so idk.
As for them being followers of Abrahamic religions...I find that hard to believe. Even if they claim to be so, it seems unlikely, given the content they produce, that they pay more than lip service to any such faith, although I obviously can't say for certain because I don't know any of them personally.
---
But I mean they’ve all been raised in those cultures? America is, wherever you like it or not, a very christian place and the majority of people have had christianity in their life some how.
Just because they may change or fitionalise or show it not in a good light doesn’t make this not true.
---
But if you regard a religion as false, how are you going to know what is and is not a respectful portrayal of it?
Let me give an example. I have no issue with say, the use of the Holy grail in fiction, since by and large it isn't really connected to my actual faith and therefore it's kind of just a piece of fiction with loose connection to (what I believe are) real world events. Whereas if you show Jesus as an Alien or something, I'd have a problem with that, because you're misrepresenting my faith. Now, me being who I am, I don't actually mind all that much; I won't watch your show, but that's about it. But I do think the double standard is unjust.
---
The reason why for example showing jesus as an alien is fine as in a culture dominated by christianity we know that is not the case, no one (of sound mind) is seriously believing jesus is an alien.
Why must a portrayal be respectful, there's a lot of hateful beliefs and ideas out there and making fun of or confronting them shouldn't be banned, I hope you can agree on that atleast. | It's not cultural appropriation to use elements of your own culture. Cultural appropriation is about adoption of elements of _another_ culture.
---
But it's not their cultural. Unless they actually follow the religion in question, and I mean actually follow it, not just have some vague "Oh I think there's a god thing", it's not theirs, you know?
---
This is just a No True Scotsman fallacy. The Americans who produced _Supernatural_ don't stop being Americans just because you disapprove of their beliefs.
---
No, it's a failure to meet the standard required. If I say I'm a Muslim because I said the words "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet" one time, does that mean I can then represent them however I want?
---
You do not personally get to set a standard for who is an American. It's crazy to say the creators of _Supernatural_ aren't "real" members of American culture (and that American culture is "not their culture") because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof—especially when this flies in the face of the core American value of religious freesom.
>If I say I'm a Muslim because I said the words "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet" one time, does that mean I can then represent them however I want?
If you are actually a Muslim, then using Islamic culture would not be cultural appropriation. You can represent your own religion however you want. | mtglub | CMV: Works of fiction like supernatural culturally appropriate Christian beliefs, demonstrating a clear double standard in how such things are judged. | Imagine, if you will, that I wrote a series portraying the Hindu deity Shiva as some awful, world destroying monster. That would be condemned by the people who judge that sort of thing, and IMO they could well be right to do so. Shiva is canonically not a malignant figure, and misrepresenting someone's actual beliefs seems rather disrespectful.
Of course, whether there's any real harm to it, and whether the Hindu people have a justifiable complaint to ask for the series to be stopped, is not the topic I'm discussing here. My point is that beliefs such as Hinduism receive protection from cultural appropriation, while Christianity doesn't.
For example, I haven't seen Supernatural, but I do know they are rather fast and loose with the Christian (and for that matter, all of the) beliefs they draw on. Portraying demons as merely warped humans, angels as monstrous in their own right, and God as someone who can be fallible or cruel, is just as much a mockery of Christian faith as showing Shiva as the devil would be toward Hindus, but nobody bats an eye, and in my opinion, that's wrong.
Tl;dr: If we believe cultural appropriation is an issue, shows like Supernatural should be condemned for their appropriation of Christian beliefs. | newwriter123 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "murderousbudgie",
"id": "guzi2ce",
"score": 85,
"text": "The writers of Supernatural AFAIK are followers of Abrahamic religions raised in a majority Christian society. There's no cultural appropriation as it's their culture.\n\nFurther, there are fiction series that use Hindu mythology.... | [
{
"author": "yyzjertl",
"id": "guzi1y0",
"score": 33,
"text": "It's not cultural appropriation to use elements of your own culture. Cultural appropriation is about adoption of elements of _another_ culture.",
"timestamp": 1618765257
},
{
"author": "newwriter123",
"id": "guziti1",
... | [
"guzi2ce",
"guzimkf",
"guzjdv0",
"guzjucq",
"guzlfia"
] | [
"guzi1y0",
"guziti1",
"guzixur",
"guzj3ly",
"guzk11i"
] |
CMV: There's nothing wrong with teaching evolution as part of the high school curriculum
I ask this question because some people on r/Christianity say I'm [closed-minded for replacing faith in God with science](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/8ofy89/is_reading_the_bible_and_talking_to_missionaries/e04g9ij/). Another reason I ask this question is because of [this comment](https://np.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/938kfc/what_would_happen_if_pope_francis_dies_a_natural/e3bfh69/?context=3):
>Trump is not the one advocating atheism and scientism being taught as the norm in schools. Trump is not the one giving a political platform to people who hate the West, peoples of European descent, Christianity, any and all things Catholic, want to abolish gender distinctions, or any of the other dozens upon dozens of things these people are after.
I have encountered plenty of proof of evolution, therefore, I don't believe in it simply because "*all scientists believe it*" or "*because that's what I was taught in school*". However, I want to know if good reasons exist to **not** **teach**, or even outright **deny** evolution in the high school curriculum.
Has the teaching of evolution in high schools ever caused anything bad? If so, what? Are religious people right to say that the teaching of evolution really making students into closed-minded adherents of atheism and scientism? | This is a tough one — I doubt anyone will really disagree with you, including me. But here goes an attempt:
The only reason this is a controversy is because *some* people don’t like evolution, and wish their children weren’t forced to hear a concept they believe will threaten their religious beliefs/lifestyle.
Should public schools *force* people to learn information that parents claim is threatening to their way of life?
Just because something is “arguably true” doesn’t mean that it necessarily needs to be taught in public schools, right?
Should kids learn all the specifics of Austrian Economics, or how to please your partner in bed, or delve substantially into Marxism, in public schools, or should some things be left for individual studies or later education?
---
!delta
Yes, evolution is the best theory we have. Yes, the only problem here is that some people don't like it and delude themselves into denying it.
But even though evolution is true, there are some true things that might not be good to teach in school, such as "how to please your partner in bed". However, I still think it's beneficial to teach evolution so that students get a scientific understanding, just like I think that the economics and Marxism should be covered in school as well, so that students can have an understanding of those too.
Personally, I think it's political correctness for schools to avoid teaching evolution just because some people don't like that theory.
---
I'm going to try to change your view back to where it was.
You are taking a compromise position here. On one side is a religious argument that is completely and utterly false. Creationists want their view to be taught in school. On the other side is science. People want science to be taught in schools (even to people who won't end up needing it in their lives) to improve critical thinking skills, to give the next generation a better understanding of the world, and to promote curiosity. None of these goals are furthered by leaving out evolution. By ignoring an entire branch of science (which is in no legitimate way disputed) you are promoting creationism and a less well informed public.
Although the next part of my argument may seem like a slippery slope, it isn't (because these are very similar cases). Should we teach geology in school? Creationists dispute the age of the Earth and therefore all of geology too. Same goes for astronomy as well. Holocaust deniers dispute the Holocaust, should we just leave that politically touchy subject out of the classroom? What about the US Civil War? Many people in the US view it (incorrectly) as the "War of Northern Aggression."
I can go on all day with these. We don't exclude facts that are relevant to a subject field simply because they are controversial. The "pleasing the partner" argument fails on this ground.
TL;DR: Don't compromise when you are doing good. | > Are religious people right to say that the teaching of evolution really making students into closed-minded adherents of atheism and scientism?
There's no reason teaching evolution alone promotes close mindedness or adherence to atheism as opposed to any other scientific theory like the germ theory or gravity.
> Are religious people right to say that the teaching of evolution really making students into closed-minded adherents of atheism and scientism?
My one gripe with this question would have to be: what the hell is "scientism"?
---
Scientism is an improper word used on r/Christianity and other religious people to say that people are blindly putting their faith in science like it's a cult.
---
Well if you put it that way, blindly putting faith in anything isn't a good thing.
Blindly trusting anything published in a scientific journal, especially if it confirms a preconceived conclusion, is how we get anti vaxxers and such. | 93sz0t | CMV: There's nothing wrong with teaching evolution as part of the high school curriculum | I ask this question because some people on r/Christianity say I'm [closed-minded for replacing faith in God with science](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/8ofy89/is_reading_the_bible_and_talking_to_missionaries/e04g9ij/). Another reason I ask this question is because of [this comment](https://np.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/938kfc/what_would_happen_if_pope_francis_dies_a_natural/e3bfh69/?context=3):
>Trump is not the one advocating atheism and scientism being taught as the norm in schools. Trump is not the one giving a political platform to people who hate the West, peoples of European descent, Christianity, any and all things Catholic, want to abolish gender distinctions, or any of the other dozens upon dozens of things these people are after.
I have encountered plenty of proof of evolution, therefore, I don't believe in it simply because "*all scientists believe it*" or "*because that's what I was taught in school*". However, I want to know if good reasons exist to **not** **teach**, or even outright **deny** evolution in the high school curriculum.
Has the teaching of evolution in high schools ever caused anything bad? If so, what? Are religious people right to say that the teaching of evolution really making students into closed-minded adherents of atheism and scientism? | Fart_Gas | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Det_",
"id": "e3fqnv1",
"score": 7,
"text": "This is a tough one — I doubt anyone will really disagree with you, including me. But here goes an attempt:\n\nThe only reason this is a controversy is because *some* people don’t like evolution, and wish their children weren’t forced to hear... | [
{
"author": "sarcasm_is_love",
"id": "e3fr84n",
"score": 10,
"text": "> Are religious people right to say that the teaching of evolution really making students into closed-minded adherents of atheism and scientism?\n\nThere's no reason teaching evolution alone promotes close mindedness or adherence ... | [
"e3fqnv1",
"e3frtrs",
"e3ghvqz"
] | [
"e3fr84n",
"e3frhzi",
"e3fw4a9"
] |
CMV: Parties are a threat to democracy and must be abolished
In my experience, political parties are the reason for everything bad in politics.
First of all: They oversimplify our options, without leaving us the option to choose multiple parties (or even particular policies from each party).
In Hungary, for the last 30 years, it has usually been the case that the government hates the opposition and the opposition hates the government (whether right- or left-wing). They don't vote for their opinion, but the opposite of their "enemies". Currently, a united right and a fractured left means that the left can't achieve anything.
Political parties also allow for corruption cover-ups. With a majority of your parrots behind you, it is harder to punish you if you were corrupt.
Not to mention that in most countries, the government and the majority of the legislation are heavily linked, violating the separation of powers.
America is even worse. There are only two parties, both with massive propaganda machines, each party covering their corrupt cases in the House/Senate, filibustering each other and not achieving anything meaningful.
It appears to me that we are not choosing representatives, we are choosing dictators for 4-5 years.
I think it would be better if parties were abolished. We would vote for individuals, not for propaganda-supported quasi-dictators. They could be held accountable much more easily. There would be no peer pressure on them. The separation of powers would be intact. Things with majority support would pass and things without it would fail.
For further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy
As I cannot change the system, please, change my view. | I mean what are you supposed to do about a bunch of politicians that all happen to just agree with each other?
---
Yes, but do they agree on every single question? And does a significant portion of the population agree with them on every single question?
Most party policies are probably decided democratically within the parties (I hope so, at least). But that means that it could be, that only a thin majority of the party support the policy, and the others have to give in to peer pressure unless they want to be kicked out and lose their livelihoods.
And if only 51% of the ruling party supports the idea, and all other parties vehemently disagree, that means that a minority of the representatives is able to force its opinion on the majority.
---
In a multi-party system, the ejected party members could just... form their own party?
And no one is stopping them from running as an independent.
You would also be effectively denying politicians the right to freedom of association.
It seems a lot of your problems would be solved with just the abolition of the two-party system
---
>It seems a lot of your problems would be solved with just the abolition of the two-party system
It really depends on the election system. In many places, fractured parties are disadvantaged in the election, making the system converge toward a two-party system. Not only that, fracturing often comes with the so-called "spoiler effect", so if there are multiple parties with close ideologies, and one with another ideology, the latter will win and the former will lose, even if the former is more popular.
---
So your problem isn't with parties in particular then, but rather the first past the post voting system that heavily incentivizes a two-party system? | Where I live there are 8 major parties, and 351 seats in parliament. When we have an election, it means I have to read up on 8 parties, and maybe a few small ones, to decide what I’ll vote for. In reality though I have to read up on much fewer, since there a number of parties I know is never vote for, because I know that I’m opposed even to the basics of their ideologies.
If we abolished parties, it would mean I’d have to read up on hundreds or thousands of individuals to make an informed decision, which would just be impossible. It would also be impossible to vote tactically, since it’d be difficult to predict what group of people will ally in parliament to form a government and elect a prime minister. Even with ranked voting it would be super difficult to predict.
So parties make it easier for the voter to know what they’re getting.
---
>If we abolished parties, it would mean I’d have to read up on hundreds or thousands of individuals to make an informed decision, which would just be impossible.
This would obviously only work with local representatives. Higher offices like the president (or its equivalent) would probably get enough media attention to let you know the strongest candidates.
>It would also be impossible to vote tactically, since it’d be difficult to predict what group of people will ally in parliament to form a government and elect a prime minister.
It depends on if the prime minister is elected directly or indirectly. In the former case, instant-runoff/multi-round elections eliminate the need for tactical voting.
---
>This would obviously only work with local representatives
So not for parliament (if it's not local representation). But parliament is 99% of why parties exist. Where I live parties just indirectly support presidents or local mayors and so on.
Except the latter case happens. Because if you vote for PM, who then possibly doesn't have the support of parliament, not much will be done. PM is chosen by the strongest party because he needs to have support from parliament to be able to make changes.
---
>So not for parliament (if it's not local representation). But parliament is 99% of why parties exist.
Sorry, I feel I wasn't clear enough: MPs elected in election districts.
>PM is chosen by the strongest party because he needs to have support from parliament to be able to make changes.
He/she doesn't have to make changes. The prime minister's task (as head of the executive power) is to implement laws into actions.
---
The government, including PM, can make laws, they just need parliament to vote for them. | hgosc1 | CMV: Parties are a threat to democracy and must be abolished | In my experience, political parties are the reason for everything bad in politics.
First of all: They oversimplify our options, without leaving us the option to choose multiple parties (or even particular policies from each party).
In Hungary, for the last 30 years, it has usually been the case that the government hates the opposition and the opposition hates the government (whether right- or left-wing). They don't vote for their opinion, but the opposite of their "enemies". Currently, a united right and a fractured left means that the left can't achieve anything.
Political parties also allow for corruption cover-ups. With a majority of your parrots behind you, it is harder to punish you if you were corrupt.
Not to mention that in most countries, the government and the majority of the legislation are heavily linked, violating the separation of powers.
America is even worse. There are only two parties, both with massive propaganda machines, each party covering their corrupt cases in the House/Senate, filibustering each other and not achieving anything meaningful.
It appears to me that we are not choosing representatives, we are choosing dictators for 4-5 years.
I think it would be better if parties were abolished. We would vote for individuals, not for propaganda-supported quasi-dictators. They could be held accountable much more easily. There would be no peer pressure on them. The separation of powers would be intact. Things with majority support would pass and things without it would fail.
For further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy
As I cannot change the system, please, change my view. | krmarci | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "BingBlessAmerica",
"id": "fw59617",
"score": 13,
"text": "I mean what are you supposed to do about a bunch of politicians that all happen to just agree with each other?",
"timestamp": 1593241433
},
{
"author": "krmarci",
"id": "fw59j3h",
"score": 0,
"text": "Yes,... | [
{
"author": "rollingForInitiative",
"id": "fw5ct78",
"score": 4,
"text": "Where I live there are 8 major parties, and 351 seats in parliament. When we have an election, it means I have to read up on 8 parties, and maybe a few small ones, to decide what I’ll vote for. In reality though I have to read... | [
"fw59617",
"fw59j3h",
"fw59qrg",
"fw5dptc",
"fw5gh0i"
] | [
"fw5ct78",
"fw5derx",
"fw5fpcs",
"fw5glt4",
"fw5h6pa"
] |
CMV: All problems that men face in the modern world were brought on by themselves. Thus, men are the ones who bear the responsibility for fixing those problems.
FWIW, I'm a 40 year old man myself. And I do care a great deal about my fellow men. It's why I'm writing this in the first place.
I just have yet to come across a problem that men face in the modern world that was not actually our own fault when you really get to the heart of the issue.
Let's start with the biggest one of all: mental health. There are multiple ways in which we've really fucked this one up for ourselves. We gave in to our machismo and continue to worship the image of the strong and dominant male, an image that leaves no room for vulnerability. Men who seek therapy are "soy boys". Hell, men who *so much as want a suitable earth climate for their own goddamn KIDS* are "soy boys". We value competition with each other, we knock people down because the sportsball team they follow lost a game (BTW I'm a huge sportsball fan myself, go Wolves, go Vikings). We rage at someone because they had the audacity to outplay us at that video game we hoped we were better at. Do we ever stop and think about how petty and pathetic these behaviors really are?
And to delve into suicide (trigger warning), men die from suicide more often because they adamantly refuse to admit the well-documented, well-researched, well-understood phenomenon where simply having a gun in your home raises your risk of suicide. I'm a public health researcher myself and I have researched this very topic professionally, and I am continually disappointed at how deeply men will bury their heads in the sand over this one. Men kill themselves more often because they keep guns in their homes more often. It's really that simple. Women even suffer more commonly from depression than men do, and yet men still end up dying more often from suicide, largely because they more often choose more violent means of suicide, because they allow themselves access to those means and adamantly REFUSE to admit that it increases their death by suicide risk.
Or how about our economic standing, or our ability to get that job we're hoping for? Women have caught up with men academically and I believe have even surpassed men at this point, as men still think studying is for nerds and college is all just gender studies so why bother, and the result is that men fall behind academically. And as for DEI programs, I'm not convinced that this is anything other than men having had more power, authority, and standing than they really ought to have had in the past, and they gained more than their fair share in the past, and their outrage at DEI is simply that they are losing something. I don't at all buy that DEI has gone BEYOND the point where it is actually disadvantaging men at that point, as I don't know of any DEI programs that ultimately want, say, 60% women, 40% men / any ratio that doesn't reflect an unbiased cross-section of humanity in that respective category.
I've just never seen a good example of men being "victimized" by some other demographic that exploited their power in a way that caused harm to men. I see plenty of instances of men losing power they shouldn't have had in the first place, sure. I don't agree that any loss of any kind is inherently bad if it's a loss of what one really ought to have not had in the first place. And everything else sure seems to me like it's an issue of men shooting themselves in the foot.
All of this is why I find it so dumb and gross when men actually try to blame others for their own problems, like women in particular. Blaming women for them not wanting to have sex with you, or even go on a date with you? Fucking pathetic. I blame ourselves for not doing enough to present ourselves as appealing partners to women.
CMV. | I´m missing: What could change your view?
---
Well, at least one example of a problem men face today that was caused by the actions of a different demographic, not their own actions.
---
> a problem men face today that was caused by the actions of a different demographic, not their own actions.
Many of the issues that *black* men face were caused not by their own actions, but the actions of white men. Do you draw a distinction between groups of men based on the identity group they belong to, or are all men just men and equally responsible for their own plight? | Over generalizing. Define modern world. I don’t generally think poverty or disease are always the product of choice. Skol.
---
If I'm over-generalizing, you will be able to disprove it with a practical example of men truly being victimized by a separate demographic. What is that example?
>Define modern world.
Let's say problems occurring with men in the last 20 years.
---
Poverty is a problem that exists in the modern world and I don’t think that’s the fault of poor men in most instances. Childhood diabetes rates are high and I don’t think it’s a significantly gendered phenomenon. | 1l75xlm | CMV: All problems that men face in the modern world were brought on by themselves. Thus, men are the ones who bear the responsibility for fixing those problems. | FWIW, I'm a 40 year old man myself. And I do care a great deal about my fellow men. It's why I'm writing this in the first place.
I just have yet to come across a problem that men face in the modern world that was not actually our own fault when you really get to the heart of the issue.
Let's start with the biggest one of all: mental health. There are multiple ways in which we've really fucked this one up for ourselves. We gave in to our machismo and continue to worship the image of the strong and dominant male, an image that leaves no room for vulnerability. Men who seek therapy are "soy boys". Hell, men who *so much as want a suitable earth climate for their own goddamn KIDS* are "soy boys". We value competition with each other, we knock people down because the sportsball team they follow lost a game (BTW I'm a huge sportsball fan myself, go Wolves, go Vikings). We rage at someone because they had the audacity to outplay us at that video game we hoped we were better at. Do we ever stop and think about how petty and pathetic these behaviors really are?
And to delve into suicide (trigger warning), men die from suicide more often because they adamantly refuse to admit the well-documented, well-researched, well-understood phenomenon where simply having a gun in your home raises your risk of suicide. I'm a public health researcher myself and I have researched this very topic professionally, and I am continually disappointed at how deeply men will bury their heads in the sand over this one. Men kill themselves more often because they keep guns in their homes more often. It's really that simple. Women even suffer more commonly from depression than men do, and yet men still end up dying more often from suicide, largely because they more often choose more violent means of suicide, because they allow themselves access to those means and adamantly REFUSE to admit that it increases their death by suicide risk.
Or how about our economic standing, or our ability to get that job we're hoping for? Women have caught up with men academically and I believe have even surpassed men at this point, as men still think studying is for nerds and college is all just gender studies so why bother, and the result is that men fall behind academically. And as for DEI programs, I'm not convinced that this is anything other than men having had more power, authority, and standing than they really ought to have had in the past, and they gained more than their fair share in the past, and their outrage at DEI is simply that they are losing something. I don't at all buy that DEI has gone BEYOND the point where it is actually disadvantaging men at that point, as I don't know of any DEI programs that ultimately want, say, 60% women, 40% men / any ratio that doesn't reflect an unbiased cross-section of humanity in that respective category.
I've just never seen a good example of men being "victimized" by some other demographic that exploited their power in a way that caused harm to men. I see plenty of instances of men losing power they shouldn't have had in the first place, sure. I don't agree that any loss of any kind is inherently bad if it's a loss of what one really ought to have not had in the first place. And everything else sure seems to me like it's an issue of men shooting themselves in the foot.
All of this is why I find it so dumb and gross when men actually try to blame others for their own problems, like women in particular. Blaming women for them not wanting to have sex with you, or even go on a date with you? Fucking pathetic. I blame ourselves for not doing enough to present ourselves as appealing partners to women.
CMV. | AtheneOrchidSavviest | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "might_not_beam_me",
"id": "mwu3amz",
"score": 6,
"text": "I´m missing: What could change your view?",
"timestamp": 1749478987
},
{
"author": "AtheneOrchidSavviest",
"id": "mwu3j3b",
"score": 0,
"text": "Well, at least one example of a problem men face today that ... | [
{
"author": "Physical_Stop851",
"id": "mwu2ukm",
"score": 7,
"text": "Over generalizing. Define modern world. I don’t generally think poverty or disease are always the product of choice. Skol.",
"timestamp": 1749478851
},
{
"author": "AtheneOrchidSavviest",
"id": "mwu390p",
"scor... | [
"mwu3amz",
"mwu3j3b",
"mwu50vg"
] | [
"mwu2ukm",
"mwu390p",
"mwu5q7g"
] |
CMV: rape/sexual assault accusations should be kept private until trial proceeds and guilt should not be assumed
I want to clarify that I am not advocating dismissing rape claims or saying the victim is lying. I believe fervently in dispelling rape culture especially on university campuses and the work place. However, I am worried about public opinion hanging someone out to dry because of a rape accusation before the trial even takes place. I recognize that rape accusations have a very small percentage of actually being fake, and I feel that if one person is innocent, it is important to protect everyone's rights and keep the accusation a secret until the trial takes place. I do struggle with this belief, as it can potentially backfire and lead into settlements that don't expose the real rapists, but I think that it is worth it to protect everyone's right to a fair trial, no matter how heinous the crime. That said, I am open to possible alternatives, as I know the trial process can take a long time before it even begins, and life is rarely one or the other. If there is a way to both prevent public opinion attacks and help people get justice, I am happy to hear them.
edit: I have changed my mind on suppressing information in media until the trial. I still hold that people should engage in an objective review of facts and go with innocent until proven guilty, but that is more of an individual task and something that is more long term and on society itself to change.
_____
> *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!* | Not all sexual assault cases go to court. Not all sexual assault victims want their assaulter to go to jail, or even be fined - just to stop.
Public shame can be an effective tool to get someone to stop.
Suing someone or jailing someone can be seen as going too far, depending on the facts of the case or the will of the victim.
---
WHat about cases in which public shame is turned against someone who is innocent? Don't get me wrong, I think we need to treat each rape claim as legitimate and investigate thoroughly, but what if someone is shamed out of their community, school, or workplace when they didn't do it, and the investigation doesn't reveal their innocence until it's too late? I suppose I would say the public shame should only happen after an investigation by the police reveals without reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact do it, but it is true that not all cases go to court. !delta You've changed my mind in that public shame can be a powerful tool in preventing them from raping again, but I worry that it can also be turned against innocents.
---
Just a tidbit of info, nearly all reports of sexual assault are true, the FBI cites that only 2% of sexual assault claims are falsified, so it would be an extremely low number of people who are called out that are innocent. I will add a citation later I’m just on mobile now.
---
That’s accually shockingly high. When you consider that that means multiple people a day are falsely formally accused.
Also although I have so data to back it up I would assume that more often than not do someone is making a illegitimate claim they wouldn’t file formally and would rather go to a platform which is more likely to get their victim punished.
---
I would say that it's dangerous to claim these things without data because you are ultimately basing it off your assumptions and the things you see. Someone else in this thread has a 2005 study showing what he said are 82% of false claims don't go to court or get processed, so while claims are 2% whether police don't realize they are is another matter entirely.
---
Out of every 1000 rapes, only 31% are reported to police.
Of those 310, approximately 2% are false accusations. That is 6.2 falsely accused people per 1000.
Of those reported, 18.4% are arrested. That is 1.18 falsely accused people arrested per 1000.
Of those arrested, 19.3% are referred to prosecutors. That is .23 falsely accused people referred per 1000.
Of those referred to prosecutors, 64% of cases result in a felony conviction. That is .15 falsely accused people per 1000.
Of those convicted 85% will be incarcerated. That is .13 falsely accused people incarcerated per 1000.
So, assuming that a falsely accused person is just as likely to be convicted and incarcerated as an actual rapist, only .013% of those convicted and incarcerated for rape are innocent.
https://www.rainn.org/sites/default/files/Out_Of_1000_Rapes%20122016.png | What do you mean by "kept private?" Should the victim not be allowed to talk to friends and family about the traumatic event?
>public opinion hanging someone out to dry [...] before the trial even takes place
How would that happen? Any rape trial (at least in the US) is decided either by a) a Judge, whose job is to hear such trials and remain impartial, or b) a Jury, who will specifically be vetted for bias by the accused's attorney. So even if a particular rape allegation became widely known by the public, there are already mechanisms in place to ensure that the people deciding the accused's fate will not be biased by that.
---
What I mean by public opinion hanging someone out to dry is not in terms of legal procedures, but rather in the future of the accused. I know I'm sounding a lot like a Brock turner apologist here (I think he got off too easy and he should have gotten jail time), but I meant rather that if someone is innocent, shouldn't we try to protect their identity if it is not yet beyond reasonable doubt that they are innocent? If companies refuse to hire someone who has been accused of rape even if they did not do it, or if their neighbors harassed them even though they were innocent, I think that would be unfortunate. I am struggling with the risk of letting real rapists get off, but I suppose it comes down for me to whether you should protect the innocent at the risk of letting some of the criminals go or get all the bad guys with some innocent caught up.
tl;dr I am not worried about the trial itself; if anything I think the american justice system already gives far too much lenience when it is someone they can sympathize with such as a young upper middle class man. However, I would not feel comfortable with public opinion dictating my future and how people treat me.
---
>if someone is innocent, shouldn't we try to protect their identity if it is not yet beyond reasonable doubt that they are innocent
Well not just rape, but *most* criminal accusations are public knowledge. You can walk right into any court in America and see who is on today's criminal docket, and you can do an online case search in most counties to see if anything is pending in anyone's name.
So, why is it only accused rapists you are concerned for? What about accused child abusers? Accused drunk drivers? Accused pedophiles?
>protect their identity if it is not yet beyond reasonable doubt that they are innocent
I think you are conflating "accused" with "found guilty." Just stating "someone is on trial for ____" is widely accepted in the US to mean that the person has not yet been found guilty (or not guilty).
So in sum, my points are a) why are you only concerned about the public opinion of accused rapists, but not of *all* accused criminals?; b) you are failing to give the general public credit that they know and understand that being tried doesn't necessarily mean you're being found guilty.
---
!delta You're right in that I suppose I should be concerned for all mass publicized criminal accusations, not just rapists. it is just that rapists accusations are in the media spotlight for me atm, and I did not consider all the potential. I suppose my argument with regards to the online search or court docket is that you still have to go specifically looking, which many people would not do on a daily basis, while media publication spreads it to a wide audience without them having to do much more than turn on the news or go on Reddit, for example. I also disagree with the credit of the general public, I think that mob logic can easily overrule individual reason. However, I have admitted in responses to other posts that it is good to get publicity for cases in which more witnesses or evidence can come forward, and it is not the spread of information I should be concerned about but how people respond to the information, which is more of a societal individual problem and not a trend. I want to reiterate that I am NOT in favor of victim blaming or dismissing any claims from people. I am slowly turning around and recognizing that trying to suppress information going out can create an enclosed atmosphere that leads to that kind of behavior, however; the problem is how people process it, and I need to focus on that, not people talking to the media as a tool to spread awareness.
---
Thanks for the delta. I will still continue addressing your points because I think I can offer further reassurance.
>it is just that rapists accusations are in the media spotlight
Yes, Brock Turner was in the spotlight, but that wasn't just because he was accused of rape. It was because *everything* about the crime served as a metaphor for the power imbalances and weird priorities in our country. I.e., there were the objections to him being characterized as a "swimmer" rather than as an accused criminal; there was the nature of his defense -- it wasn't just "I didn't do this," it was "even if I did it, it shouldn't be a big deal." That kind of entitlement is infuriating to people.
Meanwhile, since then how many rape cases have you seen get a lot of press? Sure, there are the celebrity cases, but those cases are huge because of the celebrity involvement, not because rape is the crime. *Any* felony accusation would make news when the accused is a celebrity.
But rape accusations against normal private citizens? You don't hear about those. Trust me, I actually work as a criminal defense attorney. I didn't want to say that prior to getting the delta because I don't expect you to just defer to me as an authority, but I do feel I have some perspective here. I have worked for clients accused of sex crimes; the vast majority have been able to keep their jobs, their friends, their families, and certainly have not gotten any press attention whatsoever for their accusations.
Props for being so reflective and willing to change your view throughout this thread, too!
---
Thank you, that was a very interesting perspective to think about. It is true that I am not hearing about rape cases left and right, I suppose my mind is blowing it up to proportions that it's not at. In fact, the second to latest rape case I heard about was only covered when the trial began so it actually disproves my point earlier. I appreciate your candid and honest discussion with me. | 93rorj | CMV: rape/sexual assault accusations should be kept private until trial proceeds and guilt should not be assumed | I want to clarify that I am not advocating dismissing rape claims or saying the victim is lying. I believe fervently in dispelling rape culture especially on university campuses and the work place. However, I am worried about public opinion hanging someone out to dry because of a rape accusation before the trial even takes place. I recognize that rape accusations have a very small percentage of actually being fake, and I feel that if one person is innocent, it is important to protect everyone's rights and keep the accusation a secret until the trial takes place. I do struggle with this belief, as it can potentially backfire and lead into settlements that don't expose the real rapists, but I think that it is worth it to protect everyone's right to a fair trial, no matter how heinous the crime. That said, I am open to possible alternatives, as I know the trial process can take a long time before it even begins, and life is rarely one or the other. If there is a way to both prevent public opinion attacks and help people get justice, I am happy to hear them.
edit: I have changed my mind on suppressing information in media until the trial. I still hold that people should engage in an objective review of facts and go with innocent until proven guilty, but that is more of an individual task and something that is more long term and on society itself to change.
_____
> *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!* | kyotoAnimations | 6 | 6 | [
{
"author": "electronics12345",
"id": "e3ffwql",
"score": 9,
"text": "Not all sexual assault cases go to court. Not all sexual assault victims want their assaulter to go to jail, or even be fined - just to stop. \n\nPublic shame can be an effective tool to get someone to stop. \n\nSuing someone or j... | [
{
"author": "BAWguy",
"id": "e3ffs83",
"score": 5,
"text": "What do you mean by \"kept private?\" Should the victim not be allowed to talk to friends and family about the traumatic event? \n\n>public opinion hanging someone out to dry [...] before the trial even takes place\n\nHow would that happen?... | [
"e3ffwql",
"e3fgwbt",
"e3foo9b",
"e3fpe6v",
"e3fpqe9",
"e3g4mno"
] | [
"e3ffs83",
"e3fghg8",
"e3fh311",
"e3fhw9l",
"e3fjaxk",
"e3fjif0"
] |
CMV: The Common Man Should Have no Say in Poltical Decisions
Democracy, for better or for worse, has shown that anyone who holds enough "clout" with the financial means to promtoe themselves can secure office or influence often based on lofty promises or polarization of the enemy. Rarrely, at least for me it seems, do those with adptitude and genuine desire to better their country and constituents seem to gain influence. The naive idea that the average citizen would stay informed and vote for the betterment of the nation rather than political agendas has proven itself untrue and unproven.
Why should a citizen, with minimal understanding of the political apparatus and politics be allowed to have as much political weight as a capable leader. Often, democracy halts poltical progress and leads to deadlocks and compromises. However, in more absolutists governments, where few people hold power, the realm often sees much more spontaneous results and overall much more stable. Take Rome, for Example; Pax Romana was under an Absolutist Autocracy, not under the republic. Yes, follwing the Death of Augustus, years of civil war occured, and I suppose events such as that are a legitimate counter argument.
History, however, shows us that realms with more concentrated power tend to remain much more stable, such as Rome, The Mongol Khanate, Qing China, Post-Daiymo Japan and Post-Sejm Poland-Lithuania. | > History, however, shows us that realms with more concentrated power tend to remain much more stable, such as Rome, The Mongol Khanate, Qing China, Post-Daiymo Japan and Post-Sejm Poland-Lithuania.
It is interesting that your list of stable realms is a list of realms that ultimately collapsed, often under the weight of the autocracy you're suggesting.
The problem (one of the many problems) with autocratic systems that you're talking about is that they rely on a good roll of the dice. You get a Caesar, but you also get a Nero. You've got Darius the Great, but you've also got Darius III.
Relying on a single great person to create great nations seems like it might be good on the face of it, but the nations you're talking about failed in part because the people who followed after weren't always so great.
---
Would a system of sortition work? Ie a lottery of the natuons most capable scientists, philosophers, generals and etc are put into a pool and randomly selected?
---
That's what we have government appointments for - to the Cabinet and the Supreme Court. | How would such a competent leader be selected?
If we do it by vote, we have democracy. More or less like today.
If we do it by civil war, the rich would still be selected.
Heck, if we found a way to select through some magic black box the most educated person: guess what, education costs money, even in countries in which universities are mostly free, you need to pay your bills.
And we still need to invent magic first for that box.
The important question isn't who leads, it's how do we select who leads.
---
Idealisticly I want an electoral meritocractic dictatorship where only people educated on politics can elect rulers who meet given requirements. This is an Idealistic philosophy which is likely unfeasible in humanity's current state.
---
Only people educated on politics = only the rich. How can that be better than today? Trump had an education. See what good that did.
You're using pretty words to cement the rule of the rich and wealthy.
Counter proposal: let's improve the education system and let everyone vote. | hgnhm0 | CMV: The Common Man Should Have no Say in Poltical Decisions | Democracy, for better or for worse, has shown that anyone who holds enough "clout" with the financial means to promtoe themselves can secure office or influence often based on lofty promises or polarization of the enemy. Rarrely, at least for me it seems, do those with adptitude and genuine desire to better their country and constituents seem to gain influence. The naive idea that the average citizen would stay informed and vote for the betterment of the nation rather than political agendas has proven itself untrue and unproven.
Why should a citizen, with minimal understanding of the political apparatus and politics be allowed to have as much political weight as a capable leader. Often, democracy halts poltical progress and leads to deadlocks and compromises. However, in more absolutists governments, where few people hold power, the realm often sees much more spontaneous results and overall much more stable. Take Rome, for Example; Pax Romana was under an Absolutist Autocracy, not under the republic. Yes, follwing the Death of Augustus, years of civil war occured, and I suppose events such as that are a legitimate counter argument.
History, however, shows us that realms with more concentrated power tend to remain much more stable, such as Rome, The Mongol Khanate, Qing China, Post-Daiymo Japan and Post-Sejm Poland-Lithuania. | ElectricEley | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "edwardlleandre",
"id": "fw560lj",
"score": 23,
"text": "> History, however, shows us that realms with more concentrated power tend to remain much more stable, such as Rome, The Mongol Khanate, Qing China, Post-Daiymo Japan and Post-Sejm Poland-Lithuania. \n\nIt is interesting that your ... | [
{
"author": "CardinalHaias",
"id": "fw55s4w",
"score": 4,
"text": "How would such a competent leader be selected?\n\nIf we do it by vote, we have democracy. More or less like today.\n\nIf we do it by civil war, the rich would still be selected.\n\nHeck, if we found a way to select through some magic... | [
"fw560lj",
"fw563t7",
"fw570k7"
] | [
"fw55s4w",
"fw55wqn",
"fw5665b"
] |
CMV: When generative AI systems are used to create art, the user (prompter) should own the copyright.
I think that AI is basically like a camera. It is a tool to produce output in the same way that a camera produces photos. If I take a picture of something, I own the copyright in that image. I think the AI should be no different. If I type “horse riding a golf cart” into DALL-E I think that I should own the copyright to that image that comes out.
The way I see it there are three possible claimants to the image: the user (prompter), the AI company who developed the model, or the artists who’s work was fed to train the AI. I will discuss each.
1. The AI company. To say that the AI company should own the image rights is like saying that Kodak should own the rights to the photo I took on my vacation. Yes they spent time developing the tech but I paid to use it. Don't see much of an argument here. (Of course there are terms of service contracts that may change this, but those are out of scope for my current view, as contract can modify traditional copyright too)
2. The artists who’s work fed the AI. This seems more legit. The problem is one of practicality. If an AI ingested 10 million works, how are we supposed to say which creator's work was used? Assuming that my output of a horse in a golf cart is not directly comparable to any artist's work (you cannot point to stolen bits) how are we do say what was used where? If the output doesn’t steal anything concrete from the input, how do we attribute that? How would we compensate it? I think that when you release art into the world it is safe to assume that people are going to learn indirectly from it, that others will be influenced by it. That is not illegal. Copying directly is illegal. Of course the Beatles are influenced by Bob Dylan’s work. But as long as they don’t copy, influence is amorphous and not protectable. Art and ideas are constantly pushed forward by the influence of other artists and thinkers. Even direct copying is sometimes permissible. In the case of "cover versions" of songs. Let's say Taylor Swift wants to sing Sweet Home Alabama at her concert. In that case, there is a federally-mandated flat fee which goes to the original creator of the composition. Perhaps something like that is appropriate, where every art that gets ingested by an AI should be compensated some tiny flat fee. But those are cases of direct copying and reproduction. Vague influence is not protectable. Was Taylor Swift's first album influenced by the Dixie Chicks? Was Kanye influenced by Biggie and Tupac? These things are not illegal unless you steal directly.
The only choice left is the user. Some will say that the user should not be able to win art contests with works that were generated just by typing in "horse on golf cart" into a website. My response to that is that it is incredibly unlikely that such a simple lazy prompt would generate something cool or unique or powerful enough to win an art contest. Just like it is unlikely that a simple photo I take lazily out of my car window is going to win a photography contest. It could, but it's highly unlikely. Same goes for the lazy prompt. Could it end up amazing? Sure I guess so, but it's much more likely that prized works will be the result of countless hours of prompting, photoshopping, reprompting, etc. Such was the case [here](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html) where the artist worked something like 500 hours on the piece.
The point of copyright is to incentivize creative expression, and AI art is certainly creative expression. Of course, we want to be fair to creators (as a way to incentivize them to keep creating) which is why direct copying is illegal.
For those of you who think that AI art cannot be creative, I urge you to take a look at [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/10ku5xt/you_took_too_much_1990s_bad_trip_inspired/) which is the best example of creative expression augmented by AI that I have come across. It is called "T'en as trop pris" which is French for "You took too much". I think that the artist here should clearly own the copyright in this work. | >The only choice left is the user
You forgot one option.
Public domain.
The idea that all of culture should be divied up and turned into sellable assets is a very recent one. A century ago, most cultural items were not owned, they were just there.
Corporations have continuously and relentlessly expanded copyright to secure more profit, but we don't have to follow them.
---
Good point I did forget public domain. But why is that better? Why shouldn't the prompter be allowed to protect their work?
Do you have a link to your claim about most cultural assets? What do you mean by cultural assets? Copyright protection is in the constitution
---
>their work
If its public domain it isn't their work | I believe PETA (of all organizations) already sort of settled the issue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
It will be interesting to see how judges settle the upcoming cases in the next few years, like the Getty images one, but it's possible AI art won't be copyright-able.
Legal eagle did a pretty good video on it;
https://youtu.be/G08hY8dSrUY
I think your line of thinking may ultimately be the logical one, but I don't think corporations like Disney will allow the prompt "cartoon mouse with white gloves" to spit out Mickey mouse and ultimately be copy written by the prompter.
---
These are some good resources and I will look into them now. In terms of the mickey mouse thing, if the output has elements of something that is protected, then that is infringing and Disney can sue. I am talking about cases where the output does not have direct elements of copying
---
...but that's the argument isn't it? The data the AI was trained on consisted of copyrighted elements. So is it more akin to an artist taking copyrighted images and putting together a collage for their own copyright, or is it entirely new?
It's certainly nuanced. I think ultimately judges will rule that anything made via an AI that had copyrighted data in its training will result in the output not being eligible for copyright. | 10q6w9j | CMV: When generative AI systems are used to create art, the user (prompter) should own the copyright. | I think that AI is basically like a camera. It is a tool to produce output in the same way that a camera produces photos. If I take a picture of something, I own the copyright in that image. I think the AI should be no different. If I type “horse riding a golf cart” into DALL-E I think that I should own the copyright to that image that comes out.
The way I see it there are three possible claimants to the image: the user (prompter), the AI company who developed the model, or the artists who’s work was fed to train the AI. I will discuss each.
1. The AI company. To say that the AI company should own the image rights is like saying that Kodak should own the rights to the photo I took on my vacation. Yes they spent time developing the tech but I paid to use it. Don't see much of an argument here. (Of course there are terms of service contracts that may change this, but those are out of scope for my current view, as contract can modify traditional copyright too)
2. The artists who’s work fed the AI. This seems more legit. The problem is one of practicality. If an AI ingested 10 million works, how are we supposed to say which creator's work was used? Assuming that my output of a horse in a golf cart is not directly comparable to any artist's work (you cannot point to stolen bits) how are we do say what was used where? If the output doesn’t steal anything concrete from the input, how do we attribute that? How would we compensate it? I think that when you release art into the world it is safe to assume that people are going to learn indirectly from it, that others will be influenced by it. That is not illegal. Copying directly is illegal. Of course the Beatles are influenced by Bob Dylan’s work. But as long as they don’t copy, influence is amorphous and not protectable. Art and ideas are constantly pushed forward by the influence of other artists and thinkers. Even direct copying is sometimes permissible. In the case of "cover versions" of songs. Let's say Taylor Swift wants to sing Sweet Home Alabama at her concert. In that case, there is a federally-mandated flat fee which goes to the original creator of the composition. Perhaps something like that is appropriate, where every art that gets ingested by an AI should be compensated some tiny flat fee. But those are cases of direct copying and reproduction. Vague influence is not protectable. Was Taylor Swift's first album influenced by the Dixie Chicks? Was Kanye influenced by Biggie and Tupac? These things are not illegal unless you steal directly.
The only choice left is the user. Some will say that the user should not be able to win art contests with works that were generated just by typing in "horse on golf cart" into a website. My response to that is that it is incredibly unlikely that such a simple lazy prompt would generate something cool or unique or powerful enough to win an art contest. Just like it is unlikely that a simple photo I take lazily out of my car window is going to win a photography contest. It could, but it's highly unlikely. Same goes for the lazy prompt. Could it end up amazing? Sure I guess so, but it's much more likely that prized works will be the result of countless hours of prompting, photoshopping, reprompting, etc. Such was the case [here](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html) where the artist worked something like 500 hours on the piece.
The point of copyright is to incentivize creative expression, and AI art is certainly creative expression. Of course, we want to be fair to creators (as a way to incentivize them to keep creating) which is why direct copying is illegal.
For those of you who think that AI art cannot be creative, I urge you to take a look at [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/10ku5xt/you_took_too_much_1990s_bad_trip_inspired/) which is the best example of creative expression augmented by AI that I have come across. It is called "T'en as trop pris" which is French for "You took too much". I think that the artist here should clearly own the copyright in this work. | 4vrf | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "10ebbor10",
"id": "j6o964p",
"score": 6,
"text": ">The only choice left is the user\n\nYou forgot one option.\n\nPublic domain.\n\nThe idea that all of culture should be divied up and turned into sellable assets is a very recent one. A century ago, most cultural items were not owned, th... | [
{
"author": "MacNuggetts",
"id": "j6o7tx7",
"score": 13,
"text": "I believe PETA (of all organizations) already sort of settled the issue. \n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute\n\nIt will be interesting to see how judges settle the upcoming cases in the next few years, ... | [
"j6o964p",
"j6o9lv4",
"j6oder9"
] | [
"j6o7tx7",
"j6o8em1",
"j6o9zf6"
] |
CMV: American teenagers who mock and meme Prince Philip's death are hypocritical and should be looked down upon.
I have seen a lot of these posts lately mocking the death of prince philip. I don't know anything about the Royal Family actually, so I don't really have much emotion about the death of Prince Philip. Now I grew up in America too, but have noticed that younger generation Americans are one to call out those in power, call for their downfalls, etc.
But I feel that the constant mockery and memeing about his death is very hypocritical. Instagram often shows me this content, so I know it's supposedly "cool" to laugh at his death and whatnot. Here are reasons I think it's disgusting for these teenagers to do so, and hypocritical as well.
1. **People are products of their time.** In response to the common "He deserved it, he was racist". Maybe he was. I don't know. He wasn't Hitler, he didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people. He just made racist comments apparently? Regardless, I don't think this is a good argument to use to justify mocking the death of someone's parent, someone's grandparent, someone's husband. Just because someone was 'bad' in their lives doesn't give reason to mock them - people are products of their time. I'm sure many many grandparents and even parents in America have somewhat racist ideologies that are remnants from their upbringing as well. Imagine if the public laughs and ridicules these grandparents when they die.
2. **Hypocrisy** If Prince Philip deserves to be mocked in his death for making racist comments (imo he doesn't), then we should treat everyone who does bad things the same after their deaths. Many media posts last summer came up of police brutality who were severely injured or died during encounters with police (they did not deserve death, but some of them were not doing great things). Regardless we as a society are able to see past the wrongdoings in these peoples' lives and honour them / remember them. I'm not saying we should mock anyone after they die. I am just pointing out a double standard in how we treat peoples' legacies after their death. | So its hypocritical to make a joke meme about the death of a celebrity because some people believe police have used excessive force that resulted in the death of unarmed civilians? I'm having a tough time connecting these dots.
---
Does the cause of death change what people have done in their lives? I'm all for cop correction. but I'm not talking about cops right now, I'm talking about the people who have passed. And I'm not saying people should joke about these people who have passed, I'm saying people should not joke about them.
---
The cause of death can definitely be important because it informs the issue. I don't really care what the person murdered by police had done in their life because that's not the issue, the issue is a person being murdered by a police officer.
I'm still not sure I understand what the hypocrisy is? And how could you even know it's the same people? Is this supposed to be hypothetical?
---
I agree with you that the person should not be murdered by the police officer. That is a completely different argument.
I'm not arguing whether or not someone deserves death, I'm pointing out that some people can mourn and call for honor of people who have done not-great things, so what makes the celebrity different? Does them being a celebrity make their death okay to mock?
I assume they're the same people, just from other posts that circulate in the same area.
---
Quite frankly, your decision to compare Prince Philip's death to George Floyd's makes it explicitly clear that you don't actually understand WHY people are mocking the Prince's death. And I'm not just talking about Floyd's murder.
Let's start with George Floyd. He was born in a pseudo-segregated South in the 1970s. He was raised by a single mother in public housing and lived his entire childhood in poverty. He was the first person of his family to ever attend college, and that was only on the back of his athletic abilities. He was incarcerated multiple times by a racist justice system for petty crimes, received little help in the way of rehabilitation, and was murdered at middle-age by a Minneapolis police officer. He was not a perfect person and does have to take some accountability for his own actions, but generally speaking, he tried his best and was set up to fail by society.
Now let's look at Philip. This man lived a century of unfathomable luxury that he "earned" by virtue of being born into the right family, fucking his wife a sufficient number of times to create children, and literally nothing more. He got to live and study at elite schools all over Europe. He got to live in literal castles wearing literal gold and had the means of acquiring virtually anything he wanted at any given moment with the ringing of a bell or press of a button. He and his family siphoned billions away from taxpayers so that he could bring personal butlers along for his horse rides. His only actual responsibility in life was to do a few photo ops and small-talk with whatever stooges the Crown put in front of him; a task he routinely could not complete without saying bigoted shit.
At one end of the spectrum is the tragic plight of a black man in a supposedly "post-racial" western society. He was figuratively held down by the state until he literally was held down by the state as he desperately pleaded for air.
At the other end of the spectrum is white privilege, and it's harder to think of a better mascot for that than Prince Philip. From the second he came out of his mom's vagina he was virtually guaranteed a life where everything would be handed to him. He became a literal representative of a monarchy whose riches were gained by the colonialization and oppression of brown people, and he would play an active role in whitewashing that history by visiting the "colonies" via private jet.
George Floyd was not a perfect man, but never really had a chance until his life was prematurely cut short by the state which oppressed him his entire life. Prince Philip got 99 years of a life where he had the best the world could offer him in the way of education, healthcare, travel, and general opportunity. And what the fuck did he do with that privilege beyond indulge himself? Seriously, I'm asking you to tell me his accomplishments. How did he use his literal golden throne to make the world a better place?
I'm not asking you to join others in mocking Prince Philip, but I am asking you to show some awareness for what it is people are actually mocking. DMX was a celebrity. Who is mocking his death? Jessica Walter? Alex Trebek? The reasons Prince Philip is mocked are not because "he's famous." People are mocking what his life represents and how little self-awareness he and his ilk show for it. George Floyd's life and death are, in contrast, nothing to laugh at. | Its a lot more than American teenagers making fun of the Royal Family. Its been done for centuries whether you recognize it or not. The English Royal Family is responsible for more death and mayhem than most other groups of humans ever recorded. So fuck em. And this is coming from a Canadian 33 year old.
---
Is inherited guilt really a thing? If so, when does it stop? You're a descendent of royalty, are you responsible for the deaths of Charlemagne and Caesar?
---
Nobody gives a shit who his parents were. He chose to marry into an institution. *That* decision is what he is judged for.
---
He married a cute girl who shares none of the sins of her ancestors? Wow, let's celebrate his death!
---
The institution of monarchy is problematic in the current day and has been for the entirety of Lizzy's life. Lineage is irrelevant. Read carefully, please. | mt3h1m | CMV: American teenagers who mock and meme Prince Philip's death are hypocritical and should be looked down upon. | I have seen a lot of these posts lately mocking the death of prince philip. I don't know anything about the Royal Family actually, so I don't really have much emotion about the death of Prince Philip. Now I grew up in America too, but have noticed that younger generation Americans are one to call out those in power, call for their downfalls, etc.
But I feel that the constant mockery and memeing about his death is very hypocritical. Instagram often shows me this content, so I know it's supposedly "cool" to laugh at his death and whatnot. Here are reasons I think it's disgusting for these teenagers to do so, and hypocritical as well.
1. **People are products of their time.** In response to the common "He deserved it, he was racist". Maybe he was. I don't know. He wasn't Hitler, he didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people. He just made racist comments apparently? Regardless, I don't think this is a good argument to use to justify mocking the death of someone's parent, someone's grandparent, someone's husband. Just because someone was 'bad' in their lives doesn't give reason to mock them - people are products of their time. I'm sure many many grandparents and even parents in America have somewhat racist ideologies that are remnants from their upbringing as well. Imagine if the public laughs and ridicules these grandparents when they die.
2. **Hypocrisy** If Prince Philip deserves to be mocked in his death for making racist comments (imo he doesn't), then we should treat everyone who does bad things the same after their deaths. Many media posts last summer came up of police brutality who were severely injured or died during encounters with police (they did not deserve death, but some of them were not doing great things). Regardless we as a society are able to see past the wrongdoings in these peoples' lives and honour them / remember them. I'm not saying we should mock anyone after they die. I am just pointing out a double standard in how we treat peoples' legacies after their death. | wokelet1992 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "premiumPLUM",
"id": "guxa0hr",
"score": 7,
"text": "So its hypocritical to make a joke meme about the death of a celebrity because some people believe police have used excessive force that resulted in the death of unarmed civilians? I'm having a tough time connecting these dots.",
... | [
{
"author": "sledgehammer_77",
"id": "guxa8zk",
"score": 17,
"text": "Its a lot more than American teenagers making fun of the Royal Family. Its been done for centuries whether you recognize it or not. The English Royal Family is responsible for more death and mayhem than most other groups of humans... | [
"guxa0hr",
"guxaa60",
"guxcasl",
"guxcwgy",
"guxmv1b"
] | [
"guxa8zk",
"guz25dk",
"gv0vslm",
"gv0vvr9",
"gv0wein"
] |
CMV: Most Christians can easily be talked into mass-murder if they are convinced it's God's will.
Why do I want my view changed: Because I've told this to many people, even a few Christians, and none of them could come up with a proper counter argument.\*\*
For context, I am speaking from an American perspective.
Basically I think most religious people, particularly Christians and Muslims, could be talked into mass murder if someone (or a group of people) convinced them it's God's will for them to murder. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and other similar rules be damned.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
I even wrote a step-by-step guide on how to do it.
Step 1. Get someone really high up (Celebrity, Politician, Pastor) in the Christian Right to say there is a holy war coming up. The Rapture is coming. And when the day comes, we need to be on God's good side. You don't wanna disobey God, do you?
Step 2. They start talking about buying guns and saying that the sinners are trying to take over Gods holy land and we need to stop it.
Step 3. Fill their heads with truckloads of warmongering propaganda. Most Christians already dehumanize "sinners" (ie: anything not Christian) to a certain extent, so it would be easy to open them up to the idea of a violent theofascist revolution.\*
Step 4. Once enough people are radicalized, tell them to start killing people.
Step 5. (Optional) If the government stops it, plan B would basically be Heaven's Gate. Where the people are talked into game-ending themselves.
\*The few that would disagree in this scenario, would be branded as "false believers" and would be cancelled.
\*\*Which was true as of writing but last night my Christian friend told me that there are sects that wouldn't all agree. But I still think if enough "influencers" were convinced, then they would agree. | There are 200 million American adults, and 63% of them are Christian. So that's 126 million Christians. Let's assume by "most" you mean at least 50%, so according to you, right now there are 63 million Americans currently on the verge of committing murder.
If that's the case, why are so few of them actually committing murders? There are about 25 thousand homicides per year. Even if all of them were committed by Christians, then at most, of all the potentially murderous Christians, at most 0.04% actually go through with it.
How do you explain that?
---
>If that's the case, why are so few of them actually committing murders? There are about 25 thousand homicides per year. Even if all of them were committed by Christians, then at most, of all the potentially murderous Christians, at most 0.04% actually go through with it.
Well, as morbid as it is to say, they'd have to be "pushed" harder then. They might not be under the right circumstances to do that. If they say, joined a militia and was told by pastors, celebrities, and other influential figures that killing in the name of God is okay, then I think they would do it.
Either that, or they could be getting away with it.
---
Your argument is tautological. You are saying that the only reason they haven't been convinced to murder yet is that they haven't been convinced to murder yet.
With that reasoning, I could say that any group could be convinced to do any action if some spokesperson was persuasive enough. | I mean what would change your view? Enough Christians saying they disagree? The view is not based on anything, it is just your random assumptions and ideas
---
A proper argument as to WHY Christians wouldn't be convinced. Though looking at the comments, I got several.
---
A majority of Christians are not really so dedicated to any leader, closest would be the pope maybe | 10q6r6e | CMV: Most Christians can easily be talked into mass-murder if they are convinced it's God's will. | Why do I want my view changed: Because I've told this to many people, even a few Christians, and none of them could come up with a proper counter argument.\*\*
For context, I am speaking from an American perspective.
Basically I think most religious people, particularly Christians and Muslims, could be talked into mass murder if someone (or a group of people) convinced them it's God's will for them to murder. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and other similar rules be damned.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
I even wrote a step-by-step guide on how to do it.
Step 1. Get someone really high up (Celebrity, Politician, Pastor) in the Christian Right to say there is a holy war coming up. The Rapture is coming. And when the day comes, we need to be on God's good side. You don't wanna disobey God, do you?
Step 2. They start talking about buying guns and saying that the sinners are trying to take over Gods holy land and we need to stop it.
Step 3. Fill their heads with truckloads of warmongering propaganda. Most Christians already dehumanize "sinners" (ie: anything not Christian) to a certain extent, so it would be easy to open them up to the idea of a violent theofascist revolution.\*
Step 4. Once enough people are radicalized, tell them to start killing people.
Step 5. (Optional) If the government stops it, plan B would basically be Heaven's Gate. Where the people are talked into game-ending themselves.
\*The few that would disagree in this scenario, would be branded as "false believers" and would be cancelled.
\*\*Which was true as of writing but last night my Christian friend told me that there are sects that wouldn't all agree. But I still think if enough "influencers" were convinced, then they would agree. | Tasty_Step1844 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "IndependenceAway8724",
"id": "j6o7f8d",
"score": 0,
"text": "There are 200 million American adults, and 63% of them are Christian. So that's 126 million Christians. Let's assume by \"most\" you mean at least 50%, so according to you, right now there are 63 million Americans currently on... | [
{
"author": "Dyeeguy",
"id": "j6o62dn",
"score": 38,
"text": "I mean what would change your view? Enough Christians saying they disagree? The view is not based on anything, it is just your random assumptions and ideas",
"timestamp": 1675190553
},
{
"author": "Tasty_Step1844",
"id": "... | [
"j6o7f8d",
"j6oau5l",
"j6ofdmd"
] | [
"j6o62dn",
"j6o6q4u",
"j6o72ov"
] |
CMV: Most Christians can easily be talked into mass-murder if they are convinced it's God's will.
Why do I want my view changed: Because I've told this to many people, even a few Christians, and none of them could come up with a proper counter argument.\*\*
For context, I am speaking from an American perspective.
Basically I think most religious people, particularly Christians and Muslims, could be talked into mass murder if someone (or a group of people) convinced them it's God's will for them to murder. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and other similar rules be damned.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
I even wrote a step-by-step guide on how to do it.
Step 1. Get someone really high up (Celebrity, Politician, Pastor) in the Christian Right to say there is a holy war coming up. The Rapture is coming. And when the day comes, we need to be on God's good side. You don't wanna disobey God, do you?
Step 2. They start talking about buying guns and saying that the sinners are trying to take over Gods holy land and we need to stop it.
Step 3. Fill their heads with truckloads of warmongering propaganda. Most Christians already dehumanize "sinners" (ie: anything not Christian) to a certain extent, so it would be easy to open them up to the idea of a violent theofascist revolution.\*
Step 4. Once enough people are radicalized, tell them to start killing people.
Step 5. (Optional) If the government stops it, plan B would basically be Heaven's Gate. Where the people are talked into game-ending themselves.
\*The few that would disagree in this scenario, would be branded as "false believers" and would be cancelled.
\*\*Which was true as of writing but last night my Christian friend told me that there are sects that wouldn't all agree. But I still think if enough "influencers" were convinced, then they would agree. | [deleted]
---
>I am a Quaker. You could not convince me or my brethren "into mass-murder" as "God's will". And I firmly believe
>
>MOST
>
>Christians feel the exact same way.
Okay, then hypothetically what would happen if your pastor suddenly decided to start talk about buying guns, and fighting in some holy war against "sinners". Would this person be removed?
Also just so you know I am writing from an American perspective.
---
>Okay, then hypothetically what would happen if your pastor suddenly decided to start talk about buying guns, and fighting in some holy war against "sinners". Would this person be removed?
As someone who was raised heavily on Christian services - yes, that person would be removed.
I left the church for a myriad of reasons, but one thing I stand by is that "most" people of that faith couldn't be talked into mass-murder.
I mean, really - if that was the case, why haven't there been millions of killings a year by Christians done in the name of God? | I think it is important to keep in mind, in religions where God is defined as benevolent, that convincing an adherent of that faith that God wants them to do something they view as morally wrong is difficult.
If Bob believes murder is wrong, and Bob believes their God is good, then Bob couldn't also believe God wants them to murder someone. These 3 beliefs form a contradiction.
To resolve that conviction, Bob must either decide murder isn't wrong, decide God isn't good, or decide that God doesn't want them to murder after all.
In instances of strong moral convictions and strong religious beliefs, the last option is the most likely one.
---
Okay, but what if Bob went on Fox News and saw some really rich and influential pastor talk about buying guns and burning books on TV?
---
[deleted] | 10q6r6e | CMV: Most Christians can easily be talked into mass-murder if they are convinced it's God's will. | Why do I want my view changed: Because I've told this to many people, even a few Christians, and none of them could come up with a proper counter argument.\*\*
For context, I am speaking from an American perspective.
Basically I think most religious people, particularly Christians and Muslims, could be talked into mass murder if someone (or a group of people) convinced them it's God's will for them to murder. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and other similar rules be damned.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
I even wrote a step-by-step guide on how to do it.
Step 1. Get someone really high up (Celebrity, Politician, Pastor) in the Christian Right to say there is a holy war coming up. The Rapture is coming. And when the day comes, we need to be on God's good side. You don't wanna disobey God, do you?
Step 2. They start talking about buying guns and saying that the sinners are trying to take over Gods holy land and we need to stop it.
Step 3. Fill their heads with truckloads of warmongering propaganda. Most Christians already dehumanize "sinners" (ie: anything not Christian) to a certain extent, so it would be easy to open them up to the idea of a violent theofascist revolution.\*
Step 4. Once enough people are radicalized, tell them to start killing people.
Step 5. (Optional) If the government stops it, plan B would basically be Heaven's Gate. Where the people are talked into game-ending themselves.
\*The few that would disagree in this scenario, would be branded as "false believers" and would be cancelled.
\*\*Which was true as of writing but last night my Christian friend told me that there are sects that wouldn't all agree. But I still think if enough "influencers" were convinced, then they would agree. | Tasty_Step1844 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "j6o62kn",
"score": 16,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1675190555
},
{
"author": "Tasty_Step1844",
"id": "j6o872e",
"score": -4,
"text": ">I am a Quaker. You could not convince me or my brethren \"into mass-murder\" as \"God's will\". And I f... | [
{
"author": "TripRichert",
"id": "j6o6cy1",
"score": 1,
"text": "I think it is important to keep in mind, in religions where God is defined as benevolent, that convincing an adherent of that faith that God wants them to do something they view as morally wrong is difficult.\n\nIf Bob believes murder ... | [
"j6o62kn",
"j6o872e",
"j6o9hoe"
] | [
"j6o6cy1",
"j6o6z4j",
"j6o77hg"
] |
CMV: The police and military will not protect US citizens from Trump under any realistic circumstances
I think that, in the event that Trump gives the military a clearly unethical or unconstitutional order, the organization and most members will follow it. This includes killing innocent US citizens and it includes clear attacks on our democracy.
I'm only including situations that have a chance of actually arising. If Trump ordered the military to start shooting babies on the street tomorrow, or to round up all Democrats and throw them in jail, I'm sure that the military will resist. The transition to violence will be gradual and there will be enough justification given to give these groups cover for their actions. A few examples of more plausible situations:
1. If situation like the LA protests right now escalates to violence, whether it was started by the police or the protesters, Trump might declare the protesters to be terrorists and tell the military to use lethal force, and the military will comply. He might demand that the police round up the protestors and arrest them, and they will.
2. If Trump decided that some statement by a political rival was a threat, or provided support for terrorism, and demanded that person's arrest, neither the federal or local police would prevent it.
3. If Trump said that he had evidence that some Democratic victories in 2026 were corrupt in some way, and sent his goons to arrest people involved in certification or whatnot, the police would either help or stand aside.
I believe this for a few reasons. First, I've just never seen any evidence that it would happen. Second, because there doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon "line that can't be crossed," I suspect that for any given illegal or unethical order, even if some members of the military disagree, most won't speak out, and those that do will be silenced by those above them for whom the order is acceptable.
What would change my mind:
\- Evidence of any (relatively recent) past resistance among these groups to unlawful or unethical orders.
\-Any indication that these groups are taking this possibility seriously. Are there plans in place for this situation? Are there whispers of how far would be too far? Is there even popular sentiment that this is a danger? | >First, I've just never seen any evidence that it would happen.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>Second, because there doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon "line that can't be crossed," I suspect that for any given illegal or unethical order, even if some members of the military disagree, most won't speak out, and those that do will be silenced by those above them for whom the order is acceptable.
You suspect this, but do you have something stronger than a suspicion to base this on?
---
This isn't a court of law or a scientific paper. I've never seen evidence that the police or military will stand up to power, and there have been plenty of opportunities. Kent state, for example.
---
In basically every civil war, the military has split down the middle, with some remaining loyal to the state and others choosing loyalty to home, friends, and family.
For a concrete example, Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union Army of Washington DC by Abraham Lincoln, but turned it down because he felt he could not in good conscience fight against his native homeland of Virginia. The rest is history. | An isolated incident where some people are shot? Sure.
Mowing down 100 people? Would be a shitstorm of epic proportions
---
While there are many traitor trumpers in police and military ranks, there are far more who are loyal to the constitution. In the end, the traitor trumpers will lose.
---
Evidence of more cops being loyal than Trumper? Cops have been an enemy of the people for a long time. | 1l6rt9j | CMV: The police and military will not protect US citizens from Trump under any realistic circumstances | I think that, in the event that Trump gives the military a clearly unethical or unconstitutional order, the organization and most members will follow it. This includes killing innocent US citizens and it includes clear attacks on our democracy.
I'm only including situations that have a chance of actually arising. If Trump ordered the military to start shooting babies on the street tomorrow, or to round up all Democrats and throw them in jail, I'm sure that the military will resist. The transition to violence will be gradual and there will be enough justification given to give these groups cover for their actions. A few examples of more plausible situations:
1. If situation like the LA protests right now escalates to violence, whether it was started by the police or the protesters, Trump might declare the protesters to be terrorists and tell the military to use lethal force, and the military will comply. He might demand that the police round up the protestors and arrest them, and they will.
2. If Trump decided that some statement by a political rival was a threat, or provided support for terrorism, and demanded that person's arrest, neither the federal or local police would prevent it.
3. If Trump said that he had evidence that some Democratic victories in 2026 were corrupt in some way, and sent his goons to arrest people involved in certification or whatnot, the police would either help or stand aside.
I believe this for a few reasons. First, I've just never seen any evidence that it would happen. Second, because there doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon "line that can't be crossed," I suspect that for any given illegal or unethical order, even if some members of the military disagree, most won't speak out, and those that do will be silenced by those above them for whom the order is acceptable.
What would change my mind:
\- Evidence of any (relatively recent) past resistance among these groups to unlawful or unethical orders.
\-Any indication that these groups are taking this possibility seriously. Are there plans in place for this situation? Are there whispers of how far would be too far? Is there even popular sentiment that this is a danger? | RobotsFromTheFuture | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Rhundan",
"id": "mwr4t8z",
"score": 27,
"text": ">First, I've just never seen any evidence that it would happen.\n\nAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence. \n\n>Second, because there doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon \"line that can't be crossed,\" I suspect that for any given i... | [
{
"author": "J-Dirte",
"id": "mwr4siw",
"score": 26,
"text": "An isolated incident where some people are shot? Sure. \n\nMowing down 100 people? Would be a shitstorm of epic proportions ",
"timestamp": 1749430999
},
{
"author": "Pourkinator",
"id": "mwr62xf",
"score": -3,
"te... | [
"mwr4t8z",
"mwrhku1",
"mwsgkg9"
] | [
"mwr4siw",
"mwr62xf",
"mwr7bw3"
] |
CMV: I agree with vegans that I'm not an animal lover because I eat them.
I am not a vegan or even a vegetarian. Many vegans argue that it's so hypocritical that so many people say they love animals but continue to eat them that results in an industry that creates a horrible quality of life for livestock. Logically, I agree with them. I love my cat. I love my parents dog. But honestly I don't think it's fair for me to say I love animals in general when I can't give up meat to help contribute to a better quality of life for them. I've seen Dominion and a few other docs that show how awful the industry is... and while it upset me, I just couldn't give up meat. I have cut back on red meat and pork and try to only shop for poultry now for environmental reasons, and grown chickens and turkeys kind of disgust me so I feel zero guilt about eat them.
I'd like this view changed because I do want to believe I'm an animal lover but I really can't reconcile that with the fact that I partake in the meat industry. | I've never understood this
Animals eat eachother, like why couldn't I love animals if I eat them?
---
Because it's pretty obvious that the industry causes them suffering and I think that's diametrically opposed to love.
---
> the industry causes them suffering
So, if we remove "the industry" from the debate, do you think one can eat an animal and be an animal lover. Just, in the abstract? | Do you believe that the same word can have multiple definitions?
---
Of course but to an extent, and I don't believe it extends to tolerating what happens in the livestock industry.
---
Alright so just to clarify you theoretically would have no problem with the phrase "I love these farm animals" if they were treated better by the owners?
And if that's the case why not just source meat from ethical farmers? | 197gg51 | CMV: I agree with vegans that I'm not an animal lover because I eat them. | I am not a vegan or even a vegetarian. Many vegans argue that it's so hypocritical that so many people say they love animals but continue to eat them that results in an industry that creates a horrible quality of life for livestock. Logically, I agree with them. I love my cat. I love my parents dog. But honestly I don't think it's fair for me to say I love animals in general when I can't give up meat to help contribute to a better quality of life for them. I've seen Dominion and a few other docs that show how awful the industry is... and while it upset me, I just couldn't give up meat. I have cut back on red meat and pork and try to only shop for poultry now for environmental reasons, and grown chickens and turkeys kind of disgust me so I feel zero guilt about eat them.
I'd like this view changed because I do want to believe I'm an animal lover but I really can't reconcile that with the fact that I partake in the meat industry. | redditordeaditor6789 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "RemoteCompetitive688",
"id": "ki075rr",
"score": 46,
"text": "I've never understood this \n\nAnimals eat eachother, like why couldn't I love animals if I eat them?",
"timestamp": 1705345288
},
{
"author": "redditordeaditor6789",
"id": "ki07wan",
"score": 43,
"tex... | [
{
"author": "LucidMetal",
"id": "ki05ubf",
"score": 89,
"text": "Do you believe that the same word can have multiple definitions?",
"timestamp": 1705344859
},
{
"author": "redditordeaditor6789",
"id": "ki06clt",
"score": 28,
"text": "Of course but to an extent, and I don't be... | [
"ki075rr",
"ki07wan",
"ki08jgt"
] | [
"ki05ubf",
"ki06clt",
"ki06ujm"
] |
CMV: university shouldn’t be free
In the United States, there’s a push to make universities free in order to make education more available to the masses. While I do think education should be readily available to all interested parties, free university is going to take things down the wrong path.
Going to university after high school has become the primary path for a large portion of young Americans. I think this used to be good as those who wanted to pursue higher education were previously barred by financial constraints. Through student loans and scholarships, those students were able to chase their dreams to help create a better society.
Things I feel are different now: kids feel like it’s another stepping stone to securing a higher paying job that’ll keep them more safe from poverty than any other option. As more students go to university, I just feel as though the value of the diploma decreases, the wallets of the universities get fatter, and job market saturation makes for lower salaries thus making maintaining the quality of life experienced in college educated lives in decades previous more difficult. In addition, these kids are now competing in a global market where companies outsource to just as qualified candidates who get paid small hourly wages rather than a high paying salary.
Don’t get it twisted: university in America is too expensive and the quality of education is top tier but it’s also not for everyone. Funding trade schools to increase manual labor jobs, funding STEM programs, or making the military seems like a more enticing options than making universities free. | The more educated your society is, the more chances of having people that make your country better. More education can be a reason for better civilians and less violent crimes. Even if free education where to be poor level compare to others, it still is something better than no education at all.
Would you consider a system where there is free universities and private universities at the same time? Would it bother you than with more people with degrees, you will have to evaluate who to hire base on skills instead of what uni they graduated from?
---
I am with you on the first half, I just don’t think the typically white collar education provided by university is the only option for education in general. A different education for different people with different interests.
I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re getting at in the second half.
---
If more people have degrees, degrees are no longer enough to separate candidates.
The selection process is then dependent on knowledge/skills and not a piece of paper. The piece of paper is supposed to be a reflection of the individuals skills, but in practice it doesn't really work that way. Often time the more skilled candidate is overlooked and the one that is less skilled but has a degree is selected.
I argue that this because a degree has always really been more of an indicator of socioeconomic class, as a result of it being expensive, than knowledge/skills. Hiring managers cognitive biases will lead them to favor the candidate with the degree (people tend to connect socioeconomic class with competency, also people feel more comfortable around people who are like themselves, the hiring manager most likely has a degree making the candidate with the degree more like them).
Making universities free would help make is it so that a degree is no longer an indicator of socioeconomic class and would minimize the negative affects of cognitive biases. This would have the positive benefit of the decision of who will become a new hire based just off of individuals skills and knowledge which would lead to a better performing business. | [removed]
---
What are you referring to when you say they?
---
The universities, they’d be unable to give the same high quality education, especially in pricy STEM fields where expensive lab tech is crucial
College would essentially just become high school 2.0 | hgc92g | CMV: university shouldn’t be free | In the United States, there’s a push to make universities free in order to make education more available to the masses. While I do think education should be readily available to all interested parties, free university is going to take things down the wrong path.
Going to university after high school has become the primary path for a large portion of young Americans. I think this used to be good as those who wanted to pursue higher education were previously barred by financial constraints. Through student loans and scholarships, those students were able to chase their dreams to help create a better society.
Things I feel are different now: kids feel like it’s another stepping stone to securing a higher paying job that’ll keep them more safe from poverty than any other option. As more students go to university, I just feel as though the value of the diploma decreases, the wallets of the universities get fatter, and job market saturation makes for lower salaries thus making maintaining the quality of life experienced in college educated lives in decades previous more difficult. In addition, these kids are now competing in a global market where companies outsource to just as qualified candidates who get paid small hourly wages rather than a high paying salary.
Don’t get it twisted: university in America is too expensive and the quality of education is top tier but it’s also not for everyone. Funding trade schools to increase manual labor jobs, funding STEM programs, or making the military seems like a more enticing options than making universities free. | danmark19 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "MoneyLuevano",
"id": "fw34q1n",
"score": 51,
"text": "The more educated your society is, the more chances of having people that make your country better. More education can be a reason for better civilians and less violent crimes. Even if free education where to be poor level compare to... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "fw33uht",
"score": 2,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1593194731
},
{
"author": "danmark19",
"id": "fw34o5q",
"score": 2,
"text": "What are you referring to when you say they?",
"timestamp": 1593195124
},
{
"author": "JeffFisher79... | [
"fw34q1n",
"fw35est",
"fw3dc6c"
] | [
"fw33uht",
"fw34o5q",
"fw353mc"
] |
CMV: Presidents of democracies and/or republic don't matter, or matter much less that we believe they do
We often talk about elections, leaders we dislike, but the truth is that the people just under them matter much more than we think. Most of the time we don't really know those people, and leaders end up being orators, not deciders.
Even though we chose leaders and orators, appointees are often much more thoughtful and weighed in their decision and choices, and the reality of leadership happens within the scope of those individuals, not elected leaders.
In democracies and republics, leadership is complex, and even though there is a relationship between the leader and the people helping that leader, the reality of the policies and decisions never really reflect the leader in place. Thus, the leader doesn't matter, it's a mask that hides the people under that leader.
Most of the time, a leader will not be able to decide for a lot of things, or have enough margin to really make big decisions, or change a lot of things that are in place. | While I can only speak for the United States, the POTUS actually does have a great deal of power, both formal and informal.
First and foremost, they control the _executive_ branch of government, which is tasked with enforcing Federal law. While Congress may determine what those laws are and what spending levels are for any given agency, the POTUS has broad discretion in how those laws are enforced and how those funds are spent. A good example of this was Obama's position towards the legalization of marijuana in many states - Marijuana is _still illegal_ at a federal level, which means that it is still illegal in _every_ state, but Obama directed his organization to not enforce that law. Trump now has the authority to continue that practice or change course and begin enforcing that law again. That is a great deal of power.
Secondly, the POTUS is the chief diplomat for the country. They set the tone for our relations with other countries based on how they interact with them. Regardless of how you might personally feel about those choices, everyone would agree that the international attitude towards the United States is _very_ different now than it was 2 years ago, and that is entirely due to the men that hold/held the office of POTUS. This happened with no change in the laws themselves, but in the attitude of the man in the office and how they used their administrative powers.
Thirdly, they can deploy troops for a period of time with no authorization from Congress. For one many to have unilateral control of the strongest military force on the planet is something that can not be underestimated. The POTUS could nuke the world if they wanted too, and no one could really stop them.
Finally, as Teddy Roosevelt said, the POTUS has the "bully pulpit". Due to their office, they command a great deal of news coverage and get to strongly influence the national conversation on a great many issues, setting the tone for their party and, if they are in control, their government. Simply by _commenting_ on an issue, the POTUS can bring something to the forefront or dramatically change the tone of the discussion, and that isn't a power that many other people have.
Of course, they have a smattering of other statutory powers as well. All summed up, it is an incredibly influential position.
---
Thanks, never knew about the notion of bully pulpit
∆ awarded for enforcement of the law
For military matters, it's true but I don't think it has much effect in peace time. I'm curious if Trump will really make big military mistakes.
---
Also a president can declassify any piece of classified information at will. So for example, if a hostile foreign country has compromised the US president, and then they send two emissaries to meet with him in the White House, the President can give those emissaries any classified United States intelligence they ask for, and it's completely legal -- nothing can be done about it.
That's a pretty significant power that other branches don't have. | President’s declare war. Unilaterally. They have nuclear codes. As commander-in-chief, the date of nations Andorra millions of souls hang upon their will.
There would have been no Civil War were there a Southern president at the time, not Lincoln. There would have been no ongoing and ongoing Iraq war were Gore and not W. President. Perhaps no Vietnam war were Kennedy never assassinated.
---
I agree with your ideas, if not your facts. We had already committed 3,205 troops as advisors to Vietnam under Eisenhower. When Kennedy was killed, the U.S. had 16,300 in theater. While it appeared the Kennedy was willing to back out of our commitment to fight alongside the South Vietnamese, the famous Kennedy quote from September of 1963 paints his views in very real terms: we assist, we advise, but fall short of sending in full combat troops. He realised something that Johnson failed to see for the next five years. Kennedy predicted the main issue in his first sentence, which is almost verbatim what Nixon gave as the reason for pulling out ten years later. But the full quote sums up Kennedy's feelings rather well:
"In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Vietnam, against the Communists... But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake... [The United States] made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate—we may not like it—in the defense of Asia." | 93ouqm | CMV: Presidents of democracies and/or republic don't matter, or matter much less that we believe they do | We often talk about elections, leaders we dislike, but the truth is that the people just under them matter much more than we think. Most of the time we don't really know those people, and leaders end up being orators, not deciders.
Even though we chose leaders and orators, appointees are often much more thoughtful and weighed in their decision and choices, and the reality of leadership happens within the scope of those individuals, not elected leaders.
In democracies and republics, leadership is complex, and even though there is a relationship between the leader and the people helping that leader, the reality of the policies and decisions never really reflect the leader in place. Thus, the leader doesn't matter, it's a mask that hides the people under that leader.
Most of the time, a leader will not be able to decide for a lot of things, or have enough margin to really make big decisions, or change a lot of things that are in place. | PenisShapedSilencer | 3 | 2 | [
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"id": "e3et3il",
"score": 38,
"text": "While I can only speak for the United States, the POTUS actually does have a great deal of power, both formal and informal.\n\nFirst and foremost, they control the _executive_ branch of government, which is tasked with enforcing Federal l... | [
{
"author": "kublahkoala",
"id": "e3esvcz",
"score": 2,
"text": "President’s declare war. Unilaterally. They have nuclear codes. As commander-in-chief, the date of nations Andorra millions of souls hang upon their will.\n\n There would have been no Civil War were there a Southern president at the t... | [
"e3et3il",
"e3etr21",
"e3ghpzf"
] | [
"e3esvcz",
"e3etzzw"
] |
CMV: Religious people lack critical thinking skills.
I want to change my view because I don’t necessarily love thinking less of billions of people.
There is no proof for any religion. That alone I thought would be enough to stop people committing their lives to something. Yet billion of people actually think they happened to pick the correct one.
There are thousands of religions to date, with more to come, yet people believe that because their parents / home country believe a certain religion, they should to? I am aware that there are outliers who pick and choose religions around the world but why then do they commit themselves to one of thousands with no proof. It makes zero sense.
To me, it points to a lack of critical thinking and someone narcissism (which seems like a strong word, but it seems like a lot of people think they are the main character and they know for sure what religion is correct).
I don’t mean to be hateful, this is just the logical conclusion I have came to in my head and I would apologise to any religious people who might not like to hear it laid out like this. | So I've been a lifelong atheist, and I've thought the same thing as you.
*But* as I've gotten older I've become less harsh in this kind of thinking, if only because of the many great minds that have been religious through human history.
As an atheist, I would personally think that a lack of critical thinking skills is what leads to religion. But I also can't square that with the reality that there were many great philosophers with *obviously good critical thinking skills* who were religious. And if you get into *deep* epistemology, you can't really just rest on this simplistic view.
Consider, for example, Rene Descartes. You can't claim that the founder of the cartesian philosophical tradition lacked critical thinking skills. This is the guy that coined *cogito ergo sum* (I think therefore I am) and arrived at this conclusion by radical skepticism about what can even be "known" in the first place. Yet he was a devout roman catholic who reconciled this with this faith.
Consider also Soren Kierkegaard, whose views on religious faith (in this atheist's opinion) are some of the strongest rationales I've read for religion. I don't agree with him, but I think if you're going do to it, do it like Kierkegaard.
---
I don’t think naming a smart religious person means much. They still believe in something with only blind faith. I guarantee you that the majority of smart religious people were born into religion and thus have an indoctrinated world view since they were a child. Just because someone was smart in some areas, doesn’t mean they were smart in all, especially when the it’s to do with facing the harsh reality of death!
---
That doesn’t mean they lack critical thinking skills, that means they are willing to ignore the outcome of that critical thinking, or not try to bring themselves to an honest conclusion about the topic in the first place. | Historically there have been some very notably intelligent people who were also religious. Would you still say that they lack critical thinking skills?
---
yes
---
How is that possible? If they have the critical thinking skills to make important scientific discoveries, yet also lack critical thinking skills because they are religious - it seems like a paradox. So which is it? | 1jo8s9y | CMV: Religious people lack critical thinking skills. | I want to change my view because I don’t necessarily love thinking less of billions of people.
There is no proof for any religion. That alone I thought would be enough to stop people committing their lives to something. Yet billion of people actually think they happened to pick the correct one.
There are thousands of religions to date, with more to come, yet people believe that because their parents / home country believe a certain religion, they should to? I am aware that there are outliers who pick and choose religions around the world but why then do they commit themselves to one of thousands with no proof. It makes zero sense.
To me, it points to a lack of critical thinking and someone narcissism (which seems like a strong word, but it seems like a lot of people think they are the main character and they know for sure what religion is correct).
I don’t mean to be hateful, this is just the logical conclusion I have came to in my head and I would apologise to any religious people who might not like to hear it laid out like this. | Shardinator | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "357Magnum",
"id": "mkpwzpc",
"score": 235,
"text": "So I've been a lifelong atheist, and I've thought the same thing as you. \n\n*But* as I've gotten older I've become less harsh in this kind of thinking, if only because of the many great minds that have been religious through human his... | [
{
"author": "Rainbwned",
"id": "mkpvnsn",
"score": 52,
"text": "Historically there have been some very notably intelligent people who were also religious. Would you still say that they lack critical thinking skills?",
"timestamp": 1743442287
},
{
"author": "Cavalier4Beer",
"id": "mkp... | [
"mkpwzpc",
"mkq23n5",
"mkq4ahv"
] | [
"mkpvnsn",
"mkpw7vd",
"mkpwed6"
] |
CMV:Global climate change is the most important threat today to global biological diversity
I believe ecosystems are already showing the negative impacts of climate change which will only get worse as time goes on. Rapid climate change affects ecosystems and species ability to adapt and so biodiversity loss increases. Some important examples include loss of sea ice with the possibility of ice-free summers causing the loss of species adapted to life with ice as well as loss of ocean ecosystems (mangroves, coral reefs) and tundra. Fundamental processes of the ocean are being changed such as the thermohaline cooling belt and loss of productivity of the oceans. We are currently experiencing the loss of chlorophyll due to loss of inorganic nutrients because of thermal stratification of the water column leading to low levels of mixing and nutrient regeneration from deep ocean. The ocean is responsible for half of the world's primary productivity, and is declining at a rate of 1%/year which will have increasingly greater impacts on all life.
_____
> *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!* | Actually habitat loss is currently the greatest issue facing global biodiversity *currently*. Climate change has the potential to overtake it soon however.
(I'm on mobile so can't provide sources right now, but I'm a conservation scientist and can add them when I get home if requested.)
---
∆ A source or two would be great actually.
---
Land use (conversion and degradation of habitats) has had a higher impact on biodiversity than climate change in the past (obvious, since humans have been changing landscapes for thousands of years, whereas man-made climate change is fairly recent), and probably will continue to have a higher impact than climate changeat least in the near future.
Jetz et al. 2007: Projected impacts of climate and land-use change on the global diversity of birds
> Although expected climate change effects at high latitudes are significant, species most at risk are predominantly narrow-ranged and endemic to the tropics, where projected range contractions are driven by anthropogenic land conversions. [...] Whereas climate change will severely affect biodiversity, in the near future, land-use change in tropical countries may lead to yet greater species loss.
Newbold et al. 2015: Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity
> Human activities, especially conversion and degradation of habitats, are causing global biodiversity declines. [...] We estimate that, globally, these pressures have already slightly reduced average within-sample richness (by 13.6%), total abundance (10.7%) and rarefaction-based richness (8.1%), with changes showing marked spatial variation. Rapid further losses are predicted under a business-as-usual land-use scenario; within-sample richness is projected to fall by a further 3.4% globally by 2100. | Humans are the largest threat to ecosystems both for our part in climate change as well as our history of habitat destruction as well as just straight hunting animals to exist Extinction. And I'm sure there are other things I'm missing
---
∆ I should have said this but I believe humans are the cause of climate change. It's true that overexploitation of resources and habitat destruction do contribute to loss of BioD. In the case of habitat destruction lots of it is caused by climate change in addition to being directly caused by humans. Overexploitation is a good example of humans straight up destroying BioD.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/phcullen ([39∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/phcullen)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART
{
"comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this",
"issues": {},
"parentUserName": "phcullen"
}
DB3PARAMSEND) | 695ftc | CMV:Global climate change is the most important threat today to global biological diversity | I believe ecosystems are already showing the negative impacts of climate change which will only get worse as time goes on. Rapid climate change affects ecosystems and species ability to adapt and so biodiversity loss increases. Some important examples include loss of sea ice with the possibility of ice-free summers causing the loss of species adapted to life with ice as well as loss of ocean ecosystems (mangroves, coral reefs) and tundra. Fundamental processes of the ocean are being changed such as the thermohaline cooling belt and loss of productivity of the oceans. We are currently experiencing the loss of chlorophyll due to loss of inorganic nutrients because of thermal stratification of the water column leading to low levels of mixing and nutrient regeneration from deep ocean. The ocean is responsible for half of the world's primary productivity, and is declining at a rate of 1%/year which will have increasingly greater impacts on all life.
_____
> *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!* | mogburn1313 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "HigHog",
"id": "dh43kij",
"score": 1,
"text": "Actually habitat loss is currently the greatest issue facing global biodiversity *currently*. Climate change has the potential to overtake it soon however. \n\n(I'm on mobile so can't provide sources right now, but I'm a conservation scien... | [
{
"author": "phcullen",
"id": "dh3xxor",
"score": 0,
"text": "Humans are the largest threat to ecosystems both for our part in climate change as well as our history of habitat destruction as well as just straight hunting animals to exist Extinction. And I'm sure there are other things I'm missing ",... | [
"dh43kij",
"dh4jz42",
"dh55bdw"
] | [
"dh3xxor",
"dh3ynw5",
"dh3yogg"
] |
CMV: I’m a bit of an incel who thinks women are shallow and only care about looks.
Hello! I saw that there was a post about an incel that hit pretty big, so if you guys are willing to actually talk to us, I think that’s cool. I read that post, and I came out hating that guy. He seemed like a dick, only caring about sex and treating women like objects, while I actually really want to have a loving and caring relationship with a girl. I value cuddling more than sex, to put it plainly. In fact, I don’t really care about sex that much, unless my hypothetical gf wants it herself.
Anyway, one of my biggest problems with the world, obviously, is that women won’t date me. Something that really bothers me is that women take for granted so many things. So many women find it normal to have multiple guys perusing them, and complain when they don’t perfectly match their standards. Of course, I don’t blame them for that at all, after all, I’ll be the first to admit that most modern women are fucking garbage, so there’s nothing wrong with women rejecting a guy. However, I just hate how they are so rude and label guys as creeps for just having genuine feelings. If a girl confessed her feelings to me, even if I didn’t give a shit about her, I would really appreciate it and be incredibly flattered.
Something I also hate is the hypocrisy of women. And there’s a lot of it. One of the greatest is how they condemn misogyny and abuse, yet always go after men who are abusive and sexist. Every fucking time, like clockwork. So many damn women have a story of their abusive ex boyfriend, which I don’t blame them for, but if they are so willing to date guys like that, why am I single? Why are assholes so successful, when literally all I’ve ever wanted is to love and cherish a girl? So many girls say how much they hate things that guys do, such as ignoring them or acting unfaithfully... so why don’t you just date me? I’ve always been kind and respectful to everyone my whole life, including women, and it goes unnoticed completely. I don’t expect to be rewarded for kindness, but it just hurts when people who are rude and disrespectful are rewarded more. Either women actually do like abusive and misogynistic men and are lying, are willing to excuse those traits if the man is attractive, or are just really bad at detecting red flags. All seem likely and none are very nice.
Also, it bothers me that so many women are not virgins. Like, I’m 17, and I’ll be 18 relatively soon. Are there any virgin girls my age left? I know sex your first time supposedly sucks, but I want my first time to also be her first time, and for us both to be teenagers. I’ve fantasized about that a lot. Probably won’t happen though.
Also, I’ll get some arguments out of the way here:
-Why a women want to date you if you are a incel??
Ive never told anyone about my thoughts in real life. Just on this anonymous throwaway account on reddit. And no, they can’t sniff my inceldom. I’m very kind to women irl, if I even talk to them at all.
-Why don’t you just take a shower and go to the gym?
I have good hygiene and while I’m not in perfect shape, I’ve started going to the gym with a friend. Surprisingly enough, we aren’t all neckbeard caricatures.
I could probably say more, but that’s most of it. If I think of more I’ll add it later. Can you guys change my mind? I realize that women can’t read my mind to tell I’m an incel, but maybe they would like me more if I wasn’t. Just maybe. Don’t want to be a white Knight or anything.
EDIT: Forgot to mention this: Most girls are boring. I could never date a girl who doesn’t share my interests, or isn’t at the very least willing to try out the things I like. I mean, what do most girls like nowadays? Tiktok? Painting there fingernails? Idk | Why do you actually want a relationship with a girl? You’ve really just insulted women as a whole this entire thread while still arguing that you so badly want a relationship and would treat a girlfriend so well and respect her so much. People generally want a partner that wants to date them, not just a generic member of their gender.
Most women aren’t going to feel special because you’ll date them since their female, moderately good looking, a virgin, and give you the time of day. You need to get to know them and find someone you want to date because they’re funny, smart, kind hearted, have similar interests something about who they are as a person. They also have to like something unique about who you are as a person, not disrespectful isn’t enough.
---
First of all, I hate most people. I just don’t want to date guys, and I have friends who are males so I hate guys a little less. Most people are horrible monsters though.
And, I think if women were to look past my looks and liked quieter guys, I think I have a lot to offer. I guess I don’t know what girls like though.
---
Girls all like different things because they’re different people. Until you treat them like individuals it doesn’t really matter what you have to offer. If the otherwise perfect guy showed up on my doorstep but the only reason he was there is he thought I was pretty and less of a bitch that most girls I wouldn’t be interested.
---
I do treat them as individuals. Are you really gonna deny that most girls aren’t big fans of anime, video games, and tabletop gaming? Especially compared to guys?
---
I’m a woman and a huge fan of tabletop gaming as are almost all of my female friends, I have a girls only group that plays weekly during non pandemic times. One of my best girl friends loves video games and regularly kicks her husbands ass at whatever they’re latest purchase is. I personally know very few anime fans at all. Sure some interests are more common with men but there are still lots of women that tend to enjoy them.
---
even girls who like stuff like that would probably hate me, which is the saddest part.
---
You keep dealing in non-absolutes. For example you added to your OP that "most girls are boring" followed up with "what do most girls like nowadays"? Hence you are admitting that you don't actually know what girls are interested in. How can you conclude to know what women are like without having really understood or befriended any? How do you know this type of girl has a ton of guys going for them? How do you they would probably hate you? Assuming you're referring to your own attitude toward women, the solution is simple: become the type of person whose mindset would not make them hate you.
As many people have said in this thread, the best way for you to change your view is to first work on yourself. Through therapy, through building on your confidence and not hating yourself, and eventually through making friends of both genders. You need to stop assuming you know things. I don't know how many times you've been rejected but it's clear that those instances had a large negative effect on your confidence and defined your worldview, even if it was just a few times. The way to combat that is to work on yourself and become the type of person to keep persisting and being less afraid of rejection. But unless you're willing to not let those rejections define your view of women as a whole, your view isn't really going to be changed. | > if I even talk to them at all.
Right, this is kinda a prerequisite. People in general don't date people just because those people tell folks on the internet they're not abusive.
For the rest it seems like you have a confirmation bias that can be resolved resolving the quote above.
---
Talking is a two sided thing. They don’t want to talk to me, because women see anyone who isn’t chad or a clown as subhuman. I don’t even know where to start with them
---
No, man, that's not it. They don't talk to you because you don't actually seem to be making an effort to talk to them or even, like, view them as human.
---
They would see me as a creep and laugh at me if I even tried.
---
How. Do. You. Know? You don't even talk to them, so you don't know anything about them.
---
Strange how people are like “oh but women can sense that you are toxic and resent them” but I can’t recognize when girls are judging me? They even laugh at me sometimes.
---
So can women tell you're an incel or not? You've claimed both now. | mswp77 | CMV: I’m a bit of an incel who thinks women are shallow and only care about looks. | Hello! I saw that there was a post about an incel that hit pretty big, so if you guys are willing to actually talk to us, I think that’s cool. I read that post, and I came out hating that guy. He seemed like a dick, only caring about sex and treating women like objects, while I actually really want to have a loving and caring relationship with a girl. I value cuddling more than sex, to put it plainly. In fact, I don’t really care about sex that much, unless my hypothetical gf wants it herself.
Anyway, one of my biggest problems with the world, obviously, is that women won’t date me. Something that really bothers me is that women take for granted so many things. So many women find it normal to have multiple guys perusing them, and complain when they don’t perfectly match their standards. Of course, I don’t blame them for that at all, after all, I’ll be the first to admit that most modern women are fucking garbage, so there’s nothing wrong with women rejecting a guy. However, I just hate how they are so rude and label guys as creeps for just having genuine feelings. If a girl confessed her feelings to me, even if I didn’t give a shit about her, I would really appreciate it and be incredibly flattered.
Something I also hate is the hypocrisy of women. And there’s a lot of it. One of the greatest is how they condemn misogyny and abuse, yet always go after men who are abusive and sexist. Every fucking time, like clockwork. So many damn women have a story of their abusive ex boyfriend, which I don’t blame them for, but if they are so willing to date guys like that, why am I single? Why are assholes so successful, when literally all I’ve ever wanted is to love and cherish a girl? So many girls say how much they hate things that guys do, such as ignoring them or acting unfaithfully... so why don’t you just date me? I’ve always been kind and respectful to everyone my whole life, including women, and it goes unnoticed completely. I don’t expect to be rewarded for kindness, but it just hurts when people who are rude and disrespectful are rewarded more. Either women actually do like abusive and misogynistic men and are lying, are willing to excuse those traits if the man is attractive, or are just really bad at detecting red flags. All seem likely and none are very nice.
Also, it bothers me that so many women are not virgins. Like, I’m 17, and I’ll be 18 relatively soon. Are there any virgin girls my age left? I know sex your first time supposedly sucks, but I want my first time to also be her first time, and for us both to be teenagers. I’ve fantasized about that a lot. Probably won’t happen though.
Also, I’ll get some arguments out of the way here:
-Why a women want to date you if you are a incel??
Ive never told anyone about my thoughts in real life. Just on this anonymous throwaway account on reddit. And no, they can’t sniff my inceldom. I’m very kind to women irl, if I even talk to them at all.
-Why don’t you just take a shower and go to the gym?
I have good hygiene and while I’m not in perfect shape, I’ve started going to the gym with a friend. Surprisingly enough, we aren’t all neckbeard caricatures.
I could probably say more, but that’s most of it. If I think of more I’ll add it later. Can you guys change my mind? I realize that women can’t read my mind to tell I’m an incel, but maybe they would like me more if I wasn’t. Just maybe. Don’t want to be a white Knight or anything.
EDIT: Forgot to mention this: Most girls are boring. I could never date a girl who doesn’t share my interests, or isn’t at the very least willing to try out the things I like. I mean, what do most girls like nowadays? Tiktok? Painting there fingernails? Idk | ITSINCElTIME | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "Eng_Queen",
"id": "guwowid",
"score": 7,
"text": "Why do you actually want a relationship with a girl? You’ve really just insulted women as a whole this entire thread while still arguing that you so badly want a relationship and would treat a girlfriend so well and respect her so much. ... | [
{
"author": "PivotPsycho",
"id": "guvxwxe",
"score": 11,
"text": "> if I even talk to them at all. \n\nRight, this is kinda a prerequisite. People in general don't date people just because those people tell folks on the internet they're not abusive. \n\nFor the rest it seems like you have a confirma... | [
"guwowid",
"guwqd7a",
"guwqvrg",
"guws40l",
"guwtopr",
"gux6ze4",
"guxtlgw"
] | [
"guvxwxe",
"guw0179",
"guw0x4y",
"guw1j8f",
"guw1p88",
"guw1ziy",
"guw3ndb"
] |
CMV:A happy life is not possible.
A healthy human is constantly driven by happiness and unhappiness.Now, imagine a young cave man just hunting in the woods for the first time.He finds a dead bird.This makes him extremely happy because normally young cave men are not expected to bring meat for the first time of their hunt/scavenge.But after eating the bird and some time his happiness just lowers to his normal(base) level, because his body needs more,he is needs to find food therefore the body decreases happiness and increases hunger so the caveman can go venturing again.After hours,he spots a deer, a big juicy deer.And manages to kill it!Now he is extremely happy again since this was the biggest thing he hunted, the women in his tribe will be impressed and will be more likely to think he has more genetic quality which will make them more likely to make out with him than the other males of the tribe.And most importantly he found food!After eating and some time, happiness returns to normal to search for more meat.Caveman is not satisfied.He founds a deer again and hunts it.He definetly feels happy but not as happy as his first hunt as his brain is constantly telling him to improve saying he won’t get great happiness unless he finds something bigger.Days go by and by every hunt the happiness and pleasure he gains from hunting deers decrease until it reaches a level that only gives enough happiness to award the caveman that he hunted food. So the caveman searches or more.Finds a mammoth let’s say one human is enough to bring down a mammoth(not enough irl) and he kills the mammoth.Wow , he shoutes,feeling extremely happy.Thinking how high he will go in the social hiearchy of the tribe,how much food he got etc.
But after finishing the mammoth he feels mediocre again.Days go by, the sudden migration of mammoths and the competition they brung caused deers to go extint in the cavemans enviroment.Days go by and caveman hunts every single mammoth finally bringing them to extinction.Now the caveman is very sad.Not eaten meat in weeks desperatly tries to find anything.But is unsuccessfull.He got used to the famine tho.Now he doesn’t feel that bad.Until he founds a deer again!Shouting out of exitement, he hunts the deer and now feeling even more happy than his first mammoth hunt, brings it back to the tribe.
You see this?A happy life is not possible.We will struggle no matter how priviliged we are.We always want more.We have an evolutionary tendency for dissatisfaction.So now what?How should we live?
Well, i think we should continue to chase happiness even though it seems useless and foolish.But we should stop chasing happiness if we find the journey bringing longterm stress.Because longterm stress is not natural unlike chasing happiness.Stress evolved to help us decide when we encountered a lion.Fight or flee?To help us find food when hungry.But the stress that lasts months is not normal and causes many diseases because we never encountered longterm stress earlier before in our evolution.Try to find free happiness that is longterm stress free.For example Art,music,science,literature.Things that you can do for free and does not need the modern evolutionary currency called money. | You're basically describing the idea of hedonic treadmill
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
Give that a read, maybe it can re-frame your view a bit
---
I really like this.
---
Make note that the cited research seems to indicate that while people do seem to be mostly "stuck" at a certain happiness level, this level is different for different people and might be pretty high.
That would mean that while for some people happiness is pretty much unattainable, for others it's almost guaranteed.
Since you were talking broadly, about possibilities, there is also some evidence provided that drugs can actually shift one's baseline (either while using them, or permanently). I'd argue some people are currently staying above their "happy line" purely by being on antideptessants, and possibly in the future we could make such drugs safer and more effective not only for depressed people, but for all non-happy people as well.
---
>!delta
---
Don't just copy and paste that; it doesn't work.
Type out "! Delta" without the space, and give a short (50 word) answer as to how your view was changed. | Do you know what. We are no longer living in caves. There are plenty of happy people in the world living happy lives despite any pandemic restrictions. We are no longer limited on food and shelter. Archiving first steps of Maslow's hierarchy are borderline effortless.
---
Well, yes of course we are not living in caves.But our psychology, just like almost all animals is shaped that makes us always want more.If you would not feel happiness after getting a promotion, a new car , a new partner etc. would you still strive for them?Every single thing humans strive toward is a reflection of our true nature to be a more sucessful organism.Women have to wait 9 months to have a baby why would they date someone who is poor, unsucessful? Isn't that a sign of poor genetic quality for the certain enviroment?Evolution doesn't picks the best way to live it picks the best way for the genes tocontinue staying.It doesn't matter we left the caves.Psychology stays intact.
---
Are you aware of Maslow's pyramid?
Archiving happiness requires only food and shelter (very easy to come by these days) and then rest of steps are social and don't need material capital.
Basically solution for modern life happiness is having nice people around you. You don't need new car, promotion or anything like that. You just need happy people.
---
Then why are people constantly striving for sucess in their lives and act like then they will be happy?
Don't they have the basics?
---
No. It's because they don't have higher steps in the hierarcy. Mainly acceptance, love and self esteem.
People keep telling you are only worth the amount of money you earn and what car you drive. You are not good unless your have lot of material. Or other way of saying exactly the same thing you are saying.
Solution is not more stuff. It's better people around you. | 10pw6zu | CMV:A happy life is not possible. | A healthy human is constantly driven by happiness and unhappiness.Now, imagine a young cave man just hunting in the woods for the first time.He finds a dead bird.This makes him extremely happy because normally young cave men are not expected to bring meat for the first time of their hunt/scavenge.But after eating the bird and some time his happiness just lowers to his normal(base) level, because his body needs more,he is needs to find food therefore the body decreases happiness and increases hunger so the caveman can go venturing again.After hours,he spots a deer, a big juicy deer.And manages to kill it!Now he is extremely happy again since this was the biggest thing he hunted, the women in his tribe will be impressed and will be more likely to think he has more genetic quality which will make them more likely to make out with him than the other males of the tribe.And most importantly he found food!After eating and some time, happiness returns to normal to search for more meat.Caveman is not satisfied.He founds a deer again and hunts it.He definetly feels happy but not as happy as his first hunt as his brain is constantly telling him to improve saying he won’t get great happiness unless he finds something bigger.Days go by and by every hunt the happiness and pleasure he gains from hunting deers decrease until it reaches a level that only gives enough happiness to award the caveman that he hunted food. So the caveman searches or more.Finds a mammoth let’s say one human is enough to bring down a mammoth(not enough irl) and he kills the mammoth.Wow , he shoutes,feeling extremely happy.Thinking how high he will go in the social hiearchy of the tribe,how much food he got etc.
But after finishing the mammoth he feels mediocre again.Days go by, the sudden migration of mammoths and the competition they brung caused deers to go extint in the cavemans enviroment.Days go by and caveman hunts every single mammoth finally bringing them to extinction.Now the caveman is very sad.Not eaten meat in weeks desperatly tries to find anything.But is unsuccessfull.He got used to the famine tho.Now he doesn’t feel that bad.Until he founds a deer again!Shouting out of exitement, he hunts the deer and now feeling even more happy than his first mammoth hunt, brings it back to the tribe.
You see this?A happy life is not possible.We will struggle no matter how priviliged we are.We always want more.We have an evolutionary tendency for dissatisfaction.So now what?How should we live?
Well, i think we should continue to chase happiness even though it seems useless and foolish.But we should stop chasing happiness if we find the journey bringing longterm stress.Because longterm stress is not natural unlike chasing happiness.Stress evolved to help us decide when we encountered a lion.Fight or flee?To help us find food when hungry.But the stress that lasts months is not normal and causes many diseases because we never encountered longterm stress earlier before in our evolution.Try to find free happiness that is longterm stress free.For example Art,music,science,literature.Things that you can do for free and does not need the modern evolutionary currency called money. | hingedelk22 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Mr_Makak",
"id": "j6mindo",
"score": 1,
"text": "You're basically describing the idea of hedonic treadmill\n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill\n\nGive that a read, maybe it can re-frame your view a bit",
"timestamp": 1675164824
},
{
"author": "hingedelk22",
... | [
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"id": "j6mgbdp",
"score": 12,
"text": "Do you know what. We are no longer living in caves. There are plenty of happy people in the world living happy lives despite any pandemic restrictions. We are no longer limited on food and shelter. Archiving first steps of Maslow's hierarc... | [
"j6mindo",
"j6mjn5g",
"j6mkk62",
"j6mngvc",
"j6mq8hi"
] | [
"j6mgbdp",
"j6mh9kw",
"j6mi5ej",
"j6micwz",
"j6miv2z"
] |
CMV: Capital Gains should not be its own separate tax but should instead be as a part of one's income
Pretty self-explanatory. We should not have a separate tax bracketing system for capital gains and that any income made off of capital gains should be considered part of one's income. Having separate rate and bracketing systems (especially today's) seems to only advantage those who are already rich and powerful. Today's capital gains tax rates are much lower than the tax rates for income. While I have heard it argued that we could make those rates and brackets the same, it still doesn't make sense that we have two separate rates of taxation that from a practical perceptive simply allows already rich and powerful to pay a lower effective tax rate than they would if their capital gains were considered as a part of their income and then taxed as income.
If there is something that I am missing about capital gains I would like to be informed on that. Also, if it was not clear, I am referring to the United States. | While I generally agree, part of the argument for having a lower tax rate for long-term capital gains is that it encourages investment.
A savvy investor factors in all of their anticipated gains, costs and risks when deciding if an investment is worthwhile. If I have $1,000 to invest, I am going to evaluate your proposition based on my anticipated returns and the anticipated risk - so if it is a high risk proposition and you only promise me $50 in gains for my investment, I am going to turn you down; if it is lower risk and you promise me $500 in gains, I am going to say yes.
How much I am taxed on those gains factors into this equation, because taxation is a cost that reduces my net gains from an investment. Maybe I am willing to invest for an anticipated net (after tax) gain of $100, and not a penny less. If the anticipated gains from your venture are $120, that would _normally_ be appealing to me, but if I have to pay a 25% tax rate, my actual profit falls below my $100 threshold and I don't invest - you would need to offer me a more than $120 (which is bad for you) or you won't get any investment at all (also bad for you). By setting the tax rate at 10%, then I will invest because my out the door profit exceeds my threshold of $100 - you win because it costs you less in gains to get my investment, and I win because there are more investments on the market that are attractive to me.
Raising the capital gains rate will make it more expensive for companies to raise money through equity offerings, which may be bad for the economy as a whole. This is why our current system only gives a tax advantage to long term (>1 year) capital gains. Day traders who hold equity for a short period of time have that treated as normal income (at normal tax rates) but investors that make longer-term investments in companies get preferential tax treatment to encourage long term investment.
---
Can it be shown in data (empirical) that this would have a negative impact on firms ability to raise money? Investors are always going to look for the most profitable avenue to invest in. A removal of capital gains seems to be universal for all investments and so it shouldn't impact what people are investing in unless there is some other way investors can find to profit from their investments outside of investing in existing capital.
---
Here is a Forbes article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2014/11/07/the-overwhelming-case-against-capital-gains-taxation/
And here is an economist poll:
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/taxing-capital-and-labor/ | Capital gains tax is effectively a wealth tax. Not all capital gains are income.
Example is selling a house. A single person gets a capital gains exemption of $250,000 and a married couple gets an exemption of $500,000 if they live in a house for 3 of the lsst 5 years.
Let's take couple A that has a capital gain of 100,000 on their house. They lived in the house for 18 years before deciding to sell it. They are exempt from all capital gains and do not need to report it on their income tax.
Couple B has the same capital gains, but only lived there for 2 years. Theirs must be reported on their income tax.
---
Explain?
---
I edited my comment to give an example. Keep in mind capital gains are reported on your income taxes. | hg9bu3 | CMV: Capital Gains should not be its own separate tax but should instead be as a part of one's income | Pretty self-explanatory. We should not have a separate tax bracketing system for capital gains and that any income made off of capital gains should be considered part of one's income. Having separate rate and bracketing systems (especially today's) seems to only advantage those who are already rich and powerful. Today's capital gains tax rates are much lower than the tax rates for income. While I have heard it argued that we could make those rates and brackets the same, it still doesn't make sense that we have two separate rates of taxation that from a practical perceptive simply allows already rich and powerful to pay a lower effective tax rate than they would if their capital gains were considered as a part of their income and then taxed as income.
If there is something that I am missing about capital gains I would like to be informed on that. Also, if it was not clear, I am referring to the United States. | Laethas | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"id": "fw2lamb",
"score": 6,
"text": "While I generally agree, part of the argument for having a lower tax rate for long-term capital gains is that it encourages investment.\n\nA savvy investor factors in all of their anticipated gains, costs and risks when deciding if an inve... | [
{
"author": "ltwerewolf",
"id": "fw2krc3",
"score": 2,
"text": "Capital gains tax is effectively a wealth tax. Not all capital gains are income.\n\nExample is selling a house. A single person gets a capital gains exemption of $250,000 and a married couple gets an exemption of $500,000 if they live i... | [
"fw2lamb",
"fw2mfr3",
"fw2x76i"
] | [
"fw2krc3",
"fw2l1bp",
"fw2ld6z"
] |
CMV: It would be hypocritical for us, the citizens of "settler countries", to boycott Israel, unless we also want our countries to fall.
This post is inspired by this news article: [Benjamin Law quits Sydney Festival board following Israeli funding controversy](https://archive.is/2rSMa)
This is not a pro-Israel post. I am just pointing out that Australia, and other "settler countries" have been guilty of the same things Israel has done (some might argue that we've done worse - Israel didn't do an equivalent of the [Stolen Generations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations)). It would be hypocritical for us to boycott Israel without boycotting our own countries too. If you are to suggest that we boycott our own countries and other settler countries, then it would only foster an age of economic collapse and isolationism - instead of greater understanding between peoples that we should be striving for.
We should be striving to make Israel, Australia and other settler countries improve, not burn them to the ground. If we just burn our countries to the ground, what progress we've made, even if it's insufficient, will burn down with it. Am I naive to believe that Israel, Australia and other settler countries can improve without boycotts that starve them of business?
On a side note, this boycott of Israel is also quite harmful to the image of Australia's left wing. If you look at the social media response to this article, a lot of people are accusing Australia's leftists of being antisemitic, and call us hypocrites for boycotting the only Middle Eastern nation with legal homosexuality. This is why I acknowledge that while Israel does a lot of bad things, it would be hypocritical for us to boycott it, because not only will it make us leftists look bad, but also because our own countries have done the same bad things as Israel. | >This is not a pro-Israel post. I am just pointing out that Australia, and other "settler countries" have been guilty of the same things Israel has done (some might argue that we've done worse - Israel didn't do an equivalent of the Stolen Generations). It would be hypocritical for us to boycott Israel without boycotting our own countries too.
Are these other countries currently engaging in the wrong behavior, or did they only do it in their past?
Because if they only did in the past then I don't see the hypocrisy... **this is wrong that's why we stopped doing it...**
---
>Because if they only did in the past then I don't see the hypocrisy... this is wrong that's why we stopped doing it...
We apologised for our atrocities in Australia. Unfortunately, [this apology didn't fix anything](https://www.monash.edu/arts/monash-indigenous-studies/news-and-events/articles/kevin-rudds-indigenous-apology-sorry,-but-not-much-has-changed-in-10-years).
---
But is handing Australia back to the aboriginal people really even a viable option? What happened to them was horrific but it is also done. The natives of Australia are no longer resisting the settlement of outsiders.
None of the above holds true for Israel. | Where exactly is it said that the purpose of boycotting Israel is to cause it to "crumble"? The BDS movement has a straightforward list of [three demands](https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds), none of which are just "Israel stop being a thing".
If Australia or any other settler country were engaging in an ongoing policy of apartheid, or even anything that could be broadly (even incorrectly) interpreted as apartheid, I'm sure there would be calls to stop that as well
---
>If Australia or any other settler country were engaging in an ongoing policy of apartheid, or even anything that could be broadly (even incorrectly) interpreted as apartheid, I'm sure there would be calls to stop that as well
How comparable is Israel to Apartheid? Some parts I've been to such as Nazareth have large Arab populations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the wall seems to separate Israel from the Palestinian authority, which is *de facto* another nation.
---
Completely irrelevant to the point. Whether or not you consider it to be apartheid, or whether or not you even see those policies as bad, some people do, and they are in favor of boycotting Israel in order to end those policies specifically. If there were similar policies enacted in other settler countries, they would likely face similar criticism and calls for boycott.
So, your original point that we are hypocrites in other settler countries for boycotting Israel, makes no sense - the concerned movements aren't boycotting Israel for being nebulously bad, they are boycotting Israel for very specific reasons - specific policies that aren't currently practiced in other countries. So nobody is a hypocrite here | sliis9 | CMV: It would be hypocritical for us, the citizens of "settler countries", to boycott Israel, unless we also want our countries to fall. | This post is inspired by this news article: [Benjamin Law quits Sydney Festival board following Israeli funding controversy](https://archive.is/2rSMa)
This is not a pro-Israel post. I am just pointing out that Australia, and other "settler countries" have been guilty of the same things Israel has done (some might argue that we've done worse - Israel didn't do an equivalent of the [Stolen Generations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations)). It would be hypocritical for us to boycott Israel without boycotting our own countries too. If you are to suggest that we boycott our own countries and other settler countries, then it would only foster an age of economic collapse and isolationism - instead of greater understanding between peoples that we should be striving for.
We should be striving to make Israel, Australia and other settler countries improve, not burn them to the ground. If we just burn our countries to the ground, what progress we've made, even if it's insufficient, will burn down with it. Am I naive to believe that Israel, Australia and other settler countries can improve without boycotts that starve them of business?
On a side note, this boycott of Israel is also quite harmful to the image of Australia's left wing. If you look at the social media response to this article, a lot of people are accusing Australia's leftists of being antisemitic, and call us hypocrites for boycotting the only Middle Eastern nation with legal homosexuality. This is why I acknowledge that while Israel does a lot of bad things, it would be hypocritical for us to boycott it, because not only will it make us leftists look bad, but also because our own countries have done the same bad things as Israel. | Real_Carl_Ramirez | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "iwfan53",
"id": "hvqz9fs",
"score": 14,
"text": ">This is not a pro-Israel post. I am just pointing out that Australia, and other \"settler countries\" have been guilty of the same things Israel has done (some might argue that we've done worse - Israel didn't do an equivalent of the Sto... | [
{
"author": "MercurianAspirations",
"id": "hvqz0up",
"score": 8,
"text": "Where exactly is it said that the purpose of boycotting Israel is to cause it to \"crumble\"? The BDS movement has a straightforward list of [three demands](https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds), none of which are just \"Israel... | [
"hvqz9fs",
"hvr1ks3",
"hvr25nl"
] | [
"hvqz0up",
"hvr0doh",
"hvr171v"
] |
CMV: It would be hypocritical for us, the citizens of "settler countries", to boycott Israel, unless we also want our countries to fall.
This post is inspired by this news article: [Benjamin Law quits Sydney Festival board following Israeli funding controversy](https://archive.is/2rSMa)
This is not a pro-Israel post. I am just pointing out that Australia, and other "settler countries" have been guilty of the same things Israel has done (some might argue that we've done worse - Israel didn't do an equivalent of the [Stolen Generations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations)). It would be hypocritical for us to boycott Israel without boycotting our own countries too. If you are to suggest that we boycott our own countries and other settler countries, then it would only foster an age of economic collapse and isolationism - instead of greater understanding between peoples that we should be striving for.
We should be striving to make Israel, Australia and other settler countries improve, not burn them to the ground. If we just burn our countries to the ground, what progress we've made, even if it's insufficient, will burn down with it. Am I naive to believe that Israel, Australia and other settler countries can improve without boycotts that starve them of business?
On a side note, this boycott of Israel is also quite harmful to the image of Australia's left wing. If you look at the social media response to this article, a lot of people are accusing Australia's leftists of being antisemitic, and call us hypocrites for boycotting the only Middle Eastern nation with legal homosexuality. This is why I acknowledge that while Israel does a lot of bad things, it would be hypocritical for us to boycott it, because not only will it make us leftists look bad, but also because our own countries have done the same bad things as Israel. | Why exactly do you believe that just because others have done something bad in the past, it's okay for others to do something bad in the present?
I'd argue that Australia has, at least to a degree, realized that what they did was bad. Should they not share their realization with others?
---
>I'd argue that Australia has, at least to a degree, realized that what they did was bad. Should they not share their realization with others?
I agree that Australia does realise that wrongdoings of its past. Unfortunately, [doing so didn't fix anything](https://www.monash.edu/arts/monash-indigenous-studies/news-and-events/articles/kevin-rudds-indigenous-apology-sorry,-but-not-much-has-changed-in-10-years).
Also, is every Israeli a racist? I doubt it - it seems like (just like us) they have racist reactionary factions in society as well as more progressive factions.
---
>Also, is every Israeli a racist? I doubt it - it seems like (just like us) they have racist reactionary factions in society as well as more progressive factions.
**Also, was every person living in Germany during WW2 an antisemite? I doubt it - it seems like (just like us) they have racist reactionary factions in society as well as more progressive factions.**
Saying "not everyone in this nation is racist, therefore we shouldn't say bad things about the government" is really weird and not at all valid argument. | >It would be hypocritical for us, the citizens of "settler countries", to boycott Israel
Would it be hypocritical for the citizens of countries that were involved in the transatlantic slave trade to boycott any nation legalising the ownership and slavery of Black people?
---
Is that comparable? AFAIK, Israel doesn't have legalised slavery. In contrast, they do have a poor present-day track record of indigenous rights, and so do we.
---
It's not supposed to be directly comparable. It's an analogy to demonstrate how your logic here is flawed.
>they do have a poor present-day track record of indigenous rights, and so do we.
This is true. But one doesn't cancel out the other, it's possible to care about both injustices at once. Furthermore, what's going on in Israel *right now in the modern day* is far more severe than simply having a 'poor track record of indigenous rights'. | sliis9 | CMV: It would be hypocritical for us, the citizens of "settler countries", to boycott Israel, unless we also want our countries to fall. | This post is inspired by this news article: [Benjamin Law quits Sydney Festival board following Israeli funding controversy](https://archive.is/2rSMa)
This is not a pro-Israel post. I am just pointing out that Australia, and other "settler countries" have been guilty of the same things Israel has done (some might argue that we've done worse - Israel didn't do an equivalent of the [Stolen Generations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations)). It would be hypocritical for us to boycott Israel without boycotting our own countries too. If you are to suggest that we boycott our own countries and other settler countries, then it would only foster an age of economic collapse and isolationism - instead of greater understanding between peoples that we should be striving for.
We should be striving to make Israel, Australia and other settler countries improve, not burn them to the ground. If we just burn our countries to the ground, what progress we've made, even if it's insufficient, will burn down with it. Am I naive to believe that Israel, Australia and other settler countries can improve without boycotts that starve them of business?
On a side note, this boycott of Israel is also quite harmful to the image of Australia's left wing. If you look at the social media response to this article, a lot of people are accusing Australia's leftists of being antisemitic, and call us hypocrites for boycotting the only Middle Eastern nation with legal homosexuality. This is why I acknowledge that while Israel does a lot of bad things, it would be hypocritical for us to boycott it, because not only will it make us leftists look bad, but also because our own countries have done the same bad things as Israel. | Real_Carl_Ramirez | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "AleristheSeeker",
"id": "hvqz2yi",
"score": 3,
"text": "Why exactly do you believe that just because others have done something bad in the past, it's okay for others to do something bad in the present?\n\nI'd argue that Australia has, at least to a degree, realized that what they did wa... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "hvqz0lz",
"score": 7,
"text": ">It would be hypocritical for us, the citizens of \"settler countries\", to boycott Israel\n\nWould it be hypocritical for the citizens of countries that were involved in the transatlantic slave trade to boycott any nation legalising the... | [
"hvqz2yi",
"hvr0v71",
"hvr29e9"
] | [
"hvqz0lz",
"hvqzeyq",
"hvr1k3p"
] |
CMV: The idea that the unvaccinated are ‘taking up beds’, or undeserving of care is wrong and a profound perversion of liberal values, progressivism, and the antithesis of the compassionate goals of modern healthcare
So upfront, I’m an ICU nurse, about ten years into the career. I’ve worked only in the United States, but have worked in 5 or 6 different states, East to West coast, and the brunt of that has been in Western moderately to overwhelmingly ‘progressive’ large cities.
Things to get out of the way: I’m vaccinated, I believe the vaccine is scientifically an incredible achievement, safe, and generally everyone who can get it should get it, certainly anyone with any dangerous comorbidities like HTN, obesity, or DM. This isn’t a discussion about vaccine efficacy.
During the pandemic, specifically the delta waves in late 2020-early 2021, the ICU units I was working on were alternating between waves of dying COVID patients, almost entirely unvaccinated, and being filled with severe end stage alcohol abuse and IV drug use patients. At one point, in a weeks time we went from entirely full of COVID patients, to 100% full of alcohol abuse and withdrawal, suicide attempts, IVDU, and end stage lung disease from smoking, generally in addition to obesity, uncontrolled diabetes, etc. These other conditions are not new, ICU’s have been this way for decades. My coworkers were appalled, and the opinion was often that the unvaccinated were taking up ventilators and beds. I couldn’t help but think; *what kind of supposedly liberal worldview would look down upon the group of people being literally slaughtered by an unprecedented airborne pandemic virus as unworthy of treatment and compassion?*. This concept has bothered me for over a year now, which is why I’m here.
The premise of my position: *healthcare resources since the inception of modern healthcare have been overwhelmingly skewed towards use by people of lower socioeconomic status and poor health illiteracy, and COVID is no different.* This isn’t rocket science, people with less resources are chronically stressed, make worse health choices, and suffer from more chronic diseases than health literate, well off people. They spend far more time sick in ICU’s than healthy people. Robert Sapolsky did a lot of [great work](http://www.precaution.org/lib/05/sick_of_poverty.051215.pdf) on the subject, and “Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers” is an excellent read on the subject.
Not being vaccinated is correlated with being conservative politically, but far more concretely correlated with [being uneducated](https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/12/who-are-the-adults-not-vaccinated-against-covid.html) or being [poor or marginalized](https://newrepublic.com/amp/article/163319/covid-vaccine-hesitancy-denial-misinformation-poverty). *It is still to my knowledge profoundly illiberal to mistreat and look down upon uneducated, poor people in general. In the setting of a global pandemic and an era of high government mistrust for these communities, acceptance of this view is absolutely embarrassing.*
Common argument I’ve heard and am entertaining; *the unvaccinated simply made one unacceptable behavioral/moral choice, the loads of other chronically ill morbidly obese, long term smokers, and general abusers of their health have biological predispositions for using healthcare resources;IE not their fault.*
Well, yes and no. Behavioral science is a fascinating and evolving discipline that I’m not well versed in, but vaccine hesitancy seems to me to be an extremely arbitrary point to draw the line between victim and villain. When a patient is hospitalized for a suicide attempt, we’re saddened that they stopped going to therapy or taking their antidepressants, but we don’t believe they’re taking up a hospital bed, or berating them for this poor choice. When a patient decides to stop taking their prescribed diuretics, or skip dialysis and ends up on life support, knowing full well of the consequences (this happens *astonishingly* often), we don’t look down on them for it. We treat them.
This argument is rooted in the idea that some types of people have diagnosed diseases and are incapable of being at fault or making decisions for themselves, but the unvaccinated are not privy to that status. *This sort of implies to me that we believe smoking addiction or food addiction has biological/social causes and being unvaccinated does not, or that those causes are less justified.* My understanding of behavioral science and human nature is that these processes are more complex and assigning agency or lack thereof in a black and and white manner doesn’t seem beneficial. | So, a few things stick out to me here.
The concept of “taking up hospital beds” largely arose after hospitals were overrun, and many “voluntary” medical help had to be halted by the government or hospitals. The reason that we didn’t normally say that about others was because the system had support built in to manage them and other patients, meaning that their presence wasn’t really removing care from others, or at least seen as such.
Even with this distinction in mind, we know that the hospital has historically treated groups differently depending on if it believed that they “caused” their own illnesses. Alcoholics often need to demonstrate six months of sobriety before even being able to register for an organ donor list. There are BMI cutoffs for kidney transplants.
On top of that, the impacts of not being vaccinated go beyond those of being obese, or an alcoholic, or depressed and off of your medicine. COVID-19 is a contagious disease; obesity, alcoholism, and depression do not spread in the same way.
Further, partisanship is now a stronger predictor of vaccination status than any any other demographic characteristic, including income, race, and ethnicity. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/16/party-divide-vaccination/; https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/10/01/for-covid-19-vaccinations-party-affiliation-matters-more-than-race-and-ethnicity/; https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-september-2021/). Accordingly, many who are unvaccinated are also those who vote for a party which has consistently limited access to affordable healthcare, limited COVID restrictions, and downplayed the disease itself, perpetuating the more systemic problems that you point out.
Accordingly, it's not all that crazy to recognize that people who are unvaccinated are different from those with non-contagious health issues that, in many cases, arose prior to the widespread concept of "running out of beds." When we further consider that there is a strong political association between the unvaccinated and a political party that we do not see between other groups, it's also reasonable to recognize an issue and level of selfishness. That said, the fact that one can justifiably point out selfishness does not mean that one can justifiably provide worse care. It's a nuanced issue, but far from inherently in opposition to a liberal world view.
---
I’m about to blow you’re mind; *people can be both partisan and health illiterate*.
From the article I cited: Health hesitations take different shapes for different demographics: “For folks who have been historically and presently minoritized, there’s a lot of good reasons to not trust those official sources of information,” Jaiswal said. “And then, among other groups, there have been very recent political movements to specifically damage the credibility” of agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Combined, I think we just have a big mess.”
The problem is usually not that the unvaccinated haven’t gotten information. It’s that the information is often wrong, and there’s far too much of it. Sifting through the endless studies, news reports, and guidance documents on Covid, not to mention all of the false theories and ideas out there, is daunting.
You’re still not concretely answering why all the other types of chronic, self inflicted illnesses should be prioritized over the one time, misinformed and poor decision to not get a vaccine you don’t understand.
---
The false information portion is almost entirely coming from one party, and the whole thing is being politicized as "if you believe in the disease and get this treatment, you are a sheep and they are taking advantage of you." The GOP as been taking advantage of poor education to turn people against democrats, and by extension the vaccine.
"When a patient decides to stop taking their prescribed diuretics, or skip dialysis and ends up on life support, knowing full well of the consequences (this happens astonishingly often), we don’t look down on them for it. We treat them"
To address this quote of yours: a lot of these patients don't understand the full consequences of their actions or are in denial. And they absolutely are looked down on by medical society. We treat them, but we lament the lost resources and definitely look down on them for continuing to abuse the system purely by virtue of their own lack of responsibility. People get fired regularly by their specialists for non-compliance. | Isn’t it true that alcoholics get passed over for liver transplants? We do have a history of not providing life saving treatment to people who make poor life decisions and passing them over.
---
[deleted]
---
I don’t think that’s totally true. I’ve had patients who’ve had to have a track record of at least a few months of sobriety to get their transplant. I think the reason is because the hospital doesn’t want to waste a liver on someone who will mess it up when they could give the liver to a person who would take care of it and not need another one. (I’m an addiction therapist.) | sle03e | CMV: The idea that the unvaccinated are ‘taking up beds’, or undeserving of care is wrong and a profound perversion of liberal values, progressivism, and the antithesis of the compassionate goals of modern healthcare | So upfront, I’m an ICU nurse, about ten years into the career. I’ve worked only in the United States, but have worked in 5 or 6 different states, East to West coast, and the brunt of that has been in Western moderately to overwhelmingly ‘progressive’ large cities.
Things to get out of the way: I’m vaccinated, I believe the vaccine is scientifically an incredible achievement, safe, and generally everyone who can get it should get it, certainly anyone with any dangerous comorbidities like HTN, obesity, or DM. This isn’t a discussion about vaccine efficacy.
During the pandemic, specifically the delta waves in late 2020-early 2021, the ICU units I was working on were alternating between waves of dying COVID patients, almost entirely unvaccinated, and being filled with severe end stage alcohol abuse and IV drug use patients. At one point, in a weeks time we went from entirely full of COVID patients, to 100% full of alcohol abuse and withdrawal, suicide attempts, IVDU, and end stage lung disease from smoking, generally in addition to obesity, uncontrolled diabetes, etc. These other conditions are not new, ICU’s have been this way for decades. My coworkers were appalled, and the opinion was often that the unvaccinated were taking up ventilators and beds. I couldn’t help but think; *what kind of supposedly liberal worldview would look down upon the group of people being literally slaughtered by an unprecedented airborne pandemic virus as unworthy of treatment and compassion?*. This concept has bothered me for over a year now, which is why I’m here.
The premise of my position: *healthcare resources since the inception of modern healthcare have been overwhelmingly skewed towards use by people of lower socioeconomic status and poor health illiteracy, and COVID is no different.* This isn’t rocket science, people with less resources are chronically stressed, make worse health choices, and suffer from more chronic diseases than health literate, well off people. They spend far more time sick in ICU’s than healthy people. Robert Sapolsky did a lot of [great work](http://www.precaution.org/lib/05/sick_of_poverty.051215.pdf) on the subject, and “Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers” is an excellent read on the subject.
Not being vaccinated is correlated with being conservative politically, but far more concretely correlated with [being uneducated](https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/12/who-are-the-adults-not-vaccinated-against-covid.html) or being [poor or marginalized](https://newrepublic.com/amp/article/163319/covid-vaccine-hesitancy-denial-misinformation-poverty). *It is still to my knowledge profoundly illiberal to mistreat and look down upon uneducated, poor people in general. In the setting of a global pandemic and an era of high government mistrust for these communities, acceptance of this view is absolutely embarrassing.*
Common argument I’ve heard and am entertaining; *the unvaccinated simply made one unacceptable behavioral/moral choice, the loads of other chronically ill morbidly obese, long term smokers, and general abusers of their health have biological predispositions for using healthcare resources;IE not their fault.*
Well, yes and no. Behavioral science is a fascinating and evolving discipline that I’m not well versed in, but vaccine hesitancy seems to me to be an extremely arbitrary point to draw the line between victim and villain. When a patient is hospitalized for a suicide attempt, we’re saddened that they stopped going to therapy or taking their antidepressants, but we don’t believe they’re taking up a hospital bed, or berating them for this poor choice. When a patient decides to stop taking their prescribed diuretics, or skip dialysis and ends up on life support, knowing full well of the consequences (this happens *astonishingly* often), we don’t look down on them for it. We treat them.
This argument is rooted in the idea that some types of people have diagnosed diseases and are incapable of being at fault or making decisions for themselves, but the unvaccinated are not privy to that status. *This sort of implies to me that we believe smoking addiction or food addiction has biological/social causes and being unvaccinated does not, or that those causes are less justified.* My understanding of behavioral science and human nature is that these processes are more complex and assigning agency or lack thereof in a black and and white manner doesn’t seem beneficial. | Calm_Worldliness8442 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Disastrous-Display99",
"id": "hvqfb8f",
"score": 86,
"text": "So, a few things stick out to me here. \nThe concept of “taking up hospital beds” largely arose after hospitals were overrun, and many “voluntary” medical help had to be halted by the government or hospitals. The reason that... | [
{
"author": "DonaldKey",
"id": "hvqan37",
"score": 1588,
"text": "Isn’t it true that alcoholics get passed over for liver transplants? We do have a history of not providing life saving treatment to people who make poor life decisions and passing them over.",
"timestamp": 1644087970
},
{
... | [
"hvqfb8f",
"hvqhaiu",
"hvqzwnm"
] | [
"hvqan37",
"hvqcslx",
"hvqfpo3"
] |
CMV: The convention of referring to one’s sexuality relative to their own gender is suboptimal
At the moment, the current convention seems to be to refer to one’s sexuality by using terms relative to their own gender - eg heterosexual, homosexual etc. However, in order to communicate what is actually meant by that, the person hearing it must also be aware of the existing person’s gender rather than simply the objects of their attraction. Furthermore, it can be unclear as to what constitutes ‘the opposite gender’ relative to their own, makes the nuances of whether someone is attracted to gender vs sex and which specific aspects unclear, and can leave those with a more obscure gender identity with little terminology to use. It seems to me that it would be more effective to define sexuality related to what you are attracted to - eg ‘androphile’ or whatever else is most preferable. That way, people do not need to define their gender identities, people do not need to be aware of the other person’s gender, and it will be easier to attribute and define exactly what it is you are attracted to. I understand to some extent that terms that involve relativity to gender will still be needed, for example quantifying abuse for the LGBTQ+ community, but in common parlance, terminology related to the subject of one’s affections seems better than that related to oneself.
TLDR: terms like ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ should be replaced by ‘androphile’ and ‘omniphile’ etc
Edit: changed ‘manophile’ and ‘panophile’ to the much better terms of ‘androphile’ and ‘omniphile’ | Androphiles differ widely in tastes, cultures and behaviors.
Some reference to the individual is necessary, as gay men, bi men, bi women and straight women all have way different lived experience.
If one is non-binary but is binary in their preferences, then its fine to use clarifying terms like attracted to men, or androphile.
In general usage there is no need.
---
As gender identity becomes more diverse however and people stop making assumptions about someone’s gender/sex etc, and as tolerance of different sexualities becomes greater, making lived experiences more similar, isn’t the need only going to become greater?
---
>tolerance of different sexualities becomes greater, making lived experiences more similar,
Its not necessarily tolerance/prejudice that makes the lived experience separate. There will always be differences some minor differences in cultures and preferences.
My experience, expectations, and preferences dating men as a bi man, is far different than those of a straight women.
Not sure there are many gender identities that interact with sexuality, doesn't man/women/non-binary cover it?
---
Even if you believe that there are inherent differences in being a bi man, why do you believe that they are necessary to include in the terminology you use to state who you are attracted to (rather than your own gender), are they universal enough to be incorporated in the term ‘bi man’ (incidentally the term bisexual does actually apply to you criteria as is framed around what you are attracted to rather than what your own gender is - that would be stated separately to attraction so you’d still be a bisexual man), and why do you feel the advantages gained outweigh the other advantages I have listed above?
---
I would use bi man to describe my sexuality, I think its clear and nearly universal that bi women have a far different lived experience, cultural reaction, and often preferences than bi men.
>(incidentally the term bisexual does actually apply to you criteria as is framed around what you are attracted to rather than what your own gender is - that would be stated separately to attraction so you’d still be a bisexual man)
Sorry, I'm not quite following your point here, are you saying that my gender is irrelevant to the bi-sexual experience?
>why do you feel the advantages gained outweigh the other advantages I have listed above?
The only advantage I've seen is that it makes labelling easier for non-binary people with binary preferences. You haven't argued why we need a general shift in terms, did I miss something?
---
>I would use bi man to describe my sexuality, I think its clear and nearly universal that bi women have a far different lived experience, cultural reaction, and often preferences than bi men.
Would you be able to elaborate on this? I am not aware of any reason why a bi woman would have a different lived experience to a bi man in a way that pertains specifically to their ‘bi-ness’ rather than the fact that they are a woman (which would still be stated, just separately to their preferences). And even if they do exist, I don’t see how they are going to be significant enough amd universal enough (in as much as most bi women are like this while most bi men are like that) to warrant including it in the phrase used to describe who you are attracted to.
>Sorry, I'm not quite following your point here, are you saying that my gender is irrelevant to the bi-sexual experience?
What I am saying in that particular part is that the description of ‘bisexual man’ (particularly the bisexual part) could still exist under my proposals as the term bisexual describes what you are attracted to rather than solely relating it to your own gender/sex. The man bit would not be relevant here - gender would be defined in separate terminology to sexuality. In fairness, the two could still be combined, it’s just that what’s important is that you specifically state what you are attracted to in the process
>The only advantage I've seen is that it makes labelling easier for non-binary people with binary preferences. You haven't argued why we need a general shift in terms, did I miss something?
The advantages I gave is that it does not require knowledge of an individual’s gender or sex, does not need to insinuate concepts like ‘opposites’, can be optimised to be more specific in whether it’s male/female/non-binary, sex/gender, sexual/romantic or any combination of the above, and the point you made about non-binary people
---
I don't consider the lack of reference to a person's gender an advantage. I have zero problems referencing my own gender or anyone else's. I actually find it rather helpful. People of the same gender are much more likely to have similar experiences. Sexism is unfortunately a reality and not talking about it doesn't make it go away. It's the same as how "colorblindness " doesn't actually stop racism but instead makes racism harder to see. Once you deliberately stop seeing the factors that people are discriminating based on, the discrimination doesn't go away but your ability to see the difference between discrimination and random chance does. | A 'manophile' woman and a 'manophile' man are not the same thing and do not have the same dating pool, though. There is still a large difference.
---
But why is that difference better served by terms like ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’?
---
Because heterosexuality is accepted and the default while homosexuality, whether from a manophile man or a womanophile woman, isn't nearly as accepted and considered weird. It's a shared experience between most homosexuals.
---
In the context of communicating life experience I can see that, but wouldn’t it still be more efficient to stage what you are attracted to if you were trying to communicate to someone your sexuality in the context of attraction? I would have thought that if someone was likely to be homophobic, they would probably already be guessing your gender, and either tour homosexual status will be implied from your ‘phile’ terms, or they will probably judge you for not conforming to gender standards - the phile aspect seems to change nothing in that regard
---
If your gender is already irrelevant, you can just say you're 'into dudes' or 'into women' or something like that. We don't need to make up new terms for it, and we definitely don't need to get rid of existing terms that do different things.
---
What I mean is that your gender is irrelevant in the process of describing what other genders/sexes you are attracted to and in what combination, not that it is irrelevant in the conversation. Also, you do not need to get rid of the terms ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ or any others - assuming my reasons are sound, they would just be outcompeted out of the relevant areas and remain in places where they are still useful, like I described in my original post
---
So then why aren't they being outcompeted? "Androphile" as a term has been around for over 8 years based on Urban Dictionary. And yet, it's very rarely used. This would suggest that most people don't find it a very useful term.
I'm going to guess that most people don't consider having to describe their own gender to be an issue. Meanwhile the majority of LGBTQ+ people find having more specific terms for themselves to be helpful for describing their social position. Also being lumped in with straight men that I share almost nothing with is actively unhelpful when I'm a lesbian. | sle6gd | CMV: The convention of referring to one’s sexuality relative to their own gender is suboptimal | At the moment, the current convention seems to be to refer to one’s sexuality by using terms relative to their own gender - eg heterosexual, homosexual etc. However, in order to communicate what is actually meant by that, the person hearing it must also be aware of the existing person’s gender rather than simply the objects of their attraction. Furthermore, it can be unclear as to what constitutes ‘the opposite gender’ relative to their own, makes the nuances of whether someone is attracted to gender vs sex and which specific aspects unclear, and can leave those with a more obscure gender identity with little terminology to use. It seems to me that it would be more effective to define sexuality related to what you are attracted to - eg ‘androphile’ or whatever else is most preferable. That way, people do not need to define their gender identities, people do not need to be aware of the other person’s gender, and it will be easier to attribute and define exactly what it is you are attracted to. I understand to some extent that terms that involve relativity to gender will still be needed, for example quantifying abuse for the LGBTQ+ community, but in common parlance, terminology related to the subject of one’s affections seems better than that related to oneself.
TLDR: terms like ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ should be replaced by ‘androphile’ and ‘omniphile’ etc
Edit: changed ‘manophile’ and ‘panophile’ to the much better terms of ‘androphile’ and ‘omniphile’ | ravagekitteh26 | 7 | 7 | [
{
"author": "Madauras",
"id": "hvqfub9",
"score": 1,
"text": "Androphiles differ widely in tastes, cultures and behaviors. \n\nSome reference to the individual is necessary, as gay men, bi men, bi women and straight women all have way different lived experience.\n\nIf one is non-binary but is binary... | [
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"id": "hvqbmp9",
"score": 10,
"text": "A 'manophile' woman and a 'manophile' man are not the same thing and do not have the same dating pool, though. There is still a large difference.",
"timestamp": 1644088416
},
{
"author": "ravagekitteh26",
"id": "hvqbx69... | [
"hvqfub9",
"hvqg9ei",
"hvqhw49",
"hvqisss",
"hvqkbyt",
"hvqm065",
"hvqmzyz"
] | [
"hvqbmp9",
"hvqbx69",
"hvqcpl1",
"hvqg15z",
"hvqgr5y",
"hvqh0k2",
"hvqm8b4"
] |
CMV: We shouldn't hate non-acting pedophiles
I think we can all agree that the world would be better off without pedophiles and that anyone who abuses children deserves the absolute worst treatment. I do not, however, have much of a problem with non-acting pedophiles, in my view if they don't act on their urges they're not doing anyone any harm. It seems to me that they didn't choose to become a pedophile so they shouldn't be blamed for simply having those urges (as long as they don't act on them).
I feel like I should be more hateful towards anyone who think that way about children but I can't find any rational reason to. Therefore I would love for you guys to change my view.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | We have no way of knowing who non-acting pedophiles are and therefore no way to direct hate toward them. It is only when they act that they are singled out and those that do act upon it most assuredly do deserve our hate.
---
Well, in some cases you're right for sure, but some people admit to having those urges. (see for instance this video from Barcroft tv on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Fx6P7d21o&t=2s ). In other cases certain evidence may be found on their computer (maybe some animated child porn of something). In those cases we would be able to identify them as non-acting pedophiles.
---
If they have porn, even animated they have acted upon the pedophilia.
---
Animation has no real victim to abuse, that's why these loli things aren't an arrestable offence (afaik).
In regards to OP, I think there should be a line between condemnation and hate, similar to drugs. People hate junkies and don't afford them their human rights because they're seen as corrupt people and untrustworthy. Instead of treating these issues like crimes they should be treated as disabilities according to our society and these people should be helped to overcome it.
Peadophilia should be condemned but the people should be helped.
---
∆ That's an interesting point about viewing and treating it as a disability and you have definitely somewhat changed my view. One thing though, what do you mean with "these people should be helped to overcome it." in this instance? I don't think you can really get rid of someones sexual urges, right?
---
I would assume in the same way we help addicts overcome their issues. If someone was addicted to some drug, they always will have those urges to use. They can never touch it, or probably ever be around it, again. The urges may diminish in strength and frequency with time, but they probably will never go away.
So the solution is to build a support network, get people to help them fight their urges, learn techniques to keep themselves focused, learn how to avoid being in a bad situation where they could act on those urges, etc.
Something similar can be done for sexual urges. Just like dealing with a former drug user it would never be easy, and takes lifelong discipline, but it is possible.
The user you replied to may have something else in mind, or someone else may have a better explanation, that was just my initial thought. | Non acting pedophiles are one step from turning into sex offender. All it takes is one weak moment.
Same way as I always fall for the "it has chocolate" label in food, or other people can't resist their favorite food after so many months of restraining themselves to a strict diet, pedophiles can fall too. It's just that when they indulge themselves, they leave a scarred child behind.
Do you want to risk that?
While I do agree that we should trat them with respect, I also believe we should keep children away from them at all times, even if these particular pedophiles have never hurt anyone.
---
>car driver are one step from turning into murder . All it takes is one weak moment.
>
>Same way as I always fall for the "it has chocolate" label in food, or other people can't resist their favorite food after so many months of restraining themselves to a strict diet, driver can make mistake too. It's just that when they let that happen themselves, they kill others.
>
>Do you want to risk that?
>
>While I do agree that we should treat them with respect, I also believe we should anyone away from any driver, to ensure their safety.
....
Please tell me you were joking.
---
No, I didn't mention cars at all. You are turning it into a joke by twisting my words. And there's a term for it: fallacy.
Please attack my original argument, or go make jokes at the joke sub.
---
I hoped you'd understand the hypocrisy, when reading your own words... Guess that was too complicated.
A paedophile can hurt someone ( a child) when he does a mistake.
A car driver can hurt someone) anyone for that matter, including children) when he does a mistake.
Both, ( given the paedophile is non-active) avoid mistakes and do their best to keep others safe.
The car driver however is far more likely to actually hurt someone.
The paedophile is far more likely to be hated, even if he proved non-harmful over many years.
---
> I hoped you'd understand the hypocrisy, when reading your own words
Except I was not reading my onw words, but yours.
---
So you restrain to being nit-picky instead of arguing like you wanted me to. And yes., your own words, just slightly altered, yet not enough to change that fact.
You don't seem the type of person that would argue in a proper manner anyway and that would change his views. Which makes me question why your here and not in T_D... | 68zzu1 | CMV: We shouldn't hate non-acting pedophiles | I think we can all agree that the world would be better off without pedophiles and that anyone who abuses children deserves the absolute worst treatment. I do not, however, have much of a problem with non-acting pedophiles, in my view if they don't act on their urges they're not doing anyone any harm. It seems to me that they didn't choose to become a pedophile so they shouldn't be blamed for simply having those urges (as long as they don't act on them).
I feel like I should be more hateful towards anyone who think that way about children but I can't find any rational reason to. Therefore I would love for you guys to change my view.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | MarnixVreugdenhil | 6 | 6 | [
{
"author": "cdb03b",
"id": "dh2lggx",
"score": 125,
"text": "We have no way of knowing who non-acting pedophiles are and therefore no way to direct hate toward them. It is only when they act that they are singled out and those that do act upon it most assuredly do deserve our hate. ",
"timestam... | [
{
"author": "RafeHaab",
"id": "dh381pi",
"score": 0,
"text": "Non acting pedophiles are one step from turning into sex offender. All it takes is one weak moment.\n\nSame way as I always fall for the \"it has chocolate\" label in food, or other people can't resist their favorite food after so many mo... | [
"dh2lggx",
"dh2lqn4",
"dh2ls39",
"dh2mhsx",
"dh2myvt",
"dh2qnbn"
] | [
"dh381pi",
"dh39sz4",
"dh3bcz7",
"dh3bw0y",
"dh3cbv9",
"dh3clkj"
] |
CMV: We shouldn't hate non-acting pedophiles
I think we can all agree that the world would be better off without pedophiles and that anyone who abuses children deserves the absolute worst treatment. I do not, however, have much of a problem with non-acting pedophiles, in my view if they don't act on their urges they're not doing anyone any harm. It seems to me that they didn't choose to become a pedophile so they shouldn't be blamed for simply having those urges (as long as they don't act on them).
I feel like I should be more hateful towards anyone who think that way about children but I can't find any rational reason to. Therefore I would love for you guys to change my view.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | We have no way of knowing who non-acting pedophiles are and therefore no way to direct hate toward them. It is only when they act that they are singled out and those that do act upon it most assuredly do deserve our hate.
---
Well, in some cases you're right for sure, but some people admit to having those urges. (see for instance this video from Barcroft tv on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Fx6P7d21o&t=2s ). In other cases certain evidence may be found on their computer (maybe some animated child porn of something). In those cases we would be able to identify them as non-acting pedophiles.
---
If they have porn, even animated they have acted upon the pedophilia.
---
Animation has no real victim to abuse, that's why these loli things aren't an arrestable offence (afaik).
In regards to OP, I think there should be a line between condemnation and hate, similar to drugs. People hate junkies and don't afford them their human rights because they're seen as corrupt people and untrustworthy. Instead of treating these issues like crimes they should be treated as disabilities according to our society and these people should be helped to overcome it.
Peadophilia should be condemned but the people should be helped. | [removed]
---
Thanks for the article, I think that's the same guy from the video I linked to earlier. Maybe hating would be the wrong way to put it, so apologies for phrasing it like that before. I do feel uncomfortable feeling a kind of sympathy for them though.
I would like to view them more like I view psychopaths for example: those people can't do anything about their nature but we should definitely treat them differently then healthy people (partly because of they're dangerous).
---
Well if we're looking at it from a purely practical perspective, we still shouldn't hate those who don't act on their urges. If you had pedophilic urges, would you be able to get any support for it in the current environment? Could you talk to your family without them freaking out? Could you talk to a therapist without worrying about them contacting the police? The only places a person with these urges can currently get support is online, where their tendencies are normalized or celebrated by other non-acting and acting pedophiles. And eventually, they may see acting on their urges as acceptable, turning them into an acting predator and a real threat. Someone with pedophillic urges may be no more dangerous than anyone else if they get support and help from people who want to keep them from acting on their unfortunate paraphillia.
As for your comparison to psychopaths, we do treat them differently. We put them [in charge.](http://time.com/32647/which-professions-have-the-most-psychopaths-the-fewest/) The social view of psychopathy is weird, since almost everyone 'hates psychopaths' but loves and respects people with the attributes of psychopaths. that's probably a discussion for a different thread though.
---
Interesting point about psychopathy. I always thought that that label was limited to people who were fully incapable of feeling empathy, but I guess it's a bit more nuanced than that.
About your first point: I guess that view is pretty close to my original view. Simply hating them and not allowing them to take part in society or helping them in any way would not be the right path to take, I agree. It doesn't feel right though (and I realize this is not a rational thought or argument) to simply view them as people who had bad luck with the way they were born and nothing more than that. Recore and elykl33t have helped me though in 'deciding' how I should view them. | 68zzu1 | CMV: We shouldn't hate non-acting pedophiles | I think we can all agree that the world would be better off without pedophiles and that anyone who abuses children deserves the absolute worst treatment. I do not, however, have much of a problem with non-acting pedophiles, in my view if they don't act on their urges they're not doing anyone any harm. It seems to me that they didn't choose to become a pedophile so they shouldn't be blamed for simply having those urges (as long as they don't act on them).
I feel like I should be more hateful towards anyone who think that way about children but I can't find any rational reason to. Therefore I would love for you guys to change my view.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | MarnixVreugdenhil | 4 | 4 | [
{
"author": "cdb03b",
"id": "dh2lggx",
"score": 125,
"text": "We have no way of knowing who non-acting pedophiles are and therefore no way to direct hate toward them. It is only when they act that they are singled out and those that do act upon it most assuredly do deserve our hate. ",
"timestam... | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "dh2mvnp",
"score": 33,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1493816800
},
{
"author": "MarnixVreugdenhil",
"id": "dh2np81",
"score": 18,
"text": "Thanks for the article, I think that's the same guy from the video I linked to earlier. Maybe hating ... | [
"dh2lggx",
"dh2lqn4",
"dh2ls39",
"dh2mhsx"
] | [
"dh2mvnp",
"dh2np81",
"dh2rng0",
"dh2tbhx"
] |
CMV: The country of America sees itself as Steve Rodgers but is actually John Walker
SPOILER ALERT FOR FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER
In this context of seeing and being, this is how America has acted on the world and domestic stage ever since probably Andrew Jackson.
America may like to think it is a benevolent and loving country that benefits humanity with it's actions (like Steve Rodgers, a very upstanding guy who does what is right out of duty but just wants to spend the rest of his life with his true love) but is actually John Walker (power hungry, paranoid, power drunk, seeks to desperately assert it's influence at any cost)
The trail of tears, Mexican American War, Spanish War of 1898, Jim Crow South, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are all reminiscent of John Walker killing a member of the flag smashers in public eye with the shield of Captain America smearing it in blood and tarnishing it's reputation. Don't you think there is a reason America is not taken as seriously as it used to be? I think there is a very powerful and deep metaphor between the difference of Steven Rodgers and John Walker as Captain America. | Why not a bit of both? The US seeks to expand its influence and is an empire, but has had a positive impact on the world.
The US is one of the main reasons democracy is as prevalent today as it is. Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, France, Poland and many other states are only democratic because of US intervention. The modern world is the most peaceful, democratic, wealthy and stable in history.
Compare the impact the US has had on the world compared to the British, Spanish, Ottoman, Mongol or other large states.
---
Why do you think the US is responsible for democracy spreading around the world?
---
What do you think the outcome of the cold war would have been if the US decided to not form NATO or fund the Marshall plan? Think without US security Guarantees countries like Taiwan would still exist?
The US isn't ***solely*** responsible for democracy in many places. Democracy requires the people of a country to want it and participate in it, first and foremost. US led alliances, security guarentees, and diplomatic influence has kept many democratic countries from getting destroyed by non-democratic regimes though. | People act like John Walker is the bad guy for killing a terrorist, but how many people has Iron Man killed? How many have other MCU heroes killed?
---
Right but the context isn't exactly the same. I don't remember Iron Man killing defenseless enemies begging for mercy
---
There are quite a few in the course of this video.
[New Iron Man Video Shows How Many People He Has Killed In The MCU - CINEMABLEND](https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Iron-Man-Video-Shows-How-Many-People-He-Has-Killed-MCU-129977.html) | msujni | CMV: The country of America sees itself as Steve Rodgers but is actually John Walker | SPOILER ALERT FOR FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER
In this context of seeing and being, this is how America has acted on the world and domestic stage ever since probably Andrew Jackson.
America may like to think it is a benevolent and loving country that benefits humanity with it's actions (like Steve Rodgers, a very upstanding guy who does what is right out of duty but just wants to spend the rest of his life with his true love) but is actually John Walker (power hungry, paranoid, power drunk, seeks to desperately assert it's influence at any cost)
The trail of tears, Mexican American War, Spanish War of 1898, Jim Crow South, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are all reminiscent of John Walker killing a member of the flag smashers in public eye with the shield of Captain America smearing it in blood and tarnishing it's reputation. Don't you think there is a reason America is not taken as seriously as it used to be? I think there is a very powerful and deep metaphor between the difference of Steven Rodgers and John Walker as Captain America. | overhardeggs | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho",
"id": "guvlj8h",
"score": 1,
"text": "Why not a bit of both? The US seeks to expand its influence and is an empire, but has had a positive impact on the world.\n\nThe US is one of the main reasons democracy is as prevalent today as it is. Germany, Italy, Japan, So... | [
{
"author": "TisButAScreenName",
"id": "guvksgj",
"score": 4,
"text": "People act like John Walker is the bad guy for killing a terrorist, but how many people has Iron Man killed? How many have other MCU heroes killed?",
"timestamp": 1618680279
},
{
"author": "overhardeggs",
"id": "g... | [
"guvlj8h",
"guvlo02",
"guvmhzf"
] | [
"guvksgj",
"guvkyag",
"guvm0pb"
] |
CMV: I am pro-choice but I do not believe it is moral to use a pro-lifers tax dollars to fund abortions
I don't believe pro-lifers have the right to tell a woman what she can('t) do with her body. But the moment they are having to pay for it, it **is** their business what she does with her body. Pro-lifers are against abortions, so they should not be forced to pay for it through tax dollars, which are taken under the threats of either being homeless (not working and not paying taxes) or being imprisoned (tax resisting). I don't think abortion is immoral, but if someone does, they shouldn't be forced to fund it.
I do not support the outlawing of abortion, but I do support the right of people to decide whether or not they wish to be responsible for it's perpetuation. It's one reasonable thing to say "I don't care what you think about abortions; my body, my choice". It is an entirely different thing to say "I don't care what you think about abortions; my body, my choice, your wallet". The moment someone else pays for it, it's no longer solely your choice.
Abortion should be funded 100% through charities, donations, and private individuals. It is not moral to go to a Christian or pro-lifer and force them to fund a practice they consider moral. CMV
#Predictable Responses I Will Address Now
* "But there are a lot of things we force people to pay for with tax dollars that they may not agree with like welfare, schools, etc.." I would counter-argue on the basis that those things are not directly engaging in behavior some people consider morally grey and most believe they have good intentions and societal benefit. Abortion is a topic some people consider morally grey, as they do not agree on the question of when life begins, and pro-lifers don't consider abortions to have a societal benefit. In their view, abortion is murder; that's not a parallel those other things have.
* "Giving a woman an abortion is much less expensive than the welfare state paying for that kid." That's true absolutely, but first of all, I'm a not of fan of this argument in general because it is eugenicist. Secondly, most pro-lifers are republican who are against the welfare state in general, so this argument is... odd in that context. Thirdly, it is one thing to force people to pay for someone else's financial well-being without their will, but it is entirely different to force them to pay for what they consider to be another person's murder without their will. If they would rather pay for that kid's welfare bills (they're mostly anti-welfare anyway) than they would pay for that kid to be (in their view) killed, that's their choice.
_____
> *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!* | [deleted]
---
US. Isn't Planned Parenthood supported by Medicaid and other government programs?
Also, state taxes can fund it to.
---
[deleted]
---
But aren't they still able to use their money for it if it is a PP location that does do them? Are there checks and balances which force them to avoid using medicaid money on them?
---
As the first poster said, per the Hyde Amendment they can not use any of their federal government funding for abortion.
Full stop. | So, when can I expect my refund check for the overblown military budget? I certainly don't agree with war or shooting missiles, and killing people certainly qualifies as murder, so I guess the military should fund itself by donations alone.
---
The military is killing people for what it considers to be the greater good; collateral damage. They are not indiscriminately slaughtering children to send a message.
---
Does it matter what *they* think? Because your argument seem to be that it only matters why *I*, the guy that pays, believe. I believe the military and their actions are wrong, so it's wrong that they use my money to finance these activities.
---
That may have been what it came off as, but also the objective morality. I don't believe that the case for abortion is *so* rock-solid that it becomes justifiable to reject the will of taxpayers; but I do believe that the case of the military is (plus, the military's actions benefit the safety of everyone in society, while abortion is pretty much a matter of the woman's body).
---
So really, it's about what *you* believe to qualify as good enough? You look at Irak, you tell yourself "good enough for me, so good enough for *everyone* to pay for it". You don't think that some people view abortion in exactly the same way? | 693dz8 | CMV: I am pro-choice but I do not believe it is moral to use a pro-lifers tax dollars to fund abortions | I don't believe pro-lifers have the right to tell a woman what she can('t) do with her body. But the moment they are having to pay for it, it **is** their business what she does with her body. Pro-lifers are against abortions, so they should not be forced to pay for it through tax dollars, which are taken under the threats of either being homeless (not working and not paying taxes) or being imprisoned (tax resisting). I don't think abortion is immoral, but if someone does, they shouldn't be forced to fund it.
I do not support the outlawing of abortion, but I do support the right of people to decide whether or not they wish to be responsible for it's perpetuation. It's one reasonable thing to say "I don't care what you think about abortions; my body, my choice". It is an entirely different thing to say "I don't care what you think about abortions; my body, my choice, your wallet". The moment someone else pays for it, it's no longer solely your choice.
Abortion should be funded 100% through charities, donations, and private individuals. It is not moral to go to a Christian or pro-lifer and force them to fund a practice they consider moral. CMV
#Predictable Responses I Will Address Now
* "But there are a lot of things we force people to pay for with tax dollars that they may not agree with like welfare, schools, etc.." I would counter-argue on the basis that those things are not directly engaging in behavior some people consider morally grey and most believe they have good intentions and societal benefit. Abortion is a topic some people consider morally grey, as they do not agree on the question of when life begins, and pro-lifers don't consider abortions to have a societal benefit. In their view, abortion is murder; that's not a parallel those other things have.
* "Giving a woman an abortion is much less expensive than the welfare state paying for that kid." That's true absolutely, but first of all, I'm a not of fan of this argument in general because it is eugenicist. Secondly, most pro-lifers are republican who are against the welfare state in general, so this argument is... odd in that context. Thirdly, it is one thing to force people to pay for someone else's financial well-being without their will, but it is entirely different to force them to pay for what they consider to be another person's murder without their will. If they would rather pay for that kid's welfare bills (they're mostly anti-welfare anyway) than they would pay for that kid to be (in their view) killed, that's their choice.
_____
> *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!* | ShiningConcepts | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "dh3eoss",
"score": 11,
"text": "[deleted]",
"timestamp": 1493847662
},
{
"author": "ShiningConcepts",
"id": "dh3etc8",
"score": -2,
"text": "US. Isn't Planned Parenthood supported by Medicaid and other government programs?\n\nAlso, state taxes ... | [
{
"author": "Madplato",
"id": "dh3gi2u",
"score": 21,
"text": "So, when can I expect my refund check for the overblown military budget? I certainly don't agree with war or shooting missiles, and killing people certainly qualifies as murder, so I guess the military should fund itself by donations alo... | [
"dh3eoss",
"dh3etc8",
"dh3ewmz",
"dh3f0j6",
"dh3f6ll"
] | [
"dh3gi2u",
"dh3gm9s",
"dh3guiv",
"dh3hjxa",
"dh3hqdz"
] |
CMV: Many children will regret their transgender surgeries when they are adults
Utah just passed a bill which, among other things, bans surgeries for transgender youth. My trans and LGBTQ+ friends are very upset about this bill. I'm personally conflicted. I am 25, male (cis), and pansexual. While I don't think that the government should ban any surgeries (it's not their body, it's not their choice), I can't help but feel like the arguments that children don't fully understand the consequences do hold some water. Children are very easily peer pressured into doing what is trendy and will make them look cooler or more interesting to their friends. This is getting even worse with TikTok, with kids destroying bathrooms and stealing cars just because it's the latest cool thing to do. I do not think that being trans is a trend; it certainly is not. I do believe that there **are** transgender children who truly do need surgery to feel like they belong in their body. I also believe, however, that many children will see being trans as something trendy and cool, and identify as trans primarily to fit in better with their friends. If they end up getting surgeries, I believe they will likely regret it later and want to change back.
Please help me understand, I'm clearly in the minority in the LGBTQ+ community and I'd like to see where I'm thinking about things wrong. Thanks in advance | You really think people are getting surgery as a fad?
---
I think that some children may decide they are trans because their friends are too, and after their trans friends come back to school after having gender affirming surgery, they will want it too. I don't think they will think through the consequences... because they are children. Then when they are older, they will regret it.
---
Have you anything to back this thought up? | > Children are very easily peer pressured into doing what is trendy and will make them look cooler or more interesting to their friends.
Their doctors are not. You won't find doctors who will perform surgery on minors because the minor followed a trend and thought that's the cool thing now. This isn't a thing that happens, there's a natural check against the impulses of the children here.
---
Good point, the doctor and parents are likely to question the kid about why they feel like they are trans. If it was peer pressure, they'd figure it out. ∆
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Sayakai ([109∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Sayakai)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | 10pvxha | CMV: Many children will regret their transgender surgeries when they are adults | Utah just passed a bill which, among other things, bans surgeries for transgender youth. My trans and LGBTQ+ friends are very upset about this bill. I'm personally conflicted. I am 25, male (cis), and pansexual. While I don't think that the government should ban any surgeries (it's not their body, it's not their choice), I can't help but feel like the arguments that children don't fully understand the consequences do hold some water. Children are very easily peer pressured into doing what is trendy and will make them look cooler or more interesting to their friends. This is getting even worse with TikTok, with kids destroying bathrooms and stealing cars just because it's the latest cool thing to do. I do not think that being trans is a trend; it certainly is not. I do believe that there **are** transgender children who truly do need surgery to feel like they belong in their body. I also believe, however, that many children will see being trans as something trendy and cool, and identify as trans primarily to fit in better with their friends. If they end up getting surgeries, I believe they will likely regret it later and want to change back.
Please help me understand, I'm clearly in the minority in the LGBTQ+ community and I'd like to see where I'm thinking about things wrong. Thanks in advance | sg4o7vkqj1 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "PhylisInTheHood",
"id": "j6mev9h",
"score": 232,
"text": "You really think people are getting surgery as a fad?",
"timestamp": 1675161894
},
{
"author": "sg4o7vkqj1",
"id": "j6mf4rj",
"score": 68,
"text": "I think that some children may decide they are trans beca... | [
{
"author": "Sayakai",
"id": "j6mf2pt",
"score": 3038,
"text": "> Children are very easily peer pressured into doing what is trendy and will make them look cooler or more interesting to their friends.\n\nTheir doctors are not. You won't find doctors who will perform surgery on minors because the mi... | [
"j6mev9h",
"j6mf4rj",
"j6mfbyh"
] | [
"j6mf2pt",
"j6mf9u0",
"j6mfb67"
] |
CMV: Many children will regret their transgender surgeries when they are adults
Utah just passed a bill which, among other things, bans surgeries for transgender youth. My trans and LGBTQ+ friends are very upset about this bill. I'm personally conflicted. I am 25, male (cis), and pansexual. While I don't think that the government should ban any surgeries (it's not their body, it's not their choice), I can't help but feel like the arguments that children don't fully understand the consequences do hold some water. Children are very easily peer pressured into doing what is trendy and will make them look cooler or more interesting to their friends. This is getting even worse with TikTok, with kids destroying bathrooms and stealing cars just because it's the latest cool thing to do. I do not think that being trans is a trend; it certainly is not. I do believe that there **are** transgender children who truly do need surgery to feel like they belong in their body. I also believe, however, that many children will see being trans as something trendy and cool, and identify as trans primarily to fit in better with their friends. If they end up getting surgeries, I believe they will likely regret it later and want to change back.
Please help me understand, I'm clearly in the minority in the LGBTQ+ community and I'd like to see where I'm thinking about things wrong. Thanks in advance | You really think people are getting surgery as a fad?
---
I think that some children may decide they are trans because their friends are too, and after their trans friends come back to school after having gender affirming surgery, they will want it too. I don't think they will think through the consequences... because they are children. Then when they are older, they will regret it.
---
> I think that some children may decide they are trans because their friends are too, and after their trans friends come back to school after having gender affirming surgery, they will want it too.
This really doesn't happen, like, at all.
Minor-aged children aren't going away on holiday and coming back with a new vagina to show their friends. Minor-aged children who transition are generally doing so socially, with the aid of puberty blockers. | Being a trans is not something that is born from peer pressure. It happens despite of it.
High queer depression rates are results of people pressuring them not being queer and telling they are unnatural, sick or wrong.
Young people don't go to surgery because it's a trendy or popular. They go there because being themselves is not.
---
Can you back these claims up with data and unbiased analysis of the statistics?
---
Which part? That queers have higher depression rates or that they are often marginalized community? There is plenty of evidence on both of these. Just open your Fox news today at 9. | 10pvxha | CMV: Many children will regret their transgender surgeries when they are adults | Utah just passed a bill which, among other things, bans surgeries for transgender youth. My trans and LGBTQ+ friends are very upset about this bill. I'm personally conflicted. I am 25, male (cis), and pansexual. While I don't think that the government should ban any surgeries (it's not their body, it's not their choice), I can't help but feel like the arguments that children don't fully understand the consequences do hold some water. Children are very easily peer pressured into doing what is trendy and will make them look cooler or more interesting to their friends. This is getting even worse with TikTok, with kids destroying bathrooms and stealing cars just because it's the latest cool thing to do. I do not think that being trans is a trend; it certainly is not. I do believe that there **are** transgender children who truly do need surgery to feel like they belong in their body. I also believe, however, that many children will see being trans as something trendy and cool, and identify as trans primarily to fit in better with their friends. If they end up getting surgeries, I believe they will likely regret it later and want to change back.
Please help me understand, I'm clearly in the minority in the LGBTQ+ community and I'd like to see where I'm thinking about things wrong. Thanks in advance | sg4o7vkqj1 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "PhylisInTheHood",
"id": "j6mev9h",
"score": 232,
"text": "You really think people are getting surgery as a fad?",
"timestamp": 1675161894
},
{
"author": "sg4o7vkqj1",
"id": "j6mf4rj",
"score": 68,
"text": "I think that some children may decide they are trans beca... | [
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"id": "j6mf7t3",
"score": -6,
"text": "Being a trans is not something that is born from peer pressure. It happens despite of it.\n\nHigh queer depression rates are results of people pressuring them not being queer and telling they are unnatural, sick or wrong.\n\nYoung people d... | [
"j6mev9h",
"j6mf4rj",
"j6mg15g"
] | [
"j6mf7t3",
"j6mfhie",
"j6mfspf"
] |
CMV: It is morally wrong to buy a property with an existing tenant and use their rent payments to pay your mortgage.
****** UPDATE 2: Thanks everyone for your input. I'm closing this thread because I realize this is dredging up bigger personal questions about my history with/relationship to wealth - questions that are more appropriate to answer in private reflection. Thanks everyone, I won't be responding to any more posts.
I got into the biggest fight of our marriage over this issue.
We are househunting, because for the first time in our lives we have enough to afford it (but just barely). My MIL (more on her later) suggested a property in our price range that was in a nicer area than we anticipated we could afford. The catch is that it was a dual-occupancy house, with the lower, larger level already occupied by a tenant.
I said I didn't want to consider this house, because I think it's morally wrong to buy a property with an existing tenant, anticipating that said tenant's rent covers your mortgage.
It feels like buying a person, like I'm a landowner with serfs. That I'll be exploiting someone who doesn't have the ability to buy a house - maybe THIS house in particular. (And buying the house and evicting them is even worse and out of the question.)
Also, if I own a home, I want it to be MY home - and that means I pay for it with MY labor, not the borrowed labor of someone poorer than me. The idea of using someone else's labor to enable me to own property really disgusts me.
It was at this point that my SO said "How do you think the rental market works?!" And that I was on some pseudo-Marxist moral high ground that ignores any realism about how supply-and-demand markets work. I countered that, because he comes from a family in real estate, he "works in the landfill" and has become immune to how bad it stinks.
I need to mention my SO's family at this point. They really repulse me. The patriarch grandfather was a Communist activist who also made a fortune as a slumlord. (This was not a moral contradiction to him.) The children were either cut into the real estate business (which is now probably a million or multi-million business now) or recieved a payout as inheritance. My SO's mother used her payout to buy a house for herself (cash, no mortgage) and now lives in a similar situation, where the upstairs renter is her main income.
I think my MIL, like her entire family, is an entitled, hypocritical parasite, but I have extra contempt for her beyond her tenant situation. (I also resent that she's sticking her nose into our house-hunting search.) My low opinion of some of the choices she's made is beyond the scope of this discussion, but I think it's important to put it in there bc I'm aware my hatred of her could be coloring my feelings.
I just want to conclude by saying that, if my SO and I already had purchased a home, and we had an empty floor, and it made sense to rent it out, and I charged a reasonable affordable rent that still included my own anticipated costs as a landlord, and I was able to pay my mortgage in full with my own earnings and that rent was ONLY supplemental income, that sounds like a win-win for me and the renter. I don't have a moral problem with that.
It's just the idea of a) "buying" a tenant along with a property and b) my hated MIL's entitled wheeler-dealer attitude of "get other people to pay for your lifestyle" that disgusts me.
I don't want to debate about who's right (me, MIL or SO), that's for r/AmITheAsshole .
I just genuinely would like to know if I am incorrect about this moral unease I feel, that having a tenant pay the mortgage on the house you're living in is actually an OK situation and I don't get it.
Thanks for any measured insight you might have.
****UPDATE: Thank you everyone for your good points. I am thoroughly convinced that, in the abstract, being a landlord in and of itself is not necessarily unethical.
However, I still feel uneasy about this very specific scenario, in which I would own and live in the upstairs of a property, and my mortgage would be paid by rent I collect from the tenant living downstairs. There is some little splinter in my reasoning that I just can't get to, that still makes it feel like I would be doing something wrong if I did this. | Owning a house to rent it out isn’t immoral. Everything is else in this tale seems irrelevant. Treating your renters badly, immoral. Taking advantage of them, immoral. Inventing a reason to keep security deposit, immoral. But simply owning a property and renting it out responsibly isn’t the slightest bit wrong. Renters NEED good homes and good landlords.
---
But is the very nature that, the only reason I'm able to live in a home I own, is because a renter is paying my way to do do? That is my sticking point.
---
The difference between you is that you are taking the RISK NOW of outlaying a large amount of capital in the HOPE that either the profits or the appreciation will benefit you LATER. There is no guarantee, especially since recessions happen every 5-10 years and renters lose their jobs and real estate prices drop. The renter is CHOOSING to live in your city, in that property, and pay more in rent than a mortgage because the conditions are favorable to him. Also they might be younger so they haven’t had time to accumulate enough capital for a down payment. Or maybe their parents haven’t died and left them down payment money. It’s ok for you to be different. In fact, the renter needs this opportunity to move to the next level. People choose their apartments for a lot of different reasons on their way to financial stability and independence. | Letting a property out is a service in & of itself. Many people shun becoming homeowners because of the "lack of freedom" & costs incurred.
Letting out properties is as morally wrong as having an employee.
---
I can agree to that. I've been glad for rentals in my past and I don't think being a landlord in and of itself is immoral.
I just object to the idea of someone living in the property I own and ALSO live in, enabling me to own and live there. It seems unfair.
---
It would be, if they were somehow not allowed to do the same. Not like you have a divine right to own whereas others can only rent. | msru0z | CMV: It is morally wrong to buy a property with an existing tenant and use their rent payments to pay your mortgage. | ****** UPDATE 2: Thanks everyone for your input. I'm closing this thread because I realize this is dredging up bigger personal questions about my history with/relationship to wealth - questions that are more appropriate to answer in private reflection. Thanks everyone, I won't be responding to any more posts.
I got into the biggest fight of our marriage over this issue.
We are househunting, because for the first time in our lives we have enough to afford it (but just barely). My MIL (more on her later) suggested a property in our price range that was in a nicer area than we anticipated we could afford. The catch is that it was a dual-occupancy house, with the lower, larger level already occupied by a tenant.
I said I didn't want to consider this house, because I think it's morally wrong to buy a property with an existing tenant, anticipating that said tenant's rent covers your mortgage.
It feels like buying a person, like I'm a landowner with serfs. That I'll be exploiting someone who doesn't have the ability to buy a house - maybe THIS house in particular. (And buying the house and evicting them is even worse and out of the question.)
Also, if I own a home, I want it to be MY home - and that means I pay for it with MY labor, not the borrowed labor of someone poorer than me. The idea of using someone else's labor to enable me to own property really disgusts me.
It was at this point that my SO said "How do you think the rental market works?!" And that I was on some pseudo-Marxist moral high ground that ignores any realism about how supply-and-demand markets work. I countered that, because he comes from a family in real estate, he "works in the landfill" and has become immune to how bad it stinks.
I need to mention my SO's family at this point. They really repulse me. The patriarch grandfather was a Communist activist who also made a fortune as a slumlord. (This was not a moral contradiction to him.) The children were either cut into the real estate business (which is now probably a million or multi-million business now) or recieved a payout as inheritance. My SO's mother used her payout to buy a house for herself (cash, no mortgage) and now lives in a similar situation, where the upstairs renter is her main income.
I think my MIL, like her entire family, is an entitled, hypocritical parasite, but I have extra contempt for her beyond her tenant situation. (I also resent that she's sticking her nose into our house-hunting search.) My low opinion of some of the choices she's made is beyond the scope of this discussion, but I think it's important to put it in there bc I'm aware my hatred of her could be coloring my feelings.
I just want to conclude by saying that, if my SO and I already had purchased a home, and we had an empty floor, and it made sense to rent it out, and I charged a reasonable affordable rent that still included my own anticipated costs as a landlord, and I was able to pay my mortgage in full with my own earnings and that rent was ONLY supplemental income, that sounds like a win-win for me and the renter. I don't have a moral problem with that.
It's just the idea of a) "buying" a tenant along with a property and b) my hated MIL's entitled wheeler-dealer attitude of "get other people to pay for your lifestyle" that disgusts me.
I don't want to debate about who's right (me, MIL or SO), that's for r/AmITheAsshole .
I just genuinely would like to know if I am incorrect about this moral unease I feel, that having a tenant pay the mortgage on the house you're living in is actually an OK situation and I don't get it.
Thanks for any measured insight you might have.
****UPDATE: Thank you everyone for your good points. I am thoroughly convinced that, in the abstract, being a landlord in and of itself is not necessarily unethical.
However, I still feel uneasy about this very specific scenario, in which I would own and live in the upstairs of a property, and my mortgage would be paid by rent I collect from the tenant living downstairs. There is some little splinter in my reasoning that I just can't get to, that still makes it feel like I would be doing something wrong if I did this. | Key-Inflation-7694 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "ExpectedDickbuttGotD",
"id": "guutiup",
"score": 31,
"text": "Owning a house to rent it out isn’t immoral. Everything is else in this tale seems irrelevant. Treating your renters badly, immoral. Taking advantage of them, immoral. Inventing a reason to keep security deposit, immoral. But... | [
{
"author": "LickClitsSuckNips",
"id": "guusyu6",
"score": 5,
"text": "Letting a property out is a service in & of itself. Many people shun becoming homeowners because of the \"lack of freedom\" & costs incurred.\n\nLetting out properties is as morally wrong as having an employee.",
"timestamp":... | [
"guutiup",
"guuu3eh",
"guuzdao"
] | [
"guusyu6",
"guutl59",
"guuu7kc"
] |
CMV: It is morally wrong to buy a property with an existing tenant and use their rent payments to pay your mortgage.
****** UPDATE 2: Thanks everyone for your input. I'm closing this thread because I realize this is dredging up bigger personal questions about my history with/relationship to wealth - questions that are more appropriate to answer in private reflection. Thanks everyone, I won't be responding to any more posts.
I got into the biggest fight of our marriage over this issue.
We are househunting, because for the first time in our lives we have enough to afford it (but just barely). My MIL (more on her later) suggested a property in our price range that was in a nicer area than we anticipated we could afford. The catch is that it was a dual-occupancy house, with the lower, larger level already occupied by a tenant.
I said I didn't want to consider this house, because I think it's morally wrong to buy a property with an existing tenant, anticipating that said tenant's rent covers your mortgage.
It feels like buying a person, like I'm a landowner with serfs. That I'll be exploiting someone who doesn't have the ability to buy a house - maybe THIS house in particular. (And buying the house and evicting them is even worse and out of the question.)
Also, if I own a home, I want it to be MY home - and that means I pay for it with MY labor, not the borrowed labor of someone poorer than me. The idea of using someone else's labor to enable me to own property really disgusts me.
It was at this point that my SO said "How do you think the rental market works?!" And that I was on some pseudo-Marxist moral high ground that ignores any realism about how supply-and-demand markets work. I countered that, because he comes from a family in real estate, he "works in the landfill" and has become immune to how bad it stinks.
I need to mention my SO's family at this point. They really repulse me. The patriarch grandfather was a Communist activist who also made a fortune as a slumlord. (This was not a moral contradiction to him.) The children were either cut into the real estate business (which is now probably a million or multi-million business now) or recieved a payout as inheritance. My SO's mother used her payout to buy a house for herself (cash, no mortgage) and now lives in a similar situation, where the upstairs renter is her main income.
I think my MIL, like her entire family, is an entitled, hypocritical parasite, but I have extra contempt for her beyond her tenant situation. (I also resent that she's sticking her nose into our house-hunting search.) My low opinion of some of the choices she's made is beyond the scope of this discussion, but I think it's important to put it in there bc I'm aware my hatred of her could be coloring my feelings.
I just want to conclude by saying that, if my SO and I already had purchased a home, and we had an empty floor, and it made sense to rent it out, and I charged a reasonable affordable rent that still included my own anticipated costs as a landlord, and I was able to pay my mortgage in full with my own earnings and that rent was ONLY supplemental income, that sounds like a win-win for me and the renter. I don't have a moral problem with that.
It's just the idea of a) "buying" a tenant along with a property and b) my hated MIL's entitled wheeler-dealer attitude of "get other people to pay for your lifestyle" that disgusts me.
I don't want to debate about who's right (me, MIL or SO), that's for r/AmITheAsshole .
I just genuinely would like to know if I am incorrect about this moral unease I feel, that having a tenant pay the mortgage on the house you're living in is actually an OK situation and I don't get it.
Thanks for any measured insight you might have.
****UPDATE: Thank you everyone for your good points. I am thoroughly convinced that, in the abstract, being a landlord in and of itself is not necessarily unethical.
However, I still feel uneasy about this very specific scenario, in which I would own and live in the upstairs of a property, and my mortgage would be paid by rent I collect from the tenant living downstairs. There is some little splinter in my reasoning that I just can't get to, that still makes it feel like I would be doing something wrong if I did this. | Letting a property out is a service in & of itself. Many people shun becoming homeowners because of the "lack of freedom" & costs incurred.
Letting out properties is as morally wrong as having an employee.
---
I can agree to that. I've been glad for rentals in my past and I don't think being a landlord in and of itself is immoral.
I just object to the idea of someone living in the property I own and ALSO live in, enabling me to own and live there. It seems unfair.
---
But you are also accepting a risk, if the tenant is late on rent or the rental income drops with the same or a new tenant, that's on you, something a lot of small landlords for commercial properties are currently coming to terms with.
From the tenants point of view nothing really changes so they aren't suffering or being harmed from the landlord changing so I don't think there's any moral issue. | You don't have to be a slumlord. Nor do you have to let the tenants pay for the mortgage. You can lower their rent if you so desire, or even give them an option to buy the house some day if you can afford to move again.
---
Δ that is a reasonable point:by buying the property, this is an opportunity to use the power of property ownership for good. That I have some control over how I want to do it. Thanks.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sapphireminds ([16∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/sapphireminds)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | msru0z | CMV: It is morally wrong to buy a property with an existing tenant and use their rent payments to pay your mortgage. | ****** UPDATE 2: Thanks everyone for your input. I'm closing this thread because I realize this is dredging up bigger personal questions about my history with/relationship to wealth - questions that are more appropriate to answer in private reflection. Thanks everyone, I won't be responding to any more posts.
I got into the biggest fight of our marriage over this issue.
We are househunting, because for the first time in our lives we have enough to afford it (but just barely). My MIL (more on her later) suggested a property in our price range that was in a nicer area than we anticipated we could afford. The catch is that it was a dual-occupancy house, with the lower, larger level already occupied by a tenant.
I said I didn't want to consider this house, because I think it's morally wrong to buy a property with an existing tenant, anticipating that said tenant's rent covers your mortgage.
It feels like buying a person, like I'm a landowner with serfs. That I'll be exploiting someone who doesn't have the ability to buy a house - maybe THIS house in particular. (And buying the house and evicting them is even worse and out of the question.)
Also, if I own a home, I want it to be MY home - and that means I pay for it with MY labor, not the borrowed labor of someone poorer than me. The idea of using someone else's labor to enable me to own property really disgusts me.
It was at this point that my SO said "How do you think the rental market works?!" And that I was on some pseudo-Marxist moral high ground that ignores any realism about how supply-and-demand markets work. I countered that, because he comes from a family in real estate, he "works in the landfill" and has become immune to how bad it stinks.
I need to mention my SO's family at this point. They really repulse me. The patriarch grandfather was a Communist activist who also made a fortune as a slumlord. (This was not a moral contradiction to him.) The children were either cut into the real estate business (which is now probably a million or multi-million business now) or recieved a payout as inheritance. My SO's mother used her payout to buy a house for herself (cash, no mortgage) and now lives in a similar situation, where the upstairs renter is her main income.
I think my MIL, like her entire family, is an entitled, hypocritical parasite, but I have extra contempt for her beyond her tenant situation. (I also resent that she's sticking her nose into our house-hunting search.) My low opinion of some of the choices she's made is beyond the scope of this discussion, but I think it's important to put it in there bc I'm aware my hatred of her could be coloring my feelings.
I just want to conclude by saying that, if my SO and I already had purchased a home, and we had an empty floor, and it made sense to rent it out, and I charged a reasonable affordable rent that still included my own anticipated costs as a landlord, and I was able to pay my mortgage in full with my own earnings and that rent was ONLY supplemental income, that sounds like a win-win for me and the renter. I don't have a moral problem with that.
It's just the idea of a) "buying" a tenant along with a property and b) my hated MIL's entitled wheeler-dealer attitude of "get other people to pay for your lifestyle" that disgusts me.
I don't want to debate about who's right (me, MIL or SO), that's for r/AmITheAsshole .
I just genuinely would like to know if I am incorrect about this moral unease I feel, that having a tenant pay the mortgage on the house you're living in is actually an OK situation and I don't get it.
Thanks for any measured insight you might have.
****UPDATE: Thank you everyone for your good points. I am thoroughly convinced that, in the abstract, being a landlord in and of itself is not necessarily unethical.
However, I still feel uneasy about this very specific scenario, in which I would own and live in the upstairs of a property, and my mortgage would be paid by rent I collect from the tenant living downstairs. There is some little splinter in my reasoning that I just can't get to, that still makes it feel like I would be doing something wrong if I did this. | Key-Inflation-7694 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "LickClitsSuckNips",
"id": "guusyu6",
"score": 5,
"text": "Letting a property out is a service in & of itself. Many people shun becoming homeowners because of the \"lack of freedom\" & costs incurred.\n\nLetting out properties is as morally wrong as having an employee.",
"timestamp":... | [
{
"author": "sapphireminds",
"id": "guutw55",
"score": 21,
"text": "You don't have to be a slumlord. Nor do you have to let the tenants pay for the mortgage. You can lower their rent if you so desire, or even give them an option to buy the house some day if you can afford to move again.",
"tim... | [
"guusyu6",
"guutl59",
"guuv1o7"
] | [
"guutw55",
"guuv3pl",
"guuv90o"
] |
CMV: People in the automation industry want people with disabilities to be slaves to the government
I should disclaim that I have an inherent bias because I'm Autistic. When ever I talk about disabled people being put out of work because of automation pro-automation people always bring up social security, social programs, or social credit as a solution. Let me tell you as someone who's been dependent on things like this for 9 years they're all tantamount to slavery. They always come with rules, stipulations, terms and conditions or something else. They, [from a practical point of view], take away rights and freedoms from disabled and disordered people that physically and mentally able people have. Which means of course you're a slave, second class citizen, or both. It's as simple as that for me.
Things that won't change my mind: Fatalist arguments (what choice do we have), eutopian arguments (Star Trek Style government and economy), saying that automation will lower the barrier for entry/skill (This has been said for decades and it never comes true), saying "just don't be dependent" (easier said than done). Utilitarian arguments (it's not ethical but it's the only thing that works.
If you have an alternative to social/government help I'm all ears. I also give you permission to look at my recent post history because it's relevant, BUT ONLY THAT WHICH IS RELEVANT. | Slavery would mean you dont get paid. It sounds like you just want free money?
---
You're arguing semantics. That's not the point. The point is disabled people like me have significantly less freedom and are at the mercy of charity and government and that's not right.
---
You think its not right. Can you not work labour jobs like construction, electric work, plumbing. Because otherwise youre just asking for handouts without stipulations.
---
It's not that simple when you have disabilities (Autism, ADHD, ODD, Depression) like mine. Trust me what you're saying is just far easier said than done. Look at my post history. I don't have any marketable skills or strengths, I don't have the money or ability to pursue education. I can't even feel proper empathy. And a good 85% of us are unemployed and that doesn't account for people with disabilities just as bad if not worse than my own.
---
> I don't have any marketable skills or strengths
Even if you did, but had sufficient disability to not be able to apply those skills in a typical 9-5 career setting, you risk losing assistance for even trying to supplement your SSD income part-time.
And of course, SSD isn't enough to rent an apartment. So basically, they're asking you to be homeless or couch-surf.
I'm otherwise all for automation, but only with a Basic Income style tax on those companies which gets redistributed to people directly. | What's the alternative you are proposing? Do you think everyone going back to hunting and gathering or subsistence farming would be a good idea or what?
You seem to alternate between discussing what you think an ideal solution would be vs. discussing what a pragmatic solution would be. Which do you want to discuss? Because automation in addition to more progressive taxes and social programs sounds pretty ideal and something people want. You can dismiss that as not being pragmatic, but that's not wanting people to be slaves.
---
I want a solution that doesn't result in me or anyone like me having less freedom or rights than others. I don't have an alternative that's why I'm here.
---
So what's wrong with progressive taxes, social programs and basic income if implemented?
---
The fact that the rules and stipulations that come with them prevent disabled people like me from doing the same things as normal people.
---
Ok, progressive taxes, social programs and basic income with no strings. You want this yes? | 196u4fj | CMV: People in the automation industry want people with disabilities to be slaves to the government | I should disclaim that I have an inherent bias because I'm Autistic. When ever I talk about disabled people being put out of work because of automation pro-automation people always bring up social security, social programs, or social credit as a solution. Let me tell you as someone who's been dependent on things like this for 9 years they're all tantamount to slavery. They always come with rules, stipulations, terms and conditions or something else. They, [from a practical point of view], take away rights and freedoms from disabled and disordered people that physically and mentally able people have. Which means of course you're a slave, second class citizen, or both. It's as simple as that for me.
Things that won't change my mind: Fatalist arguments (what choice do we have), eutopian arguments (Star Trek Style government and economy), saying that automation will lower the barrier for entry/skill (This has been said for decades and it never comes true), saying "just don't be dependent" (easier said than done). Utilitarian arguments (it's not ethical but it's the only thing that works.
If you have an alternative to social/government help I'm all ears. I also give you permission to look at my recent post history because it's relevant, BUT ONLY THAT WHICH IS RELEVANT. | thedesertnobody | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "chocolatecakedonut",
"id": "khw3a47",
"score": 25,
"text": "Slavery would mean you dont get paid. It sounds like you just want free money?",
"timestamp": 1705276751
},
{
"author": "thedesertnobody",
"id": "khw46xn",
"score": -21,
"text": "You're arguing semantics... | [
{
"author": "OmniManDidNothngWrng",
"id": "khw2nt5",
"score": 6,
"text": "What's the alternative you are proposing? Do you think everyone going back to hunting and gathering or subsistence farming would be a good idea or what? \n\nYou seem to alternate between discussing what you think an ideal solu... | [
"khw3a47",
"khw46xn",
"khw4o31",
"khwacus",
"khwbej8"
] | [
"khw2nt5",
"khw3y6z",
"khw45ld",
"khw4fz2",
"khw4wga"
] |
cmv: Billionaires are a huge positive for the economy and it’s a blessing we have them
I don’t claim to be an economic expert. That’s why I’m posting here and not offmychest or something similar.
This is genuinely a thought I’ve held for a while given what I personally understand about the economy and I never understood why so many people think we’d be better off with less billionaires.
*If we didn’t have billionaires* the government would be the ONLY source of mass investment into billion dollar projects. Does this sound like a democracy?
It’s because of billionaires that so many decent to good companies have been bought and turned into amazing companies, which *drive prices down* and allow normal people like me and you to receive goods and services more conveniently.
How many of you have a Walmart near by, but choose to exclusively shop at a mom and pop shop? A fraction. That’s because business owners with less capital simply can’t afford to offer competitive prices.
Recently moved to San Diego and literally half of everyone here drives a Tesla. That’s because Elon Musk was rich enough to buy Tesla and invest $100s of millions into it so that they can afford to mass produce luxury EVs at reasonable prices.
The list goes on. A huge portion of the goods and services we all enjoy were only made possible because some super rich person decided it’s something worth investing an absurd amount of money into.
Without that avenue, we’d have to depend solely on the government to fund these projects. Not exactly Mr. Reliable, not to mention it’s US who fund the government so they’d likely just raise our taxes. Is that what anti-billionaire folk want? 🤔
If I understand correctly, the main argument from that eat the rich crowd is exploitation of labor or something. That’s just capitalism, if you can’t provide a unique skill and you’re easily replaceable, you’re not gonna earn much nor do you deserve much. Now I do believe everyone should at least have a liveable wage, but not only do I not believe it’s the fault of billionaires that we don’t, but I also don’t think simply “eating the rich” will even come remotely close to resolving that. I think it will actually worsen it for many of the reasons I’ve argued in this post; higher prices, higher taxes for all. | “if we didn’t have billionaires the government would be the only source of mass investment…does that sound like democracy?”
yes. that sounds exactly like democracy. i don’t vote for who is a billionaire.
---
Wait… so you unironically trust the government to have a monopoly over what companies get that kinda funding? Yeah… can’t side with that one boss but I appreciate your optimism
---
Expecting one private indiviual to use that power for good, is far more optimistic.
Just apply the same logic to anything other than business. Which sounds more democratic?
A war waged by an army that is commanded by "the government", or one that is by some guy who just personally owns it?
A court sytem that's rules are instructed by the government, or a court system that is employed by the company town owned by one boss?
Sure, governments can be flawed democracies, or dictatorships.
But one guy having exceptional personal power, is by it's nature ***the flaw itself***.
Putting our faith in people's ability to elect a government has a lot to be improved on, but it is better than going back to the divine right of kings.
A lot of billionaire-worship essentially has the same spirit, of being grateful for our betters for personally being in charge of everything instead of leaving it to shady institutions (that we might at least have SOME power over), just entirely concede that our best hope is their goodwill and wise rulership.
---
Good thing there isn’t only one billionaire
---
There isn't just one king either. There are all sorts of aristocrats in an authoritarian state too.
At the end of the day you are still defending authoritarianism over aristocracy just because "the government" doesn't sound ***democratic enough***.
---
Not counting that the biggest leaps forward in technology and medicine were because of government research programs, and that the increase in literacy, lifespan and quality of life are because of government welfare and public schools, while billionaires net positives are mainly about marketing and mass consumerism and some non fundamental technology advances. | Having a billion dollars doesn't mean you contribute anything to society.
---
That wasn’t quite my logic. A->b ≠ b-> A
It’s a good thing society has billionaires is a DIFFERENT statement from all billionaires are a good thing to society
So yes I agree with you but you also haven’t refuted my points or argument. To specify, I’ll say the majority of billionaires who reached that status through *entrepreneurship* are a benefit to society, because they continue to *entrepreneuring*
Come to think of it, the only other type of billionaire I can think of are ones from entertainment like athletes or Oprah. They don’t benefit society much but in my opinion they earned that money because of how much money they made for their companies like the NBA or their TV network
---
It may be good that society has inventors and entrepreneurs, but the whole point you're missing is that it's wrong to have such an obscene amount of money while so many people in the world are starving and dying from preventable causes.
---
Let's do this.
Take every NBA player. Force them to give up all of their wealth. And just give that wealth to everyone from the neighborhoods that they come from. They make obscene amounts of money. Some of them are billionaires like Lebron and MJ.
And do that from now on.
How many people are going to bother improving their basketball game after that? Do you think the NBA players will be happy about this? How good will the NBA product be once the average player is making pennies.... they may as well get a real job then.
---
Has anyone with any clout ever said for billionaires to give up **all** their wealth, or is that just taking the idea to absurdity to make it easier to refute?
The idea is usually to cap wealth to $999 million. Everything over that is taxed at 100%. Do you think people might still innovate knowing that they can be obscene multi-millionaires?
---
Yes and people would just stop working once they hit $999,000,000
Imagine if we did that with Michael Jordan. We told him that after 2 rings. He has to hang it up.
Would that make the NBA better? Would it make basketball better? Would it make anything better? Of course not. Michael was a major draw. They wanted to get as much value as they could out of him. And so did we as consumers. We loved watching Michael.
Everyone is worse off if you do this. Because the most talented gifted people will just bolt to other countries. Making your place SHITTIER in the process.
You're not redistributing wealth. You are destroying it. | 1961gk2 | cmv: Billionaires are a huge positive for the economy and it’s a blessing we have them | I don’t claim to be an economic expert. That’s why I’m posting here and not offmychest or something similar.
This is genuinely a thought I’ve held for a while given what I personally understand about the economy and I never understood why so many people think we’d be better off with less billionaires.
*If we didn’t have billionaires* the government would be the ONLY source of mass investment into billion dollar projects. Does this sound like a democracy?
It’s because of billionaires that so many decent to good companies have been bought and turned into amazing companies, which *drive prices down* and allow normal people like me and you to receive goods and services more conveniently.
How many of you have a Walmart near by, but choose to exclusively shop at a mom and pop shop? A fraction. That’s because business owners with less capital simply can’t afford to offer competitive prices.
Recently moved to San Diego and literally half of everyone here drives a Tesla. That’s because Elon Musk was rich enough to buy Tesla and invest $100s of millions into it so that they can afford to mass produce luxury EVs at reasonable prices.
The list goes on. A huge portion of the goods and services we all enjoy were only made possible because some super rich person decided it’s something worth investing an absurd amount of money into.
Without that avenue, we’d have to depend solely on the government to fund these projects. Not exactly Mr. Reliable, not to mention it’s US who fund the government so they’d likely just raise our taxes. Is that what anti-billionaire folk want? 🤔
If I understand correctly, the main argument from that eat the rich crowd is exploitation of labor or something. That’s just capitalism, if you can’t provide a unique skill and you’re easily replaceable, you’re not gonna earn much nor do you deserve much. Now I do believe everyone should at least have a liveable wage, but not only do I not believe it’s the fault of billionaires that we don’t, but I also don’t think simply “eating the rich” will even come remotely close to resolving that. I think it will actually worsen it for many of the reasons I’ve argued in this post; higher prices, higher taxes for all. | Additional_Ad_1275 | 6 | 6 | [
{
"author": "JesusFreakingChrist",
"id": "khqnjit",
"score": 68,
"text": "“if we didn’t have billionaires the government would be the only source of mass investment…does that sound like democracy?” \n\nyes. that sounds exactly like democracy. i don’t vote for who is a billionaire.",
"timestamp":... | [
{
"author": "distillenger",
"id": "khqn7pc",
"score": 33,
"text": "Having a billion dollars doesn't mean you contribute anything to society.",
"timestamp": 1705189360
},
{
"author": "Additional_Ad_1275",
"id": "khqnt8a",
"score": -4,
"text": "That wasn’t quite my logic. A->b ... | [
"khqnjit",
"khqo664",
"khqq9wu",
"khqqeap",
"khqqq1p",
"khqsd4o"
] | [
"khqn7pc",
"khqnt8a",
"khqof5i",
"khqoysb",
"khqpmvn",
"khqr0gr"
] |
CMV: Epstein was not murdered
Having read a good many Reddit comments on all sides of this theory (you know the sort that are extremely detailed and *appear* to be well sourced), I haven't found a satisfactory explanation for why the majority of reputable news organisations report it as a suicide - other than the likely fact that it was!
In order for this to be a murder, another conspiracy is required to explain the fact that most U.S. and U.K. news outlets of good repute appear to believe otherwise
I can think of no credible path to this. Why would the NYT and The Guardian be in cahoots here, for example?
Thanks in advance. | [Is the guardian saying Epstein killed himself here, or are they saying that the prison authorities report his death as a suicide?](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/12/jeffrey-epstein-death-suicide-prison)
It is a subtle but important difference. A reputable newssource would report things they know to be facts, like "prison authories report his death to be a suicide", rather than speculation eg "he was murdered/killed himself".
---
That's an article from immediately after his death and I agree that the wording is looser. I think you might find articles like that in a few credible papers, but as far as I can see they've all moved towards suicide as time passed.
---
Further clarification is needed on why a conspiracy is needed when they could just believe he killed himself?
No conspiracy needed | What cahoots is there?
It's not as if NYT or The Guardian have special information here. The information they have is given to them by the investigators. They don't have their own medical investigators doing medical examinations on Epstein, they don't have people inspecting the scene where the body was found, they don't have access to any video.
they report what they are told, and we all talk about what we are told.
There doesn't need to be any cahoots involved at all.
I'm not even speaking on what I believe probably or probably didn't happen. Just on the fact that they are doing no more than telling you... What they were told.
If a 'conspiracy' exists, they aren't special, they probably aren't in on it, they are just as much a fool as you and I are.
---
If they didn't find what they were being told to be reasonably credible they wouldn't be reporting it as a suicide. That's just how journalism works.
---
So then they would report nothing then?
If they don't find 'suicide' credible, there's absolutely no chance they will be able to find 'murder' credible.
They report suicide, because suicide is on the certificates. What exactly do you want them to report here? Journalists aren't medical examiners, they aren't crime scene investigators. They have no business claiming a medical examiner isn't credible, nor crime scene investigators, unless they have *actual evidence* that shows they are lying. Which they do not have. | sl4ujk | CMV: Epstein was not murdered | Having read a good many Reddit comments on all sides of this theory (you know the sort that are extremely detailed and *appear* to be well sourced), I haven't found a satisfactory explanation for why the majority of reputable news organisations report it as a suicide - other than the likely fact that it was!
In order for this to be a murder, another conspiracy is required to explain the fact that most U.S. and U.K. news outlets of good repute appear to believe otherwise
I can think of no credible path to this. Why would the NYT and The Guardian be in cahoots here, for example?
Thanks in advance. | CaptainEarlobe | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "barthiebarth",
"id": "hvoslvx",
"score": 13,
"text": "[Is the guardian saying Epstein killed himself here, or are they saying that the prison authorities report his death as a suicide?](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/12/jeffrey-epstein-death-suicide-prison)\n\nIt is a subt... | [
{
"author": "CrinkleLord",
"id": "hvosu9q",
"score": 1,
"text": "What cahoots is there?\n\nIt's not as if NYT or The Guardian have special information here. The information they have is given to them by the investigators. They don't have their own medical investigators doing medical examinations o... | [
"hvoslvx",
"hvot932",
"hvovn63"
] | [
"hvosu9q",
"hvotr20",
"hvovg61"
] |
CMV: Ideology and Politics mixing is similar to the mixture of Religion and State.
To add clarity: Things like racism, sexism, homophobia etc are moral issues that are not inherently political but have become political hot topics due to various factors. This in my mind is very similar to how religious ideologies have affected politics in the past, obviously often in a different direction then today. I have a hard time seeing the difference between a mixture of ideology and state and a mixture of religion and state, save for the mythological aspect.
Thanks for reading and participating!
_____
> *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!* | Can you clarify what you mean here? The typical objection to the Church and State mixing is (1) that it is inappropriate for a state to favor one religion over others as this is disrespectful to individual citizens and (2) that using the coercive power of the state will invariably corrupt religious institutions.
On the other hand - political disputes and issues are inherently moral. There is no fact that will resolve the abortion debate or explain what a just response to racial or sex discrimination is. In fact, so many claims about justice are precisely moral disagreements. Why is that a problem?
and Happy cake day
---
Thanks buddy o/
I'm looking at the issue of when ideology affects legislation. So for example: In the older days of Europe being homosexual was a crime, usually punishable by death. This is an example of Ideology extremely affecting legislation and politics. In the awesome novel 1984, their society's legislation and politics and extremely affected by their ideologies. An example being that they "thought police" to make sure ideologies match between peoples to create a "unified nation" or what have you.
Obviously our society is far more reasonable in the way ideology affects legislation currently, however I feel that the logical end of the mixture of ideology and legislation, be it religious or secular, is a corruption of the political system eventually, however long that takes.
---
The laws we have, including the limits on statute provided in constitutions are reflections of ideologies.
The idea that the government may not imprison you for expressing an opinion is based in ideology, classical liberal ideology specifically.
The idea that laws can protect minorities from descrimination follows specifically from certain egalitarian ideologies.
The idea that robbery can be punished, but killing in self defense cannot be punished are based on ideologies that enshrine individual rights.
You cannot divorce ideology from politics because politics and government are inherently the *products of* the ideologies and values of those that form them.
Religion is really just a specific form of ideology in this respect.
So, while you are correct that mixing ideology with politics and mixing religion with politics are very similar, if not partially synonymous, you are missing that what separation is provided for under constitutional and classical liberal *ideologies* is necessarily mono-directional.
Politics is necessarily *the product of* ideology, but politics ought not be the means by which ideology is controlled. | What, to you, does "inherently political" mean?
---
To me things that are inherently political are things on which we vote. Things like ideologies are not voted on, but are decided by individuals.
By making things like civil rights non discriminatory, that's a step towards political neutrality in my mind. Does that help somewhat?
---
Non-descriminatory civil rights is the (recent, in historical terms) product of the Egalitarian ideology. | 69311a | CMV: Ideology and Politics mixing is similar to the mixture of Religion and State. |
To add clarity: Things like racism, sexism, homophobia etc are moral issues that are not inherently political but have become political hot topics due to various factors. This in my mind is very similar to how religious ideologies have affected politics in the past, obviously often in a different direction then today. I have a hard time seeing the difference between a mixture of ideology and state and a mixture of religion and state, save for the mythological aspect.
Thanks for reading and participating!
_____
> *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!* | ILIKETHEPENIS | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "tunaonrye",
"id": "dh3bvey",
"score": 4,
"text": "Can you clarify what you mean here? The typical objection to the Church and State mixing is (1) that it is inappropriate for a state to favor one religion over others as this is disrespectful to individual citizens and (2) that using the... | [
{
"author": "figsbar",
"id": "dh3cj5x",
"score": 3,
"text": "What, to you, does \"inherently political\" mean?",
"timestamp": 1493845206
},
{
"author": "ILIKETHEPENIS",
"id": "dh3cvce",
"score": 2,
"text": "To me things that are inherently political are things on which we vot... | [
"dh3bvey",
"dh3cl4p",
"dh3dm08"
] | [
"dh3cj5x",
"dh3cvce",
"dh3dodb"
] |
CMV: The idea of food deserts is overblown and does not deserve to be used as the first or primary argument against why obesity is more prevalent in lower SES from a macro perspective
CMV: The idea of food deserts is overblown
CMV by providing specific examples, that we can go through together on google maps
Inevitably, when the topic of obesity in lower SES comes up, food deserts is one of the first things mentioned, but why?
6.2 % of Americans live in a food desert. With the generous assumption that most individuals living in a food desert are living in poverty, we know that 80 % of Americans living in poverty own a car, and a fair assumption is that most of that 80 % has insurance and gas money. But let's again be generous and say of that 80 %, an additional 20 % do not have access to insurance or gas money, so let's say 60 % of Americans live in poverty and own a car that they can regularly use.
So basically only close to 1/3 of that 6.2 % of Americans that are in a food desert actually do not have access to a car with gas and would have to use terrible public transit that could take them 30 mins to 1.5 hours to reach their grocery store. Something that affects basically 2 % of Americans should not be used as the primary example of why obesity is an issue in lower SES. It makes no sense.
When I've looked at the examples I could find online on google maps, there's usually a Walmart or Walmart equivalent usually just a 5-15 mins car ride away.
So how to change my view?
1. Find an example of a food desert in which it takes > 30 mins to reach a grocery store *even by car*
2. Poke holes in my logic, remember most of the assumptions I've made actually serve to actually work against my core premise
Ninja edit: forget obesity being more prevalent specifically, let's just stick to "why obesity can be an issue in lower SES" | While I actually do agree that the idea of food deserts is overblown, just because there's a grocery store that a poor person could hypothetically drive to doesn't mean it's a viable source of food. Maybe a 30 minute drive doesn't fit into their schedule, maybe the stores hours don't work, maybe they have social anxiety or fear of driving or some other mental illness that makes them apprehensive about taking long trips to get food.
---
>Maybe a 30 minute drive doesn't fit into their schedule, maybe the stores hours don't work, maybe they have social anxiety or fear of driving or some other mental illness that makes them apprehensive about taking long trips to get food.
30 minutes was being really generous.
Most of these food deserts have a grocery store within a 10 to 15 minute drive. How many can you find that's more than 15 mins drive, if that?
>Maybe a 30 minute drive doesn't fit into their schedule, maybe the stores hours don't work,
Are you able to find a specific example of a food desert which has a grocery store that doesn't operate late? Most of these food deserts tend to have a walmart or equivalent which usually operate pretty late.
The social anxiety or fear really isn't a good argument because it's still not representative of the general population. What does that shave like a fraction of a percent from that remaining 2 %?
---
I also want to mention that often that the grocery store that's like 15-30 min drive is the one that the whole community is using, and if it's a poorer community, it is very likely to be understaffed, precisely BECAUSE they know people cannot shop elsewhere so they can afford to keep labor costs low. I live in a food desert in West Baltimore, and though my neighborhood is pretty middle class, we are pocketed in a poor area. I do not shop the stores closest to me- I'd rather drive 30-40 minutes to the stores in a nicer part of town because they actually have the shit I need. When I go to the store that's 15 mins away by car? Empty shelves, frequently out of common necessities like bananas, bread, milk etc. - forget baby formula etc. The produce is never fresh or rotated. And the lines, at any point in the day, are atrocious- I've never waited less than 30 mins except maybe at 11:30 at night. Needless to say this doesn't happen in more economically prosperous areas. I have a friend who worked that same store- literally, during an 8 hour day he would be responsible for: getting the shopping carts, stocking dairy, stocking commercial bakery, hitting produce end caps AND they would put him on the register about once an hour for 15-30 mins at a time- HE WAS ONE PERSON. And this was PRE PANDEMIC. Not all shopping situations are created equal. | There is one small grocery store on the Spirit Lake Nation, in North Dakota. It’s next to the casino. It really doesn’t have a lot of fruits and vegetables. If you live in the other side of the reservation it’s way more than 15 minutes. There is a Wal-Mart about 10 miles from the reservation but it’s probably 15-20 miles if you are on the opposite side of the reservation from the town of Devils Lake. Also, you’re not talking a highway from Warwick to St. Michael or Devils Lake. If it’s not snowing, if there’s no ice on the road, if you have a car and gas, you can get there in 30 minutes . When the weather is bad, double that. There is no public transportation. This is one example and Spirit Lake isn’t a very big reservation at all. Take a look at Standing Rock or the Navajo Nation for even more rural areas.
---
Really opened my eyes, I guess my post really only applies to urban food deserts
!delta
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DrAnnMaria ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DrAnnMaria)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | skyawp | CMV: The idea of food deserts is overblown and does not deserve to be used as the first or primary argument against why obesity is more prevalent in lower SES from a macro perspective | CMV: The idea of food deserts is overblown
CMV by providing specific examples, that we can go through together on google maps
Inevitably, when the topic of obesity in lower SES comes up, food deserts is one of the first things mentioned, but why?
6.2 % of Americans live in a food desert. With the generous assumption that most individuals living in a food desert are living in poverty, we know that 80 % of Americans living in poverty own a car, and a fair assumption is that most of that 80 % has insurance and gas money. But let's again be generous and say of that 80 %, an additional 20 % do not have access to insurance or gas money, so let's say 60 % of Americans live in poverty and own a car that they can regularly use.
So basically only close to 1/3 of that 6.2 % of Americans that are in a food desert actually do not have access to a car with gas and would have to use terrible public transit that could take them 30 mins to 1.5 hours to reach their grocery store. Something that affects basically 2 % of Americans should not be used as the primary example of why obesity is an issue in lower SES. It makes no sense.
When I've looked at the examples I could find online on google maps, there's usually a Walmart or Walmart equivalent usually just a 5-15 mins car ride away.
So how to change my view?
1. Find an example of a food desert in which it takes > 30 mins to reach a grocery store *even by car*
2. Poke holes in my logic, remember most of the assumptions I've made actually serve to actually work against my core premise
Ninja edit: forget obesity being more prevalent specifically, let's just stick to "why obesity can be an issue in lower SES" | bouchardmaster | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "hvnvyrl",
"score": 5,
"text": "While I actually do agree that the idea of food deserts is overblown, just because there's a grocery store that a poor person could hypothetically drive to doesn't mean it's a viable source of food. Maybe a 30 minute drive doesn't fit in... | [
{
"author": "DrAnnMaria",
"id": "hvny5d1",
"score": 29,
"text": "There is one small grocery store on the Spirit Lake Nation, in North Dakota. It’s next to the casino. It really doesn’t have a lot of fruits and vegetables. If you live in the other side of the reservation it’s way more than 15 minutes... | [
"hvnvyrl",
"hvnwxis",
"hvnzddk"
] | [
"hvny5d1",
"hvo263z",
"hvo294d"
] |
CMV: Morality would still be subjective even if God is real
The argument "morality is subjective without God" bugs me a lot, for one it is assuming that would be a problem. Morality being subjective is not an issue. Also it seems to be a semantic argument about what good / bad and subjective / objective mean.
If anything God says is good is objectively good, it just shifts "goodness" away from the way we commonly understand it, and towards whether an authority agrees with it or not. Atheists can reason whether something is good or bad or not, and generally agree with most religious people on most issues. On a few religious issues, there is not much reasoning beyond "god said so". If a religious person will argue murder is bad, they generally don't fall back on the argument "god said so", because there is a common understanding there. It is more for issues like homosexuality. Sometimes the things that god did or permitted are just straight up evil, and they have to defend that as well. This makes the whole thing seem very subjective anyways, being subject to whatever the authority figure says is okay or not.
I am not sure why Gods opinion on a matter would be objective anyways. I can create a scenario where I dictate that torturing people is the right thing to do in the scenario. We can agree then that you should torture people in the scenario, but obviously there is a higher layer there where we can debate whether or not that is a good thing despite it being the correct thing to do in the scenario I created (acting as a god of that scenario) | If an all knowing and powerful being told you something it would be true. You can disagree but youd be wrong by the vary meaning of all knowing. If he didnt know the truth he wouldnt be god. People can disagree with objective facts like flat earth but that doesnt make flat earth or the knowledge around it subjective.
---
if murdering someone was the thing god wanted me to do, that would be acceptable. It would just be redefining morality as I know it
---
What you're describing is called Divine Command Theory in philosophy and it IS considered an objective view which might seem odd and I get it. That said, it is logically sound and while I don't prescribe to this view it would be irrational to deny this classification.
Objective morality essentially means it exists outside of a mind. It's not dependent on opinions or cultural trends. Some argue that if morality comes from God, that would mean it comes from a mind making it subjective to that being. However if God created everything, including the fundamental laws of the Universe, morality is objectively true in the sense that it's baked into the code.
When you go down the rabbit hole further, those who believe in Divine Command Theory would have to prove the existence of God which they can't do. On the other hand, no world view can prove its foundations and always end up at infinite regress or what you might have heard as, "it's turtles all the way down." | In this case - disagreeing with God would be like saying "Gravity doesn't exist". You would just be objectively wrong.
---
I don't agree because I think it would basically be redefining morality, in the common way that religious people themselves generally understand it. It basically makes morality akin to a higher, universal legal system. Which I think is not the way the term is understood in society
---
It's a definition that you wouldn't agree with, but that doesn't mean it's redefining morality. It sounds like you're insisting on a definition of morality that makes it subjective by definition, which renders any discussion of the matter moot. | 1l61zgk | CMV: Morality would still be subjective even if God is real | The argument "morality is subjective without God" bugs me a lot, for one it is assuming that would be a problem. Morality being subjective is not an issue. Also it seems to be a semantic argument about what good / bad and subjective / objective mean.
If anything God says is good is objectively good, it just shifts "goodness" away from the way we commonly understand it, and towards whether an authority agrees with it or not. Atheists can reason whether something is good or bad or not, and generally agree with most religious people on most issues. On a few religious issues, there is not much reasoning beyond "god said so". If a religious person will argue murder is bad, they generally don't fall back on the argument "god said so", because there is a common understanding there. It is more for issues like homosexuality. Sometimes the things that god did or permitted are just straight up evil, and they have to defend that as well. This makes the whole thing seem very subjective anyways, being subject to whatever the authority figure says is okay or not.
I am not sure why Gods opinion on a matter would be objective anyways. I can create a scenario where I dictate that torturing people is the right thing to do in the scenario. We can agree then that you should torture people in the scenario, but obviously there is a higher layer there where we can debate whether or not that is a good thing despite it being the correct thing to do in the scenario I created (acting as a god of that scenario) | NoWin3930 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Loud_Jeweler_4463",
"id": "mwloqc9",
"score": 4,
"text": "If an all knowing and powerful being told you something it would be true. You can disagree but youd be wrong by the vary meaning of all knowing. If he didnt know the truth he wouldnt be god. People can disagree with objective fac... | [
{
"author": "Rainbwned",
"id": "mwlftde",
"score": 6,
"text": "In this case - disagreeing with God would be like saying \"Gravity doesn't exist\". You would just be objectively wrong.",
"timestamp": 1749351205
},
{
"author": "NoWin3930",
"id": "mwlgnrw",
"score": 3,
"text": "... | [
"mwloqc9",
"mwlp8kc",
"mwm05rb"
] | [
"mwlftde",
"mwlgnrw",
"mwlhiyy"
] |
CMV: Science fiction and fantasy are fundamentally different genres
This is a debate I had recently with a bartender and I'm still hung up on it.
SF involves scenarios that aren't possible now, but could be in the future. Or, alternately, scenarios that are possible now without most people realizing (e. g. X-Files). In that way, it fosters creative thinking. For example, the film Gatacca explored the debate about genetic engineering of human embryos, which is going on currently.
Fantasy is pure fiction. Its only similarity to SF is the way that magic, a common trope, accomplishes things that aren't possible. But there's no reason to think the scenarios in fantasy would actually occur in the future.
The person I was debating made the point that some works of fantasy apply a much more scientific rigor to explaining how magic works, compared with works of SF that don't attempt to explain how their impossible technologies work.
I say that's irrelevant, because no matter how elaborate the explanations, it still requires a blind faith that magic exists.
Please change my view. | I agree that they're different genres, but I'd draw the boundaries between them very differently.
I put it to you that the fantasy/SF divide isn't about magic or technology - those two things are just the most common props for the respective genres.
Serious science fiction is actually a form of philosophy joke. Take a philosophical thought-experiment, wrap a story around it with a brain-bending 'punchline' that messes with your ontology / epistemology / ethics / etc as the crux, and you have science fiction.
A man steps through a teleporter on his way to work, but it goes wrong and now there are two of him. Which one is the 'real' one? Who gets the legal identity? If one of them is killed, is it actually murder? If one of them commits a crime, is the other culpable? What the fuck is identity anyhow when you come right down to it? What, which and who never used to be separable concepts with people, but now they are, and it fucks with your brain. Science and technology aren't the core of the stories, they just *enable the world to be disrupted* so that underlying premises can be messed with, and set our expectations down that track by sheer familiarity.
I mean fuck, [look at this webcomic](https://existentialcomics.com/comic/58) and tell me that's not the SF buzz right there lurking in the wings, with no more tech than a shitty board game.
Fantasy, on the other hand, goes for a very different buzz. It's about oohing and aahing at a richer, less-mundane world with lots of archetypal resonance and ritual storytelling. It's about settling in for a stonking good *tale*, dammit, filled with wonder and adventure and larger-than-life settings and characters and deeds. It's born of fairy and folk tales, somewhere better to be on a freezing night after a long miserable day of endless grey peasanting in the frozen mud.
And so it typically borrows the tropes of folk take and freezing peasantry: kings and dragons and knights and castles and battles and Chosen Ones and heroic pig-boys for the grandeur and drama, fairies and witches and sorcerers and elves and kobolds for the wonder.
But again, these things aren't the core of fantasy, they just *enable the world* to be all [HDR photography,](https://www.google.com.au/search?tbm=isch&q=hdr+photography&chips=q:hdr+photography,g_6:nature&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjko7_L_-DaAhVIx7wKHQo6CRgQ4lYIMigA&biw=1920&bih=900&dpr=1) and act as a quick key to set our expectations in that regard.
Cue, of course, the canonical fantasy counterexample: Star Wars.
Switch up the props - the spaceships and death stars - for traditional-fantasy ones - horses and warships, ferinstance, and you have one incredibly basic sword-and-sorcery fantasy brick. Farm boy learns he is the Chosen One after his adopted parents are killed by the Dark Lord's forces. On his way to learn of his power, he learns of a princess held captive aboard the Dark Lord's warship, and further that it carries mighty siege engines that can flatten any city while anchored safely off the coast.
It's such a good fit, in fact, that it got rewritten as a set of absolutely pitch-perfect [Icelandic sagas](https://tattuinardoelasaga.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/tattuinardoela-saga-if-star-wars-were-an-icelandic-saga/).
Works can be a mixture of both, of course, but those are the two poles that they form around.
I think this is a much more useful distinction than the magic/tech divide, because there's some really *weird-ass* stuff out there (especially in short-story form) that will get you all kinds of tangled up if you try to classify it that way.
---
I agree completely. I never meant to focus on magic & technology. It's all about what's possible given what we already know to be true. That's why science fiction can, in your words
>Take a philosophical thought-experiment, wrap a story around it with a brain-bending 'punchline' that messes with your ontology / epistemology / ethics / etc
And fantasy cannot.
---
Fantasy can and often does tackle philosophical thought experiments. The ability to show a world fundamentally different from our own serves to take issues that are tied up in specifics in our world and abstract them to their logical form. It also makes us question which elements of our own world are essential and which are accidental, since we have a potentially infinite range of fantasy worlds but our sample size for real worlds is one. The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas is a critique of utilitarianism. Wheel of Time explores the memetic nature of myths and the psychological burden of concepts like destiny. | Is Star Wars fantasy or sci-fi?
---
I consider Star Wars science fiction. Its premise is that it takes place in another galaxy in the distant past. Its technologies are limited by the same scientific principles as our own, such as gravitational pull. Even the Force is explained by the presence of midichlorians.
---
[deleted] | 8fs0g3 | CMV: Science fiction and fantasy are fundamentally different genres | This is a debate I had recently with a bartender and I'm still hung up on it.
SF involves scenarios that aren't possible now, but could be in the future. Or, alternately, scenarios that are possible now without most people realizing (e. g. X-Files). In that way, it fosters creative thinking. For example, the film Gatacca explored the debate about genetic engineering of human embryos, which is going on currently.
Fantasy is pure fiction. Its only similarity to SF is the way that magic, a common trope, accomplishes things that aren't possible. But there's no reason to think the scenarios in fantasy would actually occur in the future.
The person I was debating made the point that some works of fantasy apply a much more scientific rigor to explaining how magic works, compared with works of SF that don't attempt to explain how their impossible technologies work.
I say that's irrelevant, because no matter how elaborate the explanations, it still requires a blind faith that magic exists.
Please change my view. | TimS1043 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "TheBananaKing",
"id": "dy71aep",
"score": 1,
"text": "I agree that they're different genres, but I'd draw the boundaries between them very differently. \n\nI put it to you that the fantasy/SF divide isn't about magic or technology - those two things are just the most common props for th... | [
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"id": "dy5yua2",
"score": 21,
"text": "Is Star Wars fantasy or sci-fi?",
"timestamp": 1525015975
},
{
"author": "TimS1043",
"id": "dy610el",
"score": 5,
"text": "I consider Star Wars science fiction. Its premise is that it takes place in another gala... | [
"dy71aep",
"dy7mtc1",
"dy7t5ux"
] | [
"dy5yua2",
"dy610el",
"dy61blk"
] |
CMV: Science fiction and fantasy are fundamentally different genres
This is a debate I had recently with a bartender and I'm still hung up on it.
SF involves scenarios that aren't possible now, but could be in the future. Or, alternately, scenarios that are possible now without most people realizing (e. g. X-Files). In that way, it fosters creative thinking. For example, the film Gatacca explored the debate about genetic engineering of human embryos, which is going on currently.
Fantasy is pure fiction. Its only similarity to SF is the way that magic, a common trope, accomplishes things that aren't possible. But there's no reason to think the scenarios in fantasy would actually occur in the future.
The person I was debating made the point that some works of fantasy apply a much more scientific rigor to explaining how magic works, compared with works of SF that don't attempt to explain how their impossible technologies work.
I say that's irrelevant, because no matter how elaborate the explanations, it still requires a blind faith that magic exists.
Please change my view. | I would tend to agree that they are different, but your view appears to be that they are incompatible, and that everything is only one or the other.
But there are numerous examples in fiction where these genres are combined, such as the "space wizards" of Star Wars, the eventual revelation of a scientific basis in the Dragonriders of Pern, superhero comics (Iron Man... SF or Fantasy? How about Thor? Then, how about The Avengers?), etc., etc., etc.
There's no hard line between them. Instead, there are fantasy *elements* in most things we call science fiction, and frequently science fiction elements in many things we call fantasy.
Example: faster-than-light travel is absolutely *fantasy*. It literally can't exist in the universe that we inhabit without violating *causality*, which is the quintessential quality of fantasy.
By your metric, if we take it seriously, there's almost no real space-based "science fiction". It's a *useful fantasy* that people can get from one star system to the next, but that's exactly what it is: fantasy.
Believing in FTL requires blind faith that magic exists... actually... it's worse than that: even with magic, FTL can't exist. Even if you get from here to alpha centauri by teleporting using *pixie dust*, it still violates causality. It can only exist if you actually fundamentally overturn the most basic laws of physics.
---
>faster-than-light travel is absolutely *fantasy*.
That's not absolute at all. I'm sure you could find a long list of technologies we take for granted that were once considered impossible.
In contrast, magic has and always will be impossible.
---
> That's not absolute at all.
Yes it is. Faster than light travel breaks causality, full stop. If we're talking about a universe where FTL travel is possible (including our own!) we are talking about a universe that is fundamentally different from the one we currently understand ourselves to inhabit. | Is Star Wars fantasy or sci-fi?
---
I consider Star Wars science fiction. Its premise is that it takes place in another galaxy in the distant past. Its technologies are limited by the same scientific principles as our own, such as gravitational pull. Even the Force is explained by the presence of midichlorians.
---
But the midichlorians were introduced in the prequels. In the original trilogy, it was just a Force of the universe. Does that mean it only became a sci-fi series when Phantom Menace came out? | 8fs0g3 | CMV: Science fiction and fantasy are fundamentally different genres | This is a debate I had recently with a bartender and I'm still hung up on it.
SF involves scenarios that aren't possible now, but could be in the future. Or, alternately, scenarios that are possible now without most people realizing (e. g. X-Files). In that way, it fosters creative thinking. For example, the film Gatacca explored the debate about genetic engineering of human embryos, which is going on currently.
Fantasy is pure fiction. Its only similarity to SF is the way that magic, a common trope, accomplishes things that aren't possible. But there's no reason to think the scenarios in fantasy would actually occur in the future.
The person I was debating made the point that some works of fantasy apply a much more scientific rigor to explaining how magic works, compared with works of SF that don't attempt to explain how their impossible technologies work.
I say that's irrelevant, because no matter how elaborate the explanations, it still requires a blind faith that magic exists.
Please change my view. | TimS1043 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "hacksoncode",
"id": "dy63f0q",
"score": 27,
"text": "I would tend to agree that they are different, but your view appears to be that they are incompatible, and that everything is only one or the other. \n\nBut there are numerous examples in fiction where these genres are combined, such ... | [
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"id": "dy5yua2",
"score": 21,
"text": "Is Star Wars fantasy or sci-fi?",
"timestamp": 1525015975
},
{
"author": "TimS1043",
"id": "dy610el",
"score": 5,
"text": "I consider Star Wars science fiction. Its premise is that it takes place in another gala... | [
"dy63f0q",
"dy7jwqw",
"dy7oiik"
] | [
"dy5yua2",
"dy610el",
"dy61c2f"
] |
CMV:Life in America would be far more pleasant if Republicans were prevented from holding office
on a recent episode of the thomas hartmann show (he’s a progressive radio personality, for anyone not familiar with him), he discussed a new study that showed the quality of life - measured in various ways (education, healthcare, safety nets, climate/environment, safety) - in blue states is significantly higher than it is in red states. he talked about how people in blue states are generally leading far more pleasant lives, including those considered “poor” or “lower class.”
it led me to consider how many innocent people in these red states, those who would never cast a vote for a republican, are suffering for no other reason than the fact they can’t afford to migrate to a blue state.
hartmann went on to say the republican party has regressed to a local party, its national aspirations to turn our nation into a theocratic plutocracy blocked by the public’s general distaste for the what it offers, hatred of anyone who isn’t a straight, white christian (preferably male, though straight, white christian females are given a seat at the table, provided they know their place).
i believe that this country - and even the world, i imagine - would be markedly improved if republicans were prevented from holding office.
all manner of human rights - for women, gays, racial minorities - would be strengthened.
environmental awareness in red states would improve, with regulatory measures enforced so as to prevent communities (such as what we have recently seen in mississippi, and what was observed in michigan - under snyder - before it became blue) from being poisoned.
literacy rates, which are the poorest in red states, would rise thanks to greater funding of education.
can anyone here convince me that outlawing republicans from holding office wouldn’t greatly improve the state of our society?
🤔 | Are you going to reply to any comments as the rules of this sub say you must??
How would you prevent Republicans from holding office? What would such laws and their enforcement mechanisms look like? How would such laws pass any sort of constitutional challenges they would be sure to face? It would be politically and legally impossible for your views to be realized without destroying the nation.
---
i’ve been replying. 😂 was asleep when this was finally approved for posting.
as for your query, i don’t know how it would be enacted. obviously, it would alter the political landscape of our nation in an unprecedented fashion. i’m just theorizing about how much different american society would be if they were not allowed to
hold office, using this study by hartmann as the starting point.
---
While i agree with you that the nation would be improved if republicans didn’t hold office, it would be massively deteriorated if they *couldnt* hold office. If Americans gave up on the Republican platform and never voted for them again, we’d definitely improve. If the government somehow enacted a policy that made it illegal or impossible for republicans to hold office, it would not stop at republicans, and we would quickly become a one party authoritarian hell-hole. Politicians do not care about their constituents unless they’re forced to. Without an alternative party to vote for, we would run into all the problems that one party governments have run into for all of history. | If you outlaw republicans from holding office then you end up with the USSR which had several million citizens starve to death and didn’t build a toilet paper factory until 1968. Two party systems are bad, but the only thing worse is a one party system.
---
Outlawing them doesnt mean they will be one party though. OP didnt state they support a one party rule
---
Fact is right now there are only two parties with any shot of winning, so getting rid of one is essentially creating a one party system at least for a few years. | 14nnq14 | CMV:Life in America would be far more pleasant if Republicans were prevented from holding office | on a recent episode of the thomas hartmann show (he’s a progressive radio personality, for anyone not familiar with him), he discussed a new study that showed the quality of life - measured in various ways (education, healthcare, safety nets, climate/environment, safety) - in blue states is significantly higher than it is in red states. he talked about how people in blue states are generally leading far more pleasant lives, including those considered “poor” or “lower class.”
it led me to consider how many innocent people in these red states, those who would never cast a vote for a republican, are suffering for no other reason than the fact they can’t afford to migrate to a blue state.
hartmann went on to say the republican party has regressed to a local party, its national aspirations to turn our nation into a theocratic plutocracy blocked by the public’s general distaste for the what it offers, hatred of anyone who isn’t a straight, white christian (preferably male, though straight, white christian females are given a seat at the table, provided they know their place).
i believe that this country - and even the world, i imagine - would be markedly improved if republicans were prevented from holding office.
all manner of human rights - for women, gays, racial minorities - would be strengthened.
environmental awareness in red states would improve, with regulatory measures enforced so as to prevent communities (such as what we have recently seen in mississippi, and what was observed in michigan - under snyder - before it became blue) from being poisoned.
literacy rates, which are the poorest in red states, would rise thanks to greater funding of education.
can anyone here convince me that outlawing republicans from holding office wouldn’t greatly improve the state of our society?
🤔 | Donny-Bandish | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "codan84",
"id": "jq961nm",
"score": 14,
"text": "Are you going to reply to any comments as the rules of this sub say you must??\n\nHow would you prevent Republicans from holding office? What would such laws and their enforcement mechanisms look like? How would such laws pass any sort of... | [
{
"author": "Any-Try-8293",
"id": "jq93jr1",
"score": 8,
"text": "If you outlaw republicans from holding office then you end up with the USSR which had several million citizens starve to death and didn’t build a toilet paper factory until 1968. Two party systems are bad, but the only thing worse is ... | [
"jq961nm",
"jqbfjfy",
"jqbnp5q"
] | [
"jq93jr1",
"jq96ipz",
"jq96u75"
] |
CMV: the USA is in terminal cultural and political decline
(Before you read this, I do want to emphasise that this is a CMV piece. I don't believe this wholeheartedly, and would like to be persuaded otherwise. I'm really just arguing one side of my thinking on the issue, as forcefully as possible.)
To begin:
The election of Donald Trump is not my key issue here. I do, however, think it is important in that it is not an "anomaly". On the contrary, it is a perfect reflection of two mutually reinforcing movements: the cultural and political decline of the United States. That is the extent to which I will mention it - from hereon out, Trump is a banned word.
Note: capturing all of the ways America (The US) is declining in one post is practically impossible. I do think that this decline is deep rooted and heavily advanced. However, I will mainly focus on recent signifiers as they provide the most compelling and familiar evidence, and keep my observations relatively top-level.
There are three initial assertions I want to make. Firstly, many Americans (US citizens) are in denial or unaware this is happening: living within the United States necessarily obscures the fact i.e. most people are so immersed in the media and daily life that they cannot see the wood from the trees AND have no experience of being citizens in other countries to use as a point of contrast. Secondly, that citizens are powerless to stop the process: the true levers of power exist beyond the democratic process. Thirdly, that the nation is too large and diverse to sustain itself: cultural and political forces have carved lines of division through a cumbersomely large region whose governmental and administrative systems cannot keep up with the pace of economic and technological change. The unity of political and/or popular power required to achieve change is unachievable. In fact, it is an illusion, because power doesn't exist within politics or the populace.
Final caveat: I am a UK citizen and am *not* arguing that this process is exclusive to the US. I believe the UK is also in decline but in a similarly unique way.
Okay, onto the two main strands of the argument. First, that the US is declining politically:
1. Campaign Finance: the absence of campaign finance reform means political figures spend 50% of their time soliciting donations. These donations pay for influence. This does *not* mean that the politician in question is forced to vote one way or the other. However, to receive donations they must show an ability to achieve the ends of the donor. This is a freakish situation unseen anywhere else - to the same extent - in the developed world, yet no mainstream attempt has been or will be made to stop it. Both Democrats and Republicans show no collective will to end the donor system. It is accepted as necessity.
2. Lobbying: lobbyists wield unparalleled influence in US politics. Politicians - already wrapped up in the neverending donor/campaigning process - are not only swayed by these figures. They do not have the time to form their own opinions, in any detail. Lobbyists supersede the interests of the populace: in combination, both they and donors set the agenda before and after the public vote.
3. Death of consensus: consensus politics no longer exists due to ideological polarisation. The "middle ground" is now purely occupied by isolated issues with no bearing on overarching political trends. These are generally social: economically, there is no way forward that parties can agree on. This has been exploited by outside forces, however there is also no inside movement to resolve the divisions.
4. Death of the politician: political experience is now regarded as a disadvantage, due to - provable - corruption, linked to the points above. People, rightly, do not trust politicians. Yet it is only those with political experience that can effect real change. You could elect Oprah, but you cannot elect a Congress or Senate of Oprahs. People cannot elect those they do not believe in, yet those they can believe in are not capable of effecting change.
5. Unity is unachievable: political alignment is driven by economic and cultural factors. Inner, rural America and outer, cosmopolitan America are becoming more divided. Inequality is increasing, not decreasing. This trend shows no sign of stopping, therefore, unity is becoming increasingly unlikely. Think of Flint, Michigan - for decades, this has been a dying community. There are many such examples and the system simply cannot fix or handle them appropriately.
6. Implement and repeal: major policy moves are repeatedly destroyed by the opposing party upon their return to power. This political stalemate has now gone on for decades, regardless of public opinion. Progress is made and erased cyclically.
7. Money is power: end of. Because there are no limits to hold back the influence of money in US politics, billionaires - on both the right and left - can buy and pay for political influence. The Koch brothers are an excellent and proven example of this, though the system is equally open to abuse from the Democratic side.
Strand two - cultural decline: this is noticeable due to systemic problems and cultural signifiers which break down as follows, although this is not all-inclusive...
1. The media: Fox News and MSNBC lead the cable news networks. Both are driven by what has recently been described as "not news" by Sean Hannity: that is, opinion. News networks do not provide news i.e. unbiased reporting of the facts. Instead, they deliver diametrically opposed diatribe. "News" is based around conflict, argument and one-sided "debate". Viewers generally do not watch both sides - or, if they do, "believe" in only one - therefore, they consume news in bubbles. News is now views: largely antifactual and highly biased. This form of news is built to divide yet is consumed by the nation as a whole.
2. The media II: the media is owned by special interests. This applies to both individuals (Michael Cohen defining the reporting of Hannity, the most popular cable host) and business leviathans (the Sinclair Group consuming local news stations and forcing them to play prewritten segements). The media does not work in the public interest, but in the interest of its owners, financial or otherwise. This trend is becoming more extreme.
3. Violence: US culture is highly violent. This is not unique - many developed nations, as well as undeveloped nations, have violent cultures. However, violence as public spectacle is far more developed and defined in the US than anywhere else (though it is incipient elsewhere). This is exemplified in mass shootings. Gun laws are part of the problem, but they are not *the* problem. Mass shootings are fuelled by the public consumption of mass shootings. This is an apparently endemic part of US culture, although the world as a whole also consumes these events. Coverage in the UK is also part of the problem. The US (increasingly) consumes violence.
4. Levers of power: culture in the US is driven by people but it is also driven by the linked institutions of media, business and special interests. I would argue that the latter are the more powerful force. 'The people'/populace do not run the media/big business: they do not elect them and they cannot depose them. Power for cultural change increasingly resides outside of the populace.
5. Division: the US is culturally polarised. Cultures within the US are 'at war' with each other. This point is not primarily about race: in fact, poor, rural, white America is at war with rich, metropolitan, white America. This is far more dramatic than elsewhere, although it is a global trend.
6. Blinding nationalism: I would argue that some degree of nationalism is actually beneficial. However, in the US, this is taken to the extreme. Military at sporting events, national flags on firetrucks, national anthems in schools: whichever way you slice it, nationalism is extremely prevalent. This means that it is doubly hard for many people to criticise the US or escape from an overly optimistic/nostalgic narrative that 'progress is inevitable'. The American Dream is a beautiful story but it is increasingly a fabrication. People believe it without actually driving it.
7. Anti-science: the US is actually unique in its rejection and distrust of science. I think this is proven sufficiently in the activities of the current and previous administrations.
Conclusion:
There is no 'way forward' for the US. Many will say Vote Democrat. However, I would argue that there is no coherent Democrat platform. It is not enough to say "put someone else in power". Moreover, it is not clear that either party can actually or adequately address the issues that are driving American decline. No matter who is in power, the problems in the US are so significant and so complex - whether they are driven by ideology, consumerism, nationalism or a systemic incapacity for change - that they cannot be resolved.
_____
> *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!* | It was said we were in terminal decline in 1776.
Then again when we had the constitutional convention.
Then again in the Civil War.
And yet again during the Great Depression.
Then another time during the Civil Rights Movement.
We got through all of those. How is this any worse than when we were actively engaged in a *civil war*?
---
One: I am not saying this is 'worse' than the civil war. At least, not yet.
Two: I don't think this is an existential threat to the existence of the United States (not for the foreseeable future). I'm saying this is a decline: things are getting worse and will continue to do so.
Three: I think the civil war was the *result of* a decline - or simply a cultural or political sickness. It was a symptom.
Four: a lot of people appeal to history in the face of this argument. But saying things will get better now because they did then is the same 'narrative of hope' issue I pointed out before. These are different circumstances and the rules have changed.
Five (critically): in the case of the civil war, there was a way out of the situation, because the problem was clear and singular (a bit of a simplification but broadly true). The fix here is not the same, at all - we're not abolishing slavery. The US isn't facing up against one issue, it's facing a complex web of intertwined problems, with no single solution. Even a revolution would not solve this problem (these problems).
---
Terminal: situated at the end or extremity of something
So, uh... make up your mind please?
---
By terminal, I mean that it (the decline) is irreversible, not that it is at its most extreme point. It is heading in that direction but this is not 'the worst' moment.
---
At what time would you say the US was on the rise? | Nah, the country will keep going on pretty much as usual.
All through history, there have been people saying "jeez, it's the WORST it's EVER been, right now ! We can't go on like this ! It's all going to end !" And somehow, it pretty much never does. We adapt, survive, soldier on. We've survived civil war, world wars, huge crashes, etc.
Sure, there are lots of things wrong with USA. As such a wealthy and skilled country, we should be doing a LOT better on various fronts: climate change, renewable energy, education, healthcare, gun-control, justice, race, equality, infrastructure, etc.
But don't forget the huge strengths we have. Stable, strong institutions. World-dominant or world-class industries: entertainment, software, medicine, universities, biotech, energy, finance, military, aerospace. Natural resources. Skilled people. Many people all over the world want to immigrate to USA. Investors consider USA and US govt debt to be safest places to invest.
---
Arguing the point, I think this is part of the problem.
Firstly, to look back and say there have been worse *moments* or even phases and, hey, we "got through it" does not mean things aren't getting worse. They really are not related: it's an appeal to a national spirit of 'survival' that is actually just a mirage. The leaders of the British Empire would have used the same argument and that decline is well and truly advanced.
Secondly, decline is often imperceptible, especially if you are living through it. What is 'as usual'? In truth, the US isn't progressing 'as usual' - this is an extremely unusual point in time, isn't it?
Thirdly, I think the US economy is strong. But your institutions are weak. Trust in politicians, the president and your wider institutions - from the police to the EPA - is low. Also, none of those institutions is functioning well.
---
> decline is often imperceptible, especially if you are living through it
I would say USA still is ascending in some ways (aerospace, military, software, some other industries), is about holding its own on some things (gay marriage, marijuana), declining on others (inequality, polarization).
It looks like a general decline because we're nowhere near as dominant as we were just after WWII, when we really had no competition for a couple of decades.
> this is an extremely unusual point in time, isn't it?
I'd say no. We had huge economic booms and crashes all through 1800's. Huge political strife leading up to the Civil War. Huge trusts and robber barons leading up to Teddy Roosevelt.
> your institutions are weak
I think they're holding up pretty well in the face of a massive onslaught from half of the voters. I think Justice Dept and courts are about to show Trump and associated traitors who's boss.
> Trust in politicians, the president and your wider institutions - from the police to the EPA - is low
Trust in polticians and president and police is low, for good reason. EPA is under an ideological assault, which I wouldn't call a failure of trust.
> none of those institutions is functioning well
I think this is wrong. Many of our institutions are saddled with bad policies imposed from above: ATF and CDC not allowed to collect data about guns, Agriculture used to hand out subsidies to big agricultural corporations, various agencies giving subsidies to fossil fuel companies, NASA being prevented from studying climate science, etc. We need to vote out the politicians imposing these policies.
---
On the first point: I think the USA ascending in individual industries is fine and points to a strong economy. However, I think increasing inequality and polarisation are deep-set structural problems with the state and society itself, that could point to universal decline.
On the second: I think this really reinforces my point. The country doesn't go on 'as usual', it changes and fluctuates: so we shouldn't trust in a 'business as usual' narrative. And I think this point in time is just as unusual as those examples, just in a different way.
Three: I'll give you a delta for this for sure. However, I think the institution of the presidency is under serious threat, and there is real risk of a constitutional crisis.
Four: as above and yes, the EPA is under assault, from the inside - doesn't that show that it is a weakened institution?
Five: delta for this too - although, if you can use bad policies to stop institutions functioning properly, are they not then weak/weakened?
Δ
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/billdietrich1 ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/billdietrich1)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART
{
"comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this",
"issues": {},
"parentUserName": "billdietrich1"
}
DB3PARAMSEND) | 8ftf2a | CMV: the USA is in terminal cultural and political decline | (Before you read this, I do want to emphasise that this is a CMV piece. I don't believe this wholeheartedly, and would like to be persuaded otherwise. I'm really just arguing one side of my thinking on the issue, as forcefully as possible.)
To begin:
The election of Donald Trump is not my key issue here. I do, however, think it is important in that it is not an "anomaly". On the contrary, it is a perfect reflection of two mutually reinforcing movements: the cultural and political decline of the United States. That is the extent to which I will mention it - from hereon out, Trump is a banned word.
Note: capturing all of the ways America (The US) is declining in one post is practically impossible. I do think that this decline is deep rooted and heavily advanced. However, I will mainly focus on recent signifiers as they provide the most compelling and familiar evidence, and keep my observations relatively top-level.
There are three initial assertions I want to make. Firstly, many Americans (US citizens) are in denial or unaware this is happening: living within the United States necessarily obscures the fact i.e. most people are so immersed in the media and daily life that they cannot see the wood from the trees AND have no experience of being citizens in other countries to use as a point of contrast. Secondly, that citizens are powerless to stop the process: the true levers of power exist beyond the democratic process. Thirdly, that the nation is too large and diverse to sustain itself: cultural and political forces have carved lines of division through a cumbersomely large region whose governmental and administrative systems cannot keep up with the pace of economic and technological change. The unity of political and/or popular power required to achieve change is unachievable. In fact, it is an illusion, because power doesn't exist within politics or the populace.
Final caveat: I am a UK citizen and am *not* arguing that this process is exclusive to the US. I believe the UK is also in decline but in a similarly unique way.
Okay, onto the two main strands of the argument. First, that the US is declining politically:
1. Campaign Finance: the absence of campaign finance reform means political figures spend 50% of their time soliciting donations. These donations pay for influence. This does *not* mean that the politician in question is forced to vote one way or the other. However, to receive donations they must show an ability to achieve the ends of the donor. This is a freakish situation unseen anywhere else - to the same extent - in the developed world, yet no mainstream attempt has been or will be made to stop it. Both Democrats and Republicans show no collective will to end the donor system. It is accepted as necessity.
2. Lobbying: lobbyists wield unparalleled influence in US politics. Politicians - already wrapped up in the neverending donor/campaigning process - are not only swayed by these figures. They do not have the time to form their own opinions, in any detail. Lobbyists supersede the interests of the populace: in combination, both they and donors set the agenda before and after the public vote.
3. Death of consensus: consensus politics no longer exists due to ideological polarisation. The "middle ground" is now purely occupied by isolated issues with no bearing on overarching political trends. These are generally social: economically, there is no way forward that parties can agree on. This has been exploited by outside forces, however there is also no inside movement to resolve the divisions.
4. Death of the politician: political experience is now regarded as a disadvantage, due to - provable - corruption, linked to the points above. People, rightly, do not trust politicians. Yet it is only those with political experience that can effect real change. You could elect Oprah, but you cannot elect a Congress or Senate of Oprahs. People cannot elect those they do not believe in, yet those they can believe in are not capable of effecting change.
5. Unity is unachievable: political alignment is driven by economic and cultural factors. Inner, rural America and outer, cosmopolitan America are becoming more divided. Inequality is increasing, not decreasing. This trend shows no sign of stopping, therefore, unity is becoming increasingly unlikely. Think of Flint, Michigan - for decades, this has been a dying community. There are many such examples and the system simply cannot fix or handle them appropriately.
6. Implement and repeal: major policy moves are repeatedly destroyed by the opposing party upon their return to power. This political stalemate has now gone on for decades, regardless of public opinion. Progress is made and erased cyclically.
7. Money is power: end of. Because there are no limits to hold back the influence of money in US politics, billionaires - on both the right and left - can buy and pay for political influence. The Koch brothers are an excellent and proven example of this, though the system is equally open to abuse from the Democratic side.
Strand two - cultural decline: this is noticeable due to systemic problems and cultural signifiers which break down as follows, although this is not all-inclusive...
1. The media: Fox News and MSNBC lead the cable news networks. Both are driven by what has recently been described as "not news" by Sean Hannity: that is, opinion. News networks do not provide news i.e. unbiased reporting of the facts. Instead, they deliver diametrically opposed diatribe. "News" is based around conflict, argument and one-sided "debate". Viewers generally do not watch both sides - or, if they do, "believe" in only one - therefore, they consume news in bubbles. News is now views: largely antifactual and highly biased. This form of news is built to divide yet is consumed by the nation as a whole.
2. The media II: the media is owned by special interests. This applies to both individuals (Michael Cohen defining the reporting of Hannity, the most popular cable host) and business leviathans (the Sinclair Group consuming local news stations and forcing them to play prewritten segements). The media does not work in the public interest, but in the interest of its owners, financial or otherwise. This trend is becoming more extreme.
3. Violence: US culture is highly violent. This is not unique - many developed nations, as well as undeveloped nations, have violent cultures. However, violence as public spectacle is far more developed and defined in the US than anywhere else (though it is incipient elsewhere). This is exemplified in mass shootings. Gun laws are part of the problem, but they are not *the* problem. Mass shootings are fuelled by the public consumption of mass shootings. This is an apparently endemic part of US culture, although the world as a whole also consumes these events. Coverage in the UK is also part of the problem. The US (increasingly) consumes violence.
4. Levers of power: culture in the US is driven by people but it is also driven by the linked institutions of media, business and special interests. I would argue that the latter are the more powerful force. 'The people'/populace do not run the media/big business: they do not elect them and they cannot depose them. Power for cultural change increasingly resides outside of the populace.
5. Division: the US is culturally polarised. Cultures within the US are 'at war' with each other. This point is not primarily about race: in fact, poor, rural, white America is at war with rich, metropolitan, white America. This is far more dramatic than elsewhere, although it is a global trend.
6. Blinding nationalism: I would argue that some degree of nationalism is actually beneficial. However, in the US, this is taken to the extreme. Military at sporting events, national flags on firetrucks, national anthems in schools: whichever way you slice it, nationalism is extremely prevalent. This means that it is doubly hard for many people to criticise the US or escape from an overly optimistic/nostalgic narrative that 'progress is inevitable'. The American Dream is a beautiful story but it is increasingly a fabrication. People believe it without actually driving it.
7. Anti-science: the US is actually unique in its rejection and distrust of science. I think this is proven sufficiently in the activities of the current and previous administrations.
Conclusion:
There is no 'way forward' for the US. Many will say Vote Democrat. However, I would argue that there is no coherent Democrat platform. It is not enough to say "put someone else in power". Moreover, it is not clear that either party can actually or adequately address the issues that are driving American decline. No matter who is in power, the problems in the US are so significant and so complex - whether they are driven by ideology, consumerism, nationalism or a systemic incapacity for change - that they cannot be resolved.
_____
> *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!* | throwawayusa2k18 | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "jfarrar19",
"id": "dy6eamq",
"score": 53,
"text": "It was said we were in terminal decline in 1776.\n\nThen again when we had the constitutional convention.\n\nThen again in the Civil War.\n\nAnd yet again during the Great Depression.\n\nThen another time during the Civil Rights Movemen... | [
{
"author": "billdietrich1",
"id": "dy6efzd",
"score": 10,
"text": "Nah, the country will keep going on pretty much as usual.\n\nAll through history, there have been people saying \"jeez, it's the WORST it's EVER been, right now ! We can't go on like this ! It's all going to end !\" And somehow, it ... | [
"dy6eamq",
"dy6fcoe",
"dy6fhqj",
"dy6fxed",
"dy6ilpj"
] | [
"dy6efzd",
"dy6gg80",
"dy6jbyt",
"dy6kvcr",
"dy6l5y7"
] |
CMV: People who talk excessively at an indoor concert should be removed from the venue.
At the very least, it should be more commonplace to be able to politely tell them to STFU without it seeming out of line. What makes a concert any different than, say, a broadway show?
I was recently at a concert, and two men next to me proceeded to have a seemingly endless conversation during the entire show.
I sent some looks in their direction like “please be quiet.” But nothing landed.
Anyway, I’m curious if any notorious concert-talkers are out there and would be so kind to explain why they paid so much money to chat with their friend to a soundtrack.
| What kind of concert? Different contexts have different conventions. It's unfortunate if they aren't the ones you like, but politeness is fundamentally arbitrary.
---
I agree. This was a rock concert, but not super loud rock. At an orchestra hall with assigned seats. Sold out. Couldn’t just move, which would be my first choice.
---
Where about were your seats and can you be more specific as to what kind of rock? Like what band was it or at least more specific as rock covers a wide range of artists and expected noise?
Also, could you hear what they were talking about or just that they were talking? | What kind of concert? Like at a bar? Or an an Orchestra hall? I feel like indoor concert is too broad
---
Orchestra hall. A rock band, but not such a loud one that it would drown out the people next to me. Assigned seats, no GA/floor. So my ability to just move somewhere else was limited.
---
Yeah, see that has totally different rules (and should) than a bar. Don't actually have a coutner to your point | 1mk46xx | CMV: People who talk excessively at an indoor concert should be removed from the venue. | At the very least, it should be more commonplace to be able to politely tell them to STFU without it seeming out of line. What makes a concert any different than, say, a broadway show?
I was recently at a concert, and two men next to me proceeded to have a seemingly endless conversation during the entire show.
I sent some looks in their direction like “please be quiet.” But nothing landed.
Anyway, I’m curious if any notorious concert-talkers are out there and would be so kind to explain why they paid so much money to chat with their friend to a soundtrack.
| InfiniteLaughSupply | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "parsonsrazersupport",
"id": "n7fvor8",
"score": 28,
"text": "What kind of concert? Different contexts have different conventions. It's unfortunate if they aren't the ones you like, but politeness is fundamentally arbitrary.",
"timestamp": 1754583104
},
{
"author": "InfiniteL... | [
{
"author": "DebutsPal",
"id": "n7fvhuj",
"score": 13,
"text": "What kind of concert? Like at a bar? Or an an Orchestra hall? I feel like indoor concert is too broad",
"timestamp": 1754583048
},
{
"author": "InfiniteLaughSupply",
"id": "n7fw1ba",
"score": 2,
"text": "Orchestr... | [
"n7fvor8",
"n7fwldx",
"n7fzyc3"
] | [
"n7fvhuj",
"n7fw1ba",
"n7fww2g"
] |
CMV: The biggest thing holding women back is internal inhibition (not prohibition)
I used to think that invisible barriers – prohibition – the glass ceiling – kept women out of the board room. Intimidated, white, rich, powerful men intentionally kept women out because they believed they didn’t belong.
Now I think this is false. I think it makes it easy for women to self-select out of the workplace. If there is an invisible, powerful barrier in the way of women getting to the next level in their career, why bother?
If the expectation is that women have to fight, push and scratch to get the coveted seat at the table, why would women want to pursue it and how many women would even try?
Instead, could inhibition and lack of planning be what is holding women back? Could it be that some women think they want a seat at the table but without knowing what really goes into getting it, and identifying the obstacles and sacrifices, women assume its prohibition but it is really a lack of self – awareness and knowing what you really want? Or could it be that any sign of prohibition – not getting the promotion, a bad boss, a rude comment, an awkward elevator ride with a wierdo, a lost election, actually stops women from trying again and pursuing the dream?
What if men are more self-aware and more resilient? What if it's not an external glass ceiling but an internal one created by a lack of clarity and self-awareness in a woman's mind?
Instead of looking externally for the glass barrier, women should listen to the voice in their head that creates the inhibition to take the next step and move forward in creating their life on their own terms.
Becoming clear on what women want and acknowledging barriers are inevitable is the first step. Retreat at the first sign of prohibition creates the internal dialogue of inhibition, giving prohibition ultimate power and making the barrier permanent. | >Instead of looking externally for the glass barrier, women should listen to the voice in their head that creates the inhibition to take the next step and move forward in creating their life on their own terms.
So where does this internal inhibition come from? What causes it to happen, do you think there's something inherent to women that gives them these inhibitions?
EDIT: Something else I thought of.
I give a group of people an electric shock everytime they see a dog for 1 year, then I stop. After I've stopped doing that there's nothing physically stopping them getting a dog. They can legally buy one and won't get any pain for doing so.
If people I spent 1 year shocking are less likely to buy dogs, despite there no longer being any physical barrier to them doing so. Is that because they're inhibited or prohibited and who do you think is responcible in that case?
---
The internal inhibition comes from within. Everyone has internal dialogue. How it impacts how we show up in the world is what is different.
For those that receive electric shock therapy being less likely to buy a dog, you are describing a classic conditioning approach to reward or punish behavior. The conditioning over time creates the internal dialogue associated pain with dogs. So if we assume that women pursuing breaking through the glass ceiling have a similar experience to receiving electric shock every time they try, then prohibition is the cause.
---
> So if we assume that women pursuing breaking through the glass ceiling have a similar experience to receiving electric shock every time they try, then prohibition is the cause.
I mentioned this in my other comment, but since it seems especially relevant to this, let me link again to the study illustrating that [women are more likely than men to face negative consequences as a result of negotiating salary](https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf). | Women absolutely know what we want and it’s a seat at the table and to be treated with the same respect as men.
I have spent decades in male dominated positions, I was a high level manager at The Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, during the early 2000’s I did all of the planning, product acquisition and scheduling for national windows 2000 roll out for a Fortune 500 company, now I am am accomplished archer and top coach.
I have and still face discrimination as a woman in male dominated fields. I cannot count how many times a person has gone to one of my male subordinates to see if I knew what I was talking about. This garbage happens to me on a a daily basis. I have had male coworkers give inaccurate information and advice to customers and they take it, no questions asked. Often my male coworkers will tell a male customer, “Jenn is better suited to answer your questions.” At least half the time they are not interested in talking to me or they do talk to me and treat me like I’m a child and they are doing me a favor by giving me their time.
I want to be taken seriously without having to list my entire resume for men to take me even half seriously.
---
Are you friendly though? Idk but you seem to assume that because you know the stuff everyone should just take you at your word but since you are different from the norm i feel its natural to question abnormality.
---
Would a man ever be asked if he is "friendly enough? Does a man's friendliness determine his success? | kz9eu3 | CMV: The biggest thing holding women back is internal inhibition (not prohibition) | I used to think that invisible barriers – prohibition – the glass ceiling – kept women out of the board room. Intimidated, white, rich, powerful men intentionally kept women out because they believed they didn’t belong.
Now I think this is false. I think it makes it easy for women to self-select out of the workplace. If there is an invisible, powerful barrier in the way of women getting to the next level in their career, why bother?
If the expectation is that women have to fight, push and scratch to get the coveted seat at the table, why would women want to pursue it and how many women would even try?
Instead, could inhibition and lack of planning be what is holding women back? Could it be that some women think they want a seat at the table but without knowing what really goes into getting it, and identifying the obstacles and sacrifices, women assume its prohibition but it is really a lack of self – awareness and knowing what you really want? Or could it be that any sign of prohibition – not getting the promotion, a bad boss, a rude comment, an awkward elevator ride with a wierdo, a lost election, actually stops women from trying again and pursuing the dream?
What if men are more self-aware and more resilient? What if it's not an external glass ceiling but an internal one created by a lack of clarity and self-awareness in a woman's mind?
Instead of looking externally for the glass barrier, women should listen to the voice in their head that creates the inhibition to take the next step and move forward in creating their life on their own terms.
Becoming clear on what women want and acknowledging barriers are inevitable is the first step. Retreat at the first sign of prohibition creates the internal dialogue of inhibition, giving prohibition ultimate power and making the barrier permanent. | Altruistic-Wind-8187 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Vesurel",
"id": "gjlzvm0",
"score": 10,
"text": ">Instead of looking externally for the glass barrier, women should listen to the voice in their head that creates the inhibition to take the next step and move forward in creating their life on their own terms.\n\nSo where does this inter... | [
{
"author": "archerjenn",
"id": "gjm38zf",
"score": 5,
"text": "Women absolutely know what we want and it’s a seat at the table and to be treated with the same respect as men. \n\nI have spent decades in male dominated positions, I was a high level manager at The Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, duri... | [
"gjlzvm0",
"gjmuq67",
"gjmvcpq"
] | [
"gjm38zf",
"gjmkfsx",
"gjn2388"
] |
CMV: Reddit is going to be an echo chamber forever!
This isn’t necessarily a post about my political opinions (especially since most people with political views acknowledge internet echo chambers and their dangers) this is more me just saying that Reddit will forever operate like one.
I also don’t mean that people will be solidified in their views forever on the internet (look at this sub and other subs that are dedicated to open-mindedness).
Websites like Instagram may be able to somehow slowly shake this kind of structuring through slow modifications over the next few years, but Reddit simply cannot.
What my view explicitly means is: “Reddit is an echo-chamber BY DESIGN”. Think about it. It’s a massive website, but it heavily encourages people to join subreddits and be active in them. What are these subreddits? A bunch of smaller groups of people getting together under some common entity to discuss said common entity and discussing things off topic can often lead to deleted posts or even bans. By its very design, you’re supposed to go from kind of interested in some topic to fully immersed with other people who are fully immersed in this topic.
Cross posting is encouraged so this mitigates echo chambering, however brigading is a huge nono. (Not saying brigading should be allowed, but if it were allowed it may disrupt more of the echoing).
I am also not necessarily trying to make claims about the ethics of echo chambers. I’m just trying to say that I think this place is more likely to disappear forever or lose all of its traffic before it’s able to lose the structure that makes it an echo chamber. I hope I’ve made my view clear enough.
Edit: I don’t want to abuse the deltabot but a few people have brought up something that has changed my view. My idea of an echo chamber may be to broad and casts to wide of a net and if my definition of an echo chamber were tighter it’d be less applicable | Won’t Reddit just be all sorts of chambers? Some echo, but others like this one, set up on purpose to bridge conflicting views?
---
Yes it will! But a subreddit like this one will be filled with people who are open to change. A bunch of people who are all open to change. You could say that the echoing idea within this sub is “you(people) need to be more open to changing your views”. People who don’t fit into the echoing idea gets their post removed and repeated posts/comments from people who don’t fit into the echoing idea may get banned.
---
I wouldnt really call that being an echo chamber. I call that having a criteria. I mean if you define an echo chamber that loosely then every possible group is an echo chamber. A marching band only let's in students that want to play an instrument or twirl a flag and they don't allow people to sit on the side and do nothing! Must be an echo chamber!
Having criteria (such as being open to having your view change) exists to facilitate discussion and prevent people from wasting their time arguing with someone who just wants a debate.
Requiring people to be open to changing their minds doesnt male it an echo chamber. Its just the entire point of the sub. | allowing people to divide into subreddits doesn't necessarily create partisan echo chambers.
People form subreddits by common interests. Those common interests can attract people of different political persuasions.
This subreddit is a pretty good example. People come here, essentially, to receive new information and/or argue. If everyone thought the same things on this subreddit, we would have nothing to talk about.
---
In another reply I mentioned that the echoing view of this subreddit could be “we should be more open to changing our minds”. We have lots to talk about all the time. But open mindedness is the standard that must be conformed to that reinforces this echo chamber.
I agree that various different persuasions and personalities can be drawn to echoing. But I’m saying echoing happens even outside of political subs/views because Reddit being broken into subreddits causes echoing. No matter the sub, they’re designed to echo the thing that they are about.
---
this subreddit requires that original posters be open to changing their minds.
It doesn't require that of anyone else. | kzcf85 | CMV: Reddit is going to be an echo chamber forever! | This isn’t necessarily a post about my political opinions (especially since most people with political views acknowledge internet echo chambers and their dangers) this is more me just saying that Reddit will forever operate like one.
I also don’t mean that people will be solidified in their views forever on the internet (look at this sub and other subs that are dedicated to open-mindedness).
Websites like Instagram may be able to somehow slowly shake this kind of structuring through slow modifications over the next few years, but Reddit simply cannot.
What my view explicitly means is: “Reddit is an echo-chamber BY DESIGN”. Think about it. It’s a massive website, but it heavily encourages people to join subreddits and be active in them. What are these subreddits? A bunch of smaller groups of people getting together under some common entity to discuss said common entity and discussing things off topic can often lead to deleted posts or even bans. By its very design, you’re supposed to go from kind of interested in some topic to fully immersed with other people who are fully immersed in this topic.
Cross posting is encouraged so this mitigates echo chambering, however brigading is a huge nono. (Not saying brigading should be allowed, but if it were allowed it may disrupt more of the echoing).
I am also not necessarily trying to make claims about the ethics of echo chambers. I’m just trying to say that I think this place is more likely to disappear forever or lose all of its traffic before it’s able to lose the structure that makes it an echo chamber. I hope I’ve made my view clear enough.
Edit: I don’t want to abuse the deltabot but a few people have brought up something that has changed my view. My idea of an echo chamber may be to broad and casts to wide of a net and if my definition of an echo chamber were tighter it’d be less applicable | kingreptar1998 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "miguelguajiro",
"id": "gjmvmu1",
"score": 6,
"text": "Won’t Reddit just be all sorts of chambers? Some echo, but others like this one, set up on purpose to bridge conflicting views?",
"timestamp": 1610910024
},
{
"author": "kingreptar1998",
"id": "gjmw7fo",
"score": ... | [
{
"author": "TripRichert",
"id": "gjmw3vq",
"score": 1,
"text": "allowing people to divide into subreddits doesn't necessarily create partisan echo chambers.\n\nPeople form subreddits by common interests. Those common interests can attract people of different political persuasions.\n\nThis subreddi... | [
"gjmvmu1",
"gjmw7fo",
"gjmwzln"
] | [
"gjmw3vq",
"gjmwsvi",
"gjmxd90"
] |
CMV: There should be more room for experimentation within government where appropriate.
I find a lot of political discussions are focused on hypothetical scenarios.
For example, there’s currently a discussion about raising the minimum wage in America to $15 an hour. On one side, you have people saying that this will lift people out of poverty and result in a mini economic boom, while on the other side you have people saying that it will lead to skyrocketing prices and massive inflation. The problem is that both of these scenarios are theoretical, and so both participants can carry on screaming at each other until they’re blue in the face, and it won’t change anything.
What would actually help resolving these issues is experimentation. For this particular discussion there does happen to be plenty of real world evidence for what the result would be, but I find that people tend to dismiss examples if they didn’t happen in America. But for other things, such as Brexit, there was no previous data to go off of, nobody had left the EU before the UK did it. What I would suggest is a “trial run” period for various policies.
To paint a clearer picture, let’s take Brexit. Rather than fully committing to leaving the EU for good, wouldn’t it be great to have a trial run of a couple of years, just to see if it does indeed go completely tits up, and if in that time we find we don’t like this new world, we have a clean and quick way of getting back into the EU. Yes it would have been a massive waste of time and effort, but beware ye of the Sunken Cost Fallacy.
And for the minimum wage boost, why not implement it in just one state for a little while, see what happens, and if it goes to shit, have a quick and easy process to go back to normal.
I doubt this would work in all situations, for instance I wouldn’t want anybody messing with peoples healthcare just to see what would happen. And when there is sufficient evidence saying that a particular policy is good or bad then there is no need for experimentation, for instance, in my view, the war on drugs has been an objective disaster and should be scrapped immediately (THIS IS NOT THE TOPIC UP FOR DISCUSSION)
This is just something I’ve been thinking about today, I’m not particularly beholden to it, but it seems like a great idea right now, so I’d love to be told why I’m wrong. | Certain consequences of ideas can't be truly understood unless experimented on a full-scale. For example, let's say UBI was implemented for a single city. Local businesses may not raise prices, since even though they can charge people within that city more, many people come in/out of the city frequently and so, they'll lose customers from other cities/locations if they do this. If UBI was implemented for an entire country, it's plausible that businesses will take notice and raises prices accordingly since everybody in the country has more money now.
---
Sure, but that effect will diminish as you grow the size of your experimentation. Doing the same thing for an entire state would likely have a very similar result as doing it for the whole country since people don’t travel between states nearly as often as travelling between cities.
This is a prime example of where we really need to try this out to see exactly what would happen. Sitting and hypothesising about policies rarely gives the correct understanding, especially around economic policies. In this case, I really don’t know whether UBI would work or not as I have heard arguments for and against that both sound reasonable.
---
Another problem is that people who get UBI for an experiment know they will only have it for a limited amount of time (probably a few months to a year), and so, will not make any serious changes to their life (i.e. quitting a job). And so, the true effects of UBI are hidden.
---
That is very true, yes. I’m not sure this has changed my mind on the whole topic (i.e. other policies that aren’t UBI), so no delta yet, but if there are other examples where this would be the case then I may well change my mind
---
Deltas are meant to be used for anything that changes your opinion even a bit. | >I doubt this would work in all situations, for instance I wouldn’t want anybody messing with peoples healthcare just to see what would happen
The issue is that people view most political decisions as having equivalent impact to what you describe here. It seems obvious that messing with healthcare just to see what would happen could lead to massive consequences, but someone may think that trialing a $15 minimum wage could have disastrous counsequences to the economy and people's livelihoods.
There isn't really a way to "trial" changes like this without the fear of consequences. If a certain initiative loses billions of dollars just like opponents warned it would, the money to undo it doesn't necessarily exist. Applying things on a small scale also may undercut its efficiency. Just using healthcare as an example, a single-payer system couldn't work locally; it *requires* the entire country paying into it in order manage the operating costs. Besides, even if it were possible to magically hit a video-game save point and snap back once we know the effects of the system, the knowledge that the change is operating without fear of consequence would affect peoples' behavior within it.
---
I have been thinking about these points as well. The problem with this line of thinking is that it promotes sticking to the status quo i.e. If we don’t know what would happen if we do X, then we shouldn’t try it since it would cost too much to revert back.
The thing is there are several ideas that, according to the supporters, would have a hugely positive effect on society. To give two opposing examples, Libertarians would say that scrapping taxes and public services and having everything run on the free market would be massively beneficial, while Democratic Socialists say that UBI would be great. The problem is that both policies are entirely theoretical, but by not implementing them, we could be missing out on a better society (again, according to their supporters).
So for me, I would prefer to have spent a lot of time and money establishing that a policy idea really doesn’t work rather than not trying it at all.
---
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying we shouldn't ever change anything, I'm saying it's impractical to "experiment" with a change rather than actually applying it. If enough people support UBI, then go for it, but don't say "we're not *really* doing it, we're just going to pretend to do it and see if it works." If you pass a law or start a program that ends up not working as anticipated and accordingly adjust it, that's not "experimenting." You've *actually* done that. | kzalry | CMV: There should be more room for experimentation within government where appropriate. | I find a lot of political discussions are focused on hypothetical scenarios.
For example, there’s currently a discussion about raising the minimum wage in America to $15 an hour. On one side, you have people saying that this will lift people out of poverty and result in a mini economic boom, while on the other side you have people saying that it will lead to skyrocketing prices and massive inflation. The problem is that both of these scenarios are theoretical, and so both participants can carry on screaming at each other until they’re blue in the face, and it won’t change anything.
What would actually help resolving these issues is experimentation. For this particular discussion there does happen to be plenty of real world evidence for what the result would be, but I find that people tend to dismiss examples if they didn’t happen in America. But for other things, such as Brexit, there was no previous data to go off of, nobody had left the EU before the UK did it. What I would suggest is a “trial run” period for various policies.
To paint a clearer picture, let’s take Brexit. Rather than fully committing to leaving the EU for good, wouldn’t it be great to have a trial run of a couple of years, just to see if it does indeed go completely tits up, and if in that time we find we don’t like this new world, we have a clean and quick way of getting back into the EU. Yes it would have been a massive waste of time and effort, but beware ye of the Sunken Cost Fallacy.
And for the minimum wage boost, why not implement it in just one state for a little while, see what happens, and if it goes to shit, have a quick and easy process to go back to normal.
I doubt this would work in all situations, for instance I wouldn’t want anybody messing with peoples healthcare just to see what would happen. And when there is sufficient evidence saying that a particular policy is good or bad then there is no need for experimentation, for instance, in my view, the war on drugs has been an objective disaster and should be scrapped immediately (THIS IS NOT THE TOPIC UP FOR DISCUSSION)
This is just something I’ve been thinking about today, I’m not particularly beholden to it, but it seems like a great idea right now, so I’d love to be told why I’m wrong. | PeasantSteve | 5 | 3 | [
{
"author": "akbmartizzz",
"id": "gjme9ol",
"score": 3,
"text": "Certain consequences of ideas can't be truly understood unless experimented on a full-scale. For example, let's say UBI was implemented for a single city. Local businesses may not raise prices, since even though they can charge people ... | [
{
"author": "Khal-Frodo",
"id": "gjmf5xt",
"score": 2,
"text": ">I doubt this would work in all situations, for instance I wouldn’t want anybody messing with peoples healthcare just to see what would happen\n\nThe issue is that people view most political decisions as having equivalent impact to what... | [
"gjme9ol",
"gjmrrlp",
"gjmt3hd",
"gjmvkvk",
"gjn63o8"
] | [
"gjmf5xt",
"gjmtjzn",
"gjmuepo"
] |
CMV: Hustle culture isn’t toxic — being average and calling it “balance” is.
Every time someone works hard, builds multiple income streams, or grinds outside of work hours, the internet screams:
“That’s toxic hustle culture!”
“Touch grass!”
“You’re wasting your life!”
But here’s my take:
Working hard on something you care about isn’t toxic.
What’s actually toxic is pretending mediocrity is self-care.
Not everyone needs to be Elon Musk — but if you spend 40 hours a week doing the bare minimum, then scroll TikTok for 4 hours a night, are you really “resting”?
Or are you just numbing?
We’ve gone from glorifying burnout to glorifying comfort. From overwork to under-ambition.
And anyone who pushes harder gets labeled unhealthy or “capitalist-brained.”
I think we’ve confused “balance” with “bare minimum.”
And people defending average output aren’t always protecting their peace — they’re avoiding discomfort and growth.
| Why is ambition good?
---
It let you catch the big fish
---
There’s always a bigger fish
---
So what, there is also a bigger fish for the big fish
---
Exactly so why wouldnt you catch the fish you need and move along.?
Hustle culture is never stopping fishing. | The internet screams a bunch of contradictory things, you can really hear whatever you want. There is definitely not a stance you could generalize.
---
Totally agree. The internet is loud, messy, and says everything at once. You can find posts that glorify burnout right next to ones that shame ambition. It’s a buffet of contradictions.
That said, I do think there’s been a shift in tone lately, especially online. Anytime someone shares that they’re working late, building something on the side, or skipping a party to hit a goal, there’s always someone ready to say “touch grass” or “you’re a slave to capitalism.”
Maybe I just notice it more because I used to be on the other side of that. I used to mock hustle too. Now that I’m actually trying to build something meaningful, I feel the pushback a lot more.
I’m not saying this is some universal truth, but it’s a pattern I’ve seen.
Appreciate you grounding the conversation. You’re right that generalizing the whole internet is risky.
---
I think about that there are several levels, one is if you feel personally criticized online for your choices well in that sense you shouldn't care to much because it's your life, your choices and people in the internet know nothing of it.
However just to show you how it can be so related to perception, in my opinion I see the opposite. I feel a few years ago anticapitalistic stances of the sort were much more widespread and nowadays both on and offline I feel making money and showing it off is much more accepted and desired. And in my opinion the critique of it from a an opposition to capitalism (which I share) is not so much you shouldn't hustle but how it is wrong that many people see themselves forced to overwork and invent just to be able to have a dignified life. There isn't an implicit contradiction in "hustling" and also criticizing the culture that promotes it as the "way to go".
---
Fair | 1mjuptg | CMV: Hustle culture isn’t toxic — being average and calling it “balance” is. |
Every time someone works hard, builds multiple income streams, or grinds outside of work hours, the internet screams:
“That’s toxic hustle culture!”
“Touch grass!”
“You’re wasting your life!”
But here’s my take:
Working hard on something you care about isn’t toxic.
What’s actually toxic is pretending mediocrity is self-care.
Not everyone needs to be Elon Musk — but if you spend 40 hours a week doing the bare minimum, then scroll TikTok for 4 hours a night, are you really “resting”?
Or are you just numbing?
We’ve gone from glorifying burnout to glorifying comfort. From overwork to under-ambition.
And anyone who pushes harder gets labeled unhealthy or “capitalist-brained.”
I think we’ve confused “balance” with “bare minimum.”
And people defending average output aren’t always protecting their peace — they’re avoiding discomfort and growth.
| Klutzy_Juggernaut859 | 5 | 4 | [
{
"author": "Km15u",
"id": "n7dttmf",
"score": 8,
"text": "Why is ambition good? ",
"timestamp": 1754556242
},
{
"author": "Klutzy_Juggernaut859",
"id": "n7dvouo",
"score": -7,
"text": "It let you catch the big fish",
"timestamp": 1754557322
},
{
"author": "Km15u"... | [
{
"author": "Rosimongus",
"id": "n7dtwcd",
"score": 4,
"text": "The internet screams a bunch of contradictory things, you can really hear whatever you want. There is definitely not a stance you could generalize.",
"timestamp": 1754556286
},
{
"author": "Klutzy_Juggernaut859",
"id": "... | [
"n7dttmf",
"n7dvouo",
"n7dw5f6",
"n7dxb3z",
"n7eir3l"
] | [
"n7dtwcd",
"n7dwb3t",
"n7ek5jb",
"n7ey8aq"
] |
CMV: Capitalism is a morally acceptable and universally beneficial economic system
I believe that capitalism is both a moral and universally beneficial economic system.
1. Capitalism is an efficient economic system
* It is beneficial to customers: In a free market, companies will compete with each other to attract customers. This leads to a process of natural selection, which means only the company selling the best product at the lowest price is able to exist. Other companies either have to strive to improve their product quality or go out of business. This leaves the customers with the best option at the lowest price.
* It is beneficial to productive employers: Needless to say, a capitalist system rewards employers who do well in the market. Without much governmental regulation, business owners can accumulate wealth much more quickly than they could have otherwise.
* It is beneficial to workers: This is quite a controversial POV I guess. However, I do believe that a free market will benefit employees. The basic premise for my argument is that workers' wages are dictated not by employers' greed or compassion, but by the law of supply and demand. Take an example of STEM field workers. There are not many people who are qualified in STEM field, hence the supply is low. Meanwhile, in the technology-driven world nowadays, there is a growing demand for such workers. Therefore, the wages of STEM workers are high as a result of this basic economic principle. Let's just assume that employers can be greedy and pay less than the employees are actually worth. The result is that they will go out of business since other competitors will offer higher wages to attract such workers. So that's the premise that I will base my argument on. Governmental imposition on a capitalistic market will just harm workers. Consider a scenario when the government passes a minimum wage law of $15 per day for all employees. This will cause rising unemployment since employers will just hire workers who are "worth" more than $15 per day anyways. Those who do not produce enough profit for employers to deserve that wage will not be hired, which is quite common sense. So eventually, governmental intervention will just distort this law of supply and demand and cause more trouble for workers who want to look for working opportunities.
* It is beneficial to the society: Capitalistic markets incentivize innovation since competition for customers leads to companies looking for many ways to improve the quality of their product. They either have to innovate or go out of the business. This struggle for survival on the marketplace best encourages innovation. As a result, a free market economy creates better technology than any other kind of economic system.
2. Capitalism is a morally acceptable system
A free market is wholly based on consensual transaction. No one can coerce others into a deal they do not want. Given that capitalism is completely free, I'll argue that it is a morally acceptable economic system. | >No one can coerce others into a deal they do not want
This isn't true. First, and most obviously, monopolies on necessities create such a situation. But more common than that is in the transaction of labor. I live in a small town, and job opportunities are limited. I may not want to continue working at a terrible underpaying job, but with no viable alternatives readily available I've got nowhere to go, and my employer and I both know that.
---
Thanks for the reply.
To this counter-argument, I'd admit that in case of monopoly, we cannot have such freedom to purchase what we truly want. However, I do believe monopolistic firms tend to thrive more in socialist economy than capitalistic economy. In a socialist economy, government can use its power to ensure the monopolies of companies in some economy sectors. Meanwhile, in a free market, little prevents other competitors to rise, esp when monopolies usually seem unattractive to consumers due to high prices that they charge.
To the second counterargument, I'd say in a capitalistic economy, if you think you are being "underpaid" relative to the profit that you bring to your employer, there will be other employers coming in the region and competing with that employer. However, if they don't come in, I will speculate that you might not be "underpaid" at all.
---
You’re being underpaid if you don’t receive a living wage. You can argue that the market will dictate the worth of something, but that only works if your only goal is maximum profit for the corporate entity and disregards any notion of quality of life or human happiness a society being desirable goals. | Would you mind putting an extra line break before `* `? It'll make your text more legible.
On the topic itself:
* who do you include in 'universally beneficial'?
* you use free market and capitalism seemingly interchangeably, is this intentional?
* in a free-market, wouldn't state positions themselves be considered a type of industry?
---
Sorry. I type this on my computer so I do not expect the lines are ordered like that.
I include workers, employers, customers, and the society in that tern
The principle of free market is against governmental intervention in the economy. So i'd say that theoretically, capitalism advocates free market.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think government acts as business more in less capitaliatic economy. Let's take an example of socialism, in which service is provided by the government.
---
Free market also excludes private intervention. As far as I can tell, businesses regularly intervene in the free market by lying, forming oligarchies, monopolies, inside trading, etc.
On society itself, capitalism encourages profit at the expense of anything else. Destroying the environment is extremely profitable, but it is not profitable to conserve it. Countries like Bangladesh are already paying the price. Another example is how unhealthy environments are built closer to poor people since that's where land is cheapest. I'd go so far as to say government regulations are overwhelmingly a good thing. | 8fprmc | CMV: Capitalism is a morally acceptable and universally beneficial economic system | I believe that capitalism is both a moral and universally beneficial economic system.
1. Capitalism is an efficient economic system
* It is beneficial to customers: In a free market, companies will compete with each other to attract customers. This leads to a process of natural selection, which means only the company selling the best product at the lowest price is able to exist. Other companies either have to strive to improve their product quality or go out of business. This leaves the customers with the best option at the lowest price.
* It is beneficial to productive employers: Needless to say, a capitalist system rewards employers who do well in the market. Without much governmental regulation, business owners can accumulate wealth much more quickly than they could have otherwise.
* It is beneficial to workers: This is quite a controversial POV I guess. However, I do believe that a free market will benefit employees. The basic premise for my argument is that workers' wages are dictated not by employers' greed or compassion, but by the law of supply and demand. Take an example of STEM field workers. There are not many people who are qualified in STEM field, hence the supply is low. Meanwhile, in the technology-driven world nowadays, there is a growing demand for such workers. Therefore, the wages of STEM workers are high as a result of this basic economic principle. Let's just assume that employers can be greedy and pay less than the employees are actually worth. The result is that they will go out of business since other competitors will offer higher wages to attract such workers. So that's the premise that I will base my argument on. Governmental imposition on a capitalistic market will just harm workers. Consider a scenario when the government passes a minimum wage law of $15 per day for all employees. This will cause rising unemployment since employers will just hire workers who are "worth" more than $15 per day anyways. Those who do not produce enough profit for employers to deserve that wage will not be hired, which is quite common sense. So eventually, governmental intervention will just distort this law of supply and demand and cause more trouble for workers who want to look for working opportunities.
* It is beneficial to the society: Capitalistic markets incentivize innovation since competition for customers leads to companies looking for many ways to improve the quality of their product. They either have to innovate or go out of the business. This struggle for survival on the marketplace best encourages innovation. As a result, a free market economy creates better technology than any other kind of economic system.
2. Capitalism is a morally acceptable system
A free market is wholly based on consensual transaction. No one can coerce others into a deal they do not want. Given that capitalism is completely free, I'll argue that it is a morally acceptable economic system. | donguyentung01 | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Whatifim80lol",
"id": "dy5hx7o",
"score": 54,
"text": ">No one can coerce others into a deal they do not want\n\nThis isn't true. First, and most obviously, monopolies on necessities create such a situation. But more common than that is in the transaction of labor. I live in a small tow... | [
{
"author": "DeleteriousEuphuism",
"id": "dy5il4m",
"score": 10,
"text": "Would you mind putting an extra line break before `* `? It'll make your text more legible.\n\nOn the topic itself:\n\n* who do you include in 'universally beneficial'?\n\n* you use free market and capitalism seemingly intercha... | [
"dy5hx7o",
"dy5knnt",
"dy5o6oj"
] | [
"dy5il4m",
"dy5pxve",
"dy5qjw4"
] |
CMV: Casinos would go bankrupt if people were better at math.
Casinos depend on the general population's lack of understanding of the math of probabilities. If everyone who went to Las Vegas knew the true extent of how the odds were stacked against them, the casino floors would be ghost towns.
The casinos would lose the patrons that succumb to the gambler's fallacy.
The casinos would lose to the patrons who don't understand compounding probabilities and so think the odds are anywhere close to even, just because the odds of individual rounds are closer to even.
And the casinos would lose the delusional patrons who think they can beat the odds in certain games using some fallacious method.
This would cover the majority of gamblers. Without this base, the casinos would then lose the rest of people who attend casinos as a social event. The group would just go socialize while doing something else.
I am eager to change my view, as I work with lots of people who like to lose all their money at Vegas, and I hate either losing my money with them, or else being seen as judgmental for not participating.
I would quickly change my view if it was demonstrated that people would find casino gambling worth the money even if they knew the real odds. For example, if someone offered a "fast night of gambling" for a thousand dollars where you have a 50% chance of gaining one dollar and a 50% chance of losing all your money, and people bought it, I would totally reevaluate my world view.
I would also reevaluate my world view if you somehow proved that the gambler's fallacy is not a fallacy, or that the probability of going home a winner doesn't trend to zero with each round you play. I've been wrong about math before, and I would love to be wrong now.
_____
> *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!* | Honestly, basically everyone that gambles intellectually knows that 'the house always wins'. If you tell people that they'll probably lose money by gambling, they'll agree with you.
They just either don't care or think the minor chance they'll win is worth it.
---
Yes. My view is that people don't understand the realities of that probability, and if they did, casinos would go bankrupt.
---
And my view is that they do understand the realities and just don't care.
---
I fear we are at an impasse then. Can you cite any data backing that up or anything?
---
The odds of winning money at a casino are actually pretty good. By good I mean they are greater than Zero.
Let's look at the numbers: A NFL game cost ~200 bucks for 3 hours. A strip club say 50 bucks(AZ) for 2.5 hours(Prices vary greatly by location). A movie, 15 for 2 hours. A bar, 40 for 3 hours. Golf (18 hole) 50-100 for 3.5 hours. What do all of those activities have in common? You leave with zero dollars. With a casino there is a chance to leave with 0 or more dollars. At the end of the day, everyone except a gambling addict knows they will likely lose money. But they aren't gambling. They are paying for an activity. | Not really, you can obtain a profit from casinos. The math allows that. It's just that all players would be aware that the players as a group are gonna lose more.
But if you win, and other players lose more than you won, what do you care? You're not in it for the team
Plus, a lot of games like poker have a psychological element into it that may affect the odds in your favor. Casinos would just adopt more games like that.
---
You maximize your profit from a casino by not playing. Each round you play, you reduce your odds of profiting. This is true independently of "the group." If you think your outcome affects the other player's outcome, you're succumbing to the gambler's fallacy.
>Plus, a lot of games like poker have a psychological element into it that may affect the odds in your favor. Casinos would just adopt more games like that
The psychological element affects odds in your favor relative to the other players in the game, but not relative to the casino. If you think there are enough mathematically rational poker enthusiasts who wish to pay a casino to compete knowing they will mostly lose, and that this can sustain an entire casino, I'm open to hearing this argument.
---
> The psychological element affects odds in your favor relative to the other players in the game
Yeah, that was what I meant.
I think there are a lot of rational poker enthusiasts, as there are a lot of mathematical courses targeted specifically towards poker enthusiasts (even on MIT opencourseware).
Poker is profitable enough to sustain entire websites already, so I can't see how a casino would be different.
---
>Poker is profitable enough to sustain entire websites already, so I can't see how a casino would be different.
Nah, poker is a low profit game for casinos, which is why the poker room is always buried in a hard to access area, with the idea being that the winners will have to walk past table games and slots on their way out and hopefully deposit their winnings.
There are card rooms that just do poker, but you don't get any of the cool shit you get at casinos (free drinks, comped meals/shows/rooms/etc.)
---
But they exist and are not bankrupt, right? | 8fl7kk | CMV: Casinos would go bankrupt if people were better at math. | Casinos depend on the general population's lack of understanding of the math of probabilities. If everyone who went to Las Vegas knew the true extent of how the odds were stacked against them, the casino floors would be ghost towns.
The casinos would lose the patrons that succumb to the gambler's fallacy.
The casinos would lose to the patrons who don't understand compounding probabilities and so think the odds are anywhere close to even, just because the odds of individual rounds are closer to even.
And the casinos would lose the delusional patrons who think they can beat the odds in certain games using some fallacious method.
This would cover the majority of gamblers. Without this base, the casinos would then lose the rest of people who attend casinos as a social event. The group would just go socialize while doing something else.
I am eager to change my view, as I work with lots of people who like to lose all their money at Vegas, and I hate either losing my money with them, or else being seen as judgmental for not participating.
I would quickly change my view if it was demonstrated that people would find casino gambling worth the money even if they knew the real odds. For example, if someone offered a "fast night of gambling" for a thousand dollars where you have a 50% chance of gaining one dollar and a 50% chance of losing all your money, and people bought it, I would totally reevaluate my world view.
I would also reevaluate my world view if you somehow proved that the gambler's fallacy is not a fallacy, or that the probability of going home a winner doesn't trend to zero with each round you play. I've been wrong about math before, and I would love to be wrong now.
_____
> *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!* | GregBahm | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"id": "dy4eiqy",
"score": 7,
"text": "Honestly, basically everyone that gambles intellectually knows that 'the house always wins'. If you tell people that they'll probably lose money by gambling, they'll agree with you.\n\nThey just either don't care or think the minor chan... | [
{
"author": "perpetuallyperpetual",
"id": "dy4ea9o",
"score": 1,
"text": "Not really, you can obtain a profit from casinos. The math allows that. It's just that all players would be aware that the players as a group are gonna lose more.\n\nBut if you win, and other players lose more than you won, wh... | [
"dy4eiqy",
"dy4fx5n",
"dy4g0ic",
"dy4ikz4",
"dy4jgmu"
] | [
"dy4ea9o",
"dy4f1a3",
"dy4fswa",
"dy4gdsd",
"dy4girx"
] |
CMV: American cities are terribly designed and administered compared with European cities.
Most American cities are terrible compared to European ones. I'm not talking about big cities like NYC or SF- I mean the typical- the average- American city- is just awful by any objective comparison. You can go to out of the way cities in Italy or France, Germany or Belgium, and they build places as though their great-grandchildren would be proud to live there. Here, the average city has no city center, major monuments, or sense of history. In the US. there are few places to gather. The social life of American cities is incomparably lifeless compared to European cities. Our Cities are heavily segregated by race and economic class in the way European cities aren't. The architecture here is mostly corporatist modernism, and looks cookie-cutter. It quickly gets dated in the way the art of European cities don't. People here have to get around by car, and as a result are fatter and live shorter lives than the average European. Our unhealthiness contributes to our under-productivity. The average European city is vastly more productive than the average American one – despite Europeans having dramatically more benefits, time off, vacations in, and shorter work hours on average. We damage our environment far more readily than European cities do. Our cities are designed often in conflict with the rule areas that surround them, whereas many European cities are built integrated into their environment. We spend more money on useless junk thank Europeans do. Our food isn't as good quality. Our water is often poisoned with lead and arsenic, and our storm drainage systems are easily overrun compared to European water management systems. European cities are managing rising seas and the problems related to smog far better than American cities are.
I can't think of a single way in which American cities are broadly speaking superior to European ones. Change my view. | Most of the things you note, the use of cars for transportation, building materials, etc., seem to relate to the lower population density in America. If there is more space, why build up or down, when you can build sideways? That, plus the fact that the automobile was developed alongside several American cities, means they were designed to be more car accessible and less public transportation.
> People here have to get around by car, and as a result are fatter and live shorter lives than the average European. Our unhealthiness contributes to our under-productivity.
It’s not that simple. You have to figure in the choices America made regarding a social safety net, and the effects of wealth inequality in America. Japan for example, has much lower productivity per hour, but has a better average public health. And it can’t be because of driving vs. not driving, because most people in Japan use trains, cars, or non-walking/biking forms of transportation to commute. You are leaving out the factor of diet, which somewhat relates again to the geography. It’s hard to have healthy fish dishes for example, when you are far from a large body of water.
> Here, the average city has no city center, major monuments, or sense of history.
This is the last one of your comments that struck me, and where I’m going to disagree the most. The reason why the average European city has more history, is because they’ve existed for hundreds of years longer. By the time America started getting settled, Europe was steeped in history. You can’t artificially add history into a city, and I think comparing a city with a 400 year history, and one with a 100 year history, is a bit of an exercise in futility.
---
1) You're entirely right that much of what I find wrong with American cities is due to their lack of density. However, I don't think American cities had to build sideways, just as European cities didn't have to build densely. In fact, most American cities have laws that require that the city be built in a sub-urban manner. Almost no cities have a density minimum, almost all cities have a density maximum for various zones across the city. Why build up when you can build sideways? By building up and down, we dramatically increase the economic productivity of the land, reduce environmental impacts, and allow more space for agricultural production. This is why the tiny country of the Netherlands can the second to the USA in gross worldwide agricultural production.
2) You may be right about japan, but I'm not comparing US and Asian cities. Yes- diet, etc, all matter. I don't think they demonstrably matter more than the urban environment. The French have been well known for eating much more saturated fat than Americans, and yet have fewer heart issues than we do per capita. Why? It seems to me the #1 feature is cityscape, which allows for people to bike and walk, not drive. This leads to more passive exercise and less anxiety.
3) I'll give you a partial ∆ for this one- You're right that we're young. But even so- when looking around American cities, you're lucky if you see 1 historical monument, and it seems like it's always to the Confederate Dead or some general from the Civil War. There are disproportionately few monuments to the dead of the Revolutionary war, war of 1812, Spanish-American War, any of the Indian Wars, the Mexican-American war, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam, etc. And that's just war-related monuments! Where are the monuments commemorating escaped slaves, great entrepreneurs, inspiring preachers, challenging artists, and any other notable individuals? While Europeans seem to put up plaques, monuments, statues, arches, etc, everywhere, where are America's?
---
>You're right that we're young. But even so- when looking around American cities, you're lucky if you see 1 historical monument, and it seems like it's always to the Confederate Dead or some general from the Civil War. There are disproportionately few monuments to the dead of the Revolutionary war, war of 1812, Spanish-American War, any of the Indian Wars, the Mexican-American war, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam, etc. And that's just war-related monuments! Where are the monuments commemorating escaped slaves, great entrepreneurs, inspiring preachers, challenging artists, and any other notable individuals? While Europeans seem to put up plaques, monuments, statues, arches, etc, everywhere, where are America's?
I find this comment curious. I suspect we're both basing our perspectives on anecdotal evidence (I know I am), but I haven't found your statement to be true at all in my own experience. As someone who has lived in multiple states and many very different cities, I've been surprised by how easy it is to find historical/cultural places even in tiny towns. I used to live in a town of 8,000 - a poor, blue collar, struggling community - there were historical markers and monuments all over town. We're talking dozens of monuments that I just stumbled upon in a town you could drive all the way through in <2 min, and they were mostly unrelated to war/battles at all. The bigger cities I've lived in have had even more historical and cultural attractions. When I lived in the South, yes, there were plenty of Confederate monuments, etc., but those were FAR from dominant. My point is that - as it's currently presented - it sounds like you might be indulging in some confirmation bias when you compare European cities to US cities. How are you concluding that US cities have so few monuments? Are you making an educated guess based on what you remember seeing or are you actively looking for all the historical places in any given city? I imagine it also depends on where you live and travel. It's possible I've just gotten lucky with the places I've been. | European cities were rarely designed. They grew hodge podge over centuries. American cities were designed in a grid layout. The grid is far superior for navigation.
As for not being able to walk places. That is a cultural difference and neither is superior or inferior. Being able to be self sufficient in your transit is a massive benefit, as is being able to operate without a car but neither is superior to the other.
Our water systems are on average far better than Europe. We are not commonly poisoned, and Europe having much older systems is more likely to see poisonings. And our food is of great quality.
---
Also- Fair critique- European cities weren't designed. They grew organically. Maybe that's our big problem.
I don't think walk-ability is mere cultural difference. There are directly measurable heath impacts to spending a significant portion of your time driving. Car-centric living literally kills people, as people get killed in car accidents far more frequently than walking or bicycle accidents.
Lastly, I disagree that American food is of "good quality." Perhaps "good enough." But - If our food is of such good quality, why do we always want to imitate European food or import it? Why is Italian Parmesan more expensive if ours is just as good? Seems like European food often has an edge. Additionally, their rates of hunger and malnutrition are far lower than ours.
---
The only cheese allowed to be called parmesan is from Italy. It is the name for a regional product. Similarly you cannot call sparkling wine Champagne unless it if from Champagne France.
We "imitate" European food because we are ethnically primarily of European decent. That is our food heritage and the settlers brought the food with them from their homeland. | 6xgoia | CMV: American cities are terribly designed and administered compared with European cities. | Most American cities are terrible compared to European ones. I'm not talking about big cities like NYC or SF- I mean the typical- the average- American city- is just awful by any objective comparison. You can go to out of the way cities in Italy or France, Germany or Belgium, and they build places as though their great-grandchildren would be proud to live there. Here, the average city has no city center, major monuments, or sense of history. In the US. there are few places to gather. The social life of American cities is incomparably lifeless compared to European cities. Our Cities are heavily segregated by race and economic class in the way European cities aren't. The architecture here is mostly corporatist modernism, and looks cookie-cutter. It quickly gets dated in the way the art of European cities don't. People here have to get around by car, and as a result are fatter and live shorter lives than the average European. Our unhealthiness contributes to our under-productivity. The average European city is vastly more productive than the average American one – despite Europeans having dramatically more benefits, time off, vacations in, and shorter work hours on average. We damage our environment far more readily than European cities do. Our cities are designed often in conflict with the rule areas that surround them, whereas many European cities are built integrated into their environment. We spend more money on useless junk thank Europeans do. Our food isn't as good quality. Our water is often poisoned with lead and arsenic, and our storm drainage systems are easily overrun compared to European water management systems. European cities are managing rising seas and the problems related to smog far better than American cities are.
I can't think of a single way in which American cities are broadly speaking superior to European ones. Change my view. | bostoninwinston | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Huntingmoa",
"id": "dmfs6qv",
"score": 181,
"text": "Most of the things you note, the use of cars for transportation, building materials, etc., seem to relate to the lower population density in America. If there is more space, why build up or down, when you can build sideways? That, plu... | [
{
"author": "cdb03b",
"id": "dmfseqw",
"score": 188,
"text": "European cities were rarely designed. They grew hodge podge over centuries. American cities were designed in a grid layout. The grid is far superior for navigation. \n\nAs for not being able to walk places. That is a cultural difference a... | [
"dmfs6qv",
"dmft96h",
"dmfxb5y"
] | [
"dmfseqw",
"dmftfxo",
"dmftkp9"
] |
CMV: American cities are terribly designed and administered compared with European cities.
Most American cities are terrible compared to European ones. I'm not talking about big cities like NYC or SF- I mean the typical- the average- American city- is just awful by any objective comparison. You can go to out of the way cities in Italy or France, Germany or Belgium, and they build places as though their great-grandchildren would be proud to live there. Here, the average city has no city center, major monuments, or sense of history. In the US. there are few places to gather. The social life of American cities is incomparably lifeless compared to European cities. Our Cities are heavily segregated by race and economic class in the way European cities aren't. The architecture here is mostly corporatist modernism, and looks cookie-cutter. It quickly gets dated in the way the art of European cities don't. People here have to get around by car, and as a result are fatter and live shorter lives than the average European. Our unhealthiness contributes to our under-productivity. The average European city is vastly more productive than the average American one – despite Europeans having dramatically more benefits, time off, vacations in, and shorter work hours on average. We damage our environment far more readily than European cities do. Our cities are designed often in conflict with the rule areas that surround them, whereas many European cities are built integrated into their environment. We spend more money on useless junk thank Europeans do. Our food isn't as good quality. Our water is often poisoned with lead and arsenic, and our storm drainage systems are easily overrun compared to European water management systems. European cities are managing rising seas and the problems related to smog far better than American cities are.
I can't think of a single way in which American cities are broadly speaking superior to European ones. Change my view. | Every point you make has a counter.
Our cities are car accessible, European cities are terrible to drive in.
We don't have to walk everywhere.
Our buildings are practical and cheap to build and maintain.
We live next door to people who look like us, speak our language, and have similar hobbies.
We have much more variable weather than European cities, which would be utterly destroyed by something like a hurricane.
Our food is half the price of European food and our diets are what we choose them to be.
Our drinking water is much safer than water in most of Europe, I have no idea where you came up with that...
Your points are just subjective opinions.
---
It's called Change My View- Not "Here's my justification for every assertion I believe." Yes- you're right. These are subjective opinions. Don't you want to earn that delta?
Edit- It was rightly pointed out that I was insufficiently defending my point of view. I asked for Objectivity. Here's some:
They live longer and healthier: http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/mbd/life_expectancy/tablet/atlas.html
They have more vacation days than we do: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/08/countries-most-vacation-days/2400193/
We don't get to walk much of anywhere. As a result of things like Jay Walking Laws, which don't exist in Europe as I understand it, we've made it illegal to get around many cities on foot. This helps contribute to our over-imprisonment problem, which far-surpasses Europe. http://www.prisonstudies.org/map/europe
Our buildings are impractical, I would argue, because single-use zoning in the USA makes it far more difficult to change a building from a residence to commercial, or single family to multifamily uses. This is very impractical, because it directly hampers adapting uses in response to changing economic and social conditions.
The idea that Americans live near more people they like than Europeans has no support. I don't think Americans get along with neighbors better than Europeans do, but I couldn't find any contrary evidence. In my experience, Europeans dont find it difficult to find people who share interests and hobbies. We certainly vote less than Europeans do. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/15/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/ and are in general less likely to be involved in politics. With their extra vacation time and shorter workdays, I bet they have more time for hobbies and friends too.
We have generally worse water than Europeans.
http://archive.epi.yale.edu/epi/issue-ranking/water-and-sanitation
---
> American city- is just awful by any ***objective*** comparison
That is what you said in the OP. If you now see that all your points were totally subjective then you need to give this person a delta.
On the other hand, If you refuse to defend your view it becomes very hard for anyone to develop a position to change it. A delta is not a carrot you wave in front of someone to get them to do tricks for you. | Most of the things you note, the use of cars for transportation, building materials, etc., seem to relate to the lower population density in America. If there is more space, why build up or down, when you can build sideways? That, plus the fact that the automobile was developed alongside several American cities, means they were designed to be more car accessible and less public transportation.
> People here have to get around by car, and as a result are fatter and live shorter lives than the average European. Our unhealthiness contributes to our under-productivity.
It’s not that simple. You have to figure in the choices America made regarding a social safety net, and the effects of wealth inequality in America. Japan for example, has much lower productivity per hour, but has a better average public health. And it can’t be because of driving vs. not driving, because most people in Japan use trains, cars, or non-walking/biking forms of transportation to commute. You are leaving out the factor of diet, which somewhat relates again to the geography. It’s hard to have healthy fish dishes for example, when you are far from a large body of water.
> Here, the average city has no city center, major monuments, or sense of history.
This is the last one of your comments that struck me, and where I’m going to disagree the most. The reason why the average European city has more history, is because they’ve existed for hundreds of years longer. By the time America started getting settled, Europe was steeped in history. You can’t artificially add history into a city, and I think comparing a city with a 400 year history, and one with a 100 year history, is a bit of an exercise in futility.
---
1) You're entirely right that much of what I find wrong with American cities is due to their lack of density. However, I don't think American cities had to build sideways, just as European cities didn't have to build densely. In fact, most American cities have laws that require that the city be built in a sub-urban manner. Almost no cities have a density minimum, almost all cities have a density maximum for various zones across the city. Why build up when you can build sideways? By building up and down, we dramatically increase the economic productivity of the land, reduce environmental impacts, and allow more space for agricultural production. This is why the tiny country of the Netherlands can the second to the USA in gross worldwide agricultural production.
2) You may be right about japan, but I'm not comparing US and Asian cities. Yes- diet, etc, all matter. I don't think they demonstrably matter more than the urban environment. The French have been well known for eating much more saturated fat than Americans, and yet have fewer heart issues than we do per capita. Why? It seems to me the #1 feature is cityscape, which allows for people to bike and walk, not drive. This leads to more passive exercise and less anxiety.
3) I'll give you a partial ∆ for this one- You're right that we're young. But even so- when looking around American cities, you're lucky if you see 1 historical monument, and it seems like it's always to the Confederate Dead or some general from the Civil War. There are disproportionately few monuments to the dead of the Revolutionary war, war of 1812, Spanish-American War, any of the Indian Wars, the Mexican-American war, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam, etc. And that's just war-related monuments! Where are the monuments commemorating escaped slaves, great entrepreneurs, inspiring preachers, challenging artists, and any other notable individuals? While Europeans seem to put up plaques, monuments, statues, arches, etc, everywhere, where are America's?
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Huntingmoa ([111∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Huntingmoa)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART
{
"comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this",
"issues": {},
"parentUserName": "Huntingmoa"
}
DB3PARAMSEND) | 6xgoia | CMV: American cities are terribly designed and administered compared with European cities. | Most American cities are terrible compared to European ones. I'm not talking about big cities like NYC or SF- I mean the typical- the average- American city- is just awful by any objective comparison. You can go to out of the way cities in Italy or France, Germany or Belgium, and they build places as though their great-grandchildren would be proud to live there. Here, the average city has no city center, major monuments, or sense of history. In the US. there are few places to gather. The social life of American cities is incomparably lifeless compared to European cities. Our Cities are heavily segregated by race and economic class in the way European cities aren't. The architecture here is mostly corporatist modernism, and looks cookie-cutter. It quickly gets dated in the way the art of European cities don't. People here have to get around by car, and as a result are fatter and live shorter lives than the average European. Our unhealthiness contributes to our under-productivity. The average European city is vastly more productive than the average American one – despite Europeans having dramatically more benefits, time off, vacations in, and shorter work hours on average. We damage our environment far more readily than European cities do. Our cities are designed often in conflict with the rule areas that surround them, whereas many European cities are built integrated into their environment. We spend more money on useless junk thank Europeans do. Our food isn't as good quality. Our water is often poisoned with lead and arsenic, and our storm drainage systems are easily overrun compared to European water management systems. European cities are managing rising seas and the problems related to smog far better than American cities are.
I can't think of a single way in which American cities are broadly speaking superior to European ones. Change my view. | bostoninwinston | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "realslowtyper",
"id": "dmfulj7",
"score": 23,
"text": "Every point you make has a counter.\n\nOur cities are car accessible, European cities are terrible to drive in.\n\nWe don't have to walk everywhere.\n\nOur buildings are practical and cheap to build and maintain.\n\nWe live next doo... | [
{
"author": "Huntingmoa",
"id": "dmfs6qv",
"score": 181,
"text": "Most of the things you note, the use of cars for transportation, building materials, etc., seem to relate to the lower population density in America. If there is more space, why build up or down, when you can build sideways? That, plu... | [
"dmfulj7",
"dmfwgcs",
"dmfy5dt"
] | [
"dmfs6qv",
"dmft96h",
"dmft9iu"
] |
CMV: American cities are terribly designed and administered compared with European cities.
Most American cities are terrible compared to European ones. I'm not talking about big cities like NYC or SF- I mean the typical- the average- American city- is just awful by any objective comparison. You can go to out of the way cities in Italy or France, Germany or Belgium, and they build places as though their great-grandchildren would be proud to live there. Here, the average city has no city center, major monuments, or sense of history. In the US. there are few places to gather. The social life of American cities is incomparably lifeless compared to European cities. Our Cities are heavily segregated by race and economic class in the way European cities aren't. The architecture here is mostly corporatist modernism, and looks cookie-cutter. It quickly gets dated in the way the art of European cities don't. People here have to get around by car, and as a result are fatter and live shorter lives than the average European. Our unhealthiness contributes to our under-productivity. The average European city is vastly more productive than the average American one – despite Europeans having dramatically more benefits, time off, vacations in, and shorter work hours on average. We damage our environment far more readily than European cities do. Our cities are designed often in conflict with the rule areas that surround them, whereas many European cities are built integrated into their environment. We spend more money on useless junk thank Europeans do. Our food isn't as good quality. Our water is often poisoned with lead and arsenic, and our storm drainage systems are easily overrun compared to European water management systems. European cities are managing rising seas and the problems related to smog far better than American cities are.
I can't think of a single way in which American cities are broadly speaking superior to European ones. Change my view. | Most of the things you note, the use of cars for transportation, building materials, etc., seem to relate to the lower population density in America. If there is more space, why build up or down, when you can build sideways? That, plus the fact that the automobile was developed alongside several American cities, means they were designed to be more car accessible and less public transportation.
> People here have to get around by car, and as a result are fatter and live shorter lives than the average European. Our unhealthiness contributes to our under-productivity.
It’s not that simple. You have to figure in the choices America made regarding a social safety net, and the effects of wealth inequality in America. Japan for example, has much lower productivity per hour, but has a better average public health. And it can’t be because of driving vs. not driving, because most people in Japan use trains, cars, or non-walking/biking forms of transportation to commute. You are leaving out the factor of diet, which somewhat relates again to the geography. It’s hard to have healthy fish dishes for example, when you are far from a large body of water.
> Here, the average city has no city center, major monuments, or sense of history.
This is the last one of your comments that struck me, and where I’m going to disagree the most. The reason why the average European city has more history, is because they’ve existed for hundreds of years longer. By the time America started getting settled, Europe was steeped in history. You can’t artificially add history into a city, and I think comparing a city with a 400 year history, and one with a 100 year history, is a bit of an exercise in futility.
---
1) You're entirely right that much of what I find wrong with American cities is due to their lack of density. However, I don't think American cities had to build sideways, just as European cities didn't have to build densely. In fact, most American cities have laws that require that the city be built in a sub-urban manner. Almost no cities have a density minimum, almost all cities have a density maximum for various zones across the city. Why build up when you can build sideways? By building up and down, we dramatically increase the economic productivity of the land, reduce environmental impacts, and allow more space for agricultural production. This is why the tiny country of the Netherlands can the second to the USA in gross worldwide agricultural production.
2) You may be right about japan, but I'm not comparing US and Asian cities. Yes- diet, etc, all matter. I don't think they demonstrably matter more than the urban environment. The French have been well known for eating much more saturated fat than Americans, and yet have fewer heart issues than we do per capita. Why? It seems to me the #1 feature is cityscape, which allows for people to bike and walk, not drive. This leads to more passive exercise and less anxiety.
3) I'll give you a partial ∆ for this one- You're right that we're young. But even so- when looking around American cities, you're lucky if you see 1 historical monument, and it seems like it's always to the Confederate Dead or some general from the Civil War. There are disproportionately few monuments to the dead of the Revolutionary war, war of 1812, Spanish-American War, any of the Indian Wars, the Mexican-American war, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam, etc. And that's just war-related monuments! Where are the monuments commemorating escaped slaves, great entrepreneurs, inspiring preachers, challenging artists, and any other notable individuals? While Europeans seem to put up plaques, monuments, statues, arches, etc, everywhere, where are America's?
---
>The French have been well known for eating much more saturated fat than Americans, and yet have fewer heart issues than we do per capita. Why?
Current research has been pointing to sugar consumption as the major dietary contributor to heart disease, not saturated fat... and Americans eat a *lot* more sugar than almost anyone else in the world. Medical conditions (chronic inflammation, dental disease, etc.) can also contribute to heart disease, and our lower level of access to affordable health care means that people are forced to let these conditions go untreated for decades.
Americans are certainly less active on average than their European counterparts, but the walkability of cities isn't the *only* factor. Americans tend to work more (500 hours more each year than the average German!) and take far fewer vacations. More work means more time sitting (both at work and while commuting), less recreational exercise, more stress and a greater reliance on processed food and fast food. | European cities were rarely designed. They grew hodge podge over centuries. American cities were designed in a grid layout. The grid is far superior for navigation.
As for not being able to walk places. That is a cultural difference and neither is superior or inferior. Being able to be self sufficient in your transit is a massive benefit, as is being able to operate without a car but neither is superior to the other.
Our water systems are on average far better than Europe. We are not commonly poisoned, and Europe having much older systems is more likely to see poisonings. And our food is of great quality.
---
>As for not being able to walk places. That is a cultural difference and neither is superior or inferior. Being able to be self sufficient in your transit is a massive benefit, as is being able to operate without a car but neither is superior to the other.
What benefit do you see to having a city so spread out that a car is required?
---
Things are less crowded. Homes can be larger. Stores can be larger and hold more variety of things. Schools can be larger and have proper space for classrooms as well as outdoor sports, band, etc. You have more green space and more citizen parks. | 6xgoia | CMV: American cities are terribly designed and administered compared with European cities. | Most American cities are terrible compared to European ones. I'm not talking about big cities like NYC or SF- I mean the typical- the average- American city- is just awful by any objective comparison. You can go to out of the way cities in Italy or France, Germany or Belgium, and they build places as though their great-grandchildren would be proud to live there. Here, the average city has no city center, major monuments, or sense of history. In the US. there are few places to gather. The social life of American cities is incomparably lifeless compared to European cities. Our Cities are heavily segregated by race and economic class in the way European cities aren't. The architecture here is mostly corporatist modernism, and looks cookie-cutter. It quickly gets dated in the way the art of European cities don't. People here have to get around by car, and as a result are fatter and live shorter lives than the average European. Our unhealthiness contributes to our under-productivity. The average European city is vastly more productive than the average American one – despite Europeans having dramatically more benefits, time off, vacations in, and shorter work hours on average. We damage our environment far more readily than European cities do. Our cities are designed often in conflict with the rule areas that surround them, whereas many European cities are built integrated into their environment. We spend more money on useless junk thank Europeans do. Our food isn't as good quality. Our water is often poisoned with lead and arsenic, and our storm drainage systems are easily overrun compared to European water management systems. European cities are managing rising seas and the problems related to smog far better than American cities are.
I can't think of a single way in which American cities are broadly speaking superior to European ones. Change my view. | bostoninwinston | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Huntingmoa",
"id": "dmfs6qv",
"score": 181,
"text": "Most of the things you note, the use of cars for transportation, building materials, etc., seem to relate to the lower population density in America. If there is more space, why build up or down, when you can build sideways? That, plu... | [
{
"author": "cdb03b",
"id": "dmfseqw",
"score": 188,
"text": "European cities were rarely designed. They grew hodge podge over centuries. American cities were designed in a grid layout. The grid is far superior for navigation. \n\nAs for not being able to walk places. That is a cultural difference a... | [
"dmfs6qv",
"dmft96h",
"dmfv0ca"
] | [
"dmfseqw",
"dmfunkr",
"dmfvpv8"
] |
CMV: Most laws regarding a certain age limitation should be toned down
I have had the belief for a long time that laws regarding minors not being able to do certain things are dumb. Most of these laws are useless, but some of these laws can be good. Here's my breakdown of all the laws:
Gambling: I think gambling shouldn't use real money but rather a virtual currency that's just for fun. After all everybody wastes their money on gambling anyway so it would save a lot of people a lot of money and allow kids to gamble.
Voting: The age requirement for voting should be lowered to 10 or 11 because we all have freedoms and one of our freedoms is the ability to vote so therefore everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test. This would count for adults too.
Driving: This might be my weirdest of all but I think kids should be able to drive once again around age 10 or 11. However instead of relying on the existing cars we should create new cars that are less heavyweights and less capable of hurting someone. That way not only can kids drive but the roads become more safer that you can't die by just getting hit by a car.
Drinking/Drugs: This is the only law I believe should not be changed, in fact I think there should be some more restrictions to alcohol usage.
So those are all my opinions, see if you can change my mind, because I've had these idealistics for a long time, but I'm open to hear other opinions. | >Gambling: I think gambling shouldn't use real money but rather a virtual currency that's just for fun. After all everybody wastes their money on gambling anyway so it would save a lot of people a lot of money and allow kids to gamble.
That already exists.
>Voting: The age requirement for voting should be lowered to 10 or 11 because we all have freedoms and one of our freedoms is the ability to vote so therefore everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test. This would count for adults too.
Historically, literacy tests used for voting have been used to keep certain groups from being allowed to vote. Lets say we lowered the age to 11 like you propose, do you think that just because a child cannot read, that they should be denied a voice to vote?
>Driving: This might be my weirdest of all but I think kids should be able to drive once again around age 10 or 11. However instead of relying on the existing cars we should create new cars that are less heavyweights and less capable of hurting someone. That way not only can kids drive but the roads become more safer that you can't die by just getting hit by a car.
This seems like a stretch. You want to the entire auto industry to create a whole new type of car.
---
>Historically, literacy tests used for voting have been used to keep certain groups from being allowed to vote. Lets say we lowered the age to 11 like you propose, do you think that just because a child cannot read, that they should be denied a voice to vote?
No, it's more a test to see if you at least understand how the government works. I don't care if you can't count money or can't read, but if you can understand that voting goes farther than choosing the guy that says "FREE ICE CREAM IF YOU VOTE FOR ME!!!!".
>This seems like a stretch. You want to the entire auto industry to create a whole new type of car.
This may sound crazy, but why not use something that already exists, like the toy cars that companies sell for little kids to drive in, or bumper cars. If we legalize those for the road and get rid of the extreme weight regular cars, it would make the roads safer. While this happens, we can take regular cars we already have, and try and get rid of all the metal, make them smaller, less dangerous.
---
You want to deliver food across the country... with toy cars?!
---
And the toy cars drive approximately 5 mph. Imagine the truck drivers, 'okay honey, I'm off to California... I should be back in approximately 33 days..." | >everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test.
They tried this in the 50's and 60's and it didn't go very well for minorities and the poor.
---
That's because they weren't allowing these people to get educated. Now, education is available for everybody, so everybody has a fair chance.
---
Education may be available to all, in theory I suppose, but not everyone has a fair chance. Literacy rates in poor areas of the country are abysmal, many who are poor don't go to school so that they can work and earn money for their family instead, and many still don't go to school due to childcare issues with younger siblings, gangs, drugs, abuse, etc.
---
∆ You have a point. Education isn't available to everyone, and therefore, the tets might not be available for everyone. It might be hard to develop the test, so it would take a couple years to develop to that point. | 14n1g5m | CMV: Most laws regarding a certain age limitation should be toned down | I have had the belief for a long time that laws regarding minors not being able to do certain things are dumb. Most of these laws are useless, but some of these laws can be good. Here's my breakdown of all the laws:
Gambling: I think gambling shouldn't use real money but rather a virtual currency that's just for fun. After all everybody wastes their money on gambling anyway so it would save a lot of people a lot of money and allow kids to gamble.
Voting: The age requirement for voting should be lowered to 10 or 11 because we all have freedoms and one of our freedoms is the ability to vote so therefore everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test. This would count for adults too.
Driving: This might be my weirdest of all but I think kids should be able to drive once again around age 10 or 11. However instead of relying on the existing cars we should create new cars that are less heavyweights and less capable of hurting someone. That way not only can kids drive but the roads become more safer that you can't die by just getting hit by a car.
Drinking/Drugs: This is the only law I believe should not be changed, in fact I think there should be some more restrictions to alcohol usage.
So those are all my opinions, see if you can change my mind, because I've had these idealistics for a long time, but I'm open to hear other opinions. | snide_soul | 4 | 4 | [
{
"author": "Rainbwned",
"id": "jq4t2hx",
"score": 8,
"text": ">Gambling: I think gambling shouldn't use real money but rather a virtual currency that's just for fun. After all everybody wastes their money on gambling anyway so it would save a lot of people a lot of money and allow kids to gamble. ... | [
{
"author": "Impiish",
"id": "jq4t7f5",
"score": 29,
"text": ">everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test.\n\nThey tried this in the 50's and 60's and it didn't go very well for minorities and the poor.",
"timestamp": 1688134985
},
{
"author": "sni... | [
"jq4t2hx",
"jq4uokp",
"jq4x3vt",
"jq4zvk7"
] | [
"jq4t7f5",
"jq4u21p",
"jq4ufds",
"jq4vewi"
] |
CMV: Most laws regarding a certain age limitation should be toned down
I have had the belief for a long time that laws regarding minors not being able to do certain things are dumb. Most of these laws are useless, but some of these laws can be good. Here's my breakdown of all the laws:
Gambling: I think gambling shouldn't use real money but rather a virtual currency that's just for fun. After all everybody wastes their money on gambling anyway so it would save a lot of people a lot of money and allow kids to gamble.
Voting: The age requirement for voting should be lowered to 10 or 11 because we all have freedoms and one of our freedoms is the ability to vote so therefore everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test. This would count for adults too.
Driving: This might be my weirdest of all but I think kids should be able to drive once again around age 10 or 11. However instead of relying on the existing cars we should create new cars that are less heavyweights and less capable of hurting someone. That way not only can kids drive but the roads become more safer that you can't die by just getting hit by a car.
Drinking/Drugs: This is the only law I believe should not be changed, in fact I think there should be some more restrictions to alcohol usage.
So those are all my opinions, see if you can change my mind, because I've had these idealistics for a long time, but I'm open to hear other opinions. | >everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test.
They tried this in the 50's and 60's and it didn't go very well for minorities and the poor.
---
That's because they weren't allowing these people to get educated. Now, education is available for everybody, so everybody has a fair chance.
---
Education may be available to all, in theory I suppose, but not everyone has a fair chance. Literacy rates in poor areas of the country are abysmal, many who are poor don't go to school so that they can work and earn money for their family instead, and many still don't go to school due to childcare issues with younger siblings, gangs, drugs, abuse, etc.
---
∆ You have a point. Education isn't available to everyone, and therefore, the tets might not be available for everyone. It might be hard to develop the test, so it would take a couple years to develop to that point.
---
If I might change your view back, it wouldn't be that hard to develop a test.
We have huge repositories of good questions for civics tests from citizenship tests and standardized performance tests. We can ensure that questions are fair by building a public test bank that anyone can go through and challenge individual questions on. That would also provide a good, cheap, efficient study resource for students preparing to take it.
The test just has to be pass/fail and the questions for a national voting test would be mined over so much that it's unlikely that mistakes, unnecessarily difficult questions, or even typos would last long. | The voting one is really problematic. If you ask people to pass a test to vote you’re introducing all kinds of bias that’s impossible to control.
For driving: there’s a reason cars are the way they are. They’re as safe as they (with current technology) can be while still going the speeds they do.
---
It wouldn't be biased, it would be a form of IQ test to see if you are going to cast your vote for a good reason, or if you're going to just vote on which leader looks cooler and says their going to do the coolest things, regardless if those things are immpossible to do and you know it.
---
IQ tests are notoriously biased. [https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rm04204](https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rm04204.pdf)
The tests are biased against people outside of the dominant cultural group of the place where the test was developed.
The process of making an unbiased test is extremely difficult and never fool proof. It would also have to be constantly updated and constantly tested for bias.
And then there’s the matter of : what are you testing? What makes IQ a good indicator of whether or not someone is going to vote based on policy or based on being funny or cool? Plenty of the “smartest” kids in school are also the biggest attention seekers.
Some kind of psychological/qualitative aspect would need to be introduced , which means the test administrator’s biases would also come
into play. A whole new set of impossible to control variables.
---
Yes, it seems most tests are problematic, but that's because the government created them. What if the public created them? What if a group was created, containing people from all types of race, gender, and disability that all look over the test for bias? We're testing to see if someone is going to cast their vote under good reasoning, not based around looks or something they say they'll do that we know is immpossible.
---
Who would appoint that group? The government? Then it would just be a branch of the government . If not the government then it would some other group with their own set of interests
And whatever group it was would have the authority of the government behind them, and be obligated to do their job in a way the government saw fit. If they didn’t , then the government would no longer back it | 14n1g5m | CMV: Most laws regarding a certain age limitation should be toned down | I have had the belief for a long time that laws regarding minors not being able to do certain things are dumb. Most of these laws are useless, but some of these laws can be good. Here's my breakdown of all the laws:
Gambling: I think gambling shouldn't use real money but rather a virtual currency that's just for fun. After all everybody wastes their money on gambling anyway so it would save a lot of people a lot of money and allow kids to gamble.
Voting: The age requirement for voting should be lowered to 10 or 11 because we all have freedoms and one of our freedoms is the ability to vote so therefore everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test. This would count for adults too.
Driving: This might be my weirdest of all but I think kids should be able to drive once again around age 10 or 11. However instead of relying on the existing cars we should create new cars that are less heavyweights and less capable of hurting someone. That way not only can kids drive but the roads become more safer that you can't die by just getting hit by a car.
Drinking/Drugs: This is the only law I believe should not be changed, in fact I think there should be some more restrictions to alcohol usage.
So those are all my opinions, see if you can change my mind, because I've had these idealistics for a long time, but I'm open to hear other opinions. | snide_soul | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Impiish",
"id": "jq4t7f5",
"score": 29,
"text": ">everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test.\n\nThey tried this in the 50's and 60's and it didn't go very well for minorities and the poor.",
"timestamp": 1688134985
},
{
"author": "sni... | [
{
"author": "choose-bread",
"id": "jq4sij2",
"score": 9,
"text": "The voting one is really problematic. If you ask people to pass a test to vote you’re introducing all kinds of bias that’s impossible to control.\n\nFor driving: there’s a reason cars are the way they are. They’re as safe as they (wit... | [
"jq4t7f5",
"jq4u21p",
"jq4ufds",
"jq4vewi",
"jq54pd7"
] | [
"jq4sij2",
"jq4tx57",
"jq4xnxl",
"jq50sy1",
"jq51vvz"
] |
CMV: Most laws regarding a certain age limitation should be toned down
I have had the belief for a long time that laws regarding minors not being able to do certain things are dumb. Most of these laws are useless, but some of these laws can be good. Here's my breakdown of all the laws:
Gambling: I think gambling shouldn't use real money but rather a virtual currency that's just for fun. After all everybody wastes their money on gambling anyway so it would save a lot of people a lot of money and allow kids to gamble.
Voting: The age requirement for voting should be lowered to 10 or 11 because we all have freedoms and one of our freedoms is the ability to vote so therefore everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test. This would count for adults too.
Driving: This might be my weirdest of all but I think kids should be able to drive once again around age 10 or 11. However instead of relying on the existing cars we should create new cars that are less heavyweights and less capable of hurting someone. That way not only can kids drive but the roads become more safer that you can't die by just getting hit by a car.
Drinking/Drugs: This is the only law I believe should not be changed, in fact I think there should be some more restrictions to alcohol usage.
So those are all my opinions, see if you can change my mind, because I've had these idealistics for a long time, but I'm open to hear other opinions. | >everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test.
They tried this in the 50's and 60's and it didn't go very well for minorities and the poor.
---
That's because they weren't allowing these people to get educated. Now, education is available for everybody, so everybody has a fair chance.
---
https://www.openculture.com/2014/07/literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-suppress-the-black-vote.html
We have examples of purposely bad faith questions that were subjective to allow individuals to decide whether an individual could vote or not. | >Gambling: I think gambling shouldn't use real money but rather a virtual currency that's just for fun. After all everybody wastes their money on gambling anyway so it would save a lot of people a lot of money and allow kids to gamble.
This already exists there are a million online casinos and gambling websites that use fake currencies. And then there are places like Dave & Busters as well.
​
>Voting: The age requirement for voting should be lowered to 10 or 11 because we all have freedoms and one of our freedoms is the ability to vote so therefore everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test. This would count for adults too.
Why 10 or 11 then? Why not 9? Why not 6? Why not 4? What kind of test? Who designs this test and decides what should be on it or not? Can you think of any moments in the history of the United States when tests were used to prevent a certain race of people from voting?
​
>Driving: This might be my weirdest of all but I think kids should be able to drive once again around age 10 or 11. However instead of relying on the existing cars we should create new cars that are less heavyweights and less capable of hurting someone. That way not only can kids drive but the roads become more safer that you can't die by just getting hit by a car.
Again, why 10 or 11? Why not 8? Why not 5? You're just moving goalposts without explaining why.
​
>Drinking/Drugs: This is the only law I believe should not be changed, in fact I think there should be some more restrictions to alcohol usage.
This is legitimately the one you cite that really should be changed. Restrictions don't prevent people from using alcohol or drugs. They just prevent people from seeking help.
---
>This already exists there are a million online casinos and gambling websites that use fake currencies. And then there are places like Dave & Busters as well.
Most of the online casinos I've seen require a credit card, but I only know one really heavy gambler, so I might have seen it all.
>Why 10 or 11 then? Why not 9? Why not 6? Why not 4? What kind of test? Who designs this test and decides what should be on it or not? Can you think of any moments in the history of the United States when tests were used to prevent a certain race of people from voting?
It could be any of those ages (well, depending on if you can speak or not anyway). When I refer to test, I refer to perhaps something like an IQ test to tell if someone is going to make a smart decision in their vote, rather than choosing a president or prime minister based off of how good their hair is (and this does happen). It wouldn't be preventative if somebody had a certain disability or was a certain race or gender, but rather, if you're going to cast your vote correctly.
>Again, why 10 or 11? Why not 8? Why not 5? You're just moving goalposts without explaining why.
Honestly, I was referring to size here. You probably won't be tall enough to reach the gas pedal or brake pedal and still be able to see the road at age 5.
>Restrictions don't prevent people from using alcohol or drugs. They just prevent people from seeking help.
There are now places you can go where drug addicts can walk in, and get the drugs they need *for free* from the government.
---
>I refer to perhaps something like an IQ test to tell if someone is going to make a smart decision in their vote, rather than choosing a president or prime minister based off of how good their hair is (and this does happen).
Why do you think high-IQ people are more likely to make better choices for President. A smarter choice for whom? Do you think high-IQ people will make choices that benefit the low-IQ people?
​
> It wouldn't be preventative if somebody had a certain disability or was a certain race or gender, but rather, if you're going to cast your vote correctly.
I am again going to ask you if you can think of any moments in history where a literacy test was introduced and how that affected voting rights.
>
>
>Honestly, I was referring to size here. You probably won't be tall enough to reach the gas pedal or brake pedal and still be able to see the road at age 5.
Should a 4-year-old who can reach the foot pedal be able to drive? You know that there are 3'11" people who can drive thanks to special seats or car designs, right?
Do you think height is the only thing that matters for driving? Might hand-eye coordination and pre-frontal cortex development also affect driving ability?
​
>There are now places you can go where drug addicts can walk in, and get the drugs they need for free from the government.
Yeah, and what that does is reduce drug addiction and deaths. So why would we want to end that? | 14n1g5m | CMV: Most laws regarding a certain age limitation should be toned down | I have had the belief for a long time that laws regarding minors not being able to do certain things are dumb. Most of these laws are useless, but some of these laws can be good. Here's my breakdown of all the laws:
Gambling: I think gambling shouldn't use real money but rather a virtual currency that's just for fun. After all everybody wastes their money on gambling anyway so it would save a lot of people a lot of money and allow kids to gamble.
Voting: The age requirement for voting should be lowered to 10 or 11 because we all have freedoms and one of our freedoms is the ability to vote so therefore everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test. This would count for adults too.
Driving: This might be my weirdest of all but I think kids should be able to drive once again around age 10 or 11. However instead of relying on the existing cars we should create new cars that are less heavyweights and less capable of hurting someone. That way not only can kids drive but the roads become more safer that you can't die by just getting hit by a car.
Drinking/Drugs: This is the only law I believe should not be changed, in fact I think there should be some more restrictions to alcohol usage.
So those are all my opinions, see if you can change my mind, because I've had these idealistics for a long time, but I'm open to hear other opinions. | snide_soul | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "Impiish",
"id": "jq4t7f5",
"score": 29,
"text": ">everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test.\n\nThey tried this in the 50's and 60's and it didn't go very well for minorities and the poor.",
"timestamp": 1688134985
},
{
"author": "sni... | [
{
"author": "jimmytaco6",
"id": "jq4s317",
"score": 2,
"text": ">Gambling: I think gambling shouldn't use real money but rather a virtual currency that's just for fun. After all everybody wastes their money on gambling anyway so it would save a lot of people a lot of money and allow kids to gamble.\... | [
"jq4t7f5",
"jq4u21p",
"jq4wql3"
] | [
"jq4s317",
"jq4tq0i",
"jq4ucka"
] |
CMV: Most laws regarding a certain age limitation should be toned down
I have had the belief for a long time that laws regarding minors not being able to do certain things are dumb. Most of these laws are useless, but some of these laws can be good. Here's my breakdown of all the laws:
Gambling: I think gambling shouldn't use real money but rather a virtual currency that's just for fun. After all everybody wastes their money on gambling anyway so it would save a lot of people a lot of money and allow kids to gamble.
Voting: The age requirement for voting should be lowered to 10 or 11 because we all have freedoms and one of our freedoms is the ability to vote so therefore everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test. This would count for adults too.
Driving: This might be my weirdest of all but I think kids should be able to drive once again around age 10 or 11. However instead of relying on the existing cars we should create new cars that are less heavyweights and less capable of hurting someone. That way not only can kids drive but the roads become more safer that you can't die by just getting hit by a car.
Drinking/Drugs: This is the only law I believe should not be changed, in fact I think there should be some more restrictions to alcohol usage.
So those are all my opinions, see if you can change my mind, because I've had these idealistics for a long time, but I'm open to hear other opinions. | The fact that in order to make these things compatible with children, you had to nerf them, shows that these things are not for children.
Gambling with play money isn’t gambling. Should real gambling be banned so that children don’t feel left out?
You’d have to test kids for voting rights, because you know a lot of kids couldn’t comprehend, much less pass, such a test. You’d only be making an exception for very well educated kids, and you’d probably be excluding some adults as well, which is dangerous.
And you’d have to magically make cars safer, or completely change the nature of cars in order to include children in driving. That’s because they’re bad drivers.
You had to fundamentally change these things in order to make them sort of compatible with children, showing that they aren’t really compatible with children.
---
>Gambling with play money isn’t gambling. Should real gambling be banned so that children don’t fee left out?
Video games contain gambling. So do board games. They all use fake currency. Why can't we make this apply to all forms of gambling? It's not just to let children play, but also to save people money. People go bankrupt all the time to gambling, for no good reason.
>You’d have to test kids for voting rights, because you know a lot of kids couldn’t comprehend, much less pass, such a test. You’d only be making an exception for very well educated kids, and you’d probably be excluding some adults as well, which is dangerous.
I'm curious what you mean by dangerous, because this actually sounds like the way to go.
>And you’d have to magically make cars safer, or completely change the nature of cars in order to include children in driving. That’s because they’re bad drivers.
There have been stories of kids who have taken the parents cars, and came back perfectly fine, nothing having gone wrong. So it's possible for kids to learn to drive. Also, how about pre-existing veichles, like the toy cars they sell little kids?
---
To be clear, you want to ban gambling, which is different from, almost the opposite of, allowing kids to gamble. Kids can already play gambling-themed board games.
Voting tests in the past have been abused to exclude unwanted populations. Anyway, why make an exception for a few well-educated (likely wealthier) kids, instead of just leaving the voting age where it is?
That some kids have survived driving doesn’t qualify children as drivers. Plenty of people have survived driving drunk. Should we allow that? And you’re serious about making everyone drive toy cars, so that children can safely “drive”? So you’d be banning motor vehicles as well. Again, why? So that children can play on the highway?
All of this nerfing demonstrates why these things aren’t for children.
---
∆ I see your point. Gambling for kids does kind of exist, however, I'm referring to using fake money for gambling for everybody, to save people money.
I know that voting tests haven't worked in the past, and now understand it would be hard to deal with running those tests.
And yes, people have survived drunk-driving, that is a good example. I'm just saying that we should give kids a chance to try the driving test.
---
FYI, gambling with fake money is, by definition, not gambling. The legal definition of gambling requires the staking of something of value. So effectively, your opinion is just against gambling in all forms | >everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test.
They tried this in the 50's and 60's and it didn't go very well for minorities and the poor.
---
That's because they weren't allowing these people to get educated. Now, education is available for everybody, so everybody has a fair chance.
---
Education may be available to all, in theory I suppose, but not everyone has a fair chance. Literacy rates in poor areas of the country are abysmal, many who are poor don't go to school so that they can work and earn money for their family instead, and many still don't go to school due to childcare issues with younger siblings, gangs, drugs, abuse, etc.
---
∆ You have a point. Education isn't available to everyone, and therefore, the tets might not be available for everyone. It might be hard to develop the test, so it would take a couple years to develop to that point.
---
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Impiish ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Impiish)).
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) | 14n1g5m | CMV: Most laws regarding a certain age limitation should be toned down | I have had the belief for a long time that laws regarding minors not being able to do certain things are dumb. Most of these laws are useless, but some of these laws can be good. Here's my breakdown of all the laws:
Gambling: I think gambling shouldn't use real money but rather a virtual currency that's just for fun. After all everybody wastes their money on gambling anyway so it would save a lot of people a lot of money and allow kids to gamble.
Voting: The age requirement for voting should be lowered to 10 or 11 because we all have freedoms and one of our freedoms is the ability to vote so therefore everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test. This would count for adults too.
Driving: This might be my weirdest of all but I think kids should be able to drive once again around age 10 or 11. However instead of relying on the existing cars we should create new cars that are less heavyweights and less capable of hurting someone. That way not only can kids drive but the roads become more safer that you can't die by just getting hit by a car.
Drinking/Drugs: This is the only law I believe should not be changed, in fact I think there should be some more restrictions to alcohol usage.
So those are all my opinions, see if you can change my mind, because I've had these idealistics for a long time, but I'm open to hear other opinions. | snide_soul | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "IgnoranceFlaunted",
"id": "jq4unbf",
"score": 24,
"text": "The fact that in order to make these things compatible with children, you had to nerf them, shows that these things are not for children. \n\nGambling with play money isn’t gambling. Should real gambling be banned so that child... | [
{
"author": "Impiish",
"id": "jq4t7f5",
"score": 29,
"text": ">everybody should be able to vote as long as they're able to pass some sort of test.\n\nThey tried this in the 50's and 60's and it didn't go very well for minorities and the poor.",
"timestamp": 1688134985
},
{
"author": "sni... | [
"jq4unbf",
"jq4x8tq",
"jq4xxsk",
"jq520i8",
"jq5q0al"
] | [
"jq4t7f5",
"jq4u21p",
"jq4ufds",
"jq4vewi",
"jq4vgfp"
] |
CMV: I think it's valid to not take Jewish opinions seriously if you aren't anti-white.
So I have always quickly and readily dismissed the *entire* surrounding discourse involving Jews in politics. Anything from their predominance in business, banking, academia, media etc, to the idea that they're trying to subvert anything really. I just didn't really find it to have any substance.
Welllll.... mainly because I didn't really look into it further. But right now, I have some issues.
1. They seem vastly disproportionate in their representation in at the very least academia, and media.
2. This wouldn't really matter.... if....
3. It wasn't for the fact that most of their opinions seem to be "anti-white."
Now I'm sure someone will snake in here with some "what is white?" Well, it's something like *Anglo-Saxon culture.* In fact, I almost think you could define whiteness by essentially an inverse of what you would typically see as represented as a "self hating jew."
So back to my main take away here. Something rang in my ears... it was something to the effect of "why are they always jewish?"
And so every time I would see some obnoxious perspective that would otherwise be considered racist, or hatespeech, or discriminatory behavior if it weren't targeted to\against white people I would look up their background.
And sure enough, this 2-3% demographic in America would *almost always* show it's head.
Now mind you.... again, I spent my *entire political life* never once looking into or caring about this. So I'm sure a bunch of people are going to pop in and say this is just some well crafted anti-jew argument from an "anti semite." In fact, I'm sure this discussion is "textbook anti seminitism."
But... man. I think "they" are right. I don't see any reason why it isn't valid to refute a group of people you disagree with. It's fine to disagree with any group of people. People say they don't respect republican or conservative opinions all the time.
Just that, if I "control" for this, I find the narrative of what I'm reading about is a lot more normal and sane. And I find it very concerning that every time I go "what is this person's problem?" They either had studied in Israel, had a Jewish upbringing, are straight Jewish, etc etc.
And so, again, I find that the level of "anti-white' discourse I see goes down DRAMATICALLY when I ignore the opinions of people who are associated with Jews.
I do believe the anti-Semitism claim in this regard is in fact intellectually dishonest. It is entirely possible for a group of people to have a set of views that other groups dislike.
e.g. Jews, in fact, as a group, at least the ones who get the most attention mainstream, have views that are anti-white.
It would be no different than naming them all anti-anglo anytime they rebuff any Anglo typical claims. | [removed]
---
So I would imagine you are the "self hating" variety (as described by what I imagine are called "devout" jews)?
---
no, self hating jew is not a religious thing, religious jews despise non observant jews and dont care if they're self hating or not. self hating jew is an intra jewish leftist slur, its related to false consciousness in Marxism and feminism. | What specific kinds of anti-white views are you referring to? The part where white colonists kept invading the Jews holy land like a half-dozen or more times and American interventionism keeps fucking up various places in that region to this day?
---
e.g. Would be something like conflating fairly stereotypical conservative views as extreme
I would see someone making some really weird argument that they built out of some academic strawman and like I said in OP would say "what is this person's problem?"
What is their chip on their shoulder? etc
And then would see
Education
Ph D: Political Science, (2007), University of Haifa - Haifa, Israel
Supporting Area: Terrorism and Political Violence, Security Policy and Politics
MA: Political Science, (2002), University of Haifa - Haifa, Israel
BA: Political Science and Education, (2000), University of Haifa - Haifa, Israel
It's just one of those things where I've got no "skin in this game." I couldn't care less if it's true. But it does appear to be so. That jews as a group, seem to want to undermine traditional western values.
---
That doesn't answer the question. What "really weird argument[s] that they built out of some academic strawman" are you referring to? | kzaq15 | CMV: I think it's valid to not take Jewish opinions seriously if you aren't anti-white. | So I have always quickly and readily dismissed the *entire* surrounding discourse involving Jews in politics. Anything from their predominance in business, banking, academia, media etc, to the idea that they're trying to subvert anything really. I just didn't really find it to have any substance.
Welllll.... mainly because I didn't really look into it further. But right now, I have some issues.
1. They seem vastly disproportionate in their representation in at the very least academia, and media.
2. This wouldn't really matter.... if....
3. It wasn't for the fact that most of their opinions seem to be "anti-white."
Now I'm sure someone will snake in here with some "what is white?" Well, it's something like *Anglo-Saxon culture.* In fact, I almost think you could define whiteness by essentially an inverse of what you would typically see as represented as a "self hating jew."
So back to my main take away here. Something rang in my ears... it was something to the effect of "why are they always jewish?"
And so every time I would see some obnoxious perspective that would otherwise be considered racist, or hatespeech, or discriminatory behavior if it weren't targeted to\against white people I would look up their background.
And sure enough, this 2-3% demographic in America would *almost always* show it's head.
Now mind you.... again, I spent my *entire political life* never once looking into or caring about this. So I'm sure a bunch of people are going to pop in and say this is just some well crafted anti-jew argument from an "anti semite." In fact, I'm sure this discussion is "textbook anti seminitism."
But... man. I think "they" are right. I don't see any reason why it isn't valid to refute a group of people you disagree with. It's fine to disagree with any group of people. People say they don't respect republican or conservative opinions all the time.
Just that, if I "control" for this, I find the narrative of what I'm reading about is a lot more normal and sane. And I find it very concerning that every time I go "what is this person's problem?" They either had studied in Israel, had a Jewish upbringing, are straight Jewish, etc etc.
And so, again, I find that the level of "anti-white' discourse I see goes down DRAMATICALLY when I ignore the opinions of people who are associated with Jews.
I do believe the anti-Semitism claim in this regard is in fact intellectually dishonest. It is entirely possible for a group of people to have a set of views that other groups dislike.
e.g. Jews, in fact, as a group, at least the ones who get the most attention mainstream, have views that are anti-white.
It would be no different than naming them all anti-anglo anytime they rebuff any Anglo typical claims. | sadomasochrist | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "[deleted]",
"id": "gjv3f9a",
"score": 1,
"text": "[removed]",
"timestamp": 1611085236
},
{
"author": "sadomasochrist",
"id": "gjv7ov1",
"score": 1,
"text": "So I would imagine you are the \"self hating\" variety (as described by what I imagine are called \"devout... | [
{
"author": "Poo-et",
"id": "gjmf4gm",
"score": 3,
"text": "What specific kinds of anti-white views are you referring to? The part where white colonists kept invading the Jews holy land like a half-dozen or more times and American interventionism keeps fucking up various places in that region to thi... | [
"gjv3f9a",
"gjv7ov1",
"gjvbezd"
] | [
"gjmf4gm",
"gjmg3w2",
"gjmgev8"
] |
CMV: Conservatives are much more dangerously misinformed about guns than liberals.
To clarify, when I say "dangerously misinformed", I mean "lacking enough knowledge that it is conceivable that your actions will lead to someone's death". And it's quite easy for death and guns to be associated with one another, obviously.
Why do I say this? First and foremost, there's the fact that conservatives are largely unaware of, if not in complete denial about, the fact that simply owning a gun increases your risk of suicide. And I don't mean owning a gun while having a mental health crisis or owning a gun as some particular high-risk demographic. I mean just straight-up owning a gun, that having a gun in your house puts you at greater risk of death by suicide than someone who does not have a gun, *even after you control for every conceivable variable you can think of*.
[This is well-documented.](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/) Nevertheless, I have yet to meet a conservative who was aware of this risk, and furthermore, when I show them the research on this, I have never actually successfully convinced them that this is true, largely because they just continue to deny science and prefer to bury their heads in the sand about it. When I talk to liberals about it, they are more often aware of this increased risk associated with gun ownership, or I can present them the research and they willingly accept the conclusion.
Furthermore, conservatives often elevate this to an even more dangerous level of misinformation with the maddening reply of "well it doesn't matter if they did this with a gun or not; they were just going to kill themselves with something else anyway." Let's get something straight: *this is not true*. As the previous research shows, death rates DO change based on whether a person owns a gun, which means that the statement clearly cannot be true. But what's incredibly destructive about this point of view is how it *dismantles the concept of mental health treatment*. Conservatives are seriously trying to undermine the entire concept of mental health just to clutch their pearls over the second amendment, and they're doing it in a way that isn't even factually correct. Think about it: if you're sending a message that a person who wants to kill themselves is "going to get their way eventually", you're sending a message that suicidal ideation does not go away, that it cannot be treated or addressed, *AND THAT IS NOT TRUE IN THE SLIGHTEST BUT IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS IDEA TO BE PROMOTING*. Because anyone contemplating suicide might read a stance like that and think, well, if this guy is telling me that there's no cure for my suicidal ideation, why not just get it over with? You're depriving people of hope based on a lie you concocted to defend a right that you're dangerously misinformed about...does it get much worse than this?
Moving on, how about gun laws? Time and time again, conservatives insist that gun laws are useless, that they have zero effect, that nobody has ever crafted any form of gun law of any degree that has ever had any meaningful impact whatsoever. As exceedingly unlikely as such an event is in really ANY circumstance (it's like trying to argue that consuming any substance is guaranteed to have zero effect on your body), we've seen more than enough to know that there are gun laws and gun reforms out there that DO have an impact. [This source is probably the best one I can find on that front.](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html) It found that:
>there is supportive evidence that [child-access prevention laws reduce firearm self-injuries (including suicides)](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-access-prevention/suicide.html), [firearm homicides or assault injuries](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-access-prevention/violent-crime.html), and [unintentional firearm injuries and deaths among youth](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-access-prevention/unintentional-injuries.html). In addition, we found supportive evidence that [stand-your-ground laws increase firearm homicides](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your-ground/violent-crime.html) and supportive evidence that [shall-issue concealed carry laws increase total and firearm homicides](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html).
Nevertheless, you still hear conservatives rail against any and all gun laws, sometimes from purely ideological grounds, but often they come from the severely misinformed viewpoint that gun laws do not work and are ineffective. If you are saying "sure, I understand the research and that people WILL die without these gun laws, but I'd still rather just stick to my interpretation of the second amendment", that's one thing. Saying "gun laws don't even work, bro" is quite another, and I'm telling you that I am NOT seeing the former, I'm seeing the latter, and that is far, far worse.
The only apparent edge that conservatives generally have over liberals is that they understand the mechanics and details of guns better than liberals do. I freely admit this. Conservatives are much more likely to know that famous "gotcha!" that the "AR" in AR-15 doesn't actually stand for "assault rifle", what the term "caliber" is referring to, all the various models of handguns, shotguns, rifles in existence, etc. However, this is, and always has been, a minor issue, for sure way less minor than anything else I have mentioned. Specific knowledge about guns is primarily useful in crafting up a law that might restrict access to guns, sure, but how many of us are even in a position to be crafting these laws? A person absolutely has the right to say, I may not know the exact details of how much damage each type of gun can cause, but I know that some guns and the ammunition they fire are more deadly than others and I'd like to see laws and regulations that reflect this. We've already implemented this in all sorts of other industries.
Take toys for example. I wouldn't know whether a toy was specifically suited for 6 month old children, or what's appropriate for age 2 vs age 3, but nevertheless, I do support the idea of labeling toys with age-appropriate labels on there, even though I wouldn't know how to do it myself. And from there, some child-rearing expert can handle it and craft up the labels appropriately. I did not need to be that expert myself to know that this would be a good idea in general. I don't see why it's any different when it comes to gun laws, why it is such an abhorrent sin to not know a semi-automatic from a hammer-fired pistol.
To sum up, I think conservatives are dangerously misinformed on suicide risk, on the effectiveness of gun laws, and I don't think the edge they have on general gun knowledge is meaningful.
CMV. | >there's **the fact** that conservatives are largely unaware of, if not in complete denial about, the fact that simply owning a gun increases your risk of suicide.
Prove that this is a fact.
---
On what grounds are you saying this is "wholly unsupported"? I provided the link with research backing it up. Does that not qualify as support?
---
>On what grounds are you saying this is "wholly unsupported"
On the grounds that you have not formed this *opinion* (its not a fact, but a thing you feel to be true) based on factual evidence but limited anecdotal experience.
> I provided the link with research backing it up.
What link backs up that conservatives are largely unaware or in denial about the suicide factoid? You've supported the factoid, but not your assertion that conservatives are largely unaware **or** in complete denial about that factoid.
>Does that not qualify as support?
Not for your (in my opinion) primary view that "**there's the fact** that conservatives are largely unaware of, if not in complete denial about, the fact that simply owning a gun increases your risk of suicide."
Support that this statement is indeed a fact.
---
Okay, so you are taking issue with my stance about how misinformed conservatives are, rather than what I am saying about the issues at hand, and asking what evidence I have regarding how informed they are.
I've published research on gun violence and have had conversations with conservatives regarding guns for the better part of 20 years now. I've had more than enough conversations at this point to get a general sense of how conservatives from all over the place approach any and all gun-related issues. These are the conclusions I've made. You might not like that I haven't documented the results of every one of my conversations or conducted a large-scale quiz with conservatives that gauges their knowledge, and you might try to work an angle saying that a lack of such things means my conclusions are total nonsense, but based on my personal experiences, I'd consider it an extremely weak point and not worth entertaining.
---
This reply thread is revealing. You criticize conservatives for not accepting the science, yet when asked for data regarding your claim you provide your own anecdotes? | I don't think conservatives are unware of that, it's just the kind of things (individualized issue with minimal illegitimate effects on others) that conservatives do not really care about. Whether or not people kill themselves is - and maybe I'm wording this poorly, so apologies - no business of theirs. It's not that they don't know or won't listen, you're just making an argument that does not appeal to them at all.
---
This is an interesting and insightful point. I lean conservative, and honestly, I don't get very upset at the tool someone uses if that person is set on committing suicide and succeeds in committing suicide. I certainly wish suicide was rarer and that people who want to kill themselves had better support systems, or mental health care, or meds, or whatever would be needed to make them prefer to live. I care about the people. But if they use a gun, or jump off a building, or hang themselves, that doesn't register with me as especially important. Not sure what you mean about the hierarchy point you're making.
---
If you knew that the tool selected has an impact on whether the person survives their suicidal ideation, would that sway your opinion, especially since you "certainly wish suicide was rarer"?
---
No, it wouldn't. Because the reason I wish suicide was rarer is really shorthand for what I actually meant, which is I wish despair was rarer. I wish suffering was rarer.
---
Well people certainly suffer when someone they love dies by suicide, so wouldn't reducing suicide lead to less suffering? | 1ea7127 | CMV: Conservatives are much more dangerously misinformed about guns than liberals. | To clarify, when I say "dangerously misinformed", I mean "lacking enough knowledge that it is conceivable that your actions will lead to someone's death". And it's quite easy for death and guns to be associated with one another, obviously.
Why do I say this? First and foremost, there's the fact that conservatives are largely unaware of, if not in complete denial about, the fact that simply owning a gun increases your risk of suicide. And I don't mean owning a gun while having a mental health crisis or owning a gun as some particular high-risk demographic. I mean just straight-up owning a gun, that having a gun in your house puts you at greater risk of death by suicide than someone who does not have a gun, *even after you control for every conceivable variable you can think of*.
[This is well-documented.](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/) Nevertheless, I have yet to meet a conservative who was aware of this risk, and furthermore, when I show them the research on this, I have never actually successfully convinced them that this is true, largely because they just continue to deny science and prefer to bury their heads in the sand about it. When I talk to liberals about it, they are more often aware of this increased risk associated with gun ownership, or I can present them the research and they willingly accept the conclusion.
Furthermore, conservatives often elevate this to an even more dangerous level of misinformation with the maddening reply of "well it doesn't matter if they did this with a gun or not; they were just going to kill themselves with something else anyway." Let's get something straight: *this is not true*. As the previous research shows, death rates DO change based on whether a person owns a gun, which means that the statement clearly cannot be true. But what's incredibly destructive about this point of view is how it *dismantles the concept of mental health treatment*. Conservatives are seriously trying to undermine the entire concept of mental health just to clutch their pearls over the second amendment, and they're doing it in a way that isn't even factually correct. Think about it: if you're sending a message that a person who wants to kill themselves is "going to get their way eventually", you're sending a message that suicidal ideation does not go away, that it cannot be treated or addressed, *AND THAT IS NOT TRUE IN THE SLIGHTEST BUT IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS IDEA TO BE PROMOTING*. Because anyone contemplating suicide might read a stance like that and think, well, if this guy is telling me that there's no cure for my suicidal ideation, why not just get it over with? You're depriving people of hope based on a lie you concocted to defend a right that you're dangerously misinformed about...does it get much worse than this?
Moving on, how about gun laws? Time and time again, conservatives insist that gun laws are useless, that they have zero effect, that nobody has ever crafted any form of gun law of any degree that has ever had any meaningful impact whatsoever. As exceedingly unlikely as such an event is in really ANY circumstance (it's like trying to argue that consuming any substance is guaranteed to have zero effect on your body), we've seen more than enough to know that there are gun laws and gun reforms out there that DO have an impact. [This source is probably the best one I can find on that front.](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html) It found that:
>there is supportive evidence that [child-access prevention laws reduce firearm self-injuries (including suicides)](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-access-prevention/suicide.html), [firearm homicides or assault injuries](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-access-prevention/violent-crime.html), and [unintentional firearm injuries and deaths among youth](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-access-prevention/unintentional-injuries.html). In addition, we found supportive evidence that [stand-your-ground laws increase firearm homicides](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your-ground/violent-crime.html) and supportive evidence that [shall-issue concealed carry laws increase total and firearm homicides](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html).
Nevertheless, you still hear conservatives rail against any and all gun laws, sometimes from purely ideological grounds, but often they come from the severely misinformed viewpoint that gun laws do not work and are ineffective. If you are saying "sure, I understand the research and that people WILL die without these gun laws, but I'd still rather just stick to my interpretation of the second amendment", that's one thing. Saying "gun laws don't even work, bro" is quite another, and I'm telling you that I am NOT seeing the former, I'm seeing the latter, and that is far, far worse.
The only apparent edge that conservatives generally have over liberals is that they understand the mechanics and details of guns better than liberals do. I freely admit this. Conservatives are much more likely to know that famous "gotcha!" that the "AR" in AR-15 doesn't actually stand for "assault rifle", what the term "caliber" is referring to, all the various models of handguns, shotguns, rifles in existence, etc. However, this is, and always has been, a minor issue, for sure way less minor than anything else I have mentioned. Specific knowledge about guns is primarily useful in crafting up a law that might restrict access to guns, sure, but how many of us are even in a position to be crafting these laws? A person absolutely has the right to say, I may not know the exact details of how much damage each type of gun can cause, but I know that some guns and the ammunition they fire are more deadly than others and I'd like to see laws and regulations that reflect this. We've already implemented this in all sorts of other industries.
Take toys for example. I wouldn't know whether a toy was specifically suited for 6 month old children, or what's appropriate for age 2 vs age 3, but nevertheless, I do support the idea of labeling toys with age-appropriate labels on there, even though I wouldn't know how to do it myself. And from there, some child-rearing expert can handle it and craft up the labels appropriately. I did not need to be that expert myself to know that this would be a good idea in general. I don't see why it's any different when it comes to gun laws, why it is such an abhorrent sin to not know a semi-automatic from a hammer-fired pistol.
To sum up, I think conservatives are dangerously misinformed on suicide risk, on the effectiveness of gun laws, and I don't think the edge they have on general gun knowledge is meaningful.
CMV. | VanillaIsActuallyYum | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "destro23",
"id": "lejc64m",
"score": 31,
"text": ">there's **the fact** that conservatives are largely unaware of, if not in complete denial about, the fact that simply owning a gun increases your risk of suicide.\n\nProve that this is a fact.",
"timestamp": 1721739360
},
{
... | [
{
"author": "Giblette101",
"id": "lejcsac",
"score": 13,
"text": "I don't think conservatives are unware of that, it's just the kind of things (individualized issue with minimal illegitimate effects on others) that conservatives do not really care about. Whether or not people kill themselves is - an... | [
"lejc64m",
"lejd8kx",
"lejdsj3",
"lejen00",
"lejino6"
] | [
"lejcsac",
"leje1n4",
"lejf2zb",
"lejffwq",
"lejfuor"
] |
CMV: The LGBT+ alphabet soup is delegitimizing and disserving the true LGBT community
I am fully supportive of gay and trans right, but I'm growing tired of invented genders or minor sexual preferences hijacking and taking over the LGBT community as a vocal minority. By those I mainly refer to people who identify as genderfluid, agender, bigender, non-binary, as well as the ace spectrum.
I've tried really hard to understand what being an "enby" actually means, and even after browsing countless subreddits dedicated to non-binary people, I still have no idea what they actually are and why they identify as what they do. Anybody can understand very easily what being trans is, male wants to become female or vice-versa, but what on Earth are xenogenders? I'm not talking about intersex people born with ambiguous genitalia, I know those are real, but if genders are social constructs, why are we so keen about creating more and more gender constructs instead of tearing apart those that already exist?
You can be a girl who dislikes most stereotypically feminine things and likes most stereotypically masculine things without requesting to be called by a made-up pronoun or invent yourself a made-up gender. We all agree that genders are social constructs, and women have been oppressed for centuries by the gender norms they were contrived to, so why shouldn't we destroy all gender norms instead of reaffirming them like most non-binary people do? You can be a boy who likes to wear skirts and still be a boy. Being a boy only refers to a stupid pair of chromosomes, it shouldn't be your entire identity.
I fear a lot of vulnerable young people may start believing they are not cis simply because they don't conform to the medieval gender norms that prevail which let's be real most people don't. Shouldn't we let them accept what they biologically are and that they can still dress or act any way they want regardless of gender norms? Why the need for tribalism and countless labels?
As for the asexual spectrum, I don't understand why people in the LGBT community consider it a spectrum at all. True asexuals don't have a sexuality, there is no spectrum about that, it's a binary, either you are asexual or somethingsexual. If you do have a sexuality but you only can experience sexual attraction with people you bond with (demisexuals), which may due to a low libido of other factors, you are not asexual.
Conservatives already have such a hard time getting in their thick skulls that being gay is not a choice and that trans people should be allowed to transition as they please, but all those new terminologies unfounded by science really are not making it any easier for them to accept LGBT people as valid. Hell even for me a young gay male who's pretty in touch with the LGBT community it makes absolutely no sense to me.
I met this girl who identified as genderfluid years ago, we're like best friends. She plays video games with me, she does masculine things, some feminine things, but she's still a girl. And I don't get what being genderfluid even meant? Obviously she'd never call herself that to anyone she knew IRL, and since then she stopped calling herself that, which makes me think it was just a stupid label she found somewhere to make her feel special. I hate right-wingers who call us snowflakes, but I have to say there genuinely seems to be a lot of people who are not sexual minorities but want to be LGBT allies who'll use one of those nonsensical labels to belong. Being LGBT+ is the new goth. And I find that deeply offensive to the true sexual minorities who have actual rights to fight for.
If all those words and the Internet did not exist do you really think some people would still feel like they are some kind of third gender? Gay people will know they're gay even if everybody around them is straight and they have never heard about homosexuality before, likewise trans people will experience gender dysphoria regardless of trans awareness. That's what makes those legitimate, but what exactly is an agender person experiencing? I myself don't care about gender, I'm a boy, but I don't consider it part of my core identity, I would very much prefer a fully gender-neutral society without gender norms, does that mean I am agender or enby? | > If all those words and the Internet did not exist do you really think some people would still feel like they are some kind of third gender?
Yes, they would still feel different. They would just not have had the resources and other people's feelings to put a finger on why they feel different or be able to name it.
But that failure to identify themselves without internet does not invalidate how they feel.
It is a huge twist of irony how you, someone who was in their place a decade ago, are acting the same way that people acted towards you in the past. "You don't understand", "it doesn't make sense", you feel they should be excluded from something (in this case a group)...
---
What does being agender or bigender actually feel like?
People oppressed me because anal sex is a sin in Christianity and marriage should only be for procreation, yet even Christians couldn't deny that homosexuals were real, they thought there was something wrong with them but they weren't arguing what I am arguing.
My belief is that third genders and xenogenders are made-up and have no basis in reality. Tumblerinas can call themselves what they wish and I would never advocate for their oppression or exclusion, but even after all the research I've done on the subject I still don't see how these countless gender identities are grounded in any reality.
---
This is an incredible Western-centric view of the history of sexuality and gender. You say that these identities didn't exist until the Internet and Tumblr, and that people wouldn't be identifying with them without these online communities.
Well, I'm here to tell you that you're 100% wrong.
[Here is the Wikipedia page on third genders.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender)
Ancient Mesopotamia:
"In Babylonia, Sumer and Assyria, certain types of individuals who performed religious duties in the service of Inanna/Ishtar have been described as a third gender. They worked as sacred prostitutes or Hierodules, performed ecstatic dance, music and plays, wore masks and had gender characteristics of both women and men."
Egypt:
"Inscribed pottery shards from the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2000–1800 BCE)...list three human genders: tai (male), sḫt ("sekhet") and hmt (female)."
India:
"The Vedas (c. 1500 BC–500 BC) describe individuals as belonging to one of three categories, according to one's nature or prakrti. These are also spelled out in the Kama Sutra (c. 4th century AD) and elsewhere as pums-prakrti (male-nature), stri-prakrti (female-nature), and tritiya-prakrti (third-nature). Texts suggest that third sex individuals were well known in premodern India and included male-bodied or female-bodied people as well as intersex people..."
Ancient Greece:
"In Plato's Symposium, written around the 4th century BC, Aristophanes relates a creation myth involving three original sexes: female, male and androgynous."
Ancient Israel:
"In old Israel there were: Zachar: male; Nekeva: female; Androgynos: both male and female genitalia (eternal doubt of legal gender); Tumtum: genitalia concealed by skin (unknown gender, unless skin removed)."
(Some modern LGBTQ+ Jews continue to identify with these labels).
Incan Empire:
"...third-gendered ritual attendants to chuqui chinchay, a jaguar deity in Incan mythology, were "vital actors in Andean ceremonies" prior to Spanish colonisation. Horswell elaborates: 'These quariwarmi (men-women) shamans mediated between the symmetrically dualistic spheres of Andean cosmology and daily life by performing rituals that at times required same-sex erotic practices. Their transvested attire served as a visible sign of a third space that negotiated between the masculine and the feminine...'"
(In addition, modern Native Americans have a pan-Indian gender identity called [Two-spirit,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit) which is derived from ancient indigenous third-genders).
Asexuality is a little more difficult to track throughout human history, because in general, it is less visible. There could've been countless ace people throughout history who simply never got married, or joined the priesthood/nunnery, or were simply unhappy in their sexual relationships. However, there is evidence from Kinsey's famous study, showing that the scale of human sexuality does include asexual people. | Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you've reduced gender to "things people like" and "things people wear". Gender is something that is hard to explain, especially as I assume you are either a male who identifies as a man or a female who identifies as a woman. So, assuming you are one or the other, what is your experience as a man or as a woman? Can you reduce your gender identity to what you like and what you wear? Or, is there something more, something a little deeper, a sense of being so natural to you that you hardly even notice it? Well, try to imagine if this sense of being did not align with your body. How do you think that might make you feel?
---
This is something I always hear, "hard to explain", and it only confirms my opinion more. Until somebody can explain to me what gender truly feels like in reality, I refuse to consider that there's more to it than what you wear or how you act.
As for myself I am a boy but I couldn't say I actively identify as one. I'm gay and fairly effeminate, which means I do a lot of things that are considered feminine according to society, but I know those are made-up constructs, so I identify as nothing, simply a human being, biologically male. I am neither uncomfortable with nor love my body, it's simply what I have. And I have no idea what gender is, hence I made this post. My only concept of gender is the male/female roles in Western tradition which I hope will be fully abolished one day. And I feel like xenogenders are doing the complete opposite of that by constructing more and more genders.
---
How would you explain the color orange to a person who can't see? There is almost certainly a biological component to gender, or at least environmental influences that influence identity at such a young as to effectively be considered 'inherent'. Simply because I can't use my words to explain it does not mean that there is no scientific evidence that gender identity is different from gender roles/expectations, and that it is influenced by nature. | kz7f5j | CMV: The LGBT+ alphabet soup is delegitimizing and disserving the true LGBT community | I am fully supportive of gay and trans right, but I'm growing tired of invented genders or minor sexual preferences hijacking and taking over the LGBT community as a vocal minority. By those I mainly refer to people who identify as genderfluid, agender, bigender, non-binary, as well as the ace spectrum.
I've tried really hard to understand what being an "enby" actually means, and even after browsing countless subreddits dedicated to non-binary people, I still have no idea what they actually are and why they identify as what they do. Anybody can understand very easily what being trans is, male wants to become female or vice-versa, but what on Earth are xenogenders? I'm not talking about intersex people born with ambiguous genitalia, I know those are real, but if genders are social constructs, why are we so keen about creating more and more gender constructs instead of tearing apart those that already exist?
You can be a girl who dislikes most stereotypically feminine things and likes most stereotypically masculine things without requesting to be called by a made-up pronoun or invent yourself a made-up gender. We all agree that genders are social constructs, and women have been oppressed for centuries by the gender norms they were contrived to, so why shouldn't we destroy all gender norms instead of reaffirming them like most non-binary people do? You can be a boy who likes to wear skirts and still be a boy. Being a boy only refers to a stupid pair of chromosomes, it shouldn't be your entire identity.
I fear a lot of vulnerable young people may start believing they are not cis simply because they don't conform to the medieval gender norms that prevail which let's be real most people don't. Shouldn't we let them accept what they biologically are and that they can still dress or act any way they want regardless of gender norms? Why the need for tribalism and countless labels?
As for the asexual spectrum, I don't understand why people in the LGBT community consider it a spectrum at all. True asexuals don't have a sexuality, there is no spectrum about that, it's a binary, either you are asexual or somethingsexual. If you do have a sexuality but you only can experience sexual attraction with people you bond with (demisexuals), which may due to a low libido of other factors, you are not asexual.
Conservatives already have such a hard time getting in their thick skulls that being gay is not a choice and that trans people should be allowed to transition as they please, but all those new terminologies unfounded by science really are not making it any easier for them to accept LGBT people as valid. Hell even for me a young gay male who's pretty in touch with the LGBT community it makes absolutely no sense to me.
I met this girl who identified as genderfluid years ago, we're like best friends. She plays video games with me, she does masculine things, some feminine things, but she's still a girl. And I don't get what being genderfluid even meant? Obviously she'd never call herself that to anyone she knew IRL, and since then she stopped calling herself that, which makes me think it was just a stupid label she found somewhere to make her feel special. I hate right-wingers who call us snowflakes, but I have to say there genuinely seems to be a lot of people who are not sexual minorities but want to be LGBT allies who'll use one of those nonsensical labels to belong. Being LGBT+ is the new goth. And I find that deeply offensive to the true sexual minorities who have actual rights to fight for.
If all those words and the Internet did not exist do you really think some people would still feel like they are some kind of third gender? Gay people will know they're gay even if everybody around them is straight and they have never heard about homosexuality before, likewise trans people will experience gender dysphoria regardless of trans awareness. That's what makes those legitimate, but what exactly is an agender person experiencing? I myself don't care about gender, I'm a boy, but I don't consider it part of my core identity, I would very much prefer a fully gender-neutral society without gender norms, does that mean I am agender or enby? | suckerforabs | 3 | 3 | [
{
"author": "pm-me-your-labradors",
"id": "gjlcavw",
"score": 37,
"text": "> If all those words and the Internet did not exist do you really think some people would still feel like they are some kind of third gender?\n\nYes, they would still feel different. They would just not have had the resources... | [
{
"author": "mrgoodnighthairdo",
"id": "gjlcjn4",
"score": 27,
"text": "Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you've reduced gender to \"things people like\" and \"things people wear\". Gender is something that is hard to explain, especially as I assume you are either a male who identifies as a ma... | [
"gjlcavw",
"gjlh7ct",
"gjm0om3"
] | [
"gjlcjn4",
"gjle2cb",
"gjlfig0"
] |
CMV: The black lives matter movement rioters deserve the same treatment that the capital rioters deserve.
For several months this last summer groups of BLM protesters turned to rioting in city’s like Kenosha, Portland, and Seattle, along with a number more with little to no repercussions. Meanwhile, a group of protesters decide to storm the capital building and they are subdued by that evening and we are actively seeking to arrest/charge these people by any means necessary. I am NOT defending the capital rioters, just pointing out the difference in the two cases where for some reason same crime does not = equal punishment | The number of arrests in the Capitol so far is far below that of the blm protests. What makes you think they aren't treated the same? Even though, like others said, their actions are very different.
These dudes brought a confederate flag to the Capitol building. Many people died in the Civil War specifically to keep this from happening.
---
The fact that the public who now demonize the capital rioters when the same people called the BLM rioters “peaceful protesters” and actively called against using force (like the national guard,military,etc.) to quell the riots when the BLM riots arguably caused much more harm to the American people over a much longer coarse of time
---
> the BLM riots arguably caused much more harm to the American people over a much longer coarse of time
I can understand this line of reasoning, but intentions matter. Riots like what happened this past summer are a crime of opportunity, not a premeditated attack. Additionally, the BLM riots may very well have caused more tangible "harm" to the American people, but the worst-case outcome of those riots wouldn't be very different from what we saw.
The Capitol rioters, by contrast, didn't just happen to be there. These people bought plane tickets and got in buses to all gather in one spot as a show of force. Once together, under the directive of the president, marched 2.5 miles to the site of an election certification to intimidate and pressure the inhabitants into certifying the person leading them as the next president. The worst-case scenario wouldn't have only involved much greater property damage and a much higher death count, it would have meant that the loser of a democratic election could have changed the outcome of that election through violence. Was that likely? I honestly don't know; probably not. But that was the demonstrable *intent* behind the event.
---
Yes, the capital rioters had a premeditated plan (if a rather stupid plan) to attempt to commit a much more heinous crime. but there plan predictably failed resulting in less overall damage then the BLM rioters who intentions weren't as bad, but still caused more harm overall. Thus, imo at least, these two groups deserve equal treatment in the public eye
---
Less overall damage my ass. Do you realize how much damage has been done to the U.S.'s reputation? Do you seriously think that we'll be able to effectively promote democracy elsewhere in the world after demonstrating such disdain for it? Do you think that other countries are going to ignore these signs of instability when considering agreements on trade and cooperation?
We're the richest country on the planet. We can rebuild the businesses that were destroyed, and I support doing so. We won't recoup the damage done to our nation's soft power for a generation at least. | The Capitol rioters aren't being aggressively investigated and arrested because they shit in a hallway and broke a few windows; they are being targeted this way because they are seditionists, which carries a heavier penalty than mere looting and vandalism.
---
>they are being targeted this way because they are seditionists, which carries a heavier penalty than mere looting and vandalism.
Agree, but a crime being less harmful than another crime doesn't make the original crime any better.
Meaning that "mere" looting and vandalism should still be prosecuted and arrest should be sought after.
---
The OP said "same treatment." The crimes are not the same.
---
Same as in both being appropriately apprehended, condemned, and taking to trial.
---
Prosecutorial discretion allows justice departments to make determinations as to what they will spend their money and time on. They don't always make good decisions and things can slip through the cracks, but it doesn't seem reasonable to assign the same level of investigative and prosecutorial intensity to vandalism during a protest and vandalism during a seditious conspiracy to overthrow a free and fair election outcome in a coup attempt. | kz10v5 | CMV: The black lives matter movement rioters deserve the same treatment that the capital rioters deserve. | For several months this last summer groups of BLM protesters turned to rioting in city’s like Kenosha, Portland, and Seattle, along with a number more with little to no repercussions. Meanwhile, a group of protesters decide to storm the capital building and they are subdued by that evening and we are actively seeking to arrest/charge these people by any means necessary. I am NOT defending the capital rioters, just pointing out the difference in the two cases where for some reason same crime does not = equal punishment | SledDogGuy | 5 | 5 | [
{
"author": "Rainsies",
"id": "gjjw6y0",
"score": 17,
"text": "The number of arrests in the Capitol so far is far below that of the blm protests. What makes you think they aren't treated the same? Even though, like others said, their actions are very different.\n\nThese dudes brought a confederate f... | [
{
"author": "jennysequa",
"id": "gjjvp5g",
"score": 16,
"text": "The Capitol rioters aren't being aggressively investigated and arrested because they shit in a hallway and broke a few windows; they are being targeted this way because they are seditionists, which carries a heavier penalty than mere l... | [
"gjjw6y0",
"gjjwocs",
"gjjyl93",
"gjk0lft",
"gjk3wf0"
] | [
"gjjvp5g",
"gjjxrkp",
"gjjxuku",
"gjjz2yz",
"gjjzfnb"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.