Split (2)

train · 8.7k rows

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: The Simpsons isn’t really that good I went back to rewatch The Simpsons after I remembered not liking it as a teenager. I thought it was just me trying to be different but no, I really just did not enjoy it. Am I missing something about it? I get weirded out by the chewing sounds, irritating voice acting, and the jokes feel like something I’d find in a political cartoon in a newspaper, I liked some of the scenes with the grandad but other than that it feels like I’m watching something that should’ve been canned. I’m at season 12 at the moment, does it get better at all? Is there something I’m missing? Thanks	1. What were your specific expectations? 2. What's a show you find very funny? --- 1. I just thought it would be a more linear story 2. It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia --- Cartoon sitcoms are rarely meant to be linear stories.	Did you start at season one? Seasons 2-9 are the ones that are actually good. After that, it fell off hard. --- Yea i started from s1. It gets worse after this? --- That's the consensus opinion, yes.	1fmivg8	CMV: The Simpsons isn’t really that good	I went back to rewatch The Simpsons after I remembered not liking it as a teenager. I thought it was just me trying to be different but no, I really just did not enjoy it. Am I missing something about it? I get weirded out by the chewing sounds, irritating voice acting, and the jokes feel like something I’d find in a political cartoon in a newspaper, I liked some of the scenes with the grandad but other than that it feels like I’m watching something that should’ve been canned. I’m at season 12 at the moment, does it get better at all? Is there something I’m missing? Thanks	OneSickKick	3	3	[ { "author": "joeverdrive", "id": "loazovs", "score": 4, "text": "1. What were your specific expectations?\n\n2. What's a show you find very funny?", "timestamp": 1726971997 }, { "author": "OneSickKick", "id": "lob0fsl", "score": -1, "text": "1. I just thought it would be a mo...	[ { "author": "nekro_mantis", "id": "loazxxq", "score": 2, "text": "Did you start at season one? Seasons 2-9 are the ones that are actually good. After that, it fell off hard.", "timestamp": 1726972107 }, { "author": "OneSickKick", "id": "lob0bnl", "score": -1, "text": "Yea i s...	[ "loazovs", "lob0fsl", "lob13ck" ]	[ "loazxxq", "lob0bnl", "lob0qd1" ]
CMV: White Females wearing Cheogsam/Qipao is not Cultural Appropriation Can a white girl wear a cheongsam? I used to think any race can, but many online say that whites CANNOT. Or, is there a line? - The following lines I need to address: - Sexualisation of the Cheongsam: Appropriation. How? Short skirt length, cut out revealing pieces, skimpy styles. Why? Because the original purpose was a form of empowerment for asian women. And sexualising asian women has an entangled history.. - Stereotyping The Cheongsam: Appropriation. How? Wearing chopsticks in your hair or wearing yellow makeup or something really fn offensive on those lines. - But... - Wearing a [plain Cheongsam](https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1WeXgIpXXXXX1XXXXq6xXFXXXd/Free-shipping-customized-2015-new-Women-s-Fashion-summer-dress-Creative-Jeans-Denim-look-shortsleeve-sexy.jpg_640x640.jpg) and just being white: Appropriation. Why? I don't know! - Heres some links that back up this viewpoint that solely being white excludes you from wearing a cheongsam: - https://www.quora.com/Can-a-white-person-wear-a-cheongsam - https://babe.net/2017/12/07/white-people-need-to-stop-wearing-the-chinese-qipao-print-24010 - I asked once on a forum if I could wear a plain cheongsam like [This](http://www.elegente.com/mandarin-collar-mini-qipao-dress-blue.html) to the office. And people gasped and said 'No!'. Why are they acting like this? This has to have more to do than the color of my skin right? Or...no? - Lastly, I don't want to wear cheongsam an an accessory, nor to fetishize, nor to downplay the cultural significance it once had. I want to wear them to embrace their significance, as female empowerment, to encourage all races through their simple beauty (like the denim one above), and to bring them back to light in a way that reflects its true cultural significance and homage. But all I can do for now is learn. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I personally don't buy into "cultural appropration" being offensive, or care about clothes being "sexualised", so I suppose I agree with you on those points. You're missing a CRUCIAL point, though. I can't believe these words are coming out of my mouth, but here's a family guy clip demonstrating a point from the opposite perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHXYzffXxXQ My reaction as a Chinese person to seeing a white girl wear a qipao would be comparable to a white person seeing a fresh off the boat chinese immigrant a wearing cowboy hat, spurred boots, and ill-fitted jeans and flannel trying their best to emulate a texan accent. This kind of stuff simply shows a complete lack of TASTE and AWARENESS. As an American-born Chinese, there were actually tons of kids I knew that would do things like that - some kids parents even named them "Liberty". It just comes off as a desperate attempt to insert yourself into a culture that you're not a part of - have you ever felt the atmosphere of a conversation disintegrate when somebody unwanted tries to enter a conversation, completely uninvited, and then not be socially aware enough to register that they're making everybody uncomfortable? Everybody sort of shuffles and mumbles uncomfortably and tries to exit subtly. That's pretty much what's happening when people pull this kind of stuff. There are really few instances that would warrant a white girl to wear a qipao, maybe if you were a white child adopted into a Chinese family attending some sort of ceremony or whatever but in almost any other situation you would be inappropriately dressed. Pleaseeeee spare people the embarrassment and don't. --- Makes a ton of sense, and I have never worn one in my life, because of the way it makes people uncomfortable. My reaction as a Chinese person to seeing a white girl wear a qipao would be comparable to a white person seeing a fresh off the boat chinese immigrant a wearing cowboy hat, spurred boots, and ill-fitted jeans and flannel trying their best to emulate a texan accent. This kind of stuff simply shows a complete lack of TASTE and AWARENESS. As an American-born Chinese, there were actually tons of kids I knew that would do things like that - some kids parents even named them "Liberty". I adressed this in point number two...sort of...briefly. 'Stereotyping the cheongsam'. i,e putting chopsticks in your hair or trying to emulate a chinese accent, as absolute cultural appropriation. I said that I am not trying to emulate the cheongsam in this way or try to do this. However, by wearing one, I aknowledge it's roots in chinese culture and that cannot be changed. However, I'm not trying to be chinese by wearing one, nor are you trying to be white while wearing jeans. Nor am I trying to be a part of a culture that i'm not a part of. I'm not trying to be a part of Cantonese culture by speaking Cantonese, or eating Dim Sum, or even marrying a man from HK. I'm still white, and still aknowledge that. I'm merely, trying to be a western person wearing a plain cheongsam, no more. Actually I have seen some chinese men wear cowboy hats before, I chuckle a little bit but then I smile and think it's really cute. I don't have a problem with it. Ofc if they tried to emulate an american accent it would be a different story, but I never suggested id do that. I think you're just blowing it out of propertion to the simple wearing of the cheongsam. No accessories, no accent. just plain and simple one. I just don't understand why in the 1920's, Cheongsams were once worn everywhere (e.g, in shanghai). But now, they are not. What changed peoples views from it being daily worn? And why isn't it appropriate to wear them as much today and only in special ceremonies? I mean, i'm not trying to wear outrageous ones. Just simple, cotton ones. I can see where your coming from but you tried to change my mind on a point i already adressed and stated that i'm not trying to do that, could you CMV on these other points? --- You're creating a false equivalence between jeans and a cheongsam. I just want to point out that the history of the two garments are actually deeply politicized and come from almost opposite ends of the spectrum. The rise in popularity of jeans stems in part from showing solidarity with the working class (which is why men tend not to casually wear suits like they used to). The cheongsam became a symbol of the bourgeois culture and eschewed during China's Cultural Revolution. It wasn't until their was a re-evaluation of traditional culture in the 80s that it came back and mostly in formal settings. With the cheongsam you posted, I would point out the one you posted seems to be designed for more daily wear. I notice the neck is far more modern, the fit more loose, and the design fairly plain. Sure you could probably wear that and it would pass most people's notice as just a nice dress. But that's taking a style of clothing from another culture and changing it to suit your needs. That's cultural appropriation. I'm not going to assign value to that but it is what it is. I would point out, however, your words around it kind of give me pause. Cheongsams from the 1920s (and even modern ones for formal events) are supposed to be "outrageous." They are supposed to be eye-catching and designs on them (usually floral or some kind of pattern) are very much tied to its history. They're not supposed to be "simple." It's not honoring anything or paying homage to history to ignore that. Also, I don't see where you get "female empowerment" from wearing them in a modern context. The feminist movement in Taiwan that brought the cheongsam into popularity has come and gone. It's developed and moved on to newer things. Yet also you are saying a demure form of them plays into cultural significance when the change to make them more form fitting and having higher slits in the 1900s was to be outrageous and rebellious. Finally cheongsams have been brought back as a more formal style of dress by Chinese people. You're acting there's not a place to wear them but there is. Whatever a cheongsam's "true cultural significance and homage" is, I really doubt that it's a white girl wearing it while getting her morning coffee on her way to work. Part of their significance is a garment in Chinese culture. At the very least, I think you just need to get off the moral high horse about wearing a cheongsam because it definitely reads as appropriation to me. Your understanding seems so removed and surface level academic that you miss a lot of context and are twisting things to suit your personal justifications without actually considering the full context.	Cultural appropriation itself is a generally neutral term that describes when people of one culture adopt or take on aspects of another culture. It's only been in recent years that the negative connotations have overtaken the academic sense of the word. By letter of its definition, however, what you are describing is cultural appropriation. In the academic sense, cultural appropriation does not assign value to the phenomenon but if you are a person with no connection or heritage in Chinese Culture, it is a form of appropriation to wear clothes not native to your ethnic or cultural identity. Given the complexities of cultural appropriation, I would point out you do a huge disservice to your intellectual honesty to try a make a one-size-fit-all rule without actually delving deeper into the nuances at play. I (as an Asian-American) certainly can see situations where wearing a qipao and cheongsam can be read as fine and other situations where it is not so fine. Your view seems to advocate being ignorant of that wanting to declare it fine across the board. Sidenote: I know a lot of people are going to want to parse out appropriation versus appreciation or appropriation versus cultural drift or try to justify how cultural appropriation is always a negative but please realize I am not discounting harm that cultural appropriation creates. I'm just saying it describes a social phenomenon without making a judgment statement in its original definition. Certainly words evolve and that can be discussed but that's not really a point I'm trying to comment on. --- Do you think some things can become such a part of a sort of global patronage that they can no longer be appropriated? Like maybe the baseball cap or jeans? --- Cultural appropriation refers to the usage of a minority culture's items by a majority culture. Baseball cap and jeans would be considered majority culture, and thus not appropriation. One would generally refer to that under the more blanket term of diffusion	8f08f7	CMV: White Females wearing Cheogsam/Qipao is not Cultural Appropriation	Can a white girl wear a cheongsam? I used to think any race can, but many online say that whites CANNOT. Or, is there a line? - The following lines I need to address: - Sexualisation of the Cheongsam: Appropriation. How? Short skirt length, cut out revealing pieces, skimpy styles. Why? Because the original purpose was a form of empowerment for asian women. And sexualising asian women has an entangled history.. - Stereotyping The Cheongsam: Appropriation. How? Wearing chopsticks in your hair or wearing yellow makeup or something really fn offensive on those lines. - But... - Wearing a [plain Cheongsam](https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1WeXgIpXXXXX1XXXXq6xXFXXXd/Free-shipping-customized-2015-new-Women-s-Fashion-summer-dress-Creative-Jeans-Denim-look-shortsleeve-sexy.jpg_640x640.jpg) and just being white: Appropriation. Why? I don't know! - Heres some links that back up this viewpoint that solely being white excludes you from wearing a cheongsam: - https://www.quora.com/Can-a-white-person-wear-a-cheongsam - https://babe.net/2017/12/07/white-people-need-to-stop-wearing-the-chinese-qipao-print-24010 - I asked once on a forum if I could wear a plain cheongsam like [This](http://www.elegente.com/mandarin-collar-mini-qipao-dress-blue.html) to the office. And people gasped and said 'No!'. Why are they acting like this? This has to have more to do than the color of my skin right? Or...no? - Lastly, I don't want to wear cheongsam an an accessory, nor to fetishize, nor to downplay the cultural significance it once had. I want to wear them to embrace their significance, as female empowerment, to encourage all races through their simple beauty (like the denim one above), and to bring them back to light in a way that reflects its true cultural significance and homage. But all I can do for now is learn. _____ > 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!*	Rusty-Unicorn	3	3	[ { "author": "SpelignErrir", "id": "dxzmoz0", "score": 19, "text": "I personally don't buy into \"cultural appropration\" being offensive, or care about clothes being \"sexualised\", so I suppose I agree with you on those points.\n\nYou're missing a CRUCIAL point, though.\n\nI can't believe these wor...	[ { "author": "videoninja", "id": "dxzl1cb", "score": 2, "text": "Cultural appropriation itself is a generally neutral term that describes when people of one culture adopt or take on aspects of another culture. It's only been in recent years that the negative connotations have overtaken the academic s...	[ "dxzmoz0", "dxznnre", "dy07xm9" ]	[ "dxzl1cb", "dxzlsav", "dxzmhqg" ]
Cmv: landlords need a rating system We all hear about the nightmare tenants. A minority of people that ruin properties, defy leases, live gross, or disrupt other tenants. But landlords arent all good either. The invention of the landlord tenant act has helped make it possible for both parties to settle disputes but some landlords are way worse than the worst tenants. I'm sick of trying to reach out to my landlord about a leaking roof that causes mold over time, who doesnt want to put money into their own property or ignored messages. I pay my rent. I dont disrupt my neighbours. I clean up after my dog. And yet every landlord I've dealt with gives the impression to me that I'm less than they are just pay rent and piss off. The landlord tenant act is good but it's not enough. Renting properties is a legitimate business. Why is there not a way to rate landlords to hold them accountable in the communities like google rates restaurants? Bad landlords should be driven out of business. Edit: some comments have tried to differentiate between review and ratings. To clarify, although they are functionally different my view would be that they are intrinsic to each other as you wouldnt be able to properly rate without a reason why to reduce malicious attempts on reputations, legal implications, etc. And although its acknowledged that most reviews would be negative that is based on assumptions. It could presumably generate positive reviews as well.	It already exists: https://www.reviewmylandlord.com/ --- This works better for property management companies but ot doesnt seem to have as much effect for independent landlords. Not in canada anyways. --- In Toronto they are working on a system similar to the restaurant pass/warning/fail system, notices that would have to be placed in buildings showing their rating...I don't have much confidence it will be enforced nearly enough and also won't cover all the rentals that are private/in homes --- Toronto is in desperate need because of their housing crisis. It might need government involvement to be effective. --- But more restrictions/costs/overhead on landlords may cause them to get out of being landlords, thus making the housing crisis worse. --- Or crash the market driving down Toronto's grossly inflated house costs. --- There are several ways of crashing a market. The biggest one is to build a ton of new stuff to buy. Another is for a bunch of people who were previous buyers to go somewhere else. A third way to do it is to introduce something similar enough for people to substitute it for whatever it is that you're talking about so people go do that instead. Adding additional costs to the thing or convincing suppliers to not supply anymore are not things that drive down costs. They are things that increase prices even further. The core problem is that there simply aren't enough houses for the number of people. The high prices and the crappy properties for rent all stem from that one root. A rating system will warn people that they are getting a crappy deal, but because so many people are bidding on so few houses people will take a crappy deal anyways. The issue is one of geography and zoning. You can fix the issue by allowing new developments to build smaller, increase the footprint of public transit, encourage economic development elsewhere in Canada, and providing some advantage for providing large amounts of good quality housing.	Why? Apartment and management companies already have reviews on places like Google reviews and Yelp or [Apartments.com](https://Apartments.com). Airbnb is probably as close as you can get for individual landlords. You seem to be focusing on individual landlords, but those reviews would be fairly useless in most scenarios I'd imagine. Most reviews that you get are either due to people being very happy or very bad. You also wouldn't have a high enough volume of reviews to get a meaningful review. If a single bad tenant leaves a bad review, that rating is going to be heavily skewed. Statistically speaking, you need quite a few reviews to have a meaningful review, and that would almost never happen. [https://www.qualtrics.com/experience-management/research/determine-sample-size/](https://www.qualtrics.com/experience-management/research/determine-sample-size/) Also if a landlord has bad reviews, they can easily just open a 1 person LLC (which they should most likely have anyways) and how do you necessarily tie it back to them? It would be very easy to circumvent if you are in fact a malicious landlord. --- Okay remove ratings but a simple review or comment would be enough for prospective tenants to see a landlords tendencies and behaviours. Independent landlords in some cases rent 2 or 3+ units per property and they can likely cycle more than once a year depending on circumstances. Presumably bad landlords may cycle tenants more frequently than average. Then take into account if they have multiple properties and those review numbers grow exponentially. And becoming a LLC doesnt stop people from holding companies responsible for their behaviour. --- >landlords need a rating system This was the title of your CMV and you just said > Okay remove ratings So has your view changed? > a simple review or comment would be enough for prospective tenants to see a landlords tendencies and behaviours. It would give you the viewpoint of the individual leaving the review or comment, which could be very biased. Look at most review systems online, they're nearly all inflated or manipulated. People leave bad reviews to get free things, or leave fake good reviews etc. > Independent landlords in some cases rent 2 or 3+ units per property and they can likely cycle more than once a year depending on circumstances. Sure, but reviews are rare. Look at large apartment complexes. The one I lived in had 300+ apartments, has been around 10+ years, and has less than 100 reviews on both [apartments.com](https://apartments.com) and google reviews. If people don't have an incentive to leave a review they most likely won't. > Then take into account if they have multiple properties and those review numbers grow exponentially. NitPick but that's not exponentially. Reviews would presumably grow linearly in relation to number of tenants. > And becoming a LLC doesnt stop people from holding companies responsible for their behaviour. It also doesn't stop the landlord from making a new LLC every year and changing the name he's operating under, making those old reviews of the old company meaningless. --- A review system or a rating system both essentially do the same thing. Allowing someone to state a case can give insight into a person. Although that can make it vulnerable to abuse it can also be useful if you get corroboration from multiple tenants. I dont know about you but I dont need 100+ people saying the same thing to believe them. Although I concede my math may be more on the linear scale as opposed to the exponential I'd be able to make a decision off even a dozen people saying the same thing. Given that most landlords are in the business over a long period of time I'd say that in most cases I'd get enough information to make a decision for me and my family. --- > A review system or a rating system both essentially do the same thing. A review system feeds into a rating system but they're not the same thing. Ratings attempt to quantify those results from the reviews left by people. Your CMV title specifically dictates a rating system, which implies they are rated against each other to determine if one is better than the other. Reviews don't do that. > Given that most landlords are in the business over a long period of time I'd say that in most cases I'd get enough information to make a decision for me and my family. You're completely ignoring that they can easily operate under a different company if the previous one gets bad reviews. --- It may imply except that I made my stance clear. Your inserting an assumption. My stance is that landlords need to be held more accountable and that a system needs to be in place to make tenants aware of good and bad landlords. It's not a system meant to aid landlords in competition. A review would suffice for that purpose but a rating system has potential to do the same thing too. Its essentially splitting hairs to say they are different when you have comments explaining something or giving 5 stars. In honesty I'd rather have an explanation. Otherwise to say a landlord would simply change their company name well 2 things, that's alot of effort and a little implausible to expect landlord john doe to open a new company every year and honestly if it's just the same landlord interacting with tenants each time his name is going to stick. Communities have a way of making reputations follow you around. It's more realistic for a landlord to hire a property manager at that point in which case a review system would still use a landlords name along with tenants experiences with them. --- > It may imply except that I made my stance clear. Your title explicitly says rating lol. The rules in CMV say "The title must adequately sum up your view". > Its essentially splitting hairs to say they are different when you have comments explaining something or giving 5 stars. No, those are drastically different. If you want the system to scale you need a way to quantitatively rate them. What if a landlord has 1000 reviews? What if some are good, some are bad etc. You have no way of knowing without sifting through and trying to figure out how much people liked it, compared to a simple rating system. > that's alot of effort and a little implausible to expect landlord john doe to open a new company every year No it's not, it's a few hundred dollars and a few minutes of talking to a lawyer. There may be better ways of doing it as well > if it's just the same landlord interacting with tenants each time his name is going to stick. What if he just doesn't tell you it, or tells you a fake name? There's no incentive for him to be upfront if he knows he's a bad landlord. > It's more realistic for a landlord to hire a property manager at that point in which case a review system would still use a landlords name along with tenants experiences with them. You wouldn't know the landlords name in the case of a property owner. There's no reason for you to.	fbiyd4	Cmv: landlords need a rating system	We all hear about the nightmare tenants. A minority of people that ruin properties, defy leases, live gross, or disrupt other tenants. But landlords arent all good either. The invention of the landlord tenant act has helped make it possible for both parties to settle disputes but some landlords are way worse than the worst tenants. I'm sick of trying to reach out to my landlord about a leaking roof that causes mold over time, who doesnt want to put money into their own property or ignored messages. I pay my rent. I dont disrupt my neighbours. I clean up after my dog. And yet every landlord I've dealt with gives the impression to me that I'm less than they are just pay rent and piss off. The landlord tenant act is good but it's not enough. Renting properties is a legitimate business. Why is there not a way to rate landlords to hold them accountable in the communities like google rates restaurants? Bad landlords should be driven out of business. Edit: some comments have tried to differentiate between review and ratings. To clarify, although they are functionally different my view would be that they are intrinsic to each other as you wouldnt be able to properly rate without a reason why to reduce malicious attempts on reputations, legal implications, etc. And although its acknowledged that most reviews would be negative that is based on assumptions. It could presumably generate positive reviews as well.	togetherforall	7	7	[ { "author": "Run_13", "id": "fj4jv59", "score": 287, "text": "It already exists: https://www.reviewmylandlord.com/", "timestamp": 1583009959 }, { "author": "togetherforall", "id": "fj4kp97", "score": 153, "text": "This works better for property management companies but ot doe...	[ { "author": "dantheman91", "id": "fj4ooxg", "score": 47, "text": "Why? Apartment and management companies already have reviews on places like Google reviews and Yelp or [Apartments.com](https://Apartments.com). Airbnb is probably as close as you can get for individual landlords.\n\nYou seem to be fo...	[ "fj4jv59", "fj4kp97", "fj5f479", "fj5gluu", "fj5o4nq", "fj6bbdi", "fj6ybho" ]	[ "fj4ooxg", "fj4q6l8", "fj4qw9t", "fj4v5jf", "fj4w06t", "fj4xntp", "fj50bwf" ]
CMV: it’s possible to change your sexuality and people mock those who change because that scares them. My basic opinion is that some people have an unfixed sexuality, even as adults. I don’t believe conversion therapy is a terrible thing for all. I have had it and it worked for me. I saw others that it didn’t work for, but they were still happier after they tried it. Recently the President of the Philippines came out as exgay. Now he’s not a popular person or president and it’s understandable he was treated suspiciously, but many people have mocked him for being gay still. I think this is wrong. The worst thing you can do is use gay as an insult. The same applies to homophobic people, saying ‘oh they are secretly gay’. I think the root of all this is the fear that the people mocking others might turn gay themselves. If they are already gay, they don’t like the idea that sexuality is not always fixed because it means they might be able to change. If there was a 100% way to change sexuality then they would not tell us because it would upset people. People like things to stay the same and change is an attack on them. People get offended at other people changing sexuality because it makes them insecure about themselves. TLDR I don’t think people should get upset if people say they are exgay.	When you say conversion therapy "worked" for you, what do you mean? Could you elaborate on the kinds of therapy you received? Why were you in therapy in the first place? What was the outcome? I ask because, as other users have pointed out, there is no empirical evidence that conversion therapy is effective, and plenty of empirical evidence that it is harmful. Proponents of therapy almost exclusively point to anecdotes like yours, but given the social pressure (in many if not most of those cases) to say that therapy worked, that is hardly reliable evidence. --- Sure, it wasn’t anything too invasive. I wasn’t forced into it. My family don’t even know. I first got involved through a prayer group where I met a guy who invited me to a more ‘select’ group. We did laying of hands and some prayers and support. It was mainly celibacy based. Then I got a counsellor, who helped me avoid bad situations and promote good ones. The only painful part was I had to flick myself with an elastic band to stop invasive thoughts, and I had to do sports. I’m married now, I guess that’s the outcome. It’s made me a bit homophobic which isn’t great these days. I’m not unhappy though. I’d say I was less attracted to men but I still have some thoughts sometimes, no more so than most straight people. --- One of the interesting things about the 'it worked for me' argument is that it's used by so many people who later admit it didn't and they were lying. A bit like a cult. You say it didn't damage you but admit it made you homophobic. You say it changed you but you admit to still having some 'residual' attraction. You say it's a good thing but on r/gaybros said; 'Hi bros, my therapist said I should make efforts to interact with gay people and see you as human beings.' So it made you dehumanise gay people so much so your therapist understood it was damaging. How is that good? You appear to be a sexually fluid man who is still quite fluid, but ashamed of part of that aspect of yourself. If you think it worked, well you're going to tell yourself that regardless. If it didn't work as intended or expected you'll make excuses for it. Then perhaps one day, like so many others, you won't.	I would like to change your mind on Duterte’s unpopularity. His loyalists just swept the midterm elections and he successfully got his children elected. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/15/asia/duterte-loyalists-sweep-philippines-midterms-intl/index.html --- Δ oh yes good point! Yes I suppose he would have to be popular in general, but not with liberals who are the ones attacking him for being gay. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/avatarlegend12345 ([3∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/avatarlegend12345)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	bvvb4t	CMV: it’s possible to change your sexuality and people mock those who change because that scares them.	My basic opinion is that some people have an unfixed sexuality, even as adults. I don’t believe conversion therapy is a terrible thing for all. I have had it and it worked for me. I saw others that it didn’t work for, but they were still happier after they tried it. Recently the President of the Philippines came out as exgay. Now he’s not a popular person or president and it’s understandable he was treated suspiciously, but many people have mocked him for being gay still. I think this is wrong. The worst thing you can do is use gay as an insult. The same applies to homophobic people, saying ‘oh they are secretly gay’. I think the root of all this is the fear that the people mocking others might turn gay themselves. If they are already gay, they don’t like the idea that sexuality is not always fixed because it means they might be able to change. If there was a 100% way to change sexuality then they would not tell us because it would upset people. People like things to stay the same and change is an attack on them. People get offended at other people changing sexuality because it makes them insecure about themselves. TLDR I don’t think people should get upset if people say they are exgay.	Cockwombles	3	3	[ { "author": "I_am_the_night", "id": "ept3ek4", "score": 6, "text": "When you say conversion therapy \"worked\" for you, what do you mean? Could you elaborate on the kinds of therapy you received? Why were you in therapy in the first place? What was the outcome?\n\nI ask because, as other users ha...	[ { "author": "avatarlegend12345", "id": "epst1q6", "score": 3, "text": "I would like to change your mind on Duterte’s unpopularity. His loyalists just swept the midterm elections and he successfully got his children elected.\n\nhttps://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/15/asia/duterte-loya...	[ "ept3ek4", "ept5kx9", "ept6hn7" ]	[ "epst1q6", "epstq3i", "epstqu6" ]
CMV: it’s possible to change your sexuality and people mock those who change because that scares them. My basic opinion is that some people have an unfixed sexuality, even as adults. I don’t believe conversion therapy is a terrible thing for all. I have had it and it worked for me. I saw others that it didn’t work for, but they were still happier after they tried it. Recently the President of the Philippines came out as exgay. Now he’s not a popular person or president and it’s understandable he was treated suspiciously, but many people have mocked him for being gay still. I think this is wrong. The worst thing you can do is use gay as an insult. The same applies to homophobic people, saying ‘oh they are secretly gay’. I think the root of all this is the fear that the people mocking others might turn gay themselves. If they are already gay, they don’t like the idea that sexuality is not always fixed because it means they might be able to change. If there was a 100% way to change sexuality then they would not tell us because it would upset people. People like things to stay the same and change is an attack on them. People get offended at other people changing sexuality because it makes them insecure about themselves. TLDR I don’t think people should get upset if people say they are exgay.	I would like to change your mind on Duterte’s unpopularity. His loyalists just swept the midterm elections and he successfully got his children elected. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/15/asia/duterte-loyalists-sweep-philippines-midterms-intl/index.html --- Δ oh yes good point! Yes I suppose he would have to be popular in general, but not with liberals who are the ones attacking him for being gay. --- Liberals aren’t attacking him for being gay, they saying he’s still gay and not ex-gay. --- Isn’t that using gay as an insult to him? --- How? It’s not insulting it’s a fact. --- It’s mainly done in an offensive way imo. --- How can you be offended by being called gay unless you consider being gay a bad thing? It's not an insult if you are okay with being gay.	I agree that one's sexuality is not necessarily fixed in the way most people think it is. A shared experience I've had with fellow LGBT people is a kind of necessary heteronormativity. Like in high school we said we were straight, we told ourselves we were straight, and a lot of us felt that in that period of our lives we just needed to be straight. I think we do a disservice to the concept of coming out to yourself when we reduce it to denial. One of my friends (now a lesbian) truly loved her high school boyfriend but realized she was a different person than she thought during college. Conversion therapy as it exists right now, however, is severely damaging to a lot of people. [On the evidence](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-whether-conversion-therapy-can-alter-sexual-orientation-without-causing-harm/) alone it actually doesn't really show reproducible positive results. Maybe this is not exactly what you're talking about but wouldn't the better way to phrase this is that there is a fluid nature to your sexuality rather than it "changes?" The reason for the necessary language differentiation is because conversion therapy as it exists now uses that kind of language those programs do create demonstrable, empirical, and clinically validated harm. --- I think all kinds of treatments do cause harm. Most people who seek therapy are more likely to be unhappy and even commit suicide so the statistics aren’t going to be great anyway. I’d agree sexuality is fluid, but doesn’t that mean the same thing, so I don’t know if it’s changed my mind yet. I’d say one or two good results can still make up for some bad results. It’s their choice so it’s not a problem imo. There are lots of complementary therapies with no results at all that are still popular. I can’t say I was 100% gay at any point in my life but I did live with a guy for a year and we had some sort of relationship so most people would call that gay. I had very few attractions to women that increased when I had the therapy. Enough to meet my girlfriend and now wife so I’d say that was a positive. I’d like to know why people who are lgbt like you are, are so against the exgay movement apart from the idea that it seems to cause some people to be suicidal. --- One or two good results doesnt change the fact that conversion therapy has no evidence of having an effect. At all. Not to mention that it further sitgamitses LGBT youths- because how many parents are going to force their kids to do it against their will? LGBT youth are already at higher risk of suicide and depressive thoughts, and something like this really doesnt help them --- Forcing kids to do it is wrong, no one is talking about that. You have to want to do it. It had an effect for me and other people I know. People dismiss that evidence for some reason. --- Because they’re anecdotes at best, and lies at worse. --- Everything is an anecdote. Even the research. You just can’t get a solid answer about sexuality because it’s a vague thing that is different for everyone. --- There is a difference between an anecdote and self report research, though it's worth noting that a lot of the research done on conversion therapy doesn't attempt to measure whether one's sexuality changed. Rather, a lot of the research examines the therapy impact on a person's life, and that is much more objective than simply asking someone.	bvvb4t	CMV: it’s possible to change your sexuality and people mock those who change because that scares them.	My basic opinion is that some people have an unfixed sexuality, even as adults. I don’t believe conversion therapy is a terrible thing for all. I have had it and it worked for me. I saw others that it didn’t work for, but they were still happier after they tried it. Recently the President of the Philippines came out as exgay. Now he’s not a popular person or president and it’s understandable he was treated suspiciously, but many people have mocked him for being gay still. I think this is wrong. The worst thing you can do is use gay as an insult. The same applies to homophobic people, saying ‘oh they are secretly gay’. I think the root of all this is the fear that the people mocking others might turn gay themselves. If they are already gay, they don’t like the idea that sexuality is not always fixed because it means they might be able to change. If there was a 100% way to change sexuality then they would not tell us because it would upset people. People like things to stay the same and change is an attack on them. People get offended at other people changing sexuality because it makes them insecure about themselves. TLDR I don’t think people should get upset if people say they are exgay.	Cockwombles	7	7	[ { "author": "avatarlegend12345", "id": "epst1q6", "score": 3, "text": "I would like to change your mind on Duterte’s unpopularity. His loyalists just swept the midterm elections and he successfully got his children elected.\n\nhttps://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/15/asia/duterte-loya...	[ { "author": "videoninja", "id": "epstqj5", "score": 8, "text": "I agree that one's sexuality is not necessarily fixed in the way most people think it is. A shared experience I've had with fellow LGBT people is a kind of necessary heteronormativity. Like in high school we said we were straight, we to...	[ "epst1q6", "epstq3i", "ept7zxs", "ept8ewb", "ept8zfa", "ept9usf", "eptm1vi" ]	[ "epstqj5", "epsya8z", "ept2fe8", "ept2lsc", "ept96b3", "ept9q3l", "eptai87" ]
CMV: it’s possible to change your sexuality and people mock those who change because that scares them. My basic opinion is that some people have an unfixed sexuality, even as adults. I don’t believe conversion therapy is a terrible thing for all. I have had it and it worked for me. I saw others that it didn’t work for, but they were still happier after they tried it. Recently the President of the Philippines came out as exgay. Now he’s not a popular person or president and it’s understandable he was treated suspiciously, but many people have mocked him for being gay still. I think this is wrong. The worst thing you can do is use gay as an insult. The same applies to homophobic people, saying ‘oh they are secretly gay’. I think the root of all this is the fear that the people mocking others might turn gay themselves. If they are already gay, they don’t like the idea that sexuality is not always fixed because it means they might be able to change. If there was a 100% way to change sexuality then they would not tell us because it would upset people. People like things to stay the same and change is an attack on them. People get offended at other people changing sexuality because it makes them insecure about themselves. TLDR I don’t think people should get upset if people say they are exgay.	When you say conversion therapy "worked" for you, what do you mean? Could you elaborate on the kinds of therapy you received? Why were you in therapy in the first place? What was the outcome? I ask because, as other users have pointed out, there is no empirical evidence that conversion therapy is effective, and plenty of empirical evidence that it is harmful. Proponents of therapy almost exclusively point to anecdotes like yours, but given the social pressure (in many if not most of those cases) to say that therapy worked, that is hardly reliable evidence. --- Sure, it wasn’t anything too invasive. I wasn’t forced into it. My family don’t even know. I first got involved through a prayer group where I met a guy who invited me to a more ‘select’ group. We did laying of hands and some prayers and support. It was mainly celibacy based. Then I got a counsellor, who helped me avoid bad situations and promote good ones. The only painful part was I had to flick myself with an elastic band to stop invasive thoughts, and I had to do sports. I’m married now, I guess that’s the outcome. It’s made me a bit homophobic which isn’t great these days. I’m not unhappy though. I’d say I was less attracted to men but I still have some thoughts sometimes, no more so than most straight people. --- One of the interesting things about the 'it worked for me' argument is that it's used by so many people who later admit it didn't and they were lying. A bit like a cult. You say it didn't damage you but admit it made you homophobic. You say it changed you but you admit to still having some 'residual' attraction. You say it's a good thing but on r/gaybros said; 'Hi bros, my therapist said I should make efforts to interact with gay people and see you as human beings.' So it made you dehumanise gay people so much so your therapist understood it was damaging. How is that good? You appear to be a sexually fluid man who is still quite fluid, but ashamed of part of that aspect of yourself. If you think it worked, well you're going to tell yourself that regardless. If it didn't work as intended or expected you'll make excuses for it. Then perhaps one day, like so many others, you won't. --- Δ Yeah I should not have said that to them, my excuse was I didn’t really see them as nice people. I do now. I think you misunderstand what success is, there isnt like a total cure usually unless you have ect or something. You still have to avoid things to keep yourself straight and sometimes that can go too far. It’s just like being a drug addict. You have to avoid other drug users. I’m giving you a delta because fair enough, I would think it worked and I did sort of wonder if my definition of ‘worked’ might be different to what other people would think it was. --- My dude that’s not being cured, that’s forcing yourself to go against the attraction that you still have. If saying you are straight and cured makes you happy, whatever I guess, but throwing around words like “cure” and saying “it works for me and people I know!” while fully admitting that you are still attracted to dudes is disingenuous and furthers the debunked notion that conversion therapy even works. --- I’m not attracted to dudes, I can see if a guy is attractive or not. I don’t want to have sex with them. Before I did sort of want to actively do that. More importantly is I am attracted to my wife. I don’t know how to describe that, but it did make me more heterosexual. But that’s not really the issue, my view is that you can change your sexuality not that you can flip it from gay to straight. --- How do you know that you went from gay to straight, and that you weren't bisexual from the start? --- I didn’t identify as gay to start with, so that’s not my claim. I don't remember having any crushes on women though, they were overshadowed by my crushes on men. It just reduced that and made me able to see that I liked women. Maybe I was always bisexual but it just made me more straight. --- So you weren't Gay and went to conversion therapy for what purpose? To just make you more straight? You are giving wildly different answers and scenarios depending on the questions you are being asked and quite frankly it's very confusing to even nail down what you actually believe on this subject. You think you can change your sexuality but you claim to have never been Gay. Some people can find men and women attractive, those are called bisexuals. Ask your average dude if he could ever be persuaded to fuck a dude and I can tell you the answer is going to be a hard no, same for most women. --- Ok fine fuck it, I was gay then. I just didn’t identify as gay. Does that make sense to at all? I’m really sorry I find it hard to explain in a way people will understand and I don’t like saying I was pretty much exclusively gay. No I think many guys will fuck a dude, depending on the situation, could be alcohol, or prison, or just desperation. Most straight men will admire other men. --- I think you are way off in your estimation, most dudes find just kissing another dude to be repulsive. --- Yes they say that, sure. But most people will watch the Avengers and think say, Thor is a handsome guy. --- There is a difference between saying "That Thor fella is hot" and "boy i sure wish Thor would fuck me!" Recognizing attractiveness of the same sex doesn't make you gay, that's called having eyes and being confident enough to not worry whether people will think it's gay. I'm a lesbian and I don't want a dude anywhere near me in a sexual way, but I can look at a dude and objectively say "hey that's a pretty hot fella.". That doesn't make me straight though. --- Yeah well that’s how I feel now. Before I would look at him sexually but I don’t now either. But I think anyone could be swayed if they were desperate enough. --- You still look at him at that way because you’re still gay and conversion therapy doesn’t work. --- No well, I’ve tried sex with a man recently and I found it disgusting. He was attractive too I am just not sexually interested in men anymore. --- Hang on, I have to ask. If you went through conversion therapy and are no longer gay (or have sexual attraction to men) and are happily hetero married and such as you have repeatedly claimed...why did you try and have sex with a man recently?	I would like to change your mind on Duterte’s unpopularity. His loyalists just swept the midterm elections and he successfully got his children elected. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/15/asia/duterte-loyalists-sweep-philippines-midterms-intl/index.html --- Δ oh yes good point! Yes I suppose he would have to be popular in general, but not with liberals who are the ones attacking him for being gay. --- Liberals aren’t attacking him for being gay, they saying he’s still gay and not ex-gay. --- Isn’t that using gay as an insult to him? --- How? It’s not insulting it’s a fact. --- It’s mainly done in an offensive way imo. --- How can you be offended by being called gay unless you consider being gay a bad thing? It's not an insult if you are okay with being gay. --- Calling straight people gay is calling them a liar and saying you know their sexuality better than Than them. Also yes I guess if they get conversion therapy it does suggest they don’t like being gay, so it infers that you are insulting them for being gay. --- >Calling straight people gay is calling them a liar and saying you know their sexuality better than Than them. Or that it's more likely that they are sincere in their beliefs and desire to change sexuality, but are unlikely to have actually achieved it given the evidence. > Also yes I guess if they get conversion therapy it does suggest they don’t like being gay, so it infers that you are insulting them for being gay. So if somebody feels offended by being called something, that makes it insulting? Because in that case, conversion therapy itself is extremely offensive, because the concept suggests that being gay is a condition that needs to be treated. --- No no, that’s like saying for trans women that being male is a condition that needs to be treated. The issue is they aren’t happy having a male body. There’s nothing wrong with being male. I still think the way they insult people for being gay is the issue. They say crude things like ‘I bet they secretly suck dicks’. See this thread for example https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/bv8w0q/philippines_president_duterte_says_he_was_once/ --- > No no, that’s like saying for trans women that being male is a condition that needs to be treated. That's not really the reasoning when it comes to trans identity, though. Gender Dysphoria is the condition that is treated, not one's gender or gender identity. >I still think the way they insult people for being gay is the issue. They say crude things like ‘I bet they secretly suck dicks’. That's not really an insult, though. It's crude, sure, but personally I don't consider sucking dick to be a bad thing (I'm personally a fan). I get why you're not happy with people questioning his sincerity, I really do. But it's not coming from a place of shaming people for being straight, it's coming from the fact that the very idea that sexuality is something that should be changed is kind of a slap in the face to LGB people. --- Why can’t you have sexuality dysphoria then. Or any thing your unhappy about, say you don’t like your nose. You can have that treated. Are you gay then or a woman I guess? Either way I do consider sucking dicks to be an insult. Especially when it’s meant as an insult. I think maybe you saw ‘should be changed’ when really it’s a personal thing. If someone wants to be straight then why shouldn’t they be allowed to feel that way? But that was my original point, that you confirmed. People see it as insulting if you suggest sexuality isn’t fixed and once gay always gay. --- > Why can’t you have sexuality dysphoria then Dysphoria is an internal process that people experience even in the absence of social rejection (i.e., people would likely still experience gender dysphoria even if society was totally accepting of their identity and there was no pressure to be cisgender). It's not about being "unhappy with your body", it's about inconsistency between one's gender identity and biological sex, and the distress that causes. There isn't really any evidence that people experience the same kind of internal phenomenon with regard to homosexuality. The main source of distress when it comes to sexual orientation is external, namely from rejection, alienation, and/or antagonism/harassment. Again, I can understand why somebody who is experiencing those things would want to change their sexuality (it's a lot easier to be straight because nobody is harassing you for it). But it's not really the same as gender dysphoria. Plus trans people also tend to experience social rejection. >Either way I do consider sucking dicks to be an insult. Especially when it’s meant as an insult. Why do you consider it an insult? I do agree that people shouldn't use sucking dick as an insult, though. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. >If someone wants to be straight then why shouldn’t they be allowed to feel that way? They are absolutely allowed to feel that way. The problem is that evidence shows that wanting to be straight won't make you straight if you aren't straight, no matter how bad you want it. And wanting to change an unchangeable part of yourself is not good. >People see it as insulting if you suggest sexuality isn’t fixed and once gay always gay. Even if sexuality could be changed, that's not the offensive part. The offensive part is the suggestion that one's sexuality should be changed. --- Well I didn’t have any external feelings that made me want to reject homosexual thoughts. I just didn’t like it to be honest. It caused me distress. I said mine should be changed, no one else did. I don’t think generally people should change their sexuality, I think they should put up with it unless they really can’t deal with it. Then they can change whatever they like, it’s their life. I think sucking someone’s dick is demeaning and enjoying it is a bit odd. I can see why you can enjoy making a partner happy, but the overriding thing is submissive. Why don’t you think that? --- >Well I didn’t have any external feelings that made me want to reject homosexual thoughts. Didn't you say you were religious? >I just didn’t like it to be honest. It caused me distress. Why didn't you like it? Why did it distress you? >I said mine should be changed, no one else did. I don’t think generally people should change their sexuality, I think they should put up with it unless they really can’t deal with it. Then they can change whatever they like, it’s their life. People can live their lives however they want, sure. But in terms of effectiveness and rush, there's basically no reason to support the use of conversion therapy. >I think sucking someone’s dick is demeaning and enjoying it is a bit odd. I can see why you can enjoy making a partner happy, but the overriding thing is submissive. Why don’t you think that? It doesn't have to be about submission at all. It's about doing something to make your partner happy. Besides, if it's reciprocated I don't really see the issue, because then it's more about submitting to your feelings for each other than about submitting to the will of another person. --- Is this too off topic? Yeah I was raised fundamentalist Christian but they didn’t go on about gay things, and my mum said it was ok if I was that way. I don’t particularly care what people expect of me and I generally like to do my own thing. I do come from a homophobic society, but I’ve not felt pressured exactly. It distressed me because it makes me feel icky. Do you know when there’s something in a romcom that’s too sappy and it makes you want to vomit? I don’t see a reason to not let someone try conversion therapy. It has placebo effect at a minimum. It lets them think they are doing something. Sometimes people can change. Rarely though, I guess. I’d still do it if it was possible. Some gay people just like sucking random dicks though. Can you explain that? I can’t. --- >Is this too off topic? No, at this point I'm just interested in the discussion. >Yeah I was raised fundamentalist Christian but they didn’t go on about gay things, and my mum said it was ok if I was that way. that's interesting, and is unusual as far as fundamentalist Christianity goes. >Do you know when there’s something in a romcom that’s too sappy and it makes you want to vomit? But do you know why homosexuality in particular makes you feel icky? If you are attracted to men, why does being attracted to men make you feel icky? >I don’t see a reason to not let someone try conversion therapy. Because it can do real harm. People try to change their sexuality despite that being essentially impossible, and only feel worse as a result. For people who are already in a bad place, that can be devastating. > It has placebo effect at a minimum. It can only have a placebo affect if somebody thinks it will work or thinks that it worked, and that's not necessarily the case. Plus, the placebo affect is not something that should be aimed for in treatment, we should aim to actually have effective therapy. >Some gay people just like sucking random dicks though. Can you explain that? I can’t. Some people like fish despite the fact that to me fish smells like a dumpster. Some people like sucking dick, some people don't. As long as everybody's consenting, it's fine.	bvvb4t	CMV: it’s possible to change your sexuality and people mock those who change because that scares them.	My basic opinion is that some people have an unfixed sexuality, even as adults. I don’t believe conversion therapy is a terrible thing for all. I have had it and it worked for me. I saw others that it didn’t work for, but they were still happier after they tried it. Recently the President of the Philippines came out as exgay. Now he’s not a popular person or president and it’s understandable he was treated suspiciously, but many people have mocked him for being gay still. I think this is wrong. The worst thing you can do is use gay as an insult. The same applies to homophobic people, saying ‘oh they are secretly gay’. I think the root of all this is the fear that the people mocking others might turn gay themselves. If they are already gay, they don’t like the idea that sexuality is not always fixed because it means they might be able to change. If there was a 100% way to change sexuality then they would not tell us because it would upset people. People like things to stay the same and change is an attack on them. People get offended at other people changing sexuality because it makes them insecure about themselves. TLDR I don’t think people should get upset if people say they are exgay.	Cockwombles	17	17	[ { "author": "I_am_the_night", "id": "ept3ek4", "score": 6, "text": "When you say conversion therapy \"worked\" for you, what do you mean? Could you elaborate on the kinds of therapy you received? Why were you in therapy in the first place? What was the outcome?\n\nI ask because, as other users ha...	[ { "author": "avatarlegend12345", "id": "epst1q6", "score": 3, "text": "I would like to change your mind on Duterte’s unpopularity. His loyalists just swept the midterm elections and he successfully got his children elected.\n\nhttps://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/15/asia/duterte-loya...	[ "ept3ek4", "ept5kx9", "ept6hn7", "ept8ddp", "ept9sdp", "eptec0f", "eptezf8", "eptfyx2", "eptvqqz", "eptwe5c", "epu1rq4", "epu29kh", "epu3t2m", "epud44d", "epugir8", "epvosvi", "epwl616" ]	[ "epst1q6", "epstq3i", "ept7zxs", "ept8ewb", "ept8zfa", "ept9usf", "eptm1vi", "eptmjj3", "eptp5i3", "eptptma", "eptqbay", "eptrnec", "epttzl4", "eptv6ec", "eptxz69", "epu01uf", "epu0ngi" ]
CMV: it’s possible to change your sexuality and people mock those who change because that scares them. My basic opinion is that some people have an unfixed sexuality, even as adults. I don’t believe conversion therapy is a terrible thing for all. I have had it and it worked for me. I saw others that it didn’t work for, but they were still happier after they tried it. Recently the President of the Philippines came out as exgay. Now he’s not a popular person or president and it’s understandable he was treated suspiciously, but many people have mocked him for being gay still. I think this is wrong. The worst thing you can do is use gay as an insult. The same applies to homophobic people, saying ‘oh they are secretly gay’. I think the root of all this is the fear that the people mocking others might turn gay themselves. If they are already gay, they don’t like the idea that sexuality is not always fixed because it means they might be able to change. If there was a 100% way to change sexuality then they would not tell us because it would upset people. People like things to stay the same and change is an attack on them. People get offended at other people changing sexuality because it makes them insecure about themselves. TLDR I don’t think people should get upset if people say they are exgay.	When you say conversion therapy "worked" for you, what do you mean? Could you elaborate on the kinds of therapy you received? Why were you in therapy in the first place? What was the outcome? I ask because, as other users have pointed out, there is no empirical evidence that conversion therapy is effective, and plenty of empirical evidence that it is harmful. Proponents of therapy almost exclusively point to anecdotes like yours, but given the social pressure (in many if not most of those cases) to say that therapy worked, that is hardly reliable evidence. --- Sure, it wasn’t anything too invasive. I wasn’t forced into it. My family don’t even know. I first got involved through a prayer group where I met a guy who invited me to a more ‘select’ group. We did laying of hands and some prayers and support. It was mainly celibacy based. Then I got a counsellor, who helped me avoid bad situations and promote good ones. The only painful part was I had to flick myself with an elastic band to stop invasive thoughts, and I had to do sports. I’m married now, I guess that’s the outcome. It’s made me a bit homophobic which isn’t great these days. I’m not unhappy though. I’d say I was less attracted to men but I still have some thoughts sometimes, no more so than most straight people. --- > The only painful part was I had to flick myself with an elastic band to stop invasive thoughts Does that not seem deeply disturbing to you? I can tell you that as a third party observer, that sounds like a real cult-like identity destroying thing to make someone do, and if I saw a loved one doing it we would have an immediate conversation about their safety and independence. You admit that you still feel urges, but now you are married to someone you had to literally torture yourself to find attractive. You have attempted to train yourself like a dog to avoid what made you happy and to go towards what others tell you makes you happy. It doesn't sound like the conversion technique worked, it sounds like a group of people you trusted and emotionally depend on told you that it had to work or you weren't one of them. Is that friendship?	I agree that one's sexuality is not necessarily fixed in the way most people think it is. A shared experience I've had with fellow LGBT people is a kind of necessary heteronormativity. Like in high school we said we were straight, we told ourselves we were straight, and a lot of us felt that in that period of our lives we just needed to be straight. I think we do a disservice to the concept of coming out to yourself when we reduce it to denial. One of my friends (now a lesbian) truly loved her high school boyfriend but realized she was a different person than she thought during college. Conversion therapy as it exists right now, however, is severely damaging to a lot of people. [On the evidence](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-whether-conversion-therapy-can-alter-sexual-orientation-without-causing-harm/) alone it actually doesn't really show reproducible positive results. Maybe this is not exactly what you're talking about but wouldn't the better way to phrase this is that there is a fluid nature to your sexuality rather than it "changes?" The reason for the necessary language differentiation is because conversion therapy as it exists now uses that kind of language those programs do create demonstrable, empirical, and clinically validated harm. --- I think all kinds of treatments do cause harm. Most people who seek therapy are more likely to be unhappy and even commit suicide so the statistics aren’t going to be great anyway. I’d agree sexuality is fluid, but doesn’t that mean the same thing, so I don’t know if it’s changed my mind yet. I’d say one or two good results can still make up for some bad results. It’s their choice so it’s not a problem imo. There are lots of complementary therapies with no results at all that are still popular. I can’t say I was 100% gay at any point in my life but I did live with a guy for a year and we had some sort of relationship so most people would call that gay. I had very few attractions to women that increased when I had the therapy. Enough to meet my girlfriend and now wife so I’d say that was a positive. I’d like to know why people who are lgbt like you are, are so against the exgay movement apart from the idea that it seems to cause some people to be suicidal. --- One or two good results doesnt change the fact that conversion therapy has no evidence of having an effect. At all. Not to mention that it further sitgamitses LGBT youths- because how many parents are going to force their kids to do it against their will? LGBT youth are already at higher risk of suicide and depressive thoughts, and something like this really doesnt help them	bvvb4t	CMV: it’s possible to change your sexuality and people mock those who change because that scares them.	My basic opinion is that some people have an unfixed sexuality, even as adults. I don’t believe conversion therapy is a terrible thing for all. I have had it and it worked for me. I saw others that it didn’t work for, but they were still happier after they tried it. Recently the President of the Philippines came out as exgay. Now he’s not a popular person or president and it’s understandable he was treated suspiciously, but many people have mocked him for being gay still. I think this is wrong. The worst thing you can do is use gay as an insult. The same applies to homophobic people, saying ‘oh they are secretly gay’. I think the root of all this is the fear that the people mocking others might turn gay themselves. If they are already gay, they don’t like the idea that sexuality is not always fixed because it means they might be able to change. If there was a 100% way to change sexuality then they would not tell us because it would upset people. People like things to stay the same and change is an attack on them. People get offended at other people changing sexuality because it makes them insecure about themselves. TLDR I don’t think people should get upset if people say they are exgay.	Cockwombles	3	3	[ { "author": "I_am_the_night", "id": "ept3ek4", "score": 6, "text": "When you say conversion therapy \"worked\" for you, what do you mean? Could you elaborate on the kinds of therapy you received? Why were you in therapy in the first place? What was the outcome?\n\nI ask because, as other users ha...	[ { "author": "videoninja", "id": "epstqj5", "score": 8, "text": "I agree that one's sexuality is not necessarily fixed in the way most people think it is. A shared experience I've had with fellow LGBT people is a kind of necessary heteronormativity. Like in high school we said we were straight, we to...	[ "ept3ek4", "ept5kx9", "epul2eo" ]	[ "epstqj5", "epsya8z", "ept2fe8" ]
CMV: it’s possible to change your sexuality and people mock those who change because that scares them. My basic opinion is that some people have an unfixed sexuality, even as adults. I don’t believe conversion therapy is a terrible thing for all. I have had it and it worked for me. I saw others that it didn’t work for, but they were still happier after they tried it. Recently the President of the Philippines came out as exgay. Now he’s not a popular person or president and it’s understandable he was treated suspiciously, but many people have mocked him for being gay still. I think this is wrong. The worst thing you can do is use gay as an insult. The same applies to homophobic people, saying ‘oh they are secretly gay’. I think the root of all this is the fear that the people mocking others might turn gay themselves. If they are already gay, they don’t like the idea that sexuality is not always fixed because it means they might be able to change. If there was a 100% way to change sexuality then they would not tell us because it would upset people. People like things to stay the same and change is an attack on them. People get offended at other people changing sexuality because it makes them insecure about themselves. TLDR I don’t think people should get upset if people say they are exgay.	When you say conversion therapy "worked" for you, what do you mean? Could you elaborate on the kinds of therapy you received? Why were you in therapy in the first place? What was the outcome? I ask because, as other users have pointed out, there is no empirical evidence that conversion therapy is effective, and plenty of empirical evidence that it is harmful. Proponents of therapy almost exclusively point to anecdotes like yours, but given the social pressure (in many if not most of those cases) to say that therapy worked, that is hardly reliable evidence. --- Sure, it wasn’t anything too invasive. I wasn’t forced into it. My family don’t even know. I first got involved through a prayer group where I met a guy who invited me to a more ‘select’ group. We did laying of hands and some prayers and support. It was mainly celibacy based. Then I got a counsellor, who helped me avoid bad situations and promote good ones. The only painful part was I had to flick myself with an elastic band to stop invasive thoughts, and I had to do sports. I’m married now, I guess that’s the outcome. It’s made me a bit homophobic which isn’t great these days. I’m not unhappy though. I’d say I was less attracted to men but I still have some thoughts sometimes, no more so than most straight people. --- One of the interesting things about the 'it worked for me' argument is that it's used by so many people who later admit it didn't and they were lying. A bit like a cult. You say it didn't damage you but admit it made you homophobic. You say it changed you but you admit to still having some 'residual' attraction. You say it's a good thing but on r/gaybros said; 'Hi bros, my therapist said I should make efforts to interact with gay people and see you as human beings.' So it made you dehumanise gay people so much so your therapist understood it was damaging. How is that good? You appear to be a sexually fluid man who is still quite fluid, but ashamed of part of that aspect of yourself. If you think it worked, well you're going to tell yourself that regardless. If it didn't work as intended or expected you'll make excuses for it. Then perhaps one day, like so many others, you won't. --- Δ Yeah I should not have said that to them, my excuse was I didn’t really see them as nice people. I do now. I think you misunderstand what success is, there isnt like a total cure usually unless you have ect or something. You still have to avoid things to keep yourself straight and sometimes that can go too far. It’s just like being a drug addict. You have to avoid other drug users. I’m giving you a delta because fair enough, I would think it worked and I did sort of wonder if my definition of ‘worked’ might be different to what other people would think it was. --- My dude that’s not being cured, that’s forcing yourself to go against the attraction that you still have. If saying you are straight and cured makes you happy, whatever I guess, but throwing around words like “cure” and saying “it works for me and people I know!” while fully admitting that you are still attracted to dudes is disingenuous and furthers the debunked notion that conversion therapy even works. --- I’m not attracted to dudes, I can see if a guy is attractive or not. I don’t want to have sex with them. Before I did sort of want to actively do that. More importantly is I am attracted to my wife. I don’t know how to describe that, but it did make me more heterosexual. But that’s not really the issue, my view is that you can change your sexuality not that you can flip it from gay to straight. --- How do you know that you went from gay to straight, and that you weren't bisexual from the start? --- I didn’t identify as gay to start with, so that’s not my claim. I don't remember having any crushes on women though, they were overshadowed by my crushes on men. It just reduced that and made me able to see that I liked women. Maybe I was always bisexual but it just made me more straight. --- >I didn’t identify as gay to start with, so that’s not my claim. So if you didn't identify as gay, why did you go to conversion therapy? >I don't remember having any crushes on women though, they were overshadowed by my crushes on men. It just reduced that and made me able to see that I liked women. So it didn't really change your sexuality, it just redirected your focus? >Maybe I was always bisexual but it just made me more straight. Or it gave you an aversion to your homosexual attractions, so now you just focus more on your heterosexual ones. Either way, it doesn't sound like you actually needed conversion therapy (even if you think being gay needs to be treated), because you said you didn't even identify as gay. --- I went because I was attracted to men and not women. I didn’t identify as gay and that was the problem. I identified as straight even though I had a person I was dating who was gay. That kind of annoyed me even though I was obviously to blame for that. It redirected the focus yes. It’s hard to explain but even seeing myself as bisexual, or saying it’s ok to be straight and have gay crushes, made it easier to manage being straight. It helped anyway. --- Dude, it sounds like you conditioned yourself. Like, classical conditioning. The elastic band in particular is very Pavlovian. That's not a cure, that's effectively a coping method.	I agree that one's sexuality is not necessarily fixed in the way most people think it is. A shared experience I've had with fellow LGBT people is a kind of necessary heteronormativity. Like in high school we said we were straight, we told ourselves we were straight, and a lot of us felt that in that period of our lives we just needed to be straight. I think we do a disservice to the concept of coming out to yourself when we reduce it to denial. One of my friends (now a lesbian) truly loved her high school boyfriend but realized she was a different person than she thought during college. Conversion therapy as it exists right now, however, is severely damaging to a lot of people. [On the evidence](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-whether-conversion-therapy-can-alter-sexual-orientation-without-causing-harm/) alone it actually doesn't really show reproducible positive results. Maybe this is not exactly what you're talking about but wouldn't the better way to phrase this is that there is a fluid nature to your sexuality rather than it "changes?" The reason for the necessary language differentiation is because conversion therapy as it exists now uses that kind of language those programs do create demonstrable, empirical, and clinically validated harm. --- I think all kinds of treatments do cause harm. Most people who seek therapy are more likely to be unhappy and even commit suicide so the statistics aren’t going to be great anyway. I’d agree sexuality is fluid, but doesn’t that mean the same thing, so I don’t know if it’s changed my mind yet. I’d say one or two good results can still make up for some bad results. It’s their choice so it’s not a problem imo. There are lots of complementary therapies with no results at all that are still popular. I can’t say I was 100% gay at any point in my life but I did live with a guy for a year and we had some sort of relationship so most people would call that gay. I had very few attractions to women that increased when I had the therapy. Enough to meet my girlfriend and now wife so I’d say that was a positive. I’d like to know why people who are lgbt like you are, are so against the exgay movement apart from the idea that it seems to cause some people to be suicidal. --- When you say "conversion therapy" what does that bring up in your mind? I think perhaps you are looking at an idealized version that is not the norm of the industry. Many conversion therapy centers actually target LGBT youth. So a lot of teenagers are forced into these centers by their parents. A lot of states recently have banned that doesn't stop parents from sending their kids over state lines to the facilities that do exist. I work in medicine so I approach things from an data-driven perspective. In modern medicine, there is no ethical rationale to practice something that has more negative results than desired results. The weighing of risk versus benefit here just doesn't work out because more people end up hurt or worse coming out of these facilities than better. This isn't like cancer where death is actively involved by an inborn pathology. Accepting a nuclear option of worst potential outcome when other safer options exist seems unwise from a rational standpoint. If you know the history of conversion therapy, [one of the most famous studies used to support it was retracted by its author (Robert Spitzer),](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html) who was one of the most influential leaders in contemporary psychiatry due to his work on the DSM. Per his own words: >You know, it’s the only regret I have; the only professional one,” Dr. Spitzer said of the study, near the end of a long interview. “And I think, in the history of psychiatry, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a scientist write a letter saying that the data were all there but were totally misinterpreted. Who admitted that and who apologized to his readers. That ultimately gets to the heart of the matter. I'm not against conversion therapy as a matter of being LGBT, I'm against it as a matter of being a responsible clinician. We don't prescribe faith healing or complementary medicine that's unproven. There's a kind of glib saying we have that medicine that works is called medicine when it comes to holistic or alternative treatments. I know that sounds dismissive and harsh but when it comes to the science that's what it is and why I linked you those studies. --- Yes I do understand there’s not a lot of statistics that show it works and I’m aware some kids are forced into it. I don’t like the misuse of it, certainly not. But... Sexuality is quite a nebulous thing to measure. I don’t personally accept the research as conclusive. I don’t mind if people do. It doesn’t really bother me too much if people don’t believe in it. It’s the way they go about it. There’s active hatred for people who claim it’s helped them. I don’t think that’s just a basic atheist hatred of pseudoscience. People don’t insult people who take alternative medicines. People can say ‘I take this for colds and flu and say a prayer’ or whatever, but if you say, ‘I used to be gay and now I’m cured’, people will avoid you like you have plague. --- I went through your post history and at one point you said you are [mildly bisexual](https://www.reddit.com/r/confessions/comments/9a6clf/i_did_something_messed_up_to_my_gay_friend_trying/e4t76hx/?context=10000). Was that a sincere comment or a joke when you made that? That's not an attack or me trying to trap you in a corner. We don't have to talk about this if it makes you uncomfortable but looking through your own statements about your history... I don't know what you mean by conversion therapy being "a success" for you. There's a difference between you having the grace to take the good of what happened to you versus the reality of what was done to you. You have a level of emotional resilience that's not afforded to most people and I don't think that's a standard that's fair for everyone to bear. You had to confront your homophobia against others because of what happened to you. What happened to the people who had to confront their homophobia against themselves or think about your friend who you thought you were helping. I don't doubt the sincerity that people believe this kind of therapy can help but I think demonstrably, even your own past shows how misguided and damaging it is. --- It wasn’t a joke, but I have thought maybe identifying like that sometimes would be easier to explain to people. I don’t like being called a liar when I say I’m not gay but I have had gay relationships. Look I know I’m not a perfect spokesperson for anything. I’m not saying conversion therapy is a thing that works for even 50% of people. I think it’s a success because it helped me frame and control how I felt in a way I understood. It doesn’t seem to be the way society sees it anymore, but it did help. I’m kind of thinking I might be a bit misguided maybe, I know what it feels like to not have something solid to judge things on, like I say the whole idea of sexuality is so weird and nebulous. By my standards it worked and I felt better. By others standards, it didn’t work and it just made me homophobic. Idk. --- There are therapists who work with LGBT youth in understanding their sexuality. Sometimes this takes the form of group therapy. Not everyone who sees these counselors ultimately identify as LGBT. I guess my point is just because you got a couple good aspects from what happened to you, why settle for that when there’s more to be had? What I just mentioned has all the benefits you got without the accompanying problems in a similar way with some important tweaks. This is not to say you shouldn’t feel good about yourself or start doubting your sexuality. I’m just speaking to conversion therapy as an industry and practice. There are better ways to achieve what you got and I think it’s important to recognize the damage to the LGBT community that conversion therapy creates. If you, as a success story, still ended up creating homophobia then what does that mean for the failures and the damage they wreak on the community? --- I’m only personally a bit homophobic, conversions therapy in itself isn’t homophobic I don’t think. No one ever said gay people were bad or anything, I got that on my own. I did think lgbt therapists were brain washers honestly, they do have a vested interest, when I was younger I didn’t even consider that as an option because I didn’t agree with them. --- But you do realize now that disagreement is unfounded, right? Again I am not trying to shame or box you into a corner. I just think the side I’ve presented so far isn’t coming from an emotional or irrational viewpoint. In regards to the greater picture conversion therapy, at its heart it is subtly saying being gay is bad. They use negative reinforcement techniques to make you associate homosexual thoughts with bad things. Even small things like snapping a rubberband on your wrist is still a form of negative association therapy. It’s like a dark mirror of Pavlov’s bell. --- Δ Ok yeah that’s a fair cop. Smacking yourself with an elastic band when you think of gay things is subtlety (actually maybe not so subtle is it) telling you that homosexuality is bad. I don’t personally agree with LGBT counsellors now, I still think they are biased. They are just people, usually gay people. I’m not saying they don’t do a lot of good and help young gay people. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/videoninja ([70∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/videoninja)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	bvvb4t	CMV: it’s possible to change your sexuality and people mock those who change because that scares them.	My basic opinion is that some people have an unfixed sexuality, even as adults. I don’t believe conversion therapy is a terrible thing for all. I have had it and it worked for me. I saw others that it didn’t work for, but they were still happier after they tried it. Recently the President of the Philippines came out as exgay. Now he’s not a popular person or president and it’s understandable he was treated suspiciously, but many people have mocked him for being gay still. I think this is wrong. The worst thing you can do is use gay as an insult. The same applies to homophobic people, saying ‘oh they are secretly gay’. I think the root of all this is the fear that the people mocking others might turn gay themselves. If they are already gay, they don’t like the idea that sexuality is not always fixed because it means they might be able to change. If there was a 100% way to change sexuality then they would not tell us because it would upset people. People like things to stay the same and change is an attack on them. People get offended at other people changing sexuality because it makes them insecure about themselves. TLDR I don’t think people should get upset if people say they are exgay.	Cockwombles	11	11	[ { "author": "I_am_the_night", "id": "ept3ek4", "score": 6, "text": "When you say conversion therapy \"worked\" for you, what do you mean? Could you elaborate on the kinds of therapy you received? Why were you in therapy in the first place? What was the outcome?\n\nI ask because, as other users ha...	[ { "author": "videoninja", "id": "epstqj5", "score": 8, "text": "I agree that one's sexuality is not necessarily fixed in the way most people think it is. A shared experience I've had with fellow LGBT people is a kind of necessary heteronormativity. Like in high school we said we were straight, we to...	[ "ept3ek4", "ept5kx9", "ept6hn7", "ept8ddp", "ept9sdp", "eptec0f", "eptezf8", "eptfyx2", "eptjmo7", "eptmdkf", "epvu0kl" ]	[ "epstqj5", "epsya8z", "ept3f8y", "ept4rrt", "eptatiw", "eptdawv", "epte51u", "eptjk1p", "eptkdnz", "eptlcdm", "eptld9e" ]
CMV: "What if everyone did it..." is a terrible counter argument Whenever I try to take advantage of a loophole I am asked what would the world look like if everyone would take advantage of said circumstance. This is a terrible argument. The reason I would want to do anything is because of its apparent benefit to me. If other people also take advantage of an opportunity and I still get my benefit everything if fine. If after I start other people take advantage and later cause me a loss that shouldn't stop me from receiving benefits today. CMV: "What if everyone did it..." is a terrible counter argument _____ > 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!*	Many people believe that they bear some moral responsibility to others, and that they should do things other than simply whatever most benefits them. "What if everyone did it..." is meant to highlight the important benefits that come from a norm. --- Shouldn't moral responsibility to oneself is put before moral responsibility to others? --- Moral arguments generally address problems larger than the self. People can be assumed to act in their own benefit. In fact, there is a whole branch of ethical philosophy that embraces this, but even those ethical philosophies generally caveat "as long as it does not harm (alternately: violate the rights of) others". Yes, you can take care of yourself first, but the ethical problems addressed with "what if everyone did X" are usually addressing the harm to others you are doing through act X. 1 person pissing in the street seems petty with a low impact on society. Not no impact, but low. A few people end up cringing at the smell, and you probably don't have any diseases that are contageous from urine. However, the more people pissing in the street creates a cumulative impact. The city smells bad more often and more people unknowingly spreading a disease through their urine. The logical exteme of this is everyone pissing in the streets to the point of everyone pissing in the street would create a massive hygiene and stench problem.	The fact that it benefits you, or continues to do so, isn't the point. Usually people say, "What if everyone did it," in conjunction with something stupid or potentially harmful. "What if everyone did it," used in response to, say, running a red light, or taking all the towels in the restroom paints a picture of a world where everyone is running red lights and there is nothing in the bathroom to dry your hands. Yes, you still benefit, but the point is that people shouldn't do some things because if too many people did that thing, it'd be a mess for everyone everywhere. We agree to stop at red lights so that people don't get hurt, we (should) agree to only use as many towels as needed so that when you use the rest room, there are towels for you. This is an example where, if no one did the thing (wasting paper towels) you directly benefit. In fact, bathroom towels are a great example of this: for years people just grabbed giant handfuls of towels, forcing businesses to constantly restock the paper. Then someone invented the motion-sensing paper towel dispensers. They don't exist because some pointy-haird boss decided to make your life miserable, they exist because too many stupid shitheads wasted a shitton of paper towels and businesses needed a way to control the consumption. That's why they're shitty and slow and obnoxious: so that you'll only take whatever you need and then be on your way. This is why if people had a little thought for others, we wouldn't have to grumble and wipe our hands on our pants after leaving the restroom. Hence, "If everyone did it, it would suck." And it does. --- These motion sensing paper towel dispensers can be exploited rather easily (I do it fairly often). It may take longer to get the entire roll, but the possibility is there. --- That is a matter of mitigation, not elimination. Yes, people can take all those towels if they realy want to, but because it is more trouble, fewer will pursue that course f action.	6pq5st	CMV: "What if everyone did it..." is a terrible counter argument	Whenever I try to take advantage of a loophole I am asked what would the world look like if everyone would take advantage of said circumstance. This is a terrible argument. The reason I would want to do anything is because of its apparent benefit to me. If other people also take advantage of an opportunity and I still get my benefit everything if fine. If after I start other people take advantage and later cause me a loss that shouldn't stop me from receiving benefits today. CMV: "What if everyone did it..." is a terrible counter argument _____ > 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!*	Innocence_Misplaced	3	3	[ { "author": "ThatSpencerGuy", "id": "dkrbhaa", "score": 3, "text": "Many people believe that they bear some moral responsibility to others, and that they should do things other than simply whatever most benefits them. \n\n\"What if everyone did it...\" is meant to highlight the important benefits th...	[ { "author": "saltedfish", "id": "dkraui6", "score": 17, "text": "The fact that it benefits you, or continues to do so, isn't the point. Usually people say, \"What if everyone did it,\" in conjunction with something stupid or potentially harmful.\n\n\"What if everyone did it,\" used in response to, s...	[ "dkrbhaa", "dkrbmx1", "dkrdw0t" ]	[ "dkraui6", "dkrb296", "dkrc9pn" ]
CMV:There are only 3 genders There is only 3 genders. Male. Female, and non-binary. Everything else, in my opinion is crap made up by SJWS to feel special. In my opinion, Trigender, Gender queer, bi-gender, pangender all mean the same thing, you feel that you have both male and female aspects to your gender identity. I honestly don't see why you need so many classifications for it, it just makes things more complicated for people like me when we have to remember specific pronouns to call you. Androgyny and gender bender is just you being an asshole, classifying someone as something that is against the norm because they don't act like how the genitalia says they should act. I admit that this is a problem with gender roles and everything but I feel you're just making it worse. You're just naming the devil to those who believe in gender roles. If there was no specific name for it, how are the masses supposed to isolate people who are different from them. Finally Transgenders. I dont see why you would classify yourself as a transgender seeing as too how you are CHANGING your gender. This means you are either Male, Female, or non- binary. If you call yourself a transgender, that just means you are an attention whore in my opinion. There should be no need for this word AT ALL. Thank you. _____ > 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!*	If gender correlates strongly with sex then does it not make sense to have a term for someone who is an outlier like transgender? --- i dont believe so, with my limited understanding, transgender means that you have CHANGED your gender. This means to me that if you were a female, and you change sexes, you are not a transgender, you are male or non-binary cause you feel like a male or non-binary. Calling yourself a transgender just shows to me personally that you yourself don't believe that you have converted your gender. --- Transgender is an adjective, not a noun. It simply describes that your gender identity does not match the sex that you were assigned at birth - regardless of your transition status.	What do you think a gender is? What makes male, female, and non-binary genders and the other ones you listed not genders? --- Sorry, let me clarify, i believe that Gender is only 3 things Male Female, and Non-binary. --- But what are male, female, and non-binary? They're genders. What are genders? How do you tell apart a gender and non-gender?	8f2hzk	CMV:There are only 3 genders	There is only 3 genders. Male. Female, and non-binary. Everything else, in my opinion is crap made up by SJWS to feel special. In my opinion, Trigender, Gender queer, bi-gender, pangender all mean the same thing, you feel that you have both male and female aspects to your gender identity. I honestly don't see why you need so many classifications for it, it just makes things more complicated for people like me when we have to remember specific pronouns to call you. Androgyny and gender bender is just you being an asshole, classifying someone as something that is against the norm because they don't act like how the genitalia says they should act. I admit that this is a problem with gender roles and everything but I feel you're just making it worse. You're just naming the devil to those who believe in gender roles. If there was no specific name for it, how are the masses supposed to isolate people who are different from them. Finally Transgenders. I dont see why you would classify yourself as a transgender seeing as too how you are CHANGING your gender. This means you are either Male, Female, or non- binary. If you call yourself a transgender, that just means you are an attention whore in my opinion. There should be no need for this word AT ALL. Thank you. _____ > 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!*	Sauces0me	3	3	[ { "author": "Mr-Ice-Guy", "id": "dxzzd0o", "score": 3, "text": "If gender correlates strongly with sex then does it not make sense to have a term for someone who is an outlier like transgender?", "timestamp": 1524748403 }, { "author": "Sauces0me", "id": "dxzzqwj", "score": 0, ...	[ { "author": "DeleteriousEuphuism", "id": "dxzzbou", "score": 7, "text": "What do you think a gender is? What makes male, female, and non-binary genders and the other ones you listed not genders?", "timestamp": 1524748362 }, { "author": "Sauces0me", "id": "dxzzji4", "score": 1, ...	[ "dxzzd0o", "dxzzqwj", "dy00sd6" ]	[ "dxzzbou", "dxzzji4", "dxzzobi" ]
CMV: My country, Australia, is practically a pariah state I am going to focus on 2 main aspects: Popular opinion and international diplomacy * 1: Popular opinion * Most of the online dialogue I see about Australia is negative, with people on social media bringing up the following issues (the following are links to news articles showing that the issues are real): * [Poor treatment of asylum seekers](https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-did-our-treatment-of-refugees-come-to-this-20190704-p5246c.html) * [History of atrocities against Indigenous people](https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-indigenous-australians-the-most-incarcerated-people-on-earth-78528) * [Climate inaction](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/02/australia-climate-action-un-sustainable-development/) * [Stealing East Timor's oil wealth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUXxWCsi2Rk) * [Letting mining companies destroy historical sites](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-23/bhp-wa-aboriginal-heritage-site-damaged-pilbara-rio-tinto-juukan/13184826) * [Betraying its own citizens such as Julian Assange](https://twitter.com/smh/status/1346418919565877249?s=19) * There is a bit of positive online dialogue about Australia, such as about our [gun control](https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/) or our [universal healthcare](https://healthcarechannel.co/opinion-australian-healthcare-vs-us-healthcare/). But while this is a positive to some people, it is seen as a negative by other people. * Other countries with lots of atrocities throughout their history, such as the USA, Russia, or China, can point to exemplary achievements by their nations to deflect from criticism. They can use this to claim the national equivalent of "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". In Australia's case, this doesn't work, because our positive achievements are little-known outside Australia. * 2: International diplomacy * There are 4 main examples I can think of: * As previously mentioned, Australia is sucking up to the USA by betraying Julian Assange, and also by joining all the USA's wars. * As u/Anarcho_Humanist [showed me](https://np.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/mrxrts/does_australia_grovel_to_the_usa_due_to_necessity/gv226e2?context=100) on r/Ask_Politics the betrayal of Julian Assange to the USA is nothing compared to the betrayal of the Balibo 5 to Indonesia. * Prior to the pandemic, some of our politicians were fawning over China, both [left-wing](https://www.afr.com/politics/sam-dastyari-pledges-to-support-china-on-south-china-sea-beside-labor-donor-20160831-gr5mwk) and [right-wing](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-10/joyce-calls-china-benevolent-tyranny/11195154). * Despite some of our allies recognising the Armenian Genocide, [the Australian Federal Government refuses to do so](https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/100-years-on-australias-still-out-of-step-on-the-armenian-genocide/), in order to maintain good relations with Turkey. * If Australia needs to grovel so hard for good relations, not just to superpowers like the USA and China, but also to middle powers like Indonesia and Turkey, then it goes to show that we aren't genuinely liked on the world stage. It goes to show that we don't have friends, only transactional relationships. Unlike other [pariah states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_state) like North Korea or Cuba, Australia doesn't have global sanctions; and unlike Israel, at least we have worldwide diplomatic recognition. However, we are now facing [unilateral sanctions from China](https://www.9news.com.au/national/china-trade-sanctions-did-not-hurt-australian-exporters-as-expected/b0c23816-d964-4f0a-941d-b44e65329fa5). And I fear that the only thing preventing global sanctions or the withdrawal of diplomatic recognition, is our grovelling to other nations. Edit: This is not to discuss whether or not Australia deserves to be a pariah state. It is CMV, we are practically a pariah state already.	From an outsider's perspective, this isn't the case. I read about and talk about international politics a ton. If Australia was a pariah state in any way, I would know. The discussion around Australia is minimal. It's a relatively small country, that is very stable internally, and geographically isolated from most conflict. Yes there are occasional negative headlines, none of which leave much of a long term impact externally. Just go and ask a german what the name of the mining company that's destroying aboriginal sites is, or the names of any of the aboriginal groups involved. Canada is digging up mass child graves right now and people still hold an overwhelmingly positive view of Canada. Nothing you listed is even close to that. When you talk about mistreatment of asylum seekers and refugees, everybody thinks about the US and EU. Nobody but an Australian would jump to that island camp. Likewise with everything else, virtually every first world nation is guilty of stealing natural recourses, climate change inaction and atrocities against indigenous people (most of Europe was still clinging onto brutal colonial empires up until the 50s, no one is going to single out Australia on this). --- >Canada is digging up mass child graves right now and people still hold an overwhelmingly positive view of Canada. Nothing you listed is even close to that. When you talk about mistreatment of asylum seekers and refugees, everybody thinks about the US and EU. I was under the impression that Canada also became a pariah state overnight, since they unearthed multiple mass graves, in quick succession (i.e. not just a one-off) this year? --- You're being extremely liberal with your usage of "pariah state". Being criticized for something is not the same as being cast out from the community of nations.	A pariah state is a nation considered to be an outcast in the international community. A pariah state may face international isolation, sanctions or even an invasion by nations who find its policies, actions, or even its very existence unacceptable. (a politically independent unit) diplomatically ostracized by the international community and usually repressive of its citizens’ human rights). Currently, there are eleven pariah states - [https://www.worlddata.info/pariahstates.php](https://www.worlddata.info/pariahstates.php) If we are comparing or putting in the range of places like North Korea, it is definitely not a parish state. Overall, Australia is country that is isolated from most conflict. It has stable economy and affairs with other nations. Australia's economy is underpinned by strong institutions, an exceptional services sector and an ability to respond to global changes. Over the next five years, Australia's economic growth rate is forecast to be the highest among major advanced economies. Australia also ranks fairly for the human rights index. From an external perspective, Australia is rarely referred to in association with a Pariah state, even though there are negative headlines. --- >Overall, Australia is country that is isolated from most conflict. It has stable economy and affairs with other nations. Australia's economy is underpinned by strong institutions, an exceptional services sector and an ability to respond to global changes. Over the next five years, Australia's economic growth rate is forecast to be the highest among major advanced economies. Australia also ranks fairly for the human rights index. I agree with this. >A pariah state is a nation considered to be an outcast in the international community. A pariah state may face international isolation, sanctions or even an invasion by nations who find its policies, actions, or even its very existence unacceptable. (a politically independent unit) diplomatically ostracized by the international community and usually repressive of its citizens’ human rights). Currently, there are eleven pariah states - > >https://www.worlddata.info/pariahstates.php However, if not for our grovelling, it would quickly become evident that we have no friends on the world stage, only transactional relations. Are we really "not a pariah state" if grovelling to other nations is the only reason we're not among that pariah states list? --- [deleted]	oeos3z	CMV: My country, Australia, is practically a pariah state	I am going to focus on 2 main aspects: Popular opinion and international diplomacy * 1: Popular opinion * Most of the online dialogue I see about Australia is negative, with people on social media bringing up the following issues (the following are links to news articles showing that the issues are real): * [Poor treatment of asylum seekers](https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-did-our-treatment-of-refugees-come-to-this-20190704-p5246c.html) * [History of atrocities against Indigenous people](https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-indigenous-australians-the-most-incarcerated-people-on-earth-78528) * [Climate inaction](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/02/australia-climate-action-un-sustainable-development/) * [Stealing East Timor's oil wealth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUXxWCsi2Rk) * [Letting mining companies destroy historical sites](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-23/bhp-wa-aboriginal-heritage-site-damaged-pilbara-rio-tinto-juukan/13184826) * [Betraying its own citizens such as Julian Assange](https://twitter.com/smh/status/1346418919565877249?s=19) * There is a bit of positive online dialogue about Australia, such as about our [gun control](https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/) or our [universal healthcare](https://healthcarechannel.co/opinion-australian-healthcare-vs-us-healthcare/). But while this is a positive to some people, it is seen as a negative by other people. * Other countries with lots of atrocities throughout their history, such as the USA, Russia, or China, can point to exemplary achievements by their nations to deflect from criticism. They can use this to claim the national equivalent of "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". In Australia's case, this doesn't work, because our positive achievements are little-known outside Australia. * 2: International diplomacy * There are 4 main examples I can think of: * As previously mentioned, Australia is sucking up to the USA by betraying Julian Assange, and also by joining all the USA's wars. * As u/Anarcho_Humanist [showed me](https://np.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/mrxrts/does_australia_grovel_to_the_usa_due_to_necessity/gv226e2?context=100) on r/Ask_Politics the betrayal of Julian Assange to the USA is nothing compared to the betrayal of the Balibo 5 to Indonesia. * Prior to the pandemic, some of our politicians were fawning over China, both [left-wing](https://www.afr.com/politics/sam-dastyari-pledges-to-support-china-on-south-china-sea-beside-labor-donor-20160831-gr5mwk) and [right-wing](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-10/joyce-calls-china-benevolent-tyranny/11195154). * Despite some of our allies recognising the Armenian Genocide, [the Australian Federal Government refuses to do so](https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/100-years-on-australias-still-out-of-step-on-the-armenian-genocide/), in order to maintain good relations with Turkey. * If Australia needs to grovel so hard for good relations, not just to superpowers like the USA and China, but also to middle powers like Indonesia and Turkey, then it goes to show that we aren't genuinely liked on the world stage. It goes to show that we don't have friends, only transactional relationships. Unlike other [pariah states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_state) like North Korea or Cuba, Australia doesn't have global sanctions; and unlike Israel, at least we have worldwide diplomatic recognition. However, we are now facing [unilateral sanctions from China](https://www.9news.com.au/national/china-trade-sanctions-did-not-hurt-australian-exporters-as-expected/b0c23816-d964-4f0a-941d-b44e65329fa5). And I fear that the only thing preventing global sanctions or the withdrawal of diplomatic recognition, is our grovelling to other nations. Edit: This is not to discuss whether or not Australia deserves to be a pariah state. It is CMV, we are practically a pariah state already.	[deleted]	3	3	[ { "author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho", "id": "h47mdfb", "score": 7, "text": "From an outsider's perspective, this isn't the case. I read about and talk about international politics a ton. If Australia was a pariah state in any way, I would know.\n\nThe discussion around Australia is minimal. It's a rel...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "h47naf8", "score": 3, "text": "A pariah state is a nation considered to be an outcast in the international community. A pariah state may face international isolation, sanctions or even an invasion by nations who find its policies, actions, or even its very existence u...	[ "h47mdfb", "h47nfay", "h47ny9r" ]	[ "h47naf8", "h47nwgz", "h47ocps" ]
CMV: My country, Australia, is practically a pariah state I am going to focus on 2 main aspects: Popular opinion and international diplomacy * 1: Popular opinion * Most of the online dialogue I see about Australia is negative, with people on social media bringing up the following issues (the following are links to news articles showing that the issues are real): * [Poor treatment of asylum seekers](https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-did-our-treatment-of-refugees-come-to-this-20190704-p5246c.html) * [History of atrocities against Indigenous people](https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-indigenous-australians-the-most-incarcerated-people-on-earth-78528) * [Climate inaction](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/02/australia-climate-action-un-sustainable-development/) * [Stealing East Timor's oil wealth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUXxWCsi2Rk) * [Letting mining companies destroy historical sites](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-23/bhp-wa-aboriginal-heritage-site-damaged-pilbara-rio-tinto-juukan/13184826) * [Betraying its own citizens such as Julian Assange](https://twitter.com/smh/status/1346418919565877249?s=19) * There is a bit of positive online dialogue about Australia, such as about our [gun control](https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/) or our [universal healthcare](https://healthcarechannel.co/opinion-australian-healthcare-vs-us-healthcare/). But while this is a positive to some people, it is seen as a negative by other people. * Other countries with lots of atrocities throughout their history, such as the USA, Russia, or China, can point to exemplary achievements by their nations to deflect from criticism. They can use this to claim the national equivalent of "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". In Australia's case, this doesn't work, because our positive achievements are little-known outside Australia. * 2: International diplomacy * There are 4 main examples I can think of: * As previously mentioned, Australia is sucking up to the USA by betraying Julian Assange, and also by joining all the USA's wars. * As u/Anarcho_Humanist [showed me](https://np.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/mrxrts/does_australia_grovel_to_the_usa_due_to_necessity/gv226e2?context=100) on r/Ask_Politics the betrayal of Julian Assange to the USA is nothing compared to the betrayal of the Balibo 5 to Indonesia. * Prior to the pandemic, some of our politicians were fawning over China, both [left-wing](https://www.afr.com/politics/sam-dastyari-pledges-to-support-china-on-south-china-sea-beside-labor-donor-20160831-gr5mwk) and [right-wing](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-10/joyce-calls-china-benevolent-tyranny/11195154). * Despite some of our allies recognising the Armenian Genocide, [the Australian Federal Government refuses to do so](https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/100-years-on-australias-still-out-of-step-on-the-armenian-genocide/), in order to maintain good relations with Turkey. * If Australia needs to grovel so hard for good relations, not just to superpowers like the USA and China, but also to middle powers like Indonesia and Turkey, then it goes to show that we aren't genuinely liked on the world stage. It goes to show that we don't have friends, only transactional relationships. Unlike other [pariah states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_state) like North Korea or Cuba, Australia doesn't have global sanctions; and unlike Israel, at least we have worldwide diplomatic recognition. However, we are now facing [unilateral sanctions from China](https://www.9news.com.au/national/china-trade-sanctions-did-not-hurt-australian-exporters-as-expected/b0c23816-d964-4f0a-941d-b44e65329fa5). And I fear that the only thing preventing global sanctions or the withdrawal of diplomatic recognition, is our grovelling to other nations. Edit: This is not to discuss whether or not Australia deserves to be a pariah state. It is CMV, we are practically a pariah state already.	You make good points but completely lost me at the comparison to North Korea and Cuba. If that’s the bar for pariah state then no Australia is not one --- The reason I made that comparison is that we could end up sanctioned by everyone else just like they are. Only through grovelling to other nations have we so far managed to avoid this fate. Considering the overwhelmingly negative online discussion about Australia, it seems like people in other nations aren't exactly thrilled by the idea of having us as an ally or trading partner. --- Got any proof that grovelling is what got us in this position? You have been fear-mongered to, we are far from a pariah state. I do not see an overwhelming negative online discussion, this is anecdotal at best and not even relevant to determining Australia to be a pariah state. We have strong ties to the UK, not through grovelling, but our colonial past; we have strong ties to the US because of the co-operation in the Pacific theatre of WWII; we have strong ties to NZ due to proximity, shared imperial past, ANZACs etc.	From an outsider's perspective, this isn't the case. I read about and talk about international politics a ton. If Australia was a pariah state in any way, I would know. The discussion around Australia is minimal. It's a relatively small country, that is very stable internally, and geographically isolated from most conflict. Yes there are occasional negative headlines, none of which leave much of a long term impact externally. Just go and ask a german what the name of the mining company that's destroying aboriginal sites is, or the names of any of the aboriginal groups involved. Canada is digging up mass child graves right now and people still hold an overwhelmingly positive view of Canada. Nothing you listed is even close to that. When you talk about mistreatment of asylum seekers and refugees, everybody thinks about the US and EU. Nobody but an Australian would jump to that island camp. Likewise with everything else, virtually every first world nation is guilty of stealing natural recourses, climate change inaction and atrocities against indigenous people (most of Europe was still clinging onto brutal colonial empires up until the 50s, no one is going to single out Australia on this). --- >Canada is digging up mass child graves right now and people still hold an overwhelmingly positive view of Canada. Nothing you listed is even close to that. When you talk about mistreatment of asylum seekers and refugees, everybody thinks about the US and EU. I was under the impression that Canada also became a pariah state overnight, since they unearthed multiple mass graves, in quick succession (i.e. not just a one-off) this year? --- [Adoring to this recent poll (of Americans)](https://today.yougov.com/ratings/travel/popularity/countries/all), Canada and Australia are the 2nd and 3rd most popular countries in the US, behind only the US itself. Neither are pariah states.	oeos3z	CMV: My country, Australia, is practically a pariah state	I am going to focus on 2 main aspects: Popular opinion and international diplomacy * 1: Popular opinion * Most of the online dialogue I see about Australia is negative, with people on social media bringing up the following issues (the following are links to news articles showing that the issues are real): * [Poor treatment of asylum seekers](https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-did-our-treatment-of-refugees-come-to-this-20190704-p5246c.html) * [History of atrocities against Indigenous people](https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-indigenous-australians-the-most-incarcerated-people-on-earth-78528) * [Climate inaction](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/02/australia-climate-action-un-sustainable-development/) * [Stealing East Timor's oil wealth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUXxWCsi2Rk) * [Letting mining companies destroy historical sites](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-23/bhp-wa-aboriginal-heritage-site-damaged-pilbara-rio-tinto-juukan/13184826) * [Betraying its own citizens such as Julian Assange](https://twitter.com/smh/status/1346418919565877249?s=19) * There is a bit of positive online dialogue about Australia, such as about our [gun control](https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/) or our [universal healthcare](https://healthcarechannel.co/opinion-australian-healthcare-vs-us-healthcare/). But while this is a positive to some people, it is seen as a negative by other people. * Other countries with lots of atrocities throughout their history, such as the USA, Russia, or China, can point to exemplary achievements by their nations to deflect from criticism. They can use this to claim the national equivalent of "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". In Australia's case, this doesn't work, because our positive achievements are little-known outside Australia. * 2: International diplomacy * There are 4 main examples I can think of: * As previously mentioned, Australia is sucking up to the USA by betraying Julian Assange, and also by joining all the USA's wars. * As u/Anarcho_Humanist [showed me](https://np.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/mrxrts/does_australia_grovel_to_the_usa_due_to_necessity/gv226e2?context=100) on r/Ask_Politics the betrayal of Julian Assange to the USA is nothing compared to the betrayal of the Balibo 5 to Indonesia. * Prior to the pandemic, some of our politicians were fawning over China, both [left-wing](https://www.afr.com/politics/sam-dastyari-pledges-to-support-china-on-south-china-sea-beside-labor-donor-20160831-gr5mwk) and [right-wing](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-10/joyce-calls-china-benevolent-tyranny/11195154). * Despite some of our allies recognising the Armenian Genocide, [the Australian Federal Government refuses to do so](https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/100-years-on-australias-still-out-of-step-on-the-armenian-genocide/), in order to maintain good relations with Turkey. * If Australia needs to grovel so hard for good relations, not just to superpowers like the USA and China, but also to middle powers like Indonesia and Turkey, then it goes to show that we aren't genuinely liked on the world stage. It goes to show that we don't have friends, only transactional relationships. Unlike other [pariah states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_state) like North Korea or Cuba, Australia doesn't have global sanctions; and unlike Israel, at least we have worldwide diplomatic recognition. However, we are now facing [unilateral sanctions from China](https://www.9news.com.au/national/china-trade-sanctions-did-not-hurt-australian-exporters-as-expected/b0c23816-d964-4f0a-941d-b44e65329fa5). And I fear that the only thing preventing global sanctions or the withdrawal of diplomatic recognition, is our grovelling to other nations. Edit: This is not to discuss whether or not Australia deserves to be a pariah state. It is CMV, we are practically a pariah state already.	[deleted]	3	3	[ { "author": "Conscious_Buy7266", "id": "h47m0hr", "score": 2, "text": "You make good points but completely lost me at the comparison to North Korea and Cuba. If that’s the bar for pariah state then no Australia is not one", "timestamp": 1625552763 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "h...	[ { "author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho", "id": "h47mdfb", "score": 7, "text": "From an outsider's perspective, this isn't the case. I read about and talk about international politics a ton. If Australia was a pariah state in any way, I would know.\n\nThe discussion around Australia is minimal. It's a rel...	[ "h47m0hr", "h47n8nx", "h48aurh" ]	[ "h47mdfb", "h47nfay", "h47o36l" ]
CMV: My country, Australia, is practically a pariah state I am going to focus on 2 main aspects: Popular opinion and international diplomacy * 1: Popular opinion * Most of the online dialogue I see about Australia is negative, with people on social media bringing up the following issues (the following are links to news articles showing that the issues are real): * [Poor treatment of asylum seekers](https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-did-our-treatment-of-refugees-come-to-this-20190704-p5246c.html) * [History of atrocities against Indigenous people](https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-indigenous-australians-the-most-incarcerated-people-on-earth-78528) * [Climate inaction](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/02/australia-climate-action-un-sustainable-development/) * [Stealing East Timor's oil wealth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUXxWCsi2Rk) * [Letting mining companies destroy historical sites](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-23/bhp-wa-aboriginal-heritage-site-damaged-pilbara-rio-tinto-juukan/13184826) * [Betraying its own citizens such as Julian Assange](https://twitter.com/smh/status/1346418919565877249?s=19) * There is a bit of positive online dialogue about Australia, such as about our [gun control](https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/) or our [universal healthcare](https://healthcarechannel.co/opinion-australian-healthcare-vs-us-healthcare/). But while this is a positive to some people, it is seen as a negative by other people. * Other countries with lots of atrocities throughout their history, such as the USA, Russia, or China, can point to exemplary achievements by their nations to deflect from criticism. They can use this to claim the national equivalent of "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". In Australia's case, this doesn't work, because our positive achievements are little-known outside Australia. * 2: International diplomacy * There are 4 main examples I can think of: * As previously mentioned, Australia is sucking up to the USA by betraying Julian Assange, and also by joining all the USA's wars. * As u/Anarcho_Humanist [showed me](https://np.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/mrxrts/does_australia_grovel_to_the_usa_due_to_necessity/gv226e2?context=100) on r/Ask_Politics the betrayal of Julian Assange to the USA is nothing compared to the betrayal of the Balibo 5 to Indonesia. * Prior to the pandemic, some of our politicians were fawning over China, both [left-wing](https://www.afr.com/politics/sam-dastyari-pledges-to-support-china-on-south-china-sea-beside-labor-donor-20160831-gr5mwk) and [right-wing](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-10/joyce-calls-china-benevolent-tyranny/11195154). * Despite some of our allies recognising the Armenian Genocide, [the Australian Federal Government refuses to do so](https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/100-years-on-australias-still-out-of-step-on-the-armenian-genocide/), in order to maintain good relations with Turkey. * If Australia needs to grovel so hard for good relations, not just to superpowers like the USA and China, but also to middle powers like Indonesia and Turkey, then it goes to show that we aren't genuinely liked on the world stage. It goes to show that we don't have friends, only transactional relationships. Unlike other [pariah states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_state) like North Korea or Cuba, Australia doesn't have global sanctions; and unlike Israel, at least we have worldwide diplomatic recognition. However, we are now facing [unilateral sanctions from China](https://www.9news.com.au/national/china-trade-sanctions-did-not-hurt-australian-exporters-as-expected/b0c23816-d964-4f0a-941d-b44e65329fa5). And I fear that the only thing preventing global sanctions or the withdrawal of diplomatic recognition, is our grovelling to other nations. Edit: This is not to discuss whether or not Australia deserves to be a pariah state. It is CMV, we are practically a pariah state already.	From an outsider's perspective, this isn't the case. I read about and talk about international politics a ton. If Australia was a pariah state in any way, I would know. The discussion around Australia is minimal. It's a relatively small country, that is very stable internally, and geographically isolated from most conflict. Yes there are occasional negative headlines, none of which leave much of a long term impact externally. Just go and ask a german what the name of the mining company that's destroying aboriginal sites is, or the names of any of the aboriginal groups involved. Canada is digging up mass child graves right now and people still hold an overwhelmingly positive view of Canada. Nothing you listed is even close to that. When you talk about mistreatment of asylum seekers and refugees, everybody thinks about the US and EU. Nobody but an Australian would jump to that island camp. Likewise with everything else, virtually every first world nation is guilty of stealing natural recourses, climate change inaction and atrocities against indigenous people (most of Europe was still clinging onto brutal colonial empires up until the 50s, no one is going to single out Australia on this). --- >Canada is digging up mass child graves right now and people still hold an overwhelmingly positive view of Canada. Nothing you listed is even close to that. When you talk about mistreatment of asylum seekers and refugees, everybody thinks about the US and EU. I was under the impression that Canada also became a pariah state overnight, since they unearthed multiple mass graves, in quick succession (i.e. not just a one-off) this year? --- [Adoring to this recent poll (of Americans)](https://today.yougov.com/ratings/travel/popularity/countries/all), Canada and Australia are the 2nd and 3rd most popular countries in the US, behind only the US itself. Neither are pariah states. --- !delta I see that this is a very recent poll. It seems like most people surveyed are either unaware of our atrocities, or are unwilling to criticise us because it would hypocritical. --- Criticizing a country doesn't mean you think it's a pariah state. I will criticise the US for a whole load of things but I still think it's legitimate country and I hold generally favourable views of it. For some reason you seem to think that as soon as someone criticizes a country they think it's a pariah state.	American living in Australia, so maybe I have a unique perspective. Sure, Australia certainly isn't a superpower the way that the US or China is. Neither is Germany. That's ok. There's a reason the formed the European Union, and honestly right now they're also going through a weird spot so we'll see how that goes. The reality is that, like the entire rest of the world, Australia has some cool stuff and some not so good stuff. Mate, the natural beauty of this place is off the charts. I don't know where you are, but I've lived in a lot of big cities in my life, and Sydney is just super rad. I love the amount of green space. I've been here for years and I'm still finding new reserves. My google maps has a ton of cool spots I've found in the woods in the middle of major city space. That's just amazing. My first wild kangaroo sighting was up near Lockley point, which is not exactly "out in the bush" And the flying foxes, don't even get me started. I love their little puppy faces. I also really respect the ways that y'all pull together when it needs to happen. Summer last when the fires were bad people were putting together flotillas to bring boats down south to rescue people. That's awesome. It just feels like this is a place where, when shit goes weird someone is just going to step up and that's cool. Also, while I'm not part of the LGBT community, I genuinely love how as blokey as it gets here, drag is still like, fundamental to Aussie culture. Now don't get me wrong. The government is dumb on a lot of levels. The current adventures are really cementing in my belief that we got lucky with Covid, not that anyone did anything particularly smart. This vaccine rollout is obscene, and Scotty from marketing is not really inspiring much faith. But then, I'm from the US so, you know, not a lot of high ground to stand on there. China is a problem, and Australia's unwillingness to accept some short term pain by shifting away from coal exports to deal with our dependence is a problem, and that's going to cost us eventually, but I don't see us getting the NK treatment any time soon. --- >China is a problem, and Australia's unwillingness to accept some short term pain by shifting away from coal exports to deal with our dependence is a problem, and that's going to cost us eventually, but I don't see us getting the NK treatment any time soon. I fear that the only thing keeping us from the NK treatment is that we grovel to other nations. Our government even feels the need to grovel to middle powers like Indonesia and Turkey. It goes to show that we need to grovel to survive, unfortunately. --- I mean, the US just recognized the Armenian genocide a month ago. There is a difference between groveling and "not picking fights" Like, realistically, look at the US and how it's swung it's dick around for the past 50 years on the international stage. That hasn't exactly been great and a lot of uncomfortable chickens are coming home to roost because of it. Australia is part of an international community, which means having a community. Just being a dick to people isn't how that works. --- >I mean, the US just recognized the Armenian genocide a month ago. Yes and no. It was officially recognized by Congress then. [It was talked about as a genocide by the US at all levels for a long time before that though](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_recognition#Position_of_the_United_States), up to and including the President. --- fair distinction	oeos3z	CMV: My country, Australia, is practically a pariah state	I am going to focus on 2 main aspects: Popular opinion and international diplomacy * 1: Popular opinion * Most of the online dialogue I see about Australia is negative, with people on social media bringing up the following issues (the following are links to news articles showing that the issues are real): * [Poor treatment of asylum seekers](https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-did-our-treatment-of-refugees-come-to-this-20190704-p5246c.html) * [History of atrocities against Indigenous people](https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-indigenous-australians-the-most-incarcerated-people-on-earth-78528) * [Climate inaction](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/02/australia-climate-action-un-sustainable-development/) * [Stealing East Timor's oil wealth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUXxWCsi2Rk) * [Letting mining companies destroy historical sites](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-23/bhp-wa-aboriginal-heritage-site-damaged-pilbara-rio-tinto-juukan/13184826) * [Betraying its own citizens such as Julian Assange](https://twitter.com/smh/status/1346418919565877249?s=19) * There is a bit of positive online dialogue about Australia, such as about our [gun control](https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/) or our [universal healthcare](https://healthcarechannel.co/opinion-australian-healthcare-vs-us-healthcare/). But while this is a positive to some people, it is seen as a negative by other people. * Other countries with lots of atrocities throughout their history, such as the USA, Russia, or China, can point to exemplary achievements by their nations to deflect from criticism. They can use this to claim the national equivalent of "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". In Australia's case, this doesn't work, because our positive achievements are little-known outside Australia. * 2: International diplomacy * There are 4 main examples I can think of: * As previously mentioned, Australia is sucking up to the USA by betraying Julian Assange, and also by joining all the USA's wars. * As u/Anarcho_Humanist [showed me](https://np.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/mrxrts/does_australia_grovel_to_the_usa_due_to_necessity/gv226e2?context=100) on r/Ask_Politics the betrayal of Julian Assange to the USA is nothing compared to the betrayal of the Balibo 5 to Indonesia. * Prior to the pandemic, some of our politicians were fawning over China, both [left-wing](https://www.afr.com/politics/sam-dastyari-pledges-to-support-china-on-south-china-sea-beside-labor-donor-20160831-gr5mwk) and [right-wing](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-10/joyce-calls-china-benevolent-tyranny/11195154). * Despite some of our allies recognising the Armenian Genocide, [the Australian Federal Government refuses to do so](https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/100-years-on-australias-still-out-of-step-on-the-armenian-genocide/), in order to maintain good relations with Turkey. * If Australia needs to grovel so hard for good relations, not just to superpowers like the USA and China, but also to middle powers like Indonesia and Turkey, then it goes to show that we aren't genuinely liked on the world stage. It goes to show that we don't have friends, only transactional relationships. Unlike other [pariah states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_state) like North Korea or Cuba, Australia doesn't have global sanctions; and unlike Israel, at least we have worldwide diplomatic recognition. However, we are now facing [unilateral sanctions from China](https://www.9news.com.au/national/china-trade-sanctions-did-not-hurt-australian-exporters-as-expected/b0c23816-d964-4f0a-941d-b44e65329fa5). And I fear that the only thing preventing global sanctions or the withdrawal of diplomatic recognition, is our grovelling to other nations. Edit: This is not to discuss whether or not Australia deserves to be a pariah state. It is CMV, we are practically a pariah state already.	[deleted]	5	5	[ { "author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho", "id": "h47mdfb", "score": 7, "text": "From an outsider's perspective, this isn't the case. I read about and talk about international politics a ton. If Australia was a pariah state in any way, I would know.\n\nThe discussion around Australia is minimal. It's a rel...	[ { "author": "sailorbrendan", "id": "h47orfp", "score": 3, "text": "American living in Australia, so maybe I have a unique perspective. \n\n\nSure, Australia certainly isn't a superpower the way that the US or China is. \n\n\nNeither is Germany. That's ok. There's a reason the formed the European...	[ "h47mdfb", "h47nfay", "h47o36l", "h47owhw", "h47wcj4" ]	[ "h47orfp", "h47p57t", "h47pgch", "h47pufw", "h47q6wi" ]
CMV: Bots should be banned from r/place TL;DR: Bots make it impossible for normal users to make alterations to r/place Right now you can go to github and download dozens of versions of reddit r/place bots. Just upload image and tell where to print it and bot will do the rest. If you have enough counts running the same bot you can effectively secure and protect that part of the canvas. Even better if you just create lot of throwaway account to participate. I understand that bot detection is difficult but it's truly not that hard. I can think countless ways to screwup any bot but allowing normal users to participate. And even half assed measures are better than nothing. If we force botters to use clicker bots on their local machines they would need to dedicate the whole machine for this task. Or we can ban multiple users from same IP or use captcha or any other method to stop them. This is something we should be doing instead of accepting things way they are. Right now with the rampant mod abuse (different topic) and unbeatable bot swarms, I just don't see any reason why normal users should participate in something that could be amazing.	I want to challenge your assumption that bot detection is possible. There is no feasible way for Reddit to detect a js script putting a dot every 5 minutes + random seconds on r/place --- Bot detection is easy. At least for most simplistic bots I have seen in github. Starting from something as simple as alt account detection. Account must have age limit and maybe karma limit. Add few captcha every half a hour or so. But the easiest solution is to scramble coordinate system of r/place every hour. Bot's rely on static coordinate system. They cannot use image recognition to detect where they need to place the pixel. Humans wouldn't care if their pixel coordinate value changes but bots will break immediately. --- Scrambling wouldn't really work because finding matching chunks would be a breeze. The image is constant so as long as the bot receives the correct matrix it can be unscrambled with an extremely high degree of confidence. There's probably a better solution but if I was to code it I'd make an anchor from a local copy and that'd be the unscrabled area, which you can edit and send coordinates from a fresh matrix you got from the server(with fake cords). You position the anchor by overlay match with a % match each time you get a fresh matrix and update the anchor on match. Not sure what the optimal % would be, but there has to be some, like say 60%. So as long as the anchor area doesn't change more than 60% before each matrix pull you'd readily unscramble it. Or something along these lines. --- If I understand correctly you assume that coordinate scrambling is just shifting origin around. This alone would mess any bot that is trying to place "new" image because they don't have any image to look at. Also it can only take few minutes to destroy any image to unrecognizable state if you have enough users. But this is simple solution. Much more reliable would be to have changing hash (or hash + changing salt) that literally scrambles all the coordinates. So two adjusting coordinates would not appear adjusted on the canvas. It's impossible for bot to scramble where they placed their pixels before. --- As long as the image is displayed to the user then the coordinate system is defined on the users machine. It doesn't matter how it's stored in code. As long as it can be viewed undistorted by a user it'll have user apparent coordinates the bot can use.	There's no bot detection that wouldn't also annoy users. Captchas are fucking annoying. You also can't really disturb bots. Sure, you've said in another comment that you could scramble coordinates... So? You just use your own screen and make it essentially into a sophisticated macro. --- Captchas are less annoying than thousands of bots dominating what is meant to be a user-based system. --- That's entirely subjective. --- Not really, when the point of r/place is to be a canvas of the users, with the tagline that together we can make great things. Not a competition between whichever script-kiddies have the most time on their hands to make alt-accounts. --- At what point are script kiddies NOT the users?	tvxy4a	CMV: Bots should be banned from r/place	TL;DR: Bots make it impossible for normal users to make alterations to r/place Right now you can go to github and download dozens of versions of reddit r/place bots. Just upload image and tell where to print it and bot will do the rest. If you have enough counts running the same bot you can effectively secure and protect that part of the canvas. Even better if you just create lot of throwaway account to participate. I understand that bot detection is difficult but it's truly not that hard. I can think countless ways to screwup any bot but allowing normal users to participate. And even half assed measures are better than nothing. If we force botters to use clicker bots on their local machines they would need to dedicate the whole machine for this task. Or we can ban multiple users from same IP or use captcha or any other method to stop them. This is something we should be doing instead of accepting things way they are. Right now with the rampant mod abuse (different topic) and unbeatable bot swarms, I just don't see any reason why normal users should participate in something that could be amazing.	Z7-852	5	5	[ { "author": "spreadsTrader", "id": "i3c0bml", "score": 350, "text": "I want to challenge your assumption that bot detection is possible. There is no feasible way for Reddit to detect a js script putting a dot every 5 minutes + random seconds on r/place", "timestamp": 1649065664 }, { "aut...	[ { "author": "Morasain", "id": "i3c9zx8", "score": 74, "text": "There's no bot detection that wouldn't also annoy users. Captchas are fucking annoying.\n\nYou also can't really disturb bots. Sure, you've said in another comment that you could scramble coordinates... So? You just use your own screen a...	[ "i3c0bml", "i3c0p4d", "i3c1rcr", "i3c24n8", "i3c4ouq" ]	[ "i3c9zx8", "i3d57df", "i3d5kfn", "i3d61ik", "i3daeoq" ]
CMV: In US politics, choosing to believe that your "side" is inherently good and/or that the other "side" is inherently evil is unhealthy, destructive, and immoral. This is very intentionally agnostic as to which "side" is which or even which "side" is more prone to this behavior. My view is that in a two-party democracy where you should expect to "lose" roughly half of all elections, turning every single one into a Manichaean struggle is: -detrimental to an individual's mental health, -corrosive to the body politic, and -contrary to modern ethical frames regarding prejudice and bigotry. I don't want to litigate any responses of "but the other side REALLY IS EVIL," particularly from folks who are otherwise moral relativists, so I'll say this: I use evil here in an almost primordial or religious sense, to connote a level of malice and "delight in wickedness" that would not include anything resembling modern policy positions, no matter how violent or corrupt those positions may be in outcome or intent. I'm much more interested to hear perspectives about how a two-party democracy/republic can survive such a mindset without ultimately devolving into violence and anarchy.	A republic where people don't see the other side as evil isn't unconditional: it comes with a reciprocal duty that even among disagreeing factions there are enforced norms of acceptable behavior. It's not enough to simply say we mustn't see the other side as evil. That's too easily exploited. Being seen as evil is a consequence of breaking the contract. --- This is actually very close to a delta for me, I think this is a great way to look at it. Answer this though, please: how do we establish that one "side," as opposed to individuals, have broken the contract? --- >how do we establish that one "side," as opposed to individuals, have broken the contract? When that side doesn't feel like they need to hold those individuals to any kind of account when it's plainly obvious that they have broken the contract.	In order to have your opinion, do you agree that none of the parties can be evil o be described with similar adjectives (I assume you would see the nazi party as evil - so if a political party is like that, it should be okay to call them evil). The follow up question is why you dont see either of the parties as evil --- So I would say the Nazis as a political party were not evil. There are certainly individuals within the party that are evil, and I might even describe the ideology as evil, but every single person who pledged themselves to the party? No. Deluded, under duress, immature, lacking capacity, overwhelmingly ignorant about the realities of the ideology? All possible, none of which make those folks evil. --- That’s not what people mean when they say a party is evil though. You’ve responded to a tangential question, not the stuff at hand	1p1ha9a	CMV: In US politics, choosing to believe that your "side" is inherently good and/or that the other "side" is inherently evil is unhealthy, destructive, and immoral.	This is very intentionally agnostic as to which "side" is which or even which "side" is more prone to this behavior. My view is that in a two-party democracy where you should expect to "lose" roughly half of all elections, turning every single one into a Manichaean struggle is: -detrimental to an individual's mental health, -corrosive to the body politic, and -contrary to modern ethical frames regarding prejudice and bigotry. I don't want to litigate any responses of "but the other side REALLY IS EVIL," particularly from folks who are otherwise moral relativists, so I'll say this: I use evil here in an almost primordial or religious sense, to connote a level of malice and "delight in wickedness" that would not include anything resembling modern policy positions, no matter how violent or corrupt those positions may be in outcome or intent. I'm much more interested to hear perspectives about how a two-party democracy/republic can survive such a mindset without ultimately devolving into violence and anarchy.	Dunadan734	3	3	[ { "author": "Glory2Hypnotoad", "id": "npq1alb", "score": 89, "text": "A republic where people don't see the other side as evil isn't unconditional: it comes with a reciprocal duty that even among disagreeing factions there are enforced norms of acceptable behavior. It's not enough to simply say we m...	[ { "author": "Acrobatic-Skill6350", "id": "nppxupr", "score": 5, "text": "In order to have your opinion, do you agree that none of the parties can be evil o be described with similar adjectives (I assume you would see the nazi party as evil - so if a political party is like that, it should be okay to...	[ "npq1alb", "npq6rio", "npqf700" ]	[ "nppxupr", "nppzf14", "npq04pq" ]
CMV: Police officers in the united states are a greater danger to citizenry than criminals are and we would be better off without Police at all. Police have authority without responsibility, they cannot be punished for failing to respond to a crime nor easily punished for actions they commit while on duty. They collude to protect each other the way that a gang or occupying military forces does. Police are placed above the community which leads to authoritarian behavior. Cop is supposed to be dangerous job, if a person goal is to make it home every night they have no right to protect anyone, protection is about being willing to die for a purpose. even the data about police shootings is obscured but the best data I can find shows 963 people were killed by police in 2016 that's 1 in 57 gun homicides committed by police. This combined with fact that the crime rate has been dropping independent of police funding shows that cops account for a significant number of deaths while not reducing the murder rate. As such I stipulate that mandatory carry and police level firearms training for every mentally stable person would reduce crime while completely eliminating the killing of citizens by the government without due process, something that is a direct violation of the 4th amendment. Edit: Citizens shooting each other would be more responsible because there would be no line of duty protection, if you kill someone as a citizen there is not a presumption of self defense like cops get, its a regular criminal case like any other. with body cams we no long need the trusted actor model of security. Cops are like the bank, you trust the bank with your money and so does everyone else, and so their record is the trusted authority. Armed people with body cams are like bitcoin, as long as there a perfect record you no longer need need a centralized authority to ensure compliance	and there were 52 cop-related killings in Britain last year,should they be banned too? and come on, almost all those 963 people deserved it, who cares what happens to criminals??--and more police than ever are being charged for the people who didn't deserve it anyway --- > come on, almost all those 963 people deserved it, who cares what happens to criminals?? In the united states you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not a single person killed by police can be called criminals because they had not yet received a trial. --- Well that's the thing, after every kill a cop does, he goes to trial vs the dead person. They review evidence, footage, witnesses to see if it was deserved. If it was deserved he continues as a police officer, if not he may get fired or even prison time. It's not like you can just kill someone and walk away lol	Who would be responsible for investigating crimes? Let's say someone robbed my house when I was gone. Am I supposed to track down the robbers on my own? --- the societal interest in keeping citizenry alive is of greater important than protecting your property, if you want it protected secure it. I am not willing to pay someone, to have the right to shoot me if they feel they need to, just to protect some STUFF --- OK, I come home and find my kid was murdered. Who investigates?	6pp53a	CMV: Police officers in the united states are a greater danger to citizenry than criminals are and we would be better off without Police at all.	Police have authority without responsibility, they cannot be punished for failing to respond to a crime nor easily punished for actions they commit while on duty. They collude to protect each other the way that a gang or occupying military forces does. Police are placed above the community which leads to authoritarian behavior. Cop is supposed to be dangerous job, if a person goal is to make it home every night they have no right to protect anyone, protection is about being willing to die for a purpose. even the data about police shootings is obscured but the best data I can find shows 963 people were killed by police in 2016 that's 1 in 57 gun homicides committed by police. This combined with fact that the crime rate has been dropping independent of police funding shows that cops account for a significant number of deaths while not reducing the murder rate. As such I stipulate that mandatory carry and police level firearms training for every mentally stable person would reduce crime while completely eliminating the killing of citizens by the government without due process, something that is a direct violation of the 4th amendment. Edit: Citizens shooting each other would be more responsible because there would be no line of duty protection, if you kill someone as a citizen there is not a presumption of self defense like cops get, its a regular criminal case like any other. with body cams we no long need the trusted actor model of security. Cops are like the bank, you trust the bank with your money and so does everyone else, and so their record is the trusted authority. Armed people with body cams are like bitcoin, as long as there a perfect record you no longer need need a centralized authority to ensure compliance	we_were_always_right	3	3	[ { "author": "outrider567", "id": "dkr49gh", "score": 4, "text": "and there were 52 cop-related killings in Britain last year,should they be banned too? and come on, almost all those 963 people deserved it, who cares what happens to criminals??--and more police than ever are being charged for the pe...	[ { "author": "cacheflow", "id": "dkr1jus", "score": 9, "text": "Who would be responsible for investigating crimes?\n\nLet's say someone robbed my house when I was gone. Am I supposed to track down the robbers on my own?", "timestamp": 1501086288 }, { "author": "we_were_always_right", ...	[ "dkr49gh", "dkr4gsg", "dkr591a" ]	[ "dkr1jus", "dkr1yag", "dkr24d4" ]
CMV: Trans Women that participate in competitive sports have an unfair advantage against cis women First off, I want to say that the LGBT+ movement has my full support and that I respect Trans people and their fight for rights, and this opinion in no way does it intend to undermine their rights. But I do believe that the change in viewpoints on subjects like these have to come with awkward conversations like the one the title implies. So, I wanna understand how it is fair for a person that was undergoing the biological development of a male (who on average tend to perform better physically on most sports) to compete against people that underwent the biological development of females? (Who, once again, on average tend to perform on lower levels than Males). I wanna make clear that my intention on posing the subject is not to offend or opress anyone, I just wanna understand how this reasoning is flawed or if there's anything Im not taking into account.	Michael Phelps has Mafan Syndrome, which is a genetic condition that actually helped him become one of the greatest swimmers of all time… so HE has an unfair advantage against cis men, being a cis male himself, yet no one complains. Trans Women have to meet medical criteria (such as testosterone levels in the female range, which is quite easy to achieve on HRT, etc) in order to compete with other women. I’m so tired of this topic, and people turning a blind eye to other people’s physical advantages. --- Well, for starters I did not know about Phelps' condition, but it does help me in going deeper with my question. If there's a clear advantage portrayed by some individuals (I.E. Phelps or a Trans woman that no matter the low Testosterone, fully developed will be taller on average than females and both will pose an advantage in swimming competitively) then wouldn't the ideal system be to not let either of them compete? --- A simple note here is this: What is commonly called “mens” sports is more often a simply “open” competition. All unenhanced humans can participate. But that’s not fair to half the population (women) who can never really compete in these “open” completions. So we create a “limited” category called “womens” sports. We have other limited categories such as “parapalegic” or other “under 16”, among many others. These limited categories have specific limitations for participation. Any discussion of the top most level of sports (often called “mens”) must recognize that its an “open” competition. Then all other levels are some type of “limited” as a subset of that. Once you realize that’s how it works, the argument is a lot more simple.	[deleted] --- >81 inch tall lebron james have an “unfair” advantage over 72 inch Chris Paul Yes he does. But the difference between Lebron James and Chris Paul from an overall athletic standpoint is minimal when comparing Chris Paul to an average WNBA player. Lebron is Lebron in part because of his natural athletic advantage over other NBA athletes. But every NBA athlete would be overwhelmingly more athletic than the WNBA players. This sort of logic ends up suggesting that woman sports as a whole is pointless because physical differences in sex don’t matter anymore, Which leads to a world in which sport isn’t segregated by sex and biological men dominate --- >>81 inch tall lebron james have an “unfair” advantage over 72 inch Chris Paul >Yes he does. Why do you think the advantage is unfair?	tvsc83	CMV: Trans Women that participate in competitive sports have an unfair advantage against cis women	First off, I want to say that the LGBT+ movement has my full support and that I respect Trans people and their fight for rights, and this opinion in no way does it intend to undermine their rights. But I do believe that the change in viewpoints on subjects like these have to come with awkward conversations like the one the title implies. So, I wanna understand how it is fair for a person that was undergoing the biological development of a male (who on average tend to perform better physically on most sports) to compete against people that underwent the biological development of females? (Who, once again, on average tend to perform on lower levels than Males). I wanna make clear that my intention on posing the subject is not to offend or opress anyone, I just wanna understand how this reasoning is flawed or if there's anything Im not taking into account.	SnooStrawberries4932	3	3	[ { "author": "ajskgkjathrowaway", "id": "i3b6tzx", "score": 20, "text": "Michael Phelps has Mafan Syndrome, which is a genetic condition that actually helped him become one of the greatest swimmers of all time… so HE has an unfair advantage against cis men, being a cis male himself, yet no one compla...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "i3b8bak", "score": 12, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1649044737 }, { "author": "GumUnderChair", "id": "i3b9i0y", "score": 5, "text": ">81 inch tall lebron james have an “unfair” advantage over 72 inch Chris Paul \n\nYes he does. But the dif...	[ "i3b6tzx", "i3b8t1f", "i3bhwwu" ]	[ "i3b8bak", "i3b9i0y", "i3b9w66" ]
CMV it is Immoral to Prevent Alfie Evans from Seeking Treatment Outside the UK There is a big controversy going on in the UK about a child named Alfie Evans. He has existed in a semi-vegitative state for 18 months with no signs of improvement. He has been on a ventilator and a feeding tube to care for these needs. Recently the NHS decided to terminate care for him against the wishes of his parents. The parents have advocated for Alfie to leave the UK and seek treatment in foreign countries. A court in the UK has barred Alfie from leaving the country. The ban on travel seems unnecessary and immoral. Here's an article about the case: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/health/alfie-evans-appeal-bn/index.html	As part of the way the NHS functions, authority for acceptable and ethical treatment is given to a patient's medical staff. This is necessary to prevent parents or other medical lay-people from refusing necessary treatment, implementing alternative remedies rather than doctor prescribed ones, or any other ways in which a legal guardian could negatively impact treatment. For instance, if a child was in the hospital with a life-threatening infection, the NHS could prevent the parents from visiting him and giving him an unknown family remedy because that would be materially likely to harm the patient. And as sad as it is, part of acceptable and ethical medical treatment is preventing patients from experiencing undue suffering or hardship in end-of-life situations, which can include refusing transfers and/or a controlled removal of life support for patients who are essentially guaranteed to die. It is not ethical for a doctor to recommend aggressive action they believe has an insignificant chance of working just because its something different and miracles can happen; the most likely result of such recommendations would just be for those patients to suffer before dying. Based on the article you have linked, the parents wish to transfer Alfie to a hospital in Italy, but even there they expect to simply perform palliative care; in this situation, that would essentially be putting Alfie on life support and hoping for the best. Even with Alfie's success at breathing on his own, neither the hospital in the UK or in Italy believes there is any chance Alfie will recover and can only plan to keep Alfie alive as long as possible. Given this situation, the medically ethical decision is not to keep Alfie alive but vegetative forever, nor would it be ethical for doctors to recommend a risky transfer to another country just so they could keep Alfie alive but vegetative. --- > And as sad as it is, part of acceptable and ethical medical treatment is preventing patients from experiencing undue suffering or hardship in end-of-life situations. He is in a vegetative state, how is he suffering? I have no problem with the NHS deciding to "pull the plug", my issue is that they are preventing him to seek medical care outside their governance. It's unnecessarily paternalistic. I think they're concerned about the optics and worry this case could be used as an argument against public healthcare. --- The NHS, as medical professionals, believe that moving him holds no benefit to his chance of survival. If medical professionals think that parents' actions are significantly harming a child then they are obligated to try to stop it if it is under their control. [https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729055\-500\-people\-in\-a\-vegetative\-state\-may\-feel\-pain/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729055-500-people-in-a-vegetative-state-may-feel-pain/) Edit: it is paternalistic \- but only in the same way as the NSPCC is.	It's inaccurate to say that he is "barred" from travel, both the NHS and all places that said they would have Aflie believe that palliative care is it. The NHS are saying they won't accommodate the expenses to do so with so little hope for improvement. Cold as it is, for every Alfie there must be hundreds more kids who do have hope who do need treatment and spending excessive amounts on a heartfelt case is misguided compassion. --- Where in the article does it say that the reason he is not leaving the country is because the NHS refuses to pay? It's fine for them to refuse to pay at this point, but based on my understanding they are actively preventing the parents from Seeking independent treatment in another country. --- No its all around funding. I may have my facts backwards but I believe a US medical team almost got involved on a pro bono basis, however they looked at all the details in depth and declined to get involved.	8ezonf	CMV it is Immoral to Prevent Alfie Evans from Seeking Treatment Outside the UK	There is a big controversy going on in the UK about a child named Alfie Evans. He has existed in a semi-vegitative state for 18 months with no signs of improvement. He has been on a ventilator and a feeding tube to care for these needs. Recently the NHS decided to terminate care for him against the wishes of his parents. The parents have advocated for Alfie to leave the UK and seek treatment in foreign countries. A court in the UK has barred Alfie from leaving the country. The ban on travel seems unnecessary and immoral. Here's an article about the case: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/health/alfie-evans-appeal-bn/index.html	Razldaz	3	3	[ { "author": "Milskidasith", "id": "dxzid1v", "score": 30, "text": "As part of the way the NHS functions, authority for acceptable and ethical treatment is given to a patient's medical staff. This is necessary to prevent parents or other medical lay-people from refusing necessary treatment, implement...	[ { "author": "ThomasEdmund84", "id": "dxzijra", "score": 21, "text": "It's inaccurate to say that he is \"barred\" from travel, both the NHS and all places that said they would have Aflie believe that palliative care is it. The NHS are saying they won't accommodate the expenses to do so with so littl...	[ "dxzid1v", "dxzo0mq", "dxzpxgq" ]	[ "dxzijra", "dxznuny", "dxzo6rz" ]
CMV: Abortion is immoral and should not be legal I believe abortion is immoral and should not be legal in the United States, or anywhere for that matter. Firstly, I hate the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life." I think they they are propoganda terms to a certain extent, but this is beside the point. On a side note, This is my first CMV, if you haven't noticed I'm using a throw away until I get the hang of things. So please take it easy on me as I try to convey my thoughts! Just doing a quick Google of the definition of life, I got: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." This is where I will state the main crux of my belief: I do not believe that anyone has the right to kill any potential human life simply because it is not their life to take. I believe that abortion is immoral in the same way that murder is illegal, no one has the right to claim a human life that is not their own. I do not know where life begins, but as of now I believe that life begins at conception/fertilization with the creation of the zygote. Not only does this fit the definition of life stated above, but it seems to be the only absolute "marker" for where life can begin. A zygote has capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change. If the zygote is killed, then there is no longer any potential for a human to be born. I believe that fertilization is the earliest creation of a human, and that the definition of human life should start here. Something interesting in the American court system is the existence of "feticide laws, "or laws that protect unborn fetuses. In at least 38 states(and arguably more), there are laws in place thaf essentially define them as human life. For example, a murder of a pregnant woman in Arizona would allow the murderer to be charged with two murders, with no restrictions on how young the fetus may be. While this does vary from state to state, I find it very interesting that the majority of states do have laws protecting the rights of someone taking the life of a potential human, who is not the mother. I do not think the mother of a fetus has any special privilege to kill a fetus any more than a random man has a right to kill her fetus. A human life cannot truly be owned by another human. I'll stop here so people can try to CMV. Reading over it, I feel like my thoughts are jumping all over the place, so I'll rely on comments for the majority of conversation. I'm excited to get back some responses!	Is it more immoral to intentionally carry, birth and raise a child that has genetic defects that make its life a living hell, OR to abort it at a reasonable time with the intention of minimizing suffering? Does your law overrule this situation, and do you agree with your own reasoning enough to genuinely prefer the 'extended suffering' option? If you make an exception for this 'edge case', you are one step in the direction of looking at ethical questions from a distance trying to incorporate all parties involved. Allow yourself to consider the bigger picture, other viewpoints, without necessarily agreeing with them before examining them. If they don't hold up, you can always ditch them. And because you examined them, you will have actual good reasons to ditch or keep them. Anyway you came to CMV so you're already halfway there. >I do not think the mother of a fetus has any special privilege to kill a fetus any more than a random man has a right to kill her fetus. This is a useful way of laying out a situation, because you make a comparison between two extremes. But you do speak of 'any special privilege' which is very absolute in itself; could there instead be 'slightly suggestive reasons' instead; and if there are enough gentle reasons that say eg. "well, the lady involved will have her life radically changed for the coming 18+ years, while a truly random man has nothing to do with it, and nothing lose", we should make a preference statement, instead of a solid, unbreakable law? There is also a fundamental point in your view that I could not find any further explanation behind. Can you expand a bit on the reasons why you believe that no one has the right to kill any potential human life? You don't have to do all these things, but those would be places where I would start examining how you got to your particular belief about abortion. --- >Is it more immoral to intentionally carry, birth and raise a child that has genetic defects that make its life a living hell, OR to abort it at a reasonable time with the intention of minimizing suffering? Does your law overrule this situation, and do you agree with your own reasoning enough to genuinely prefer the 'extended suffering' option? I think there are multiple problems here. Firstly, who defines "genetic defects that make a living hell?" And why should this choice be made FOR that person? >This is a useful way of laying out a situation, because you make a comparison between two extremes. But you do speak of 'any special privilege' which is very absolute in itself; could there instead be 'slightly suggestive reasons' instead; and if there are enough gentle reasons that say eg. "well, the lady involved will have her life radically changed for the coming 18+ years, while a truly random man has nothing to do with it, and nothing lose", we should make a preference statement, instead of a solid, unbreakable law? Gonna be honest here I didn't follow you. >There is also a fundamental point in your view that I could not find any further explanation behind. Can you expand a bit on the reasons why you believe that no one has the right to kill any potential human life? Well, to be honest I don't know. I know that I would rather be alive than be dead, and I know that you would probably rather be alive than be dead. If my mother had been considering abortion, if it were me being aborted, obviously I wouldn't want her to do it. I don't think any of those fetus' being aborted would want to be aborted any more than I would have wanted to be. I think it's sad that the decision to live or die is made for them. --- > Firstly, who defines "genetic defects that make a living hell?" There are people who suffer from such terrible conditions such as chronic and crippling physical pain, who chose suicide at an early age. I think this is a example that most people can agree would make life a living hell. I can't find news articles, but there was a young man last year or so who made headlines after his suicide. Nothing on the surface looks wrong, but he was still suffering. > And why should this choice be made FOR that person? Why should any choice be made for those yet to be born or conceptualized? Just because the default end-result is birth, when we have the means of stopping it, doesn't make it morally better or worse. That something is natural, does not make it good or bad. You may ask why we should make the decision to not let life be born - but it is an equally valid question to ask why we should let this life be born. Many speak of the idea that we 'take away something' from those yet to be born. This is an incoherent idea: this notion requires that there is a consciousness, some sort of will, that we are acting against. This is fundamentally illogical. No one consents to life, but no one consents to "stop existing". When does a human begin existing? If you believe in such a thing as fate, with or without some levels of freedom... or that humans exist as spirits or ghosts... where do your beliefs lead you? > If my mother had been considering abortion, if it were me being aborted, obviously I wouldn't want her to do it. I don't think any of those fetus' being aborted would want to be aborted any more than I would have wanted to be. The problem is that there is no you to consent or reject to your birth. It is only after the fact that you are thankful - or worst case, suicidal. The idea that "consent before birth" is a problem, is incoherent. To consent to your own birth is impossible.	First, I will state that I agree with you in your conclusion, however you are missing very valid points from the opposition. * There is no other scenario where a person is required to to themselves in harms way, long term, to sustain another life. * Thus is particularly relevant when a woman did not become pregnant by choice. * If we suddenly stopped the 700,000 annual abortions in the US, who will...? * provide/care for the additional babies * Pay the additional medical expenses * Provide for all the teenagers having babies that lose out on education workforce opportunities * Handle all the additional crime * While I personally feel that those who choose illegal abortion deserve the consequences, what about those who are forced into it? * Most aborted children would have been born into a very bad situation, so who's to say that living is more important than not suffering? * Our planet has limited capacity for human life. * Those who have abortions have significantly less long term mental health problems than those denied abortions. * Having and raising children is the root of the majority of inequality against females. --- While these are all valid and relevant points, the core of my belief is that potential human life is more valuable than convenience. I do not believe that it is more ethical to kill a person than it is to try to find funding to keep them alive. --- Your argument was that it should not be legal. The morality is an entirely separate issue. Legality is generally based on what is best for society as a whole, which I've clearly outlined there is valid opposition for.	8eir3e	CMV: Abortion is immoral and should not be legal	I believe abortion is immoral and should not be legal in the United States, or anywhere for that matter. Firstly, I hate the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life." I think they they are propoganda terms to a certain extent, but this is beside the point. On a side note, This is my first CMV, if you haven't noticed I'm using a throw away until I get the hang of things. So please take it easy on me as I try to convey my thoughts! Just doing a quick Google of the definition of life, I got: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." This is where I will state the main crux of my belief: I do not believe that anyone has the right to kill any potential human life simply because it is not their life to take. I believe that abortion is immoral in the same way that murder is illegal, no one has the right to claim a human life that is not their own. I do not know where life begins, but as of now I believe that life begins at conception/fertilization with the creation of the zygote. Not only does this fit the definition of life stated above, but it seems to be the only absolute "marker" for where life can begin. A zygote has capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change. If the zygote is killed, then there is no longer any potential for a human to be born. I believe that fertilization is the earliest creation of a human, and that the definition of human life should start here. Something interesting in the American court system is the existence of "feticide laws, "or laws that protect unborn fetuses. In at least 38 states(and arguably more), there are laws in place thaf essentially define them as human life. For example, a murder of a pregnant woman in Arizona would allow the murderer to be charged with two murders, with no restrictions on how young the fetus may be. While this does vary from state to state, I find it very interesting that the majority of states do have laws protecting the rights of someone taking the life of a potential human, who is not the mother. I do not think the mother of a fetus has any special privilege to kill a fetus any more than a random man has a right to kill her fetus. A human life cannot truly be owned by another human. I'll stop here so people can try to CMV. Reading over it, I feel like my thoughts are jumping all over the place, so I'll rely on comments for the majority of conversation. I'm excited to get back some responses!	Thr0w4w4y2019	3	3	[ { "author": "Javlington", "id": "dxvlxf8", "score": 1, "text": "Is it more immoral to intentionally carry, birth and raise a child that has genetic defects that make its life a living hell, OR to abort it at a reasonable time with the intention of minimizing suffering? Does your law overrule this si...	[ { "author": "trex005", "id": "dxvj1xr", "score": 1, "text": "First, I will state that I agree with you in your conclusion, however you are missing very valid points from the opposition.\n\n* There is no other scenario where a person is required to to themselves in harms way, long term, to sustain an...	[ "dxvlxf8", "dxw5l6j", "dxw7pop" ]	[ "dxvj1xr", "dxw6781", "dxw6mvm" ]
CMV: Current IVF practices should be illegal, and abortion should be legal IVF involving fertilizing many eggs results in intentionally destroying some. I am the type of pro choice person that believes personhood possibly does begin at conception, but it does not matter because a person should have full rights to medical choices involving their bodily health, even if that choice results in another person not surviving. Therefore, intentionally destroying a fertilized egg outside of a womb should carry the same repercussions as destroying an infant human. For example, people who have no brain activity sometimes spontaneously become brain-active again. They were a person and never stopped being a person. It’s a slippery slope defining personhood based on brain activity or intelligence, so most people agree that when someone becomes brain dead, they do not necessarily immediately lose personhood. I do not believe in “pulling the plug” unless that person is obviously in a lot of pain and they are located in an area with legal human euthanasia. Similarly, a fetus could be considered a person soon, so it is correct to grant them certain rights (like murder charges for those that intentionally cause miscarriages to pregnant women). A fetus having certain rights does not mean they should have more rights than the mother, however. We do not force blood or organ donations from parents, unless it is through pregnancy. That is contradicting, and should be amended by making abortion legal in all cases. The only reason abortion should be legal, is because it is wrong to deny a person that choice. Whether their choice is immoral or not is irrelevant, because taking away that choice in the first place would be both horrible morally and is detrimental to the mortality rate of pregnant women. Please change my view, because I genuinely do feel bad for people that want to have a family but are struggling. It’s highly possible I am personally infertile and would have to use IVF in the future in order to have children. I do understand the struggle, but I cannot justify the destruction of some eggs, just because I wanted to have children. No one is entitled to having children, after all.	IVF isn’t the same as “destroying people.” Most fertilized eggs never implant naturally, the body discards tons of embryos every month. IVF just makes that process visible. And if you support abortion because bodily autonomy matters, then banning IVF (which helps families have kids) doesn’t fit that logic at all. Few things align less with bodily autonomy than telling infertile people they can’t use their own eggs and sperm to start a family. --- The body does not discard tons of embryos every month. Are you thinking of eggs or uterine lining? Miscarriages do happen all the time, but that seems irrelevant here. --- Only 25% of fertilised eggs become actual living babies. You know this right? An embryo doesn’t mean a birth will follow? The figure of embryo to birth is actually higher with IVF, the practice you would ban!	\> a person should have full rights to medical choices involving their bodily health, even if that choice results in another person not surviving. Just curious, were you pro-mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policies? --- No. I don’t believe in government mandated vaccinations, but I am on the fence about institutional ones. I think it’s ridiculous we even need a mandate about something that is so common sense. --- Just look at all the anti vaxxers if you want to see how uncommon common sense is. All the people obsessing over over ivermectin, etc etc.	1p1cayx	CMV: Current IVF practices should be illegal, and abortion should be legal	IVF involving fertilizing many eggs results in intentionally destroying some. I am the type of pro choice person that believes personhood possibly does begin at conception, but it does not matter because a person should have full rights to medical choices involving their bodily health, even if that choice results in another person not surviving. Therefore, intentionally destroying a fertilized egg outside of a womb should carry the same repercussions as destroying an infant human. For example, people who have no brain activity sometimes spontaneously become brain-active again. They were a person and never stopped being a person. It’s a slippery slope defining personhood based on brain activity or intelligence, so most people agree that when someone becomes brain dead, they do not necessarily immediately lose personhood. I do not believe in “pulling the plug” unless that person is obviously in a lot of pain and they are located in an area with legal human euthanasia. Similarly, a fetus could be considered a person soon, so it is correct to grant them certain rights (like murder charges for those that intentionally cause miscarriages to pregnant women). A fetus having certain rights does not mean they should have more rights than the mother, however. We do not force blood or organ donations from parents, unless it is through pregnancy. That is contradicting, and should be amended by making abortion legal in all cases. The only reason abortion should be legal, is because it is wrong to deny a person that choice. Whether their choice is immoral or not is irrelevant, because taking away that choice in the first place would be both horrible morally and is detrimental to the mortality rate of pregnant women. Please change my view, because I genuinely do feel bad for people that want to have a family but are struggling. It’s highly possible I am personally infertile and would have to use IVF in the future in order to have children. I do understand the struggle, but I cannot justify the destruction of some eggs, just because I wanted to have children. No one is entitled to having children, after all.	blittergomb	3	3	[ { "author": "norf937", "id": "npox1j7", "score": 27, "text": "IVF isn’t the same as “destroying people.” Most fertilized eggs never implant naturally, the body discards tons of embryos every month. IVF just makes that process visible. \n\nAnd if you support abortion because bodily autonomy matters, ...	[ { "author": "irespectwomenlol", "id": "npowzff", "score": 0, "text": "\\> a person should have full rights to medical choices involving their bodily health, even if that choice results in another person not surviving. \n\nJust curious, were you pro-mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policies?", "tim...	[ "npox1j7", "npp3iid", "npp5bsl" ]	[ "npowzff", "npoxm9b", "npoy5uk" ]
CMV: Government should play an extremely minimal role. In my opinion, I feel like government should play almost no role in our lives and should essentially only be responsible for police and military. I’m not an anarchist, I am aware that police are necessary to keep order. However, from an economic standpoint, I feel like pure capitalism is a viable option. People bring up monopolies, but if enough people are sick of the high prices from a monopoly, they will support the smaller companies. I believe that if almost everything were privatized the economy would still thrive. It is not the role of government to tell people how to live their lives or corporations how to run their business. I get called an extremist for this view all the time by people who don’t hear out the rest of the argument. I really don’t see any problem if the only role of government was police and military. Edit: My mind has been changed from this original view (which I admit is extreme). I still am a strong supporter of small government, but I do now see why the society I originally posted about could not work.	Who takes care of infrastructure? --- I feel like a private company would take that over. Or multiple private companies for that matter. --- Would you like to pay a toll on every road you drive on? Would you be OK with having swaths of cities, states, etc, blocked from access because you don't want to pay the fees required to access those areas?	What would happen if 10 homeless people die in front of your home? --- What would happen? If you’re referring to needing welfare programs then I believe that there are people who feel strongly enough that those people need help. Nothing stops people from donating. --- They don't do it now, but I was referring to the fact that there would be 10 corpses in front of your home with no government agency to remove them. You would eventually get sick, pass out. Get taken to a hospital that you couldn't afford, so they would dump you on the street.	fbnlpa	CMV: Government should play an extremely minimal role.	In my opinion, I feel like government should play almost no role in our lives and should essentially only be responsible for police and military. I’m not an anarchist, I am aware that police are necessary to keep order. However, from an economic standpoint, I feel like pure capitalism is a viable option. People bring up monopolies, but if enough people are sick of the high prices from a monopoly, they will support the smaller companies. I believe that if almost everything were privatized the economy would still thrive. It is not the role of government to tell people how to live their lives or corporations how to run their business. I get called an extremist for this view all the time by people who don’t hear out the rest of the argument. I really don’t see any problem if the only role of government was police and military. Edit: My mind has been changed from this original view (which I admit is extreme). I still am a strong supporter of small government, but I do now see why the society I originally posted about could not work.	pk__11	3	3	[ { "author": "chibbles11", "id": "fj5e5z0", "score": 1, "text": "Who takes care of infrastructure?", "timestamp": 1583030520 }, { "author": "pk__11", "id": "fj5e9fu", "score": 0, "text": "I feel like a private company would take that over. Or multiple private companies for tha...	[ { "author": "angryrickrolled", "id": "fj5ekv4", "score": 1, "text": "What would happen if 10 homeless people die in front of your home?", "timestamp": 1583030797 }, { "author": "pk__11", "id": "fj5eoie", "score": 1, "text": "What would happen? If you’re referring to needing w...	[ "fj5e5z0", "fj5e9fu", "fj5em0q" ]	[ "fj5ekv4", "fj5eoie", "fj5ezd5" ]
CMV: The depiction of the age gap relationship in Licorice Pizza (2021) is not problematic EDIT: It seems like I made two mistakes in posting this. The first was that I overestimated the reach of the movie, because many people who responded have not seen it. This post was written with the assumption that you have seen the movie. The examples and snippets I use in my post are not intended to summarize the movie. They are examples that I cherrypicked to support very specific arguments. If you try to understand the movie through my post, you might make statements like "Gary is a child!" without understanding that Alana is also young, and stunted to the point that she may as well be a slightly older child (I would have believed it if Alana was 18 instead of 25). It's also possible that I could have misunderstood the movie, but you would not know about that unless you have seen it. I was anticipating that maybe someone would show some evidence from the plot to say "Hey, this thing is actually much worse than you had initially thought", but that did not happen. The second was that I underestimated how inflammatory this topic was. Any conversation on this topic of age gaps that does not include "grooming is bad" in flashing neon lights is interpreted to be support of grooming. It's disappointing because there is an interesting conversation to be had about how movies should deal with problematic themes, but that conversation can't be had about this particular film unless people have seen it (and know exactly how it treats the subject). There are also some other interesting points that could have been discussed: what if a child watched it, and with their limited understanding, assumed that the message was that you should date someone 10 years older than you? But that also didn't happen, because people either didn't watch the film, or wanted to insist that grooming is whenever an older person talks to a younger person, or both. I don't want to discourage people from responding if they have not seen it; just be humble enough not to understand that the view of the film you get from just my comments is likely wildly off. Paul Thomas Anderson's latest movie, Licorice Pizza, is a coming-of-age romance/character study set in the 70s, featuring Gary Valentine (15) and Alana Kane (25?). There has been some talk surrounding the age gap between the two characters, with some believing that it's problematic, promotes pedophilia, or what have you. While this certainly isn't the prevailing view of the film (most reviews that I've seen are very positive), it's common enough for comments supporting it to get upvoted in discussions on the movie, and for references to it to spring up in different topics. On a discussion post concerning the movie's age gap: >Y'all are justifying grooming. Call me old fashioned by I don't think a 25 year old (adult) and a 15 year old (a child) should be in a romantic relationship. People literally go to jail for this. As they should. On an unrelated post about double standards between men and women for statutory rape: >A movie about the romance between a 25 year old woman and a 15 year old boy was nominated for an Oscar. My view is that the film does not promote age gap relationships, and nobody who did not already believe so will come out of the film thinking that it's cool to date a teenager as an adult. I'll organize my thoughts by anticipating some responses. If your response follows along the lines of one of these, please read that section in advance. If not, just skip the rest of the post. Would you still hold this view if Gary was the adult and Alana was the teen? Yes. Why is the age gap necessary? The movie is about exploring what adulthood means. Gary is a teenager trying to be an adult; he's starting businesses, networking, and getting an older girlfriend. Alana is an adult who's life is without direction. For most of the film, she's "going with the flow"; whether that's with Gary, or whichever other adult-like figure she's latched on to. There are also moments where the age gap is highlighted. After the truck sequence, Gary and his friends are cheering, thinking it was "fucking awesome". Alana is thinking "we could have fucking died". She's on the curb, exasperated at how Gary is behaving, and realizing how differently they see the world. None of these moments would make sense if Gary and Alana were the same age. The themes about adulthood and maturity would be less impactful. Overall, it makes the movie better. Isn't Alana grooming Gary? No. Grooming is not "when one person is older than the other". Alana does not try to manipulate Gary into sex or emotional dependence. She also does not hold a significant power imbalance over him. During their fight, it was clear that Gary was perfectly happy to tell her to fuck off. Doesn't the film implicitly support it by giving them a happy ending? It sorta gives them a happy ending, by having them kiss in a climactic moment, with Alana saying "I love you". But there is no follow-up; we don't get to see how the rest of their relationship plays out, and the film has already given us enough breadcrumbs to infer the age gap will continue to be a source of tension. But more importantly, I don't believe it's the film's responsibility to hold the audience's hand and tell them what to think. "Adults shouldn't date teenagers" is obvious, and no one who already believes this will have their minds changed by this film. If people genuinely believe that this film is promoting grooming, I'd ask if they think Phantom Thread supports >!poisoning your husband repeatedly as a way of dealing with his weird mommy issues!<. Art should be allowed to push boundaries; although I don't even think that Licorice Pizza was particularly obscene or anything. That's all. Change my view.	If you ask me, showing a romantic relationship between a child and adult in anything other than a negative light is problematic. I haven't seen the movie but based on what you are saying, Alana (an adult) is romantically interested in a child, and the movie doesn't do anything to paint that in a negative light. That's a bit of a problem to me --- >If you ask me, showing a romantic relationship between a child and adult in anything other than a negative light is problematic. Why? No one is going to walk out of this movie thinking that dating teenagers is okay, unless they already wanted to date teenagers. >I haven't seen the movie but based on what you are saying, Alana (an adult) is romantically interested in a child, and the movie doesn't do anything to paint that in a negative light. That's sort of the problem with commenting on the movie without seeing it, because what you described isn't accurate. Alana initially rebuffs Gary's advances, calling him a child. She starts catching feelings for him halfway through the movie, but also detaches herself to go after other men. And while the movie does not hold neon signs for the audience saying "this is bad", there are clear moments where the problems caused by their age gap is highlighted. --- Alana NEVER actually rejected Gary's advances. She follows through with every single invitation Gary gives her. Rejecting would have been saying "you're literally 10 years younger" and NOT showing up to the restaurant. Alana SAYS she will refuse Gary but she doesn't DO IT.	I personally have no problem with the age gap or any exploration of themes in art. However, I think people complain especially men because they see everyday how women and older men is horrible and always exploitative. Even when the woman is an adult. And then they see this which is, no offense to you, always a predatory relationship from the woman's side and take issue with it. Censoring art is always bad but that doesn't make it not a problematic relationship anymore. Lolita is one of tr greatest books ever. Still a problematic relationship --- I just want to clarify that I'm talking about the depiction of the relationship, not the relationship itself. The relationship undoubtedly has problems, but I don't believe that the way it was shown in the movie promotes grooming or anything like that. >Even when the woman is an adult. And then they see this which is, no offense to you, always a predatory relationship from the woman's side and take issue with it. Are you referring to real-life predatory relationships, or would you say that Alana is predatory in the movie? --- I believe a 25year old dating a 15 year old is always predatory.	tv0cws	CMV: The depiction of the age gap relationship in Licorice Pizza (2021) is not problematic	EDIT: It seems like I made two mistakes in posting this. The first was that I overestimated the reach of the movie, because many people who responded have not seen it. This post was written with the assumption that you have seen the movie. The examples and snippets I use in my post are not intended to summarize the movie. They are examples that I cherrypicked to support very specific arguments. If you try to understand the movie through my post, you might make statements like "Gary is a child!" without understanding that Alana is also young, and stunted to the point that she may as well be a slightly older child (I would have believed it if Alana was 18 instead of 25). It's also possible that I could have misunderstood the movie, but you would not know about that unless you have seen it. I was anticipating that maybe someone would show some evidence from the plot to say "Hey, this thing is actually much worse than you had initially thought", but that did not happen. The second was that I underestimated how inflammatory this topic was. Any conversation on this topic of age gaps that does not include "grooming is bad" in flashing neon lights is interpreted to be support of grooming. It's disappointing because there is an interesting conversation to be had about how movies should deal with problematic themes, but that conversation can't be had about this particular film unless people have seen it (and know exactly how it treats the subject). There are also some other interesting points that could have been discussed: what if a child watched it, and with their limited understanding, assumed that the message was that you should date someone 10 years older than you? But that also didn't happen, because people either didn't watch the film, or wanted to insist that grooming is whenever an older person talks to a younger person, or both. I don't want to discourage people from responding if they have not seen it; just be humble enough not to understand that the view of the film you get from just my comments is likely wildly off. Paul Thomas Anderson's latest movie, Licorice Pizza, is a coming-of-age romance/character study set in the 70s, featuring Gary Valentine (15) and Alana Kane (25?). There has been some talk surrounding the age gap between the two characters, with some believing that it's problematic, promotes pedophilia, or what have you. While this certainly isn't the prevailing view of the film (most reviews that I've seen are very positive), it's common enough for comments supporting it to get upvoted in discussions on the movie, and for references to it to spring up in different topics. On a discussion post concerning the movie's age gap: >Y'all are justifying grooming. Call me old fashioned by I don't think a 25 year old (adult) and a 15 year old (a child) should be in a romantic relationship. People literally go to jail for this. As they should. On an unrelated post about double standards between men and women for statutory rape: >A movie about the romance between a 25 year old woman and a 15 year old boy was nominated for an Oscar. My view is that the film does not promote age gap relationships, and nobody who did not already believe so will come out of the film thinking that it's cool to date a teenager as an adult. I'll organize my thoughts by anticipating some responses. If your response follows along the lines of one of these, please read that section in advance. If not, just skip the rest of the post. Would you still hold this view if Gary was the adult and Alana was the teen? Yes. Why is the age gap necessary? The movie is about exploring what adulthood means. Gary is a teenager trying to be an adult; he's starting businesses, networking, and getting an older girlfriend. Alana is an adult who's life is without direction. For most of the film, she's "going with the flow"; whether that's with Gary, or whichever other adult-like figure she's latched on to. There are also moments where the age gap is highlighted. After the truck sequence, Gary and his friends are cheering, thinking it was "fucking awesome". Alana is thinking "we could have fucking died". She's on the curb, exasperated at how Gary is behaving, and realizing how differently they see the world. None of these moments would make sense if Gary and Alana were the same age. The themes about adulthood and maturity would be less impactful. Overall, it makes the movie better. Isn't Alana grooming Gary? No. Grooming is not "when one person is older than the other". Alana does not try to manipulate Gary into sex or emotional dependence. She also does not hold a significant power imbalance over him. During their fight, it was clear that Gary was perfectly happy to tell her to fuck off. Doesn't the film implicitly support it by giving them a happy ending? It sorta gives them a happy ending, by having them kiss in a climactic moment, with Alana saying "I love you". But there is no follow-up; we don't get to see how the rest of their relationship plays out, and the film has already given us enough breadcrumbs to infer the age gap will continue to be a source of tension. But more importantly, I don't believe it's the film's responsibility to hold the audience's hand and tell them what to think. "Adults shouldn't date teenagers" is obvious, and no one who already believes this will have their minds changed by this film. If people genuinely believe that this film is promoting grooming, I'd ask if they think Phantom Thread supports >!poisoning your husband repeatedly as a way of dealing with his weird mommy issues!<. Art should be allowed to push boundaries; although I don't even think that Licorice Pizza was particularly obscene or anything. That's all. Change my view.	Puddinglax	3	3	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "i37bs5h", "score": 0, "text": "If you ask me, showing a romantic relationship between a child and adult in anything other than a negative light is problematic. I haven't seen the movie but based on what you are saying, Alana (an adult) is romantically interested in a ...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "i36nclw", "score": 5, "text": "I personally have no problem with the age gap or any exploration of themes in art. However, I think people complain especially men because they see everyday how women and older men is horrible and always exploitative. Even when the woman...	[ "i37bs5h", "i37qcc0", "i3abrnk" ]	[ "i36nclw", "i36oae8", "i36ofnq" ]
CMV: Colin Kaepernick doesn't deserve to be signed to an NFL team Change my view: Colin Kaepernick doesn't deserve to be signed to an NFL team. -His on-field performance is not very good. In his last 19 starts (he has started 19 games in his past two seasons), he has 3 wins and 16 losses. Of course, there are other factors that lead to wins and losses than just a quarterback, but quarterbacks generally have the most influence on whether a team wins or loses. His individual stats have fallen off considerably in the past few years and his QBR has been 55.2 and 47.1 in his last two years - mediocre at best. -His off-the-field stances will hurt a team more than his football ability will help the team. Whether it is fair or not, his political activism has been a distraction for his team and it has turned away fans. In fact, enough fans voiced their displeasure with the Giants' interest in Kaepernick that the Giants refused to sign him. A similar situation is happening with Kaepernick and the Baltimore Ravens. If Kaepernick is a very mediocre, or even poor by some metrics, quarterback, it would not make much sense for a team to sign him from both a financial standpoint and a football standpoint. I don't necessarily think that he shouldn't be signed to a team that has a very bad QB situation, but I certainly don't think he "deserves" to be signed, as some of the protest groups have suggested. Protestors shouldn't be protesting the NFL for not signing Kaepernick because he has no entitlement to be signed, and teams shouldn't feel obligated to sign him if neither his football performance nor his personal reputation are very intriguing to their team.	>Protestors shouldn't be protesting the NFL for not signing Kaepernick because he has no entitlement to be signed What if I told you owners were admitting that the reason they weren't looking at signing Kaep was because of the protest stuff? Wouldn't that seem different? Well, it seems apparent that is indeed the case. Washington Post:Ravens owner admits that Colin Kaepernick’s protest is a factor in whether to sign him https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/07/31/ravens-owner-admits-that-colin-kaepernicks-protest-is-a-factor-in-whether-to-sign-him/ NFL.com: Giants owner on Colin Kaepernick: An 'emotional issue' http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000811854/article/giants-owner-on-colin-kaepernick-an-emotional-issue Now you may say hey, I agree with the owners of the Ravens and Giants, who argue that many fans would be outrage and they must consider their team's respective brand images. However, that is distinct from arguing that Kaep is out of a job for strictly football reasons. Yes, he's not a high quality NFL QB, but there's no reason to think the Arena Football guy the Ravens signed is any better, especially in the face of the teams literally telling us the reason is the protest. --- Well even if the protest is the reason, my view still stands that he doesn't deserve to be signed, and that he isn't an entitled to an NFL gig. The NFL is a corporation and each of its franchisees is allowed to make decisions for their team/franchise. These franchisees/team owners are allowed to do whatever they want as long as it is 1) legal and 2) within league rules. There is no reason any team should be forced or be obligated to sign Kaep. Even if you want to argue that he is better than QBs on rosters, which is true - there are backup QBs which are worse than them - it still may not be the best business decision. Teams shouldn't feel obligated to sign a backup or fringe starter QB that will draw a lot of controversy and potentially impact their revenue. When groups protest Kaep not having a contract, it doesn't make sense to me. He isn't entitled to an NFL job and he doesn't inherently deserve one just because he's better than a few starters and some backups. --- I worry that not signing him sets a unsettling precedent for other players. The league is essentially telling everyone playing professional football "your stats don't matter". A player's salary and employment with the league actually isn't contingent on their performance during the season. It's not about how you play the game, it's whether your personal politics line up with the owners and THAT is unsettling. I would be terrified as a player in the NFL that the owners might one day turn on me for something I believe, even though I'm one of the 20 best players in my position. NFL players are in a labor union together, this issue is bigger than just Colin Kaepernick.	Out of all the players who are at starting QB and at back up QB, Colin isn't better than any of them? Even that QBR rating places him in the bottom 6-7 of starting QBs. I'm sure it is much higher if we looked simply at back up QBs. --- He would be more expensive. You have to considere cap hit too. They can have somene youngerat 1/2 the price, and a potential upside. --- But then it certainly ins't a skill based reason. He is arguably better than the worst five starters. And then again there is all the back ups. he would be getting something just north of a league min. deal. The cap it wouldn't that high.	6wvsf4	CMV: Colin Kaepernick doesn't deserve to be signed to an NFL team	Change my view: Colin Kaepernick doesn't deserve to be signed to an NFL team. -His on-field performance is not very good. In his last 19 starts (he has started 19 games in his past two seasons), he has 3 wins and 16 losses. Of course, there are other factors that lead to wins and losses than just a quarterback, but quarterbacks generally have the most influence on whether a team wins or loses. His individual stats have fallen off considerably in the past few years and his QBR has been 55.2 and 47.1 in his last two years - mediocre at best. -His off-the-field stances will hurt a team more than his football ability will help the team. Whether it is fair or not, his political activism has been a distraction for his team and it has turned away fans. In fact, enough fans voiced their displeasure with the Giants' interest in Kaepernick that the Giants refused to sign him. A similar situation is happening with Kaepernick and the Baltimore Ravens. If Kaepernick is a very mediocre, or even poor by some metrics, quarterback, it would not make much sense for a team to sign him from both a financial standpoint and a football standpoint. I don't necessarily think that he shouldn't be signed to a team that has a very bad QB situation, but I certainly don't think he "deserves" to be signed, as some of the protest groups have suggested. Protestors shouldn't be protesting the NFL for not signing Kaepernick because he has no entitlement to be signed, and teams shouldn't feel obligated to sign him if neither his football performance nor his personal reputation are very intriguing to their team.	nyg17	3	3	[ { "author": "BAWguy", "id": "dmb6d69", "score": 8, "text": ">Protestors shouldn't be protesting the NFL for not signing Kaepernick because he has no entitlement to be signed\n\nWhat if I told you owners were admitting that the reason they weren't looking at signing Kaep was because of the protest ...	[ { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "dmb5ory", "score": 0, "text": "Out of all the players who are at starting QB and at back up QB, Colin isn't better than any of them?\n\nEven that QBR rating places him in the bottom 6-7 of starting QBs. \n\nI'm sure it is much higher if we looked simply at back u...	[ "dmb6d69", "dmbe50n", "dmc2h0g" ]	[ "dmb5ory", "dmba7gi", "dmbaezm" ]
CMV: Software piracy is okay. I'm very anti-capitalist and anti-corporate, and believe companies are out there to press every penny out of your pockets. That being said, I'm also not Communist, because it only works in small scale societies and Americans are too individualistic to be Communist. Software companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, and others are very greedy and only speak money. Adobe wants you to subscribe to their Creative Cloud model, Autodesk wants you to pay thousands of dollars for Maya, and so on. No one in their right mind would pay that kind of money for that software, so piracy here is justified because it's saying fuck you to the unreasonably high prices. Plus the companies already have tons of money from them licensing their products in bulk to other companies that use them, a few pirates aren't going to shut the whole company down. Plus no one (unless if you're Image-Line or Adobe) is going to go after the small fry copyright violations. And if you pay for the software, it's just saying "yeah keep being a greedy corporation and abuse your workers and your customers' wallets". If you pirate it, you say "Yeah you ain't getting money out of me. I'm taking your program because your price is unfair." Being arrested for taking a piece of software for free is stupid. Plus a lot of software doesn't allow you to try/learn it before you buy it.	You’re basically saying “because companies make a lot of money, it’s okay to steal from them.” --- Well the way they make money isn't exactly ethical. Does that not justify stealing from them to prove a point? --- > Does that not justify stealing from them to prove a point? No. It doesn't. Why not just not use the products they make? Banks have a lot of money and screw people over too. Have you thought about robbing a bank?	Stealing is ok because corporations build the software, not some hard working engineers that expect a paycheck and benefits. You have every right not to buy a product for the reasons you state. Or buy from a company that you feel provides a product at a better price. But, stealing is stealing no matter how you try to justify it in your mind. --- Here is where i diverge from common parlance. Software piracy is not stealing because is is not removed from its place of origin. It has merely been copied. The company loses nothing for having software copied by one guy (the pirated being sold is a different issue). 'Piracy is not a victimless crime' is an outright lie. The company does not lose money. They never had the pirates money, and never paid money for the copy that the pirate has. Losing the pirate's business is not losing any actual good. Whether the pirates would have otherwise bought the software, that their business would be lost, is highly debatable; in fact, in many cases, people who pirate software go on to buy it where they never would have otherwise. Additionally, pirating promotes the software, advertising that it is worth stealing, and is likely even good for the business. If you doubt, there are some game companies that even agree, and deliberately allow piracy. --- > pirating promotes the software artists and graphics designers hear all the time how they should give away their products for free for the "exposure". Most of the actual creators strongly disagree. You're making that choice for creators. Don't pretend that you are doing people a favor by taking that choice from them.	bvp1xz	CMV: Software piracy is okay.	I'm very anti-capitalist and anti-corporate, and believe companies are out there to press every penny out of your pockets. That being said, I'm also not Communist, because it only works in small scale societies and Americans are too individualistic to be Communist. Software companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, and others are very greedy and only speak money. Adobe wants you to subscribe to their Creative Cloud model, Autodesk wants you to pay thousands of dollars for Maya, and so on. No one in their right mind would pay that kind of money for that software, so piracy here is justified because it's saying fuck you to the unreasonably high prices. Plus the companies already have tons of money from them licensing their products in bulk to other companies that use them, a few pirates aren't going to shut the whole company down. Plus no one (unless if you're Image-Line or Adobe) is going to go after the small fry copyright violations. And if you pay for the software, it's just saying "yeah keep being a greedy corporation and abuse your workers and your customers' wallets". If you pirate it, you say "Yeah you ain't getting money out of me. I'm taking your program because your price is unfair." Being arrested for taking a piece of software for free is stupid. Plus a lot of software doesn't allow you to try/learn it before you buy it.	[deleted]	3	3	[ { "author": "redditaccount001", "id": "eprbd7f", "score": 9, "text": "You’re basically saying “because companies make a lot of money, it’s okay to steal from them.”", "timestamp": 1559421598 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "eprj023", "score": -1, "text": "Well the way they ...	[ { "author": "Leolor66", "id": "epr9tcx", "score": 2, "text": "Stealing is ok because corporations build the software, not some hard working engineers that expect a paycheck and benefits. You have every right not to buy a product for the reasons you state. Or buy from a company that you feel provid...	[ "eprbd7f", "eprj023", "eprxilu" ]	[ "epr9tcx", "eprb3hs", "eprf4e9" ]
CMV: Software piracy is okay. I'm very anti-capitalist and anti-corporate, and believe companies are out there to press every penny out of your pockets. That being said, I'm also not Communist, because it only works in small scale societies and Americans are too individualistic to be Communist. Software companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, and others are very greedy and only speak money. Adobe wants you to subscribe to their Creative Cloud model, Autodesk wants you to pay thousands of dollars for Maya, and so on. No one in their right mind would pay that kind of money for that software, so piracy here is justified because it's saying fuck you to the unreasonably high prices. Plus the companies already have tons of money from them licensing their products in bulk to other companies that use them, a few pirates aren't going to shut the whole company down. Plus no one (unless if you're Image-Line or Adobe) is going to go after the small fry copyright violations. And if you pay for the software, it's just saying "yeah keep being a greedy corporation and abuse your workers and your customers' wallets". If you pirate it, you say "Yeah you ain't getting money out of me. I'm taking your program because your price is unfair." Being arrested for taking a piece of software for free is stupid. Plus a lot of software doesn't allow you to try/learn it before you buy it.	You’re basically saying “because companies make a lot of money, it’s okay to steal from them.” --- Well the way they make money isn't exactly ethical. Does that not justify stealing from them to prove a point? --- Nestle employs child labor and buys up water supplies to bottle and re-sell it to the people they took it from, does that entitle me to stealing from them? What point does it prove?	By what right is it permissible for you and a "few" others to steal products, but is impermissible for others to do so? Why hold yourself to a different standard? Shouldn't we be consistent in our application of rights and duties to rational people? At what point would you acknowledge that too many people are stealing a product, and by what standard would you have us judge you along with others for that infraction, if it ever becomes an infraction in your view? --- >By what right is it permissible for you and a "few" others to steal products Not the OP but it's because it's not stealing. It's creating a copy of something. It's most comparable to recording a show off TV with a VCR or a song off the radio with a tape recorder. You've created an illegal digital copy of something but you haven't stolen anything. At most it's copyright infringement. --- Creating a copy of something can be stealing. For example, secrets can only be stolen by copying, because it might make the secret unusable by the original owner, such as passwords.	bvp1xz	CMV: Software piracy is okay.	I'm very anti-capitalist and anti-corporate, and believe companies are out there to press every penny out of your pockets. That being said, I'm also not Communist, because it only works in small scale societies and Americans are too individualistic to be Communist. Software companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, and others are very greedy and only speak money. Adobe wants you to subscribe to their Creative Cloud model, Autodesk wants you to pay thousands of dollars for Maya, and so on. No one in their right mind would pay that kind of money for that software, so piracy here is justified because it's saying fuck you to the unreasonably high prices. Plus the companies already have tons of money from them licensing their products in bulk to other companies that use them, a few pirates aren't going to shut the whole company down. Plus no one (unless if you're Image-Line or Adobe) is going to go after the small fry copyright violations. And if you pay for the software, it's just saying "yeah keep being a greedy corporation and abuse your workers and your customers' wallets". If you pirate it, you say "Yeah you ain't getting money out of me. I'm taking your program because your price is unfair." Being arrested for taking a piece of software for free is stupid. Plus a lot of software doesn't allow you to try/learn it before you buy it.	[deleted]	3	3	[ { "author": "redditaccount001", "id": "eprbd7f", "score": 9, "text": "You’re basically saying “because companies make a lot of money, it’s okay to steal from them.”", "timestamp": 1559421598 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "eprj023", "score": -1, "text": "Well the way they ...	[ { "author": "AnotherMasterMind", "id": "eprbz4k", "score": 3, "text": "By what right is it permissible for you and a \"few\" others to steal products, but is impermissible for others to do so? Why hold yourself to a different standard? Shouldn't we be consistent in our application of rights and du...	[ "eprbd7f", "eprj023", "eprqk7w" ]	[ "eprbz4k", "eprdt3n", "eprf7pm" ]
CMV: The insurance industry should not exist. Just to be clear, in this CMV, I am assuming that the government will step up and give people money if they are seriously in debt. It is obvious to me that if the government did not step up, it would be a disaster for the average citizen. With that out of the way, I do not think that insurance should exist for several reasons: 1. Insurance premiums usually demand a small amount of money monthly that you probably could have saved up by yourself anyway. But you might be thinking about people who can't afford minimum wage and think "What about these guys?". They can't pay for their insurance premiums. They're already living paycheck to paycheck and can't save up money either way. 2. This is where the free market comes into play. For example, if almost no one can pay repairs for their car if they get into an accident, corporations would be forced to sell cars and car parts at a lower price. Everything would be much more affordable for the average person. 3. The government would indeed step up big time and give out a lot of money in the short term. However, in the long term, the government would end up paying only for people who are chronically and terminally ill. The rest of the population can afford more stuff, so the government can limit its spending on the poor without many consequences. Also, no insurance would also mean getting help to people who need it the most. There are some people who scam insurance companies and receive money that they shouldn't have. _____ > 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!*	This isn't how any of this works. >Insurance premiums usually demand a small amount of money monthly that you probably could have saved up by yourself anyway. But you might be thinking about people who can't afford minimum wage and think "What about these guys?". They can't pay for their insurance premiums. They're already living paycheck to paycheck and can't save up money either way. These premiums are payments associated with the risk factor of the insurance you bought. If you're likely cash out your insurance(eg, you're a bad driver) you'll pay more in premiums because you will cost the insurance company more. Think of it as gambling(because that's what it is). If you have a 1:100 chance of having a house fire, your insurance will be lower than someone with a 1:10 chance of having a house fire. You don't need to buy insurance in most cases(thus saving on the premium), but this means if you end up with rotten luck you'll be paying out the wazoo. >This is where the free market comes into play. For example, if almost no one can pay repairs for their car if they get into an accident, corporations would be forced to sell cars and car parts at a lower price. Everything would be much more affordable for the average person. This isn't even remotely how this works. First of all, insurance claims makes up a tiny minority of new car purchases. Second, cars have a cost to produce- if it costs $9K to produce a $30k vehicle, the price will never fall below $9k unless the manufacture changes their process. >The government would indeed step up big time and give out a lot of money in the short term. However, in the long term, the government would end up paying only for people who are chronically and terminally ill. The rest of the population can afford more stuff, so the government can limit its spending on the poor without many consequences. Why is the government paying for basic insurance? If I don't get renters insurance and I accidentally cause damage to my landlord's apartment, why are taxpayers footing the bill? --- >You don't need to buy insurance in most cases(thus saving on the premium), but this means if you end up with rotten luck you'll be paying out the wazoo. But you wouldn't have to pay as much if that happens because housing prices would have gone down considerably due to the free market. If they are not making enough money selling their stuff at a higher price, they will lower the price to attract more buyers. >This isn't even remotely how this works. First of all, insurance claims makes up a tiny minority of new car purchases. I'm talking about car insurance. > Second, cars have a cost to produce- if it costs $9K to produce a $30k vehicle, the price will never fall below $9k unless the manufacture changes their process. Of course. But I doubt that corporations would be forced to reduce their prices by that much. >Why is the government paying for basic insurance? If I don't get renters insurance and I accidentally cause damage to my landlord's apartment, why are taxpayers footing the bill? Government would pay for it only if there was a significantly large cost (such as health insurance for the chronically ill). For any other cost, people would pay for it out of pocket. --- > Government would pay for it only if there was a significantly large cost (such as health insurance for the chronically ill). For any other cost, people would pay for it out of pocket. This actually creates a pretty severe moral hazard - If the government will step in and cover _big_ costs but I have to cover smaller costs, it is in my best interest to cause the most damage possible so I don't have to foot the bill. You'd see people who were in minor fender-benders totaling their cars _on purpose_ so they didn't have to pay.	I was just in a minor car accident. The damage was minor but my car was knocked out of commission. Is it your position that the government should repair my vehicle? And is it also your position that this should just be part of what my taxes cover? --- >Is it your position that the government should repair my vehicle? And is it also your position that this should just be part of what my taxes cover? No, you'd pay out of pocket for this since it was a minor accident. --- So what happens if it is a major accident and your car is totaled? Most people don't have the money lying around to pay for a new car _and_ keep paying of the loan for the car that was totaled. Who helps them in that situation?	6ppt8h	CMV: The insurance industry should not exist.	Just to be clear, in this CMV, I am assuming that the government will step up and give people money if they are seriously in debt. It is obvious to me that if the government did not step up, it would be a disaster for the average citizen. With that out of the way, I do not think that insurance should exist for several reasons: 1. Insurance premiums usually demand a small amount of money monthly that you probably could have saved up by yourself anyway. But you might be thinking about people who can't afford minimum wage and think "What about these guys?". They can't pay for their insurance premiums. They're already living paycheck to paycheck and can't save up money either way. 2. This is where the free market comes into play. For example, if almost no one can pay repairs for their car if they get into an accident, corporations would be forced to sell cars and car parts at a lower price. Everything would be much more affordable for the average person. 3. The government would indeed step up big time and give out a lot of money in the short term. However, in the long term, the government would end up paying only for people who are chronically and terminally ill. The rest of the population can afford more stuff, so the government can limit its spending on the poor without many consequences. Also, no insurance would also mean getting help to people who need it the most. There are some people who scam insurance companies and receive money that they shouldn't have. _____ > 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!*	Positron311	3	3	[ { "author": "MrGraeme", "id": "dkr86kw", "score": 7, "text": "This isn't how any of this works.\n\n>Insurance premiums usually demand a small amount of money monthly that you probably could have saved up by yourself anyway. But you might be thinking about people who can't afford minimum wage and thi...	[ { "author": "paul_aka_paul", "id": "dkr7kh1", "score": 4, "text": "I was just in a minor car accident. The damage was minor but my car was knocked out of commission. Is it your position that the government should repair my vehicle? And is it also your position that this should just be part of what m...	[ "dkr86kw", "dkr8o2c", "dkr8yja" ]	[ "dkr7kh1", "dkr8677", "dkr8a20" ]
CMV: GMO's are essentially a good thing for humans. I've seen a lot of conversations on this topic regarding how deadly GMO's are. I've watched countless documentaries and heard a lot of really close friends tell me how bad they are; essentially Monsanto are villains that only care about profits and poisoning us. But I don't think GMO's are bad, in fact I think they are essential to our sustained growth and ensure we will continue to have food to eat. The original reasoning for GMO's is to introduce a new trait into something to allow it to adapt better for the current world we are in. Examples in food crops include resistance to certain pests, diseases, or environmental conditions, reduction of spoilage, or resistance to chemical treatments (e.g. resistance to a herbicide), or improving the nutrient profile of the crop. Today's American farmer feeds about 155 people worldwide. In 1960, that number was 25.8. And currently Agriculture employs more than 24 million American workers (17% of the total U.S. work force). So that means on average the American farmers feed roughly 3.72 Billion people are fed just because of American farmers. If there were ever a new strain of bacteria or new super bug we could potentially lose a crop that feeds the rest of the world. Non-gmo foods also are notorious for having shorter shelf life's. So, trying to feed something like 3.72 Billion people worldwide with foods that won't last as long, just sounds like it's a disaster waiting to happen. We already have issues with world hunger. Allowing more opportunities for the number of people suffering from this world wide, doesn't sound like a really good idea. Finally, if we removed GMO's we would lose some of our favorite fruits all together from either extinction or lack of flavor and people not being as interested in them. [I read this link a while back ](http://www.businessinsider.com/foods-before-genetic-modification-2015-8/#modern-banana-4) that outlines this exact point. I'm not saying GMO's might not be harmful, but I think they are necessary and good for the current state of the world and all of the human race. So, change my view?	The problem with GMOs is patenting them, thus getting a huge competitive advantage, and therefore giving even more global power to (mostly American - hello Monsanto) food megacorps. Edit: That, of course, is not a good thing for most humans. Then there is also the question if they are sufficiently proven to be harmless to humans and the environment. >We already have issues with world hunger. That issue is with incredible overpopulation. --- Not trying to be overtly combative here, but why is detrimental to have Monsanto have more patents? Just to note, right now there are roughly [10 companies that own everything we eat. ](http://sploid.gizmodo.com/fascinating-graphic-shows-who-owns-all-the-major-brands-1599537576) So, are we saying Monsanto is more dangerous than that? Because to me, seems like 10 companies controlling everything we consume within grocery stories seems like a bigger issue (monopoly wise) than Monsanto owning patents on GMO's. Yes they can both be equally bad, but all the documentaries I'm seeing are all discussing how bad Monsanto is and how bad GMO's as a whole are, no real mention on the above. So why is it we're picking and choosing the most important. Why do GMO's get top billing here? >That issue is with incredible overpopulation. And yes, in regards to Global Hunger, it's a larger issue due to overpopulation, but reducing foods shelf life or making it potentially harder to get isn't going to help the matter. Thanks so much for responding either way! I appreciate having a good discussion! Edit: formatting --- Smaller companies then cannot compete with any big Agro business because they can't afford huge research labs to customize their produce. Then, for all the reasons you listed for GMOs being superior, smaller and competitive businesses vanish. A non competitive industry is ALWAYS bad for the consumer, just look at things like ISP monopolies or Cell carriers right now. And food is neccesary to life, so a market where the supply and pricing is controlled by one or two companies is a really really really bad idea. Agro is already not very competitive which is bad for farmers and consumers, so totally eliminating competition for allowing Monsanto to own Super apples is bad.	> If there were ever a new strain of bacteria or new super bug we could potentially lose a crop that feeds the rest of the world. That's actually aggravated by the monoculture crops that GMOs encourage. If a GMO seed has a big advantage over other seeds, then almost all farmers end up using it. If that GMO seed becomes vunerable to a super bug, it's game over. What you want instead (to avoid susceptibility to a super bug) is a large variety of seeds. We've seen this in real life. The French wine industry was almost completely destroyed but was only saved because American grape vines were a different variety and were resistant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_French_Wine_Blight In a world of GMOs, almost everyone would be growing the same uber-productive grape vine. Game over. --- > large variety of seeds For corn and soy the diversity is actually increased. The genetically engineered traits are crossed into all the usual varieties. Open any corn or soy seed catalog and you'll find all the popular varieties in both GMO and non-GMO versions. --- > For corn and soy the diversity is actually increased. It didn't. What matters is not the seeds in a catalog, but what farmers choose to plant.	6wyl4e	CMV: GMO's are essentially a good thing for humans.	I've seen a lot of conversations on this topic regarding how deadly GMO's are. I've watched countless documentaries and heard a lot of really close friends tell me how bad they are; essentially Monsanto are villains that only care about profits and poisoning us. But I don't think GMO's are bad, in fact I think they are essential to our sustained growth and ensure we will continue to have food to eat. The original reasoning for GMO's is to introduce a new trait into something to allow it to adapt better for the current world we are in. Examples in food crops include resistance to certain pests, diseases, or environmental conditions, reduction of spoilage, or resistance to chemical treatments (e.g. resistance to a herbicide), or improving the nutrient profile of the crop. Today's American farmer feeds about 155 people worldwide. In 1960, that number was 25.8. And currently Agriculture employs more than 24 million American workers (17% of the total U.S. work force). So that means on average the American farmers feed roughly 3.72 Billion people are fed just because of American farmers. If there were ever a new strain of bacteria or new super bug we could potentially lose a crop that feeds the rest of the world. Non-gmo foods also are notorious for having shorter shelf life's. So, trying to feed something like 3.72 Billion people worldwide with foods that won't last as long, just sounds like it's a disaster waiting to happen. We already have issues with world hunger. Allowing more opportunities for the number of people suffering from this world wide, doesn't sound like a really good idea. Finally, if we removed GMO's we would lose some of our favorite fruits all together from either extinction or lack of flavor and people not being as interested in them. [I read this link a while back ](http://www.businessinsider.com/foods-before-genetic-modification-2015-8/#modern-banana-4) that outlines this exact point. I'm not saying GMO's might not be harmful, but I think they are necessary and good for the current state of the world and all of the human race. So, change my view?	themightykites0322	3	3	[ { "author": "AoyagiAichou", "id": "dmbqps7", "score": 149, "text": "The problem with GMOs is patenting them, thus getting a huge competitive advantage, and therefore giving even more global power to (mostly American - hello Monsanto) food megacorps. Edit: That, of course, is not a good thing for *...	[ { "author": "tchaffee", "id": "dmbt4zl", "score": 5, "text": "> If there were ever a new strain of bacteria or new super bug we could potentially lose a crop that feeds the rest of the world.\n\nThat's actually aggravated by the monoculture crops that GMOs encourage. If a GMO seed has a big advanta...	[ "dmbqps7", "dmbrc2q", "dmbzr0q" ]	[ "dmbt4zl", "dmbviyl", "dmbvzt9" ]
CMV: Bitcoins have no real value, and are pretty much a scam at this point. Bitcoins don't seem to have any real value that I can pinpoint. For an object to have value, there must be a reason why someone would want to possess it. For example, people buy stocks for the dividend/ownership of the company. People buy baseball cards because they're collectible and rare. Bitcoins fit none of those categories. It isn't collectible, it isn't rare, it doesn't have any real world use. The only value that the bitcoin could have is as a currency, but bitcoin doesn't function well as a currency either. A good currency has a few crucial properties, but the one I find most relevant is a currency should be relatively stable in value. You don't want to suddenly find out you just lost half your life savings because the currency you're holding has just lost half its value overnight. Bitcoin right now is anything but stable, its price fluctuations are insane. You could argue that the price is only unstable right now because of the amount of speculative investment into bitcoin, and eventually, bitcoin will begin to level out creating a more stable currency. However, the supply of bitcoin, from what I've read, is heavily linked towards the growth of computing power. If computing power efficiency ever drastically increases, the supply of bitcoin rises, and the price of bitcoin will plummet. Therefore, I think bitcoins lack the stability a real world currency promises. Furthermore, the government will most likely never accept bitcoin as legal tender. A large part of the reason why we moved from gold backed currency to fiat currency was so the government can use monetary policy to effect it's economy. Giving away that control would be insane, as you're losing a lot power over your economy. By design, bitcoin is decentralized, and therefore, the government of a country who decides to adopt bitcoin cannot raise or lower money supply, meaning that they can no longer use monetary policy. So I can't see a country who would willingly adopt bitcoin as legal tender. In conclusion, bitcoin fails to function as a currency, and it fails to function as anything else. Right now, most of it's high price seems to come from speculative investment, and it holds no real world value, so it's price will eventually plummet.	One thing that gives bitcoin value is its anonymity. Users can remain anonymous while simultaneously conducting independently verified transactions. That is really useful when buying illegal stuff on the internet. I think illegal trade will give bitcoin a certain amount of long term value. --- But would you would want a currency that is somewhat desirable to people outside the black market right? Whats the point of getting 50 bitcoins from selling narcotics if the bitcoins can't be used to trade for other things such as food? Unless you're suggesting a currency exclusively for the black market? --- People who are gonna buy stuff illegally will pay you in dollars or some other fiat currency to get bitcoin. It'll be kinda like "the black market" is another country and you've just gotta exchange currencies.	You can exchange bitcoin for US currency, so it has monetary value. --- Only right now. Over time, I think it'll become largely worthless, as it lacks inherent value. --- > as it lacks inherent value. So does US currency.	8f062d	CMV: Bitcoins have no real value, and are pretty much a scam at this point.	Bitcoins don't seem to have any real value that I can pinpoint. For an object to have value, there must be a reason why someone would want to possess it. For example, people buy stocks for the dividend/ownership of the company. People buy baseball cards because they're collectible and rare. Bitcoins fit none of those categories. It isn't collectible, it isn't rare, it doesn't have any real world use. The only value that the bitcoin could have is as a currency, but bitcoin doesn't function well as a currency either. A good currency has a few crucial properties, but the one I find most relevant is a currency should be relatively stable in value. You don't want to suddenly find out you just lost half your life savings because the currency you're holding has just lost half its value overnight. Bitcoin right now is anything but stable, its price fluctuations are insane. You could argue that the price is only unstable right now because of the amount of speculative investment into bitcoin, and eventually, bitcoin will begin to level out creating a more stable currency. However, the supply of bitcoin, from what I've read, is heavily linked towards the growth of computing power. If computing power efficiency ever drastically increases, the supply of bitcoin rises, and the price of bitcoin will plummet. Therefore, I think bitcoins lack the stability a real world currency promises. Furthermore, the government will most likely never accept bitcoin as legal tender. A large part of the reason why we moved from gold backed currency to fiat currency was so the government can use monetary policy to effect it's economy. Giving away that control would be insane, as you're losing a lot power over your economy. By design, bitcoin is decentralized, and therefore, the government of a country who decides to adopt bitcoin cannot raise or lower money supply, meaning that they can no longer use monetary policy. So I can't see a country who would willingly adopt bitcoin as legal tender. In conclusion, bitcoin fails to function as a currency, and it fails to function as anything else. Right now, most of it's high price seems to come from speculative investment, and it holds no real world value, so it's price will eventually plummet.	tinnydevil	3	3	[ { "author": "Metallic52", "id": "dxzjmd8", "score": 6, "text": "One thing that gives bitcoin value is its anonymity. Users can remain anonymous while simultaneously conducting independently verified transactions. That is really useful when buying illegal stuff on the internet. I think illegal trade ...	[ { "author": "Glamdivasparkle", "id": "dxzk7sr", "score": 9, "text": "You can exchange bitcoin for US currency, so it has monetary value.", "timestamp": 1524720276 }, { "author": "tinnydevil", "id": "dxzkcwv", "score": 2, "text": "Only right now. Over time, I think it'll becom...	[ "dxzjmd8", "dxzjstb", "dxzjvj7" ]	[ "dxzk7sr", "dxzkcwv", "dxzkmte" ]
CMV: Modding video games is work that can be monetized Due to the recent creation club debacle (and its launch is a debacle, don't get me wrong), I've seen sentiment flare up like "they want to create a market for paid mods, don't let this crap be the norm."--just an implication that paid mods are never a good system. (This was an actual quote, mind, though I'm not willing to link it for witch hunt reasons--just a precaution, not expecting one) I've never seen an argument against paid mods as a whole (not any particular system of paid mods that has shown up--those that i've seen have all had undeniable problems) that doesn't rely entirely on modding being work that is inherently inferior to all other work. This is the primary reason--I don't know about any arguments that don't eventually boil down to "modding is work that isn't as deserving of payment as [insert any job you can think of here]". _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	> I've never seen an argument against paid mods as a whole (not any particular system of paid mods that has shown up--those that i've seen have all had undeniable problems) that doesn't rely entirely on modding being work that is inherently inferior to all other work. i'm undecided on the paid mod question, but i have one argument against it, that's not about modding being "inferior work". i think there's some value to having non-commercial spaces. parts of life/culture, that aren't about money. so far, modding has mostly been a fan thing, a creativity thing, a way for the community to have fun with a game. that community will change, when modding becomes a job. youtube today is very different from youtube before anyone could make money from their videos. there is a lot of great stuff on youtube now, that couldn't exist without the money, but it also feels quite different now. watching videos that people made just for fun feels very different from watching videos that people made for profit. the same will be true for mods. some people might be excited for more professional mods, others might like the way the modding community feels now, and don't want it to change. it's nice if no one is trying to sell you stuff for a while. --- I absolutely agree that a free culture is good--[this article is my signature on the forum I'm most active and a well-known modder in](http://wryemusings.com/Cathedral%20vs.%20Parlor.html). If a point could be made that the paid mod ecosystem damages the free mod ecosystem, that would also convince me, I think. It's not something that doesn't exist yet; The Sims modding has a lot of toxicity around paid modding, actually, and that was far before the steam workshop fiasco. However, the free mod ecosystem is still healthy with those games from what I can see. --- It would probably hurt the modding community! You see, when money can be made easily, scams begin to appear, when we know there are scam games. You would soon see some "businesses" make bad mods which appear to be good. This is the difference between paid mods and donations mods. Now my argument might be legal. You see, one thing with microtransaction is that they tend to not be refundable if you are not satisfied. Most probably mods would enter in that legal category in which you are not able to get your money back, which is a great thing for scammers. It's rather difficult to claim that paid mods will be negative or positive for every game. I think it would depend on the games. But I think paid mods would threaten the community of modders who often enough use the work of different modders. Paid content means copyright protection, and introducing such rivalry between modders for money would probably harm the community. Why would you make a free mod if another user just copies your mod, add another thing, another name, claims that this is his own mod and sell it? When mods are free, theft is less of a problem, the original creator just has to voice tye facts, and the community tends to follow. But mainly there's no reason to steal because there's no money at play	I agree with you 99% but you have to see it from some stubborn dev's perspectives: it's their product at the end of the day. If they don't want to make money from mods, it's their intellectual property and they can do what they want. --- I actually don't particularly care about what the devs think so much as what mod consumers think here; the question of whether devs have the right to prevent people from monetizing mods is a bit more complicated than this, and one that I don't particularly have a view on, since I haven't seen it really be a problem yet. --- Oh ok. Misunderstood your view. I'm with you then.	6wwr7f	CMV: Modding video games is work that can be monetized	Due to the recent creation club debacle (and its launch is a debacle, don't get me wrong), I've seen sentiment flare up like "they want to create a market for paid mods, don't let this crap be the norm."--just an implication that paid mods are never a good system. (This was an actual quote, mind, though I'm not willing to link it for witch hunt reasons--just a precaution, not expecting one) I've never seen an argument against paid mods as a whole (not any particular system of paid mods that has shown up--those that i've seen have all had undeniable problems) that doesn't rely entirely on modding being work that is inherently inferior to all other work. This is the primary reason--I don't know about any arguments that don't eventually boil down to "modding is work that isn't as deserving of payment as [insert any job you can think of here]". _____ > 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!*	Putnam3145	3	3	[ { "author": "evil_rabbit", "id": "dmbdei4", "score": 5, "text": "> I've never seen an argument against paid mods as a whole (not any particular system of paid mods that has shown up--those that i've seen have all had undeniable problems) that doesn't rely entirely on modding being work that is inher...	[ { "author": "skepticetoh", "id": "dmbd3y0", "score": 1, "text": "I agree with you 99% but you have to see it from some stubborn dev's perspectives: it's their product at the end of the day. If they don't want to make money from mods, it's their intellectual property and they can do what they want. "...	[ "dmbdei4", "dmbdohs", "dmbm0gr" ]	[ "dmbd3y0", "dmbdd2c", "dmbdgpx" ]
CMV: the State's rights argument has no place in modern America I get that there was a time in United States history where it was critically important for 13 often dissimilar statelettes to come together as a cohesive whole, and this was done by promising those states a great deal of individual autonomy. They were only required to cooperate as barely set out in the Constitution and as a unified government to other countries - IE there were American ambassadors, not Georgian, nor Rhode Island, ambassadors. Since this time, another thirty seven states have been added to the Union and they all have the same privilege of self government and it has created a patchwork of arbitrary lines on a map where, in many cases one can cross some vague geographical boundary and many of the laws are fundamentally different. This has even created conditions where states are attempting to make it illegal for their residents to leave their home state to travel to another in order to do something that was otherwise illegal at home, and for some reason there doesn't seem to be a lot of pushback. I posit that this is the year 2024 and the idea that parts of the USA can have laws that are different than any other part is, ngl, kind of dumb. We share a national culture across the US today that we didn't necessarily share in the past, and while there are regional differences, we as a people have much more in common with each other than we don't have in common with each other. I think that it is anathema that some Texans, for instance, are so terrified that their state _might_ turn Democratic in the near future that Texan politicians are instituting draconian laws specifically designed to prevent people who _might_ vote democrat from moving there. Florida is doing much the same. Why are parts of this country permitted to have laws different than other parts for inherently political reasons? Why, for instance, should the laws around state parks be different in Kentucky from Nevada? What good can come from section eight housing being more difficult to get in one place than another, or, for that instance, why should unemployment insurance or compensation be different anywhere? Why are business taxes 10% here, but literally 0% over here? I could cite other laws, but the point has been made. This kind of legislation doesn't serve anybody other than people who want to make the place that they live more attractive to other people just like them and to exclude others, and by others I specifically mean racial and economic minorities who might _also_ like to live in a sunny mild place like parts of Florida. I can not comprehend why trades licensing requirements should be different in California, Indiana and Massachusetts. There is no reason that state excise taxes on hard liquor should be different in Kentucky and Nevada. None. All that I have ever seen "states rights" be used for is to fire up specific parts of the conservative base in the US. I have never seen any state choose to make their laws different than those of their neighbors specifically to make that state a nicer place to be compared to those neighbors. While I do feel that people with realistically conservative viewpoints have something to contribute to modern American politics, I feel that those people have been hijacked by those concerns that want to see socioeconomic systems that are specifically designed to help make them more money. So change my view - what good does states rights actually do in the modern United States? Why should laws not be consistent across the country?	The USA is the United States of America, ie each state is separate but equal in the sense they can mutually exist, but are united as the USA. I know that's cyclical, and appeal to definition, but think about it. What is a state? To me a state is a huge area, as big as some other countries - and with unique aspects across the board. How can legislation designed for the texas desert operate in the snowy mountains? How can you homogenise such diversity? I think you do a disservice to suggest that there is more in common with an Arkansas ranch hand to a NYC banker than between that NY banker and a London banker (for example). --- Why should the laws that govern an Arkansas ranch hand be different than those which govern a NY banker? You have defined the present state of things, not spoken to how this is better than the laws being consistent across the country. --- Because the daily life, issues, triumphs etc are going to be vastly different between them. Can you maybe be specific about the kind of law you think does apply differently? Obviously murder and theft work similarly... --- Why should Indiana have such lax statewide trades licensing when Texas has strict requirements? Is, for instance, residential HVAC significantly different between those places? It is not. I can not think of a single law that needs to be different between Texas and Indiana. --- There could be different supply and demand dynamics. Maybe one state has a surplus of HVAC techs and the other has a shortage. --- And in this case, if licensing and other requirements were consistent across the board (and not to mention pay) people could freely follow the work if they felt so inclined. --- This is a low key racist and classist argument. To reframe what you just said, why can’t an underprivileged black family in the inner city just move 5head? Why is gentrification bad?!? The answer, of course, is that a given place has the resources, community, and history for a place and people. You seem to be speaking from a very privileged place of being able to move to find work/follow your career/go to a good school, but it’s simply not simple for a large swathe of the population. There’s a reason, for example, that traveling nurses and locums doctors get paid such obscene amounts of money just to be placed to an underserved location/system to provide healthcare. It’s not a matter of equalizing regulation. Staying in this healthcare example, California has WAY more lax doctor licensing boards than West Virginia, because WV will take any healthcare they can get, while CA has doctors in abundance (despite having not nearly enough residency slots; a topic for another thread). If WV made their licensing laws the same as in Cali, the state govt wouldn’t have enough money no matter what to attract doctors there, and people would just fucking die if they got sick. Full stop.	> I can not comprehend why trades licensing requirements should be different in California, Indiana and Massachusetts. Specifically building codes should be different in those places since the climate and geology of those states can be wildly different. --- Why should the strictest code not apply? How is building, for instance, a stick frame building different in Tennessee or Seattle? Why should the requirements to be an RN in Washington DC be different than St. Louis? --- In lots of Louisiana it's illegal to bury dead people, because flooding. In AZ that wouldn't make sense. --- So have a burial law that reflects the water table. It can apply to all places. --- Or don’t bog down federal legislation with functionally infinite particulars and instead allow local and regional authorities to legislate local and regional matters. --- What you are describing is devolution, not states' rights: devolution starts from above, with a nationall government that handles the important things, and regional bodies decide things that are not important enough or depend on too much nitty-gritty to be handled at the national level. That is a perfectly sensible model and is what most countries have. But the US has a system that (at least in principle) starts from the states, and that means the states decide a lot of important things that very well could be handled at a national level, that are nothing to do with getting bogged down in details, but just reflect different electoral makeup of the states. --- I don’t believe what you have presented is a categorical difference. The constitution established a federal government and gives that government authority over specifically articulated domains. That is the primary authority of the United States. You speak as though states rights exist today in the manner they did prior to our national formation. The constitution then establishes that any domains of authority not granted to the federal government shall be in the hands of the states. This is consistent with what I described.	1fm4tcc	CMV: the State's rights argument has no place in modern America	I get that there was a time in United States history where it was critically important for 13 often dissimilar statelettes to come together as a cohesive whole, and this was done by promising those states a great deal of individual autonomy. They were only required to cooperate as barely set out in the Constitution and as a unified government to other countries - IE there were American ambassadors, not Georgian, nor Rhode Island, ambassadors. Since this time, another thirty seven states have been added to the Union and they all have the same privilege of self government and it has created a patchwork of arbitrary lines on a map where, in many cases one can cross some vague geographical boundary and many of the laws are fundamentally different. This has even created conditions where states are attempting to make it illegal for their residents to leave their home state to travel to another in order to do something that was otherwise illegal at home, and for some reason there doesn't seem to be a lot of pushback. I posit that this is the year 2024 and the idea that parts of the USA can have laws that are different than any other part is, ngl, kind of dumb. We share a national culture across the US today that we didn't necessarily share in the past, and while there are regional differences, we as a people have much more in common with each other than we don't have in common with each other. I think that it is anathema that some Texans, for instance, are so terrified that their state _might_ turn Democratic in the near future that Texan politicians are instituting draconian laws specifically designed to prevent people who _might_ vote democrat from moving there. Florida is doing much the same. Why are parts of this country permitted to have laws different than other parts for inherently political reasons? Why, for instance, should the laws around state parks be different in Kentucky from Nevada? What good can come from section eight housing being more difficult to get in one place than another, or, for that instance, why should unemployment insurance or compensation be different anywhere? Why are business taxes 10% here, but literally 0% over here? I could cite other laws, but the point has been made. This kind of legislation doesn't serve anybody other than people who want to make the place that they live more attractive to other people just like them and to exclude others, and by others I specifically mean racial and economic minorities who might _also_ like to live in a sunny mild place like parts of Florida. I can not comprehend why trades licensing requirements should be different in California, Indiana and Massachusetts. There is no reason that state excise taxes on hard liquor should be different in Kentucky and Nevada. None. All that I have ever seen "states rights" be used for is to fire up specific parts of the conservative base in the US. I have never seen any state choose to make their laws different than those of their neighbors specifically to make that state a nicer place to be compared to those neighbors. While I do feel that people with realistically conservative viewpoints have something to contribute to modern American politics, I feel that those people have been hijacked by those concerns that want to see socioeconomic systems that are specifically designed to help make them more money. So change my view - what good does states rights actually do in the modern United States? Why should laws not be consistent across the country?	f0rgotten	7	7	[ { "author": "Dry_Bumblebee1111", "id": "lo7u6sf", "score": 33, "text": "The USA is the United States of America, ie each state is separate but equal in the sense they can mutually exist, but are united as the USA.\n\n\nI know that's cyclical, and appeal to definition, but think about it. What is a s...	[ { "author": "Sirhc978", "id": "lo7v1jm", "score": 14, "text": "> I can not comprehend why trades licensing requirements should be different in California, Indiana and Massachusetts.\n\nSpecifically building codes should be different in those places since the climate and geology of those states can b...	[ "lo7u6sf", "lo7uhum", "lo7vftt", "lo7way9", "lo7x4mh", "lo825ub", "lo893fo" ]	[ "lo7v1jm", "lo7vi4o", "lo7whhm", "lo7y851", "lo7yqnh", "lo83fqr", "lo84j9h" ]
CMV: Normalizing obesity for the sake of body positivity is dangerous As obesity rates continue to rise, I've seen more and more focus put on "body positivity", which as you likely know is a movement that seeks to teach people that you should be comfortable with whatever size or shape you are. I disagree with this movement and view it as potentially very dangerous. While I haven't looked extensively into scientific reporting on the subject, I think there very clearly can be a link between the two when thinking about it with common sense: If you tell an impressionable child or teenager that they should always be happy with their body regardless of what people say, this will lead to them believing they should not focus on their physical health as much as they should. This is a dangerous mindset, as normalizing obesity for the sake of positive mental health can lead to a drastic degradation in one's physical health. Noted here: ["[Obesity] is related to ≈1–400 000 deaths per year and costs society an estimated $117 billion in direct and indirect costs."](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/1/207S/4863384) And here: ["Obesity, diabetes, and population rates will contribute to an estimated $1.24 billion/yr increases in the cost of kidney stones by 2030."](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4227394/) A more responsible lesson to teach would be you shouldn't feel SHAME in regards to your body, but you do need to focus on combating obesity to the best of your ability so you don't suffer it's adverse effects (increased chance of heart disease, medical costs, etc). This is not a pro-fat-shaming view, as I don't think anyone should be shamed for their body, but promoting that everyone should always be accepting of their weight in any case is dangerous. I'm aware I haven't taken into account genetic or other medically-related cases of obesity - but I still think promoting a healthy lifestyle is more important than accepting your body the way it is, and people in those cases should do their best to receive help from medical professionals regarding it rather than ignoring it.	> A more responsible lesson to teach would be you shouldn't feel SHAME in regards to your body, but you do need to focus on combating obesity to the best of your ability so you don't suffer it's adverse effects (increased chance of heart disease, medical costs, etc). You literally just described what body positivity is...Not feeling shame with regards to your body is precisely what it means to be body positive. It does not, as you imply, cause people to completely ignore their physical health. Rather, it gives them a safe/secure space from which to address their physical health problems. > Noted here: "[Obesity] is related to ≈1–400 000 deaths per year and costs society an estimated $117 billion in direct and indirect costs." > And here: "Obesity, diabetes, and population rates will contribute to an estimated $1.24 billion/yr increases in the cost of kidney stones by 2030." Just FYI, it's misleading to imply, as those studies do, that obesity costs society money. Obese people will always, on average, cost society less money because they die young. Healthy people who live into old age will always cost more than obese people who die before they hit 75. --- >It does not, as you imply, cause people to completely ignore their physical health. Rather, it gives them a safe/secure space from which to address their physical health problems. How does telling someone repeatedly that their body size is acceptable not relate to people accepting their body size and not focus on improving their physical health? There is a difference in not feeling shame while trying to improve one's physical health and not feeling shame while accepting your weight, which from the many discussions I've read on the subject seem to imply that that's the focal point of body positivity. --- >How does telling someone repeatedly that their body size is acceptable not relate to people accepting their body size and not focus on improving their physical health? People are irrational. Evidence is that it really does make it easier to lose weight, and that any kind of [stigma has no place in our healthcare response to obesity, and only makes the problem worse](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866597/).	the Health At Any Size movement tries to do exactly what you describe--promote healthy lifestyles regardless of one's current size, and promote healthy activities because it's fun or feels good instead of just to become skinny. And in doing so, obesity rates going down would be just one positive side effect out of many. Yet despite this people are constantly accusing HAES of being pro-obesity. It would seem that it's really difficult to not shame something while also not normalize it to some extent. I mean, it's the same with other minority groups--will queer people ever be fully 'not-shamed' if there's still heteronormativity within the culture? Japanese culture is almost the pinnacle of this consequence. Most japanese don't outwardly shame LGBT people but just pretend they don't exist in any meaningful way. They'll expect you to get married to the opposite sex and have babies even if you say you're gay and have a same-sex partner because it's the normal thing to do, which ends up stagnating lgbt rights. I imagine a similar thing would happen with obesity. There would just be a lot of ignoring any systemic issues which cause obesity, and a lot of "i won't say it out loud but I'll think you're weird" kind of attitudes. People are bad at concealing their feelings. It comes out in their interactions, policies, etc. --- >Yet despite this people are constantly accusing HAES of being pro-obesity. It would seem that it's really difficult to not shame something while also not normalize it to some extent. That's because HAES is pro-obesity. Read the manifesto. https://www.lindabacon.org/HAESbook/pdf_files/HAES_Manifesto.pdf > Almost all epidemiologic studies indicate people in theoverweight or moderately obese categories live at least as long—or longer—than people in the normal weight category. >No one has ever shown that losing weight prolongs life. Somestudies actually indicate that intentional weight loss increases therisk of dying early from certain diseases. >Improvements in insulin sensitivity and bloodlipids as a result of aerobic exercise training have been documentedeven in persons who actually gainedbody fat while participating inthe intervention. >The vast majority of people who try to lose weight regain it,regardless of whether they maintain their diet or exercise program. This occurs in all studies, no matter how many calories or what pro-portions of fat, protein or carbohydrates are used in the diet, or whattypes of exercise programs are pursued. And my personal favorite: >Analysis of the National Health and Nutri-tion Examination Surveys I, II, and III, which followed thelargest nationally representative cohort of U.S. adults, also deter-mined that the “ideal” weight for longevity was in the “over-weight” category --- All 5 of your quotes from the manifesto are factual claims about research. Are you claiming any of those claims are actually false? Your "personal favorite" is also a weird thing to call out. In terms of categories, "overweight" is the category between normal and the various obese ones. So this is not claiming that obesity is the ideal weight for longevity. Its claiming that what the categories peg as "normal" is actually a bit underweight, at least based on longevity. So that bolded claim is not about obesity at all. The claim also explicitly calls out a single metric longevity, not overall health. HAES may make additional claims about that, I have no idea, but I think you've badly mischaracterized that particular quote as "pro obesity".	bvlucb	CMV: Normalizing obesity for the sake of body positivity is dangerous	As obesity rates continue to rise, I've seen more and more focus put on "body positivity", which as you likely know is a movement that seeks to teach people that you should be comfortable with whatever size or shape you are. I disagree with this movement and view it as potentially very dangerous. While I haven't looked extensively into scientific reporting on the subject, I think there very clearly can be a link between the two when thinking about it with common sense: If you tell an impressionable child or teenager that they should always be happy with their body regardless of what people say, this will lead to them believing they should not focus on their physical health as much as they should. This is a dangerous mindset, as normalizing obesity for the sake of positive mental health can lead to a drastic degradation in one's physical health. Noted here: ["[Obesity] is related to ≈1–400 000 deaths per year and costs society an estimated $117 billion in direct and indirect costs."](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/1/207S/4863384) And here: ["Obesity, diabetes, and population rates will contribute to an estimated $1.24 billion/yr increases in the cost of kidney stones by 2030."](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4227394/) A more responsible lesson to teach would be you shouldn't feel SHAME in regards to your body, but you do need to focus on combating obesity to the best of your ability so you don't suffer it's adverse effects (increased chance of heart disease, medical costs, etc). This is not a pro-fat-shaming view, as I don't think anyone should be shamed for their body, but promoting that everyone should always be accepting of their weight in any case is dangerous. I'm aware I haven't taken into account genetic or other medically-related cases of obesity - but I still think promoting a healthy lifestyle is more important than accepting your body the way it is, and people in those cases should do their best to receive help from medical professionals regarding it rather than ignoring it.	shiftywalruseyes	3	3	[ { "author": "TuskaTheDaemonKilla", "id": "epqeace", "score": 57, "text": "> A more responsible lesson to teach would be you shouldn't feel SHAME in regards to your body, but you do need to focus on combating obesity to the best of your ability so you don't suffer it's adverse effects (increased chan...	[ { "author": "choopie", "id": "epqev0z", "score": 141, "text": "the Health At Any Size movement tries to do exactly what you describe--promote healthy lifestyles regardless of one's current size, and promote healthy activities because it's fun or feels good instead of just to become skinny. And in do...	[ "epqeace", "epqfbp6", "epqiree" ]	[ "epqev0z", "epqfunw", "epqjv5e" ]
CMV: Normalizing obesity for the sake of body positivity is dangerous As obesity rates continue to rise, I've seen more and more focus put on "body positivity", which as you likely know is a movement that seeks to teach people that you should be comfortable with whatever size or shape you are. I disagree with this movement and view it as potentially very dangerous. While I haven't looked extensively into scientific reporting on the subject, I think there very clearly can be a link between the two when thinking about it with common sense: If you tell an impressionable child or teenager that they should always be happy with their body regardless of what people say, this will lead to them believing they should not focus on their physical health as much as they should. This is a dangerous mindset, as normalizing obesity for the sake of positive mental health can lead to a drastic degradation in one's physical health. Noted here: ["[Obesity] is related to ≈1–400 000 deaths per year and costs society an estimated $117 billion in direct and indirect costs."](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/1/207S/4863384) And here: ["Obesity, diabetes, and population rates will contribute to an estimated $1.24 billion/yr increases in the cost of kidney stones by 2030."](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4227394/) A more responsible lesson to teach would be you shouldn't feel SHAME in regards to your body, but you do need to focus on combating obesity to the best of your ability so you don't suffer it's adverse effects (increased chance of heart disease, medical costs, etc). This is not a pro-fat-shaming view, as I don't think anyone should be shamed for their body, but promoting that everyone should always be accepting of their weight in any case is dangerous. I'm aware I haven't taken into account genetic or other medically-related cases of obesity - but I still think promoting a healthy lifestyle is more important than accepting your body the way it is, and people in those cases should do their best to receive help from medical professionals regarding it rather than ignoring it.	I'm always surprised in these posts by the assumption that people are less likely to be healthy when they feel good about their bodies, and more likely to be healthy when they feel bad about them. You say that if you tell a teenager that they should be happy with their body no matter what people say, that teenager will not focus on their physical health. But... why? That doesn't resonate with me. To me, "here are some things to do to be healthier," and "this is what your body should look like" are fairly independent messages. In fact, there is an enormous range of body shapes and sizes that a person can have while maintaining a healthy and fulfilling life. I know many active, healthy people--people who weight lift, who cycle, who teach fitness classes--who have larger bodies. Reflecting on my own experiences, I'm much more likely to take steps towards self-improvement when I feel supported, and when I feel like I can set my own goals because there is a range of successful outcomes. When I feel as though the space for success is narrow and distant and set by others, and when I feel ashamed, it's hard to find the motivation and enthusiasm necessary to change your life. --- I stated in my argument that shaming is not the way to go about it. Telling someone that they should be completely accepting of their body while ignoring the potential health risks of doing so is dangerous. The correct message to send in my opinion is "you don't need to feel shame about your body, but you need to be aware of why you should do your best to improve your physical health", which is not something the body positivity movement focuses on. I don't think my view is not supportive, it just outlines the risks of obesity in a more responsible way than the body positivity movement does. --- I think one thing that is important to consider is what are the psychological causes of obesity. Everyone knows diet and exercise are the way to cure obesity, so why don't obese people just do that? When they are so desperate to be thin that it permeates every part of their lives? Why do they continue to go out and binge when they know exactly what it is doing to them? Is it because they love their bodies? No. It's because they hate them. Obesity is often a psychological problem that stems from poor self-esteem. Not necessarily poor body image, but poor self-esteem in general. Body image is only one piece of that. Ask anyone who lost hundreds of pounds, and looks in the mirror and still hates themselves. Obesity is not the root cause of the problem. The obesity causes poor body image, which in turn perpetuates the low self esteem that caused the obesity in the first place, and then you have a vicious cycle. So a major step in recovery is body acceptance, because that breaks the cycle. When you see those people who claim to love their bodies being an objectively unhealthy size, they are not truly accepting their body, because part of accepting your body is accepting its flaws, and taking good care of it anyways. Those people are rightly rejecting the notion that they should hate their bodies, but instead of loving themselves as they are, they are becoming entrenched in denial. They have a half solution. You are rightly seeing that their solution is not healthy or complete, but you are swinging in the other direction. Body acceptance is a hard thing that a lot of people struggle hard with, to the point where complete denial is easier. When you say things like "you shouldn't accept your body as is," even though it sounds reasonable to someone who doesn't have those psychological issues, to someone who does, it can trigger a total backslide. That's why it's important to promote body positivity - because that is what is going to make people feel loved and supported enough to be honest with you and themselves about the state of their body. It \decreases\ the kind of denial that leads people to eat themselves to death while talking about loving their curves. Trust me, no obese person is under the impression that their body is healthy, unless they are deeply entrenched in denial, and anyone other than their doctor creating an environment of hostility towards their own bodies will just deepen that denial, or the self-destructive behaviours. Also, worth mentioning - you talk about making it not okay to be obese, without shaming them. What I've been describing about it being a psychological disorder is true, and one major symptom of that is shame. In other words, the shame doesn't come from you, the shame comes from within. And even your disaproval is enough to trigger shame. And while that's not really your fault, it is also true that that is where they are at, and they should be allowed to recover at their own pace. It's really nobody else's business. You wouldn't create a society disapproving of depressed people because depression is a drain on the health care system - that's counterproductive. The same applies here.	> A more responsible lesson to teach would be you shouldn't feel SHAME in regards to your body, but you do need to focus on combating obesity to the best of your ability so you don't suffer it's adverse effects (increased chance of heart disease, medical costs, etc). You literally just described what body positivity is...Not feeling shame with regards to your body is precisely what it means to be body positive. It does not, as you imply, cause people to completely ignore their physical health. Rather, it gives them a safe/secure space from which to address their physical health problems. > Noted here: "[Obesity] is related to ≈1–400 000 deaths per year and costs society an estimated $117 billion in direct and indirect costs." > And here: "Obesity, diabetes, and population rates will contribute to an estimated $1.24 billion/yr increases in the cost of kidney stones by 2030." Just FYI, it's misleading to imply, as those studies do, that obesity costs society money. Obese people will always, on average, cost society less money because they die young. Healthy people who live into old age will always cost more than obese people who die before they hit 75. --- > Obese people will always, on average, cost society less money because they die young. Healthy people who live into old age will always cost more than obese people who die before they hit 75. They don't die as young as you think, and when they do it's not without surgeries and hospitalization first (usually for numerous heart attacks in their 40s or gastric bypass surgery). When they're older (yes, obese people of Class I, 30 < BMI < 35 live this long) into their 70s, they undergo more surgeries and more medical followups than normal weight americans. Their life expectancy is reduced by only 1-3 years, no doubt due to the advances of modern medicine (i.e. they only live as long as they do because of the increased cost in health care). --- As long as they die before reaching roughly 75 years of age, they will typically cost less than any other person. Medical expenses skyrocket in the late 70's, costing society roughly 11x more money than people under 70. > Their life expectancy is reduced by only 1-3 years [Class III obese individuals who have never smoked or had histories of illness can expect to live 6.5 to 13.7 years fewer than non-obese individuals.](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-finds-extreme-obesity-may-shorten-life-expectancy-14-years)	bvlucb	CMV: Normalizing obesity for the sake of body positivity is dangerous	As obesity rates continue to rise, I've seen more and more focus put on "body positivity", which as you likely know is a movement that seeks to teach people that you should be comfortable with whatever size or shape you are. I disagree with this movement and view it as potentially very dangerous. While I haven't looked extensively into scientific reporting on the subject, I think there very clearly can be a link between the two when thinking about it with common sense: If you tell an impressionable child or teenager that they should always be happy with their body regardless of what people say, this will lead to them believing they should not focus on their physical health as much as they should. This is a dangerous mindset, as normalizing obesity for the sake of positive mental health can lead to a drastic degradation in one's physical health. Noted here: ["[Obesity] is related to ≈1–400 000 deaths per year and costs society an estimated $117 billion in direct and indirect costs."](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/1/207S/4863384) And here: ["Obesity, diabetes, and population rates will contribute to an estimated $1.24 billion/yr increases in the cost of kidney stones by 2030."](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4227394/) A more responsible lesson to teach would be you shouldn't feel SHAME in regards to your body, but you do need to focus on combating obesity to the best of your ability so you don't suffer it's adverse effects (increased chance of heart disease, medical costs, etc). This is not a pro-fat-shaming view, as I don't think anyone should be shamed for their body, but promoting that everyone should always be accepting of their weight in any case is dangerous. I'm aware I haven't taken into account genetic or other medically-related cases of obesity - but I still think promoting a healthy lifestyle is more important than accepting your body the way it is, and people in those cases should do their best to receive help from medical professionals regarding it rather than ignoring it.	shiftywalruseyes	3	3	[ { "author": "ThatSpencerGuy", "id": "epqjgfs", "score": 641, "text": "I'm always surprised in these posts by the assumption that people are less likely to be healthy when they feel good about their bodies, and more likely to be healthy when they feel bad about them. You say that if you tell a teenag...	[ { "author": "TuskaTheDaemonKilla", "id": "epqeace", "score": 57, "text": "> A more responsible lesson to teach would be you shouldn't feel SHAME in regards to your body, but you do need to focus on combating obesity to the best of your ability so you don't suffer it's adverse effects (increased chan...	[ "epqjgfs", "epqk2kd", "epscf1p" ]	[ "epqeace", "epqete4", "epqga7n" ]
CMV: The unequal distribution of total wealth in the U.S. is taking away the American Dream and a stronger progressive tax policy would fix this. With the unequal distribution of wealth in the United States: The top 20% account for 85% of the United States total wealth The top 1% account for 34.6% of the United States total wealth (https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/wealth.html) and the unequal distribution of income: The top 1% income increased by 275% since 1979 while the bottom 60% only increased by 40%. The tax rate on the top 400 earners has decreased by 37%. It is becoming exceedingly difficult for those not in the top 20% to really have the opportunity for economic mobility. I know that the American Dream is defined more than just economic mobility but I feel it is also a big part of why people come to America. Generally immigrants come for the opportunity to improve their livelihood, something closely linked to ones economic mobility. I believe a more aggressive progressive tax policy would fix this as additional income could be used further support social policies that would help those 40.6 million living in poverty and the rest of the bottom 80%. With the additional support provided, the economic mobility of the bottom 80% would be restored. _____ > 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 becoming exceedingly difficult for those not in the top 20% to really have the opportunity for economic mobility. Wealth is not static, it moves around; I think this has implications for the arguments to be made. Have a look at [this](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116370). According to the study: * 70% of the population will have experienced at least one year within the top 20th percentile of income; * 11.1% of the population will have found themselves in the much-maligned 1% of earners for at least one year of their lives. As far as a progressive tax goes, I have no opinion (as of yet). I would like to see sources that show where tax money is spent though, which is also important for the arguments. --- Oh interesting, I hadn't even thought about wealth moving around. Δ --- It doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States > In recent years, several studies have found that vertical intergenerational mobility is lower in the US than in some European countries. ... > A 2013 Brookings Institution study found income inequality was increasing and becoming more permanent, sharply reducing social mobility.	Equality of outcome is not the American Dream. It is the Soviet dream... The Communist dream. The American Dream is Equality of Opportunity... And it's alive and well. --- Yeah, I attempted to address that in that the American Dream goes beyond economic equality, but I felt that a failure in economic equality severely reduces the equality of opportunity for those in the bottom 80%. --- You'd be wrong. The only thing reducing the equality of opportunity for the poor is their failure to: * Finish school * Wait for marriage before having kids * Get a job These were the 3 things the Brookings Institute determined coud wipe out poverty. As a result they are born with equality of opportunity. The middle class... Their opportunity is not limited either. Their apathy and lack of smart decision making is the only thing limiting their ability to build wealth.	8eyrv4	CMV: The unequal distribution of total wealth in the U.S. is taking away the American Dream and a stronger progressive tax policy would fix this.	With the unequal distribution of wealth in the United States: The top 20% account for 85% of the United States total wealth The top 1% account for 34.6% of the United States total wealth (https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/wealth.html) and the unequal distribution of income: The top 1% income increased by 275% since 1979 while the bottom 60% only increased by 40%. The tax rate on the top 400 earners has decreased by 37%. It is becoming exceedingly difficult for those not in the top 20% to really have the opportunity for economic mobility. I know that the American Dream is defined more than just economic mobility but I feel it is also a big part of why people come to America. Generally immigrants come for the opportunity to improve their livelihood, something closely linked to ones economic mobility. I believe a more aggressive progressive tax policy would fix this as additional income could be used further support social policies that would help those 40.6 million living in poverty and the rest of the bottom 80%. With the additional support provided, the economic mobility of the bottom 80% would be restored. _____ > 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!*	PleasantOrdinary	3	3	[ { "author": "Re4XN", "id": "dxz78n8", "score": 23, "text": "> It is becoming exceedingly difficult for those not in the top 20% to really have the opportunity for economic mobility.\n\nWealth is not static, it moves around; I think this has implications for the arguments to be made. Have a look at [...	[ { "author": "ClippinWings451", "id": "dxzb5qo", "score": 14, "text": "Equality of outcome is not the American Dream.\n\nIt is the Soviet dream... The Communist dream.\n\nThe American Dream is Equality of Opportunity... And it's alive and well.", "timestamp": 1524709489 }, { "author": "Pl...	[ "dxz78n8", "dxz9e2j", "dxzcmge" ]	[ "dxzb5qo", "dxzc7im", "dxzcl6b" ]
CMV: The unequal distribution of total wealth in the U.S. is taking away the American Dream and a stronger progressive tax policy would fix this. With the unequal distribution of wealth in the United States: The top 20% account for 85% of the United States total wealth The top 1% account for 34.6% of the United States total wealth (https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/wealth.html) and the unequal distribution of income: The top 1% income increased by 275% since 1979 while the bottom 60% only increased by 40%. The tax rate on the top 400 earners has decreased by 37%. It is becoming exceedingly difficult for those not in the top 20% to really have the opportunity for economic mobility. I know that the American Dream is defined more than just economic mobility but I feel it is also a big part of why people come to America. Generally immigrants come for the opportunity to improve their livelihood, something closely linked to ones economic mobility. I believe a more aggressive progressive tax policy would fix this as additional income could be used further support social policies that would help those 40.6 million living in poverty and the rest of the bottom 80%. With the additional support provided, the economic mobility of the bottom 80% would be restored. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	There are a few questions worth asking before approaching this view more closely: 1) Is the problem more due to wealth disparity or income disparity? 2) Do you want to tax income or total wealth? 3) Ideally, we want to maximize the average wealth in a society while minimizing wealth disparity. In practice, there is often a trade-off. Which is more important: maximizing average wealth or minimizing wealth disparity? 4) If income inequality necessarily increases as average wealth increases, is that okay, or is that a problem? To go in to (3) a bit more, a sufficiently progressive income tax would fix income inequality, but might have unintended negative consequences. Suppose that Country Z has four people. Three make $20,000 annually and are taxed at 10% of their income. One person, Emily, makes $1,000,000 annually and is taxed at 10% of her income for the first $500,000 and 40% beyond that. The total taxes collected is $256,000. Suppose Country Z decides to use income taxes to reduce income inequality. All income beyond $500,000 is taxed at 100%. Tax rates below $500,000 remain unchanged. Now the taxes collected should be $556,000. There's a problem, though. Emily decides to move to Country Y that has a more favorable income tax schedule. So, instead Country Z collects just $6,000 in taxes. But it gets worse. Because Emily made up such a huge portion of the economy, the average income of the remaining three citizens drops 10%. Now Country Z is only bringing in $5,400 in taxes. Income inequality has been solved, but the average income in Country Z is smaller and there's less tax money available. Now, that's a pretty extreme example. It probably true that certain changes to the income tax structure in the United States would be beneficial, but it might be the case that any tax change sufficiently extreme to "solve" income inequality would been too harsh and overshoot the objective of tax reform. Knowing where that line lies is beyond my expertise. --- Oh ok, thank you for the response. I had thought about money leaving the country but I didn't realize the magnitude and effect of such an action. Δ --- http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally > US taxes are low relative to those in other developed countries. In 2015, US taxes at all levels of government represented 26 percent of GDP, compared with an average of 34 percent of GDP for the 34 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). > Among OECD countries, only Korea, Chile, Mexico, and Ireland collected less than the United States as a percentage of GDP. In many European countries, taxes exceeded 40 percent of GDP. But those countries generally provide more extensive government services than the United States does.	> It is becoming exceedingly difficult for those not in the top 20% to really have the opportunity for economic mobility. Wealth is not static, it moves around; I think this has implications for the arguments to be made. Have a look at [this](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116370). According to the study: * 70% of the population will have experienced at least one year within the top 20th percentile of income; * 11.1% of the population will have found themselves in the much-maligned 1% of earners for at least one year of their lives. As far as a progressive tax goes, I have no opinion (as of yet). I would like to see sources that show where tax money is spent though, which is also important for the arguments. --- Oh interesting, I hadn't even thought about wealth moving around. Δ --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Re4XN ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Re4XN)). ^[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": "Re4XN" } DB3PARAMSEND)	8eyrv4	CMV: The unequal distribution of total wealth in the U.S. is taking away the American Dream and a stronger progressive tax policy would fix this.	With the unequal distribution of wealth in the United States: The top 20% account for 85% of the United States total wealth The top 1% account for 34.6% of the United States total wealth (https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/wealth.html) and the unequal distribution of income: The top 1% income increased by 275% since 1979 while the bottom 60% only increased by 40%. The tax rate on the top 400 earners has decreased by 37%. It is becoming exceedingly difficult for those not in the top 20% to really have the opportunity for economic mobility. I know that the American Dream is defined more than just economic mobility but I feel it is also a big part of why people come to America. Generally immigrants come for the opportunity to improve their livelihood, something closely linked to ones economic mobility. I believe a more aggressive progressive tax policy would fix this as additional income could be used further support social policies that would help those 40.6 million living in poverty and the rest of the bottom 80%. With the additional support provided, the economic mobility of the bottom 80% would be restored. _____ > 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!*	PleasantOrdinary	3	3	[ { "author": "SeldomSeven", "id": "dxz9rvn", "score": 5, "text": "There are a few questions worth asking before approaching this view more closely:\n\n1) Is the problem more due to wealth disparity or income disparity? \n\n2) Do you want to tax income or total wealth? \n\n3) Ideally, we want to maxim...	[ { "author": "Re4XN", "id": "dxz78n8", "score": 23, "text": "> It is becoming exceedingly difficult for those not in the top 20% to really have the opportunity for economic mobility.\n\nWealth is not static, it moves around; I think this has implications for the arguments to be made. Have a look at [...	[ "dxz9rvn", "dxzc0j7", "dxzd3rf" ]	[ "dxz78n8", "dxz9e2j", "dxzdzhc" ]
CMV: Choosing to have a kid instead of adopting is incredibly selfish Millions of kids around the world are waiting in orphanages or abandoned in the streets waiting for find a loving home. The reasons people give for wanting to have their "own" child all have a common point: they come from very self-centered and narcissistic places. The common arguments people give for giving birth instead of adopting are usually: * wanting to have their genes passed * not wanting to have to deal with kids with diseases * not wanting to disappoint their family * not wanting a child from outside of their race, religion or community * they didn't plan the birth and just fell pregnant These arguments are all a load of bullcrap, as: * there is very little positive impact as having your genes passed apart from flattering your ego * there are plenty of kids you can adopt with a clean health record * putting your parents or your community's 10 minutes of embarrassment above a child's desire for a family is super selfish * you can always adopt a child from your community or your race or religion * just falling pregnant in most cases means that two people didn't take the steps that could have prevented a pregnancy from happening and didn't plan ahead, which is both selfish and immature. * bringing a child to this world is the most polluting thing you can do. Adding another human that is going to pollute for 90 years doubles -or triples- your negative impact on the planet * our society expressing to kids who were abandoned or whose parents died that they can't be adopted because we would rather make a new kid from scratch with our dicks and pussies than to give them a loving home is an incredibly cruel stance So the way I see it, there is zero excuse for bringing another human to this world as long as there is still one kid left waiting to be adopted. Change my view!	Do you know how expensive adoption is? --- true. But if you can't afford adoption, maybe you can't afford a kid --- No, that's not a good argument. I forgot the exact number, but it's like $250,000 to raise a child from birth to the end of high school. This number doesn't include post-secondary costs. In theory, it should cost the same for a birth child and an adopted child; adopted children don't use more or less diapers, for example. This averages to $14,000 a year. The average cost of adoption is somewhere around $40,000. I think that is the cost for a child within the USA. That is in addition to the $14,000 per year. A person could afford $14,000 a year, that is not outside of the realm of possibility. You would need to save about $1200 per month. To pay an additional $40,000 on the spot is tricky. Even if you save up for it during the year, that's $3300 per month. Let's say a couple combine to earn $60,000 a year. After taxes, it might go down to $45,000 a year, or $3750 a month. Take away the $1200 per month for the child, that leaves the couple with $2500 for rent, food, car, and other expenses. This is doable. However, if you have to pay off an extra $3300 per month, you have now are in the red, at least for that first year. Affording a birth child is doable if the couple has a decent income. Adopting a child and paying for it with a decent income becomes very tricky. You can afford a birth child, but you may not be able afford an adopted one.	Kids that aren't adopted are older kids. Nobody wants to adopt those kids. Adoptive parents usually want babies, and those get adopted immediately. Go ahead and adopt all the kids that you want instead of telling other people what to do. --- in your words, what is the principle of this sub? --- To change peoples views. It's not selfish to want a baby, people do adopt babies, people don't want to adopt 14 year olds.	fbhqce	CMV: Choosing to have a kid instead of adopting is incredibly selfish	Millions of kids around the world are waiting in orphanages or abandoned in the streets waiting for find a loving home. The reasons people give for wanting to have their "own" child all have a common point: they come from very self-centered and narcissistic places. The common arguments people give for giving birth instead of adopting are usually: * wanting to have their genes passed * not wanting to have to deal with kids with diseases * not wanting to disappoint their family * not wanting a child from outside of their race, religion or community * they didn't plan the birth and just fell pregnant These arguments are all a load of bullcrap, as: * there is very little positive impact as having your genes passed apart from flattering your ego * there are plenty of kids you can adopt with a clean health record * putting your parents or your community's 10 minutes of embarrassment above a child's desire for a family is super selfish * you can always adopt a child from your community or your race or religion * just falling pregnant in most cases means that two people didn't take the steps that could have prevented a pregnancy from happening and didn't plan ahead, which is both selfish and immature. * bringing a child to this world is the most polluting thing you can do. Adding another human that is going to pollute for 90 years doubles -or triples- your negative impact on the planet * our society expressing to kids who were abandoned or whose parents died that they can't be adopted because we would rather make a new kid from scratch with our dicks and pussies than to give them a loving home is an incredibly cruel stance So the way I see it, there is zero excuse for bringing another human to this world as long as there is still one kid left waiting to be adopted. Change my view!	yadoya	3	3	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "fj4cw37", "score": 3, "text": "Do you know how expensive adoption is?", "timestamp": 1583005359 }, { "author": "yadoya", "id": "fj4d88r", "score": 2, "text": "true. But if you can't afford adoption, maybe you can't afford a kid", "timestam...	[ { "author": "Hugogs10", "id": "fj4ctbo", "score": 5, "text": "Kids that aren't adopted are older kids. Nobody wants to adopt those kids.\n\nAdoptive parents usually want babies, and those get adopted immediately.\n\nGo ahead and adopt all the kids that you want instead of telling other people what t...	[ "fj4cw37", "fj4d88r", "fj4ed5a" ]	[ "fj4ctbo", "fj4dutn", "fj4e4tj" ]
CMV: shaming extroverts should become normal again Brain rot, lack of safe spaces, no thoughtful reflection, populism. All of those things are mainly caused by extroverts who'll do anything to drown their inner void with incessant noise THEN shame those who want to think thoughtfully. I'm so sick if living in a world seeking instant gratification. Whenever I'm trying to provide thoughtful answers online I'm getting accused of using chatgpt. If you shame others for preferring quiet spaces, you should be shamed for seeking constant noise. I personally believe that the reason why societies are declining is precisely because they are valuing extroversion more than introversion. I'll be happy to hear and debate any argument that says otherwise.	Half of Reddit are whiny post by introverts that pull no punches on calling extroverts “energy vampires” or memes that are like “Do they ever shut up?” and “Everyone tells introverts to talk more but does anyone ever tell extroverts to shut up for once!?” Do you need more than that? Do you want to be aggressive toward us in real life but you’re too shy? Honestly friend this IS your venue. You can talk absolutely horribly about extroverts all up and down Reddit and you will mostly garner sympathy, and a few of us will clap back. To your last point, is “society” a quiet, regulated, peaceful place or is it a big messy whirlpool of all kinds of people who interact with each other? Seems like you maybe want the whole world to accommodate your preferred tempo and volume and etiquette, but it doesn’t work like that. So who is stopping you from shaming extroverts? And why do you think we need more of that? --- In that case please explain why extroverts tend to treat introverts as if they were aliens. --- Because perception is reality and you think very negative things about extroverts so you project and perceive them as treating you different. As the usual case for the introvert, it’s all in your head.	How would people value introversion, when they would seemingly interact with less introverts by design? --- How about looking for few but deep connections instead of many but shallow ones? --- Where does one look for introverts?	1p18we4	CMV: shaming extroverts should become normal again	Brain rot, lack of safe spaces, no thoughtful reflection, populism. All of those things are mainly caused by extroverts who'll do anything to drown their inner void with incessant noise THEN shame those who want to think thoughtfully. I'm so sick if living in a world seeking instant gratification. Whenever I'm trying to provide thoughtful answers online I'm getting accused of using chatgpt. If you shame others for preferring quiet spaces, you should be shamed for seeking constant noise. I personally believe that the reason why societies are declining is precisely because they are valuing extroversion more than introversion. I'll be happy to hear and debate any argument that says otherwise.	-IXN-	3	3	[ { "author": "MountainHigh31", "id": "npo8ymw", "score": 52, "text": "Half of Reddit are whiny post by introverts that pull no punches on calling extroverts “energy vampires” or memes that are like “Do they ever shut up?” and “Everyone tells introverts to talk more but does anyone ever tell extrovert...	[ { "author": "Rainbwned", "id": "npo7swj", "score": 7, "text": "How would people value introversion, when they would seemingly interact with less introverts by design?", "timestamp": 1763562105 }, { "author": "-IXN-", "id": "npo8b1a", "score": -15, "text": "How about looking f...	[ "npo8ymw", "npoatc1", "npobbua" ]	[ "npo7swj", "npo8b1a", "npo8hb5" ]
CMV: It's circular reasoning that I have to follow the rules of human society just because I'm human. We didn't choose to be born, We didn't choose to be human, we're not even allowed to control our own lives. The least that could be done is allow us to do whatever we want, when and where ever we want so long as we're not infringing on anyone's basic rights. Humans by and large choose to be irrational, illogical, selfish, hypocrites. So why am I morally obligated to live by their laws? I don't care about life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and nature maybe cruel, but at least she's fair. _____ > 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!*	If you change the word “rules” to “responsibilities” then it follows that rights and responsibilities come as a package deal. My rights are your responsibilities and vice versa. That’s what it means to be human whether we decided to be human or not. --- !delta However I'm already fine with being obligated to fulfill my responsibilities. It's the rules that I am strongly against. I am only against their being so many rules and laws. If modern first world countries had only half the laws they do right now it would be a much _fairer_ place. So no cahnging rules to responsibilities does not invalidate my argument. --- Thank you for the delta and I’m happy to keep discussing. Can you give an example of a rule that isn’t “a responsibility set in place for the sake of another’s right” (I’m guessing you cannot). --- pretty much anything in civil law but not criminal law. Criminal law is centered around human rights and things that most all people agree to some extent, are moral or immoral. However civil law is based almost entirely on what the nations _culture_ thinks is right or wrong and that's what I have a problem with. Culture is relative so there is no what to prove whether or not civil law is fair or unfair. --- You've indicated elsewhere that you understand and respect the concept of responsibility; have you considered that much of Civil law is an extension of that responsibility?   Think of all the civil infractions and codes related to traffic law: vehicle standards, driver training, sobriety, vehicle operation. Each of these is related to our respective responsibilities to other drivers. The same is true of many civil laws concerning property or the exercise of trade. If I sell poor good, my buyers can seek civil remedy against me in court; likewise if I deliver a poor service as a contract, one that fails to uphold a contract I signed, other members of society can again seek recourse. Do you consider this an unfair situation? Could you share a counter example of civil law you find unnecessary or unjust?	OP, I think you're literally logically/mathematically correct here. So unless you clarify the spirit of your question, we can't really argue against it. --- That's why I'm here, to see If my view can be argued against. --- If only that is your view, it can't, which I think is against the rules of this sub. --- I don't know if it's objective or not. I think it's pretty subjective from the sounds of it. --- OK, I think you mean "should" instead of "have to". Here's an argument: The way human society came up with its rules, loosely, is that it tried to inact policies that would help the flourishing and survival of the group and its individuals. Some rules don't make sense, but most do, because in most cases, we used our collective intelligence to come up with them, and hey, we're still here. Since you are human, and limited by your own capacities, it would be in your best interest to not have to make calculations every time you act, and instead follow well established rules. But you're saying that you don't care about "life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness", so what now? One of our rules is "if you are antisocial, depressed, or violent, this may be due to transient circumstances, and you should try to get help because something is wrong." This rule applies in this case because it is unusual for a human to be this way, simply because it is not the established evolutionary strategy a member of homo sapiens would engage. It is disadvantageous, and therefore, something is wrong. So you should follow its rules, because it is in your own best interest as a human, here being one example.	8eyr5a	CMV: It's circular reasoning that I have to follow the rules of human society just because I'm human.	We didn't choose to be born, We didn't choose to be human, we're not even allowed to control our own lives. The least that could be done is allow us to do whatever we want, when and where ever we want so long as we're not infringing on anyone's basic rights. Humans by and large choose to be irrational, illogical, selfish, hypocrites. So why am I morally obligated to live by their laws? I don't care about life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and nature maybe cruel, but at least she's fair. _____ > 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!*	ATrueBlueGamer	5	5	[ { "author": "spiritwear", "id": "dxz7ff8", "score": 1, "text": "If you change the word “rules” to “responsibilities” then it follows that rights and responsibilities come as a package deal. My rights are your responsibilities and vice versa. \n\nThat’s what it means to be human whether we decided to...	[ { "author": "quantum_delta", "id": "dxz73fx", "score": 2, "text": "OP, I think you're literally logically/mathematically correct here. So unless you clarify the spirit of your question, we can't really argue against it.", "timestamp": 1524705730 }, { "author": "ATrueBlueGamer", "id":...	[ "dxz7ff8", "dxz7sfj", "dxz8pag", "dxz99dk", "dxzbafp" ]	[ "dxz73fx", "dxz780q", "dxz7as3", "dxz7kpv", "dxz8q59" ]
CMV: It's circular reasoning that I have to follow the rules of human society just because I'm human. We didn't choose to be born, We didn't choose to be human, we're not even allowed to control our own lives. The least that could be done is allow us to do whatever we want, when and where ever we want so long as we're not infringing on anyone's basic rights. Humans by and large choose to be irrational, illogical, selfish, hypocrites. So why am I morally obligated to live by their laws? I don't care about life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and nature maybe cruel, but at least she's fair. _____ > 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!*	The principal reason that all of us have to follow the rules of human society is because we all have to live together in that society - like it or not. We all suffer (or benefit) from the behaviour of others around us; consequently we rules to protect ourselves from the worst behaviours of others. Since you are part of society, that's why you're required to follow the corresponding rules. If you were to live out in the deserted boonies where no one is effected by your actions, the rules are lessened considerably. --- That's illogical circular reasoning though. I didn't choose to be human, so why am I forced to be a slave to the government or society? That's my question. --- You are not required to be a slave to society. You can always go live in a forest or build a farm somewhere. Governements and societies are built by people for people and when you partake into those, you have to respect the law and you are guaranteed that other will do so, and that those who don't will be punished. All this system is made so your freedom and those of others can exist together. So yeah, you did not chose to be human, but if you want to enjoy whatever human society brings, you have to abide by the laws that make it possible for other humans to live together in relative peace. You did not chose to be human, no one did, bit we all can chose to live in society or not. There are places outside of society, far from civilisation, it is only up to you to reach them, and you'll be able to do whatever you want. --- > Governements and societies are built by people for people and when you partake into those, you have to respect the law and you are guaranteed that other will do so, and that those who don't will be punished. All this system is made so your freedom and those of others can exist together. Foolishly naive and optimistic. What you're describing is a libertarian republican minarchy like colonial America after the revolutionary war. However history teaches us time and time again that those never last. Once small government becomes big government those outside the rich or ruling class become slaves to the rich and ruling and don't even know it. --- All I said was the ideal way governement and societies are supposed to work. Nowadays in pretty much any developped country, you are as free as it gets. Sure there are issues, sure there are inequalities, but it is the best we got. And as a human, you have a thing called choice: - you can partake in society. -you can try to change it through the many means available. -you can chose to live far from it. I was not being naive and optimistic, I am just presenting you with what pretty much could be called the basic social contract. Whatever state of corruption a society is in is irrelevant to your question because as you asked, why should we follow the laws of our governement ? Because if we choose to enjoy the advantages that come with it, then we abide by it's rules. If you don't like living in an oppressive society where the rich rule everything, you are free to leave , and live in prehistoric conditions. I don't like how society is either, but I have no better alternative to offer and I'd rather sleep in a bed and be able to call the police if I am in danger. That is all there is to it. --- > ll I said was the ideal way governement and societies are supposed to work. > > Nowadays in pretty much any developped country, you are as free as it gets. Sure there are issues, sure there are inequalities, but it is the best we got. Then I guess life isn't worth living >And as a human, you have a thing called choice: - you can partake in society. Can do, >-you can try to change it through the many means available. I don't have the power to do that >-you can chose to live far from it. I don't have the means to do that. >Whatever state of corruption a society is in is irrelevant to your question because as you asked, why should we follow the laws of our governement ? Because if we choose to enjoy the advantages that come with it, then we abide by it's rules. SO luxury justifies the, illogic, irrationality, hypocrisy, and selfishness that comes with being in a human government? >If you don't like living in an oppressive society where the rich rule everything, you are free to leave , and live in prehistoric conditions. Impossible it would be easier to kill myself. --- > -you can chose to live far from it. > I don't have the means to do that. What, like the transportation costs to get there?	OP, I think you're literally logically/mathematically correct here. So unless you clarify the spirit of your question, we can't really argue against it. --- That's why I'm here, to see If my view can be argued against. --- If only that is your view, it can't, which I think is against the rules of this sub. --- I don't know if it's objective or not. I think it's pretty subjective from the sounds of it. --- OK, I think you mean "should" instead of "have to". Here's an argument: The way human society came up with its rules, loosely, is that it tried to inact policies that would help the flourishing and survival of the group and its individuals. Some rules don't make sense, but most do, because in most cases, we used our collective intelligence to come up with them, and hey, we're still here. Since you are human, and limited by your own capacities, it would be in your best interest to not have to make calculations every time you act, and instead follow well established rules. But you're saying that you don't care about "life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness", so what now? One of our rules is "if you are antisocial, depressed, or violent, this may be due to transient circumstances, and you should try to get help because something is wrong." This rule applies in this case because it is unusual for a human to be this way, simply because it is not the established evolutionary strategy a member of homo sapiens would engage. It is disadvantageous, and therefore, something is wrong. So you should follow its rules, because it is in your own best interest as a human, here being one example. --- !delta I understand and mostly agree with what you are saying. But this raised a new question. Why am I obligated to dedicate my self to the continuation or human civilization, society, and species when we are already over 7 billion strong? --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/quantum_delta ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/quantum_delta)). ^[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": "quantum_delta" } DB3PARAMSEND)	8eyr5a	CMV: It's circular reasoning that I have to follow the rules of human society just because I'm human.	We didn't choose to be born, We didn't choose to be human, we're not even allowed to control our own lives. The least that could be done is allow us to do whatever we want, when and where ever we want so long as we're not infringing on anyone's basic rights. Humans by and large choose to be irrational, illogical, selfish, hypocrites. So why am I morally obligated to live by their laws? I don't care about life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and nature maybe cruel, but at least she's fair. _____ > 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!*	ATrueBlueGamer	7	7	[ { "author": "ViewedFromTheOutside", "id": "dxz6xfv", "score": 6, "text": "The principal reason that all of us have to follow the rules of human society is because we all have to live together in that society - like it or not. We all suffer (or benefit) from the behaviour of others around us; conseq...	[ { "author": "quantum_delta", "id": "dxz73fx", "score": 2, "text": "OP, I think you're literally logically/mathematically correct here. So unless you clarify the spirit of your question, we can't really argue against it.", "timestamp": 1524705730 }, { "author": "ATrueBlueGamer", "id":...	[ "dxz6xfv", "dxz74wc", "dxz8187", "dxz8frh", "dxz984q", "dxzajys", "dxzba1z" ]	[ "dxz73fx", "dxz780q", "dxz7as3", "dxz7kpv", "dxz8q59", "dxz9htt", "dxz9mvr" ]
CMV: No one chooses to be Trans. Objectively I think being trans is one of the hardest personal experiences that someone can go through. With the potential to lack support from family and friends to the lifelong possibility of being outed and issues day to day your have to face. No matter how cis/straight passing someone is there is still incidents where things come up that remind you of being trans. Forever you will be outed every time you go to the doctor. Social security number checks will have your old name even if its legally changed. Early stages when you have to come out to nearly every person you meet just to be seen as who you are. Theres no real way to "hide it" from everyone. The government is also constantly trying to police the bodies of trans people. theres so much pressure from every side to be a specific kind of person. Its also a struggle to find people you can relate to. For a lot of people they always have felt like they were trans even from before they knew what social norms were. I just don't understand the argument of it being a choice. Who would choose to make their life so hard? Who would risk losing people they love? Just let trans people live and stop making them feel even more of an outcast than so many already do.	Trans is .3% of the us population. Over 1% of the population is schizophrenic. Outliers tend to overlap in other outlieing categories of their classification is similar. In other words a lot of trans people have mental illnesses. Sorry that's just the sad fact. There a people that are trans without mental illness or truama and that's totally ok. But the numbers are very very low. There are other categories that should be brought to light. --- Being transgender is in the DSM as a mental illness which it is which can medically be treated and a lot of trans people rely on that to get coverage through insurance. That being said proves even more that it isn't a choice but something that is just inherent. --- Sorry, OP, but no. Being transgender is not considered a mental illness anymore. The latest DSM categorises gender dysphoria, but that is neither exclusive to trans people nor do all trans people need to have dysphoria. For many, the only 'proof' there will ever be for someone's transgender identity is their word.	Do you believe that a person can be trans without experiencing gender dysphoria? --- 2 google searches. "According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, gender dysphoria prevalence accounts for 0.005–0.014% of the population for biological males and 0.002–0.003% for biological females." "We find that 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender." I believe most transgenders see it as a sexual fetish obtained from countless hours of cooming. This is partly personal and factual. I have seen countless transgenders who are addicted to porn and sex, with very odd fetishes. And the factual part comes from the statistics above, where there are more people who say they are transgender than people with gender dysphoria. --- Link sources if you’re going to quote from them. Stalking random self-identifying trans reddit users and harassing them (as is apparent from your post history) is not valid anecdotal evidence	oeazau	CMV: No one chooses to be Trans.	Objectively I think being trans is one of the hardest personal experiences that someone can go through. With the potential to lack support from family and friends to the lifelong possibility of being outed and issues day to day your have to face. No matter how cis/straight passing someone is there is still incidents where things come up that remind you of being trans. Forever you will be outed every time you go to the doctor. Social security number checks will have your old name even if its legally changed. Early stages when you have to come out to nearly every person you meet just to be seen as who you are. Theres no real way to "hide it" from everyone. The government is also constantly trying to police the bodies of trans people. theres so much pressure from every side to be a specific kind of person. Its also a struggle to find people you can relate to. For a lot of people they always have felt like they were trans even from before they knew what social norms were. I just don't understand the argument of it being a choice. Who would choose to make their life so hard? Who would risk losing people they love? Just let trans people live and stop making them feel even more of an outcast than so many already do.	PublicLizard	3	3	[ { "author": "newiphone12", "id": "h458oyr", "score": 1, "text": "Trans is .3% of the us population. Over 1% of the population is schizophrenic. Outliers tend to overlap in other outlieing categories of their classification is similar. In other words a lot of trans people have mental illnesses. Sorry...	[ { "author": "Gumboy52", "id": "h456u9j", "score": 7, "text": "Do you believe that a person can be trans without experiencing gender dysphoria?", "timestamp": 1625503583 }, { "author": "PooDough1", "id": "h45950h", "score": -9, "text": "2 google searches.\n\"According to the D...	[ "h458oyr", "h45ntis", "h45o4ba" ]	[ "h456u9j", "h45950h", "h45aabp" ]
CMV: No one chooses to be Trans. Objectively I think being trans is one of the hardest personal experiences that someone can go through. With the potential to lack support from family and friends to the lifelong possibility of being outed and issues day to day your have to face. No matter how cis/straight passing someone is there is still incidents where things come up that remind you of being trans. Forever you will be outed every time you go to the doctor. Social security number checks will have your old name even if its legally changed. Early stages when you have to come out to nearly every person you meet just to be seen as who you are. Theres no real way to "hide it" from everyone. The government is also constantly trying to police the bodies of trans people. theres so much pressure from every side to be a specific kind of person. Its also a struggle to find people you can relate to. For a lot of people they always have felt like they were trans even from before they knew what social norms were. I just don't understand the argument of it being a choice. Who would choose to make their life so hard? Who would risk losing people they love? Just let trans people live and stop making them feel even more of an outcast than so many already do.	Do you believe that a person can be trans without experiencing gender dysphoria? --- I personally do not understand why anyone who does not have gender dysphoria would transition. --- People may not hate their biological sex but feel euphoria from their prefered gender.	People do a lot of things for attention, especially on social media. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that any significant amount of trans people do this, but I wouldn't assume that no one does this. People have faked their own kidnapping, the kidnapping of friends, and what have you for social media clout, so why would you assume that none of them would pretend being trans (even as only an online persona)? --- I agree. Vast majority of trans people are genuine, but like anything else, you’re gonna have your fakers and people exploiting a situation for whatever the hell reason. It may also become trendy where more people will be switching their gender identification throughout their life for attention and views maybe. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The fact that we live in a world where people have the option to switch their genders freely, even if it is for attention, is a good thing. --- lol completely irrelevant hypothetical nonsense to shit on trans people? nice dude	oeazau	CMV: No one chooses to be Trans.	Objectively I think being trans is one of the hardest personal experiences that someone can go through. With the potential to lack support from family and friends to the lifelong possibility of being outed and issues day to day your have to face. No matter how cis/straight passing someone is there is still incidents where things come up that remind you of being trans. Forever you will be outed every time you go to the doctor. Social security number checks will have your old name even if its legally changed. Early stages when you have to come out to nearly every person you meet just to be seen as who you are. Theres no real way to "hide it" from everyone. The government is also constantly trying to police the bodies of trans people. theres so much pressure from every side to be a specific kind of person. Its also a struggle to find people you can relate to. For a lot of people they always have felt like they were trans even from before they knew what social norms were. I just don't understand the argument of it being a choice. Who would choose to make their life so hard? Who would risk losing people they love? Just let trans people live and stop making them feel even more of an outcast than so many already do.	PublicLizard	3	3	[ { "author": "Gumboy52", "id": "h456u9j", "score": 7, "text": "Do you believe that a person can be trans without experiencing gender dysphoria?", "timestamp": 1625503583 }, { "author": "PublicLizard", "id": "h45o0vd", "score": 7, "text": "I personally do not understand why any...	[ { "author": "Morasain", "id": "h456yh7", "score": 82, "text": "People do a lot of things for attention, especially on social media. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that any significant amount of trans people do this, but I wouldn't assume that no one does this. People have faked their own...	[ "h456u9j", "h45o0vd", "h46zrq3" ]	[ "h456yh7", "h458z0k", "h45cmd5" ]
CMV: No one chooses to be Trans. Objectively I think being trans is one of the hardest personal experiences that someone can go through. With the potential to lack support from family and friends to the lifelong possibility of being outed and issues day to day your have to face. No matter how cis/straight passing someone is there is still incidents where things come up that remind you of being trans. Forever you will be outed every time you go to the doctor. Social security number checks will have your old name even if its legally changed. Early stages when you have to come out to nearly every person you meet just to be seen as who you are. Theres no real way to "hide it" from everyone. The government is also constantly trying to police the bodies of trans people. theres so much pressure from every side to be a specific kind of person. Its also a struggle to find people you can relate to. For a lot of people they always have felt like they were trans even from before they knew what social norms were. I just don't understand the argument of it being a choice. Who would choose to make their life so hard? Who would risk losing people they love? Just let trans people live and stop making them feel even more of an outcast than so many already do.	So a study/book came out that teen girls go trans at astranomicly higher rates if they knew a trans person So people were curious why They then studied rates among freon women who knew a trans women Much much lower So they wondered what's up - Long story short this women's research found that these girls were becoming men because it was popular amongst their friends This book is called "irreversible damage" this lady did alot of math to confirm this hypothesis So those girls find themselves transitioning Those girls chose This would fall into a category that feel would change get your mind --- That book is written by someone who is highly transphobic. She took the word of many trans people out of context. Just because you say you are transgender doesn't mean you are. There are studies of trans peoples brains to show they're brains match or fit somewhere in between their assigned at birth gender and the gender they identify. [source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgender-brain-what-you-should-know/amp/) --- I gave you an example of people who chose to be trans Now wether she is transphobe or not She did a lot of math and probably did more research than you Not to say nobody is brain trans But some people choose to be trans It's a book full of those cases At least 1 fills your requirement- therefore I deserve a CMV Also what is considered trans? Because according to the definition it's someone who's identity isn't the same as the one at birth At least 1 person fits this model and has chose to transition Look at iran- perfect example People who chose to change their gender but are not in fact gender dysmorphic --- No because transitioning is different than being transgender. I have don't a plethora of research and also have personal experience lmao. Abigail Schrier is a bigot who has no idea what shes talking about. --- Why is she a bigot Source? Anything other than people who upset Especially in this topic that term has lost most of it's meaning What about Iran ? That's a society that embraces transgenderism as wants to bypass culturally stigam on homosexuality --- she is transphobic. She talked to trans people and twisted their words to fit HER narrative. The definition of a bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices... which she is... to trans people... she is transphobic. --- So is an evolutionist just a bigot for being obstinately intolerant to young earth craziness?Is a doctor bigoted and ignorable because he is obstinate for having written a book about vaccines, and intolerant to anti-vaccination Youtubers? Where is the line between “it’s ok to write a book proving something false” and “it’s intolerant to write a book proving something false”? Have the trans people she spoke to said their words were twisted to her narrative? Edit: I see you posted two videos that I presume are interviewees who say she twisted their words. I’ll watch them. Were they the only people she interviewed?	Do you believe that a person can be trans without experiencing gender dysphoria? --- 2 google searches. "According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, gender dysphoria prevalence accounts for 0.005–0.014% of the population for biological males and 0.002–0.003% for biological females." "We find that 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender." I believe most transgenders see it as a sexual fetish obtained from countless hours of cooming. This is partly personal and factual. I have seen countless transgenders who are addicted to porn and sex, with very odd fetishes. And the factual part comes from the statistics above, where there are more people who say they are transgender than people with gender dysphoria. --- Link sources if you’re going to quote from them. Stalking random self-identifying trans reddit users and harassing them (as is apparent from your post history) is not valid anecdotal evidence --- https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/#:~:text=3%20We%20find%20that%200.6,the%20U.S.%20identify%20as%20transgender. https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health/gender-dysphoria/gender-dysphoria-statistics/#:~:text=Prevalence%20of%20Gender%20Dysphoria,-Various%20studies%20have&text=According%20to%20the%20Diagnostic%20and,%E2%80%930.003%25%20for%20biological%20females. Also the fact that you had no argument against this and just went through my account is pretty funny. --- It’s just poor argumentation to not cite your sources. I believe that you have to have gender dysphoria in order to be “legitimately” trans. I didn’t respond to your claims about dysphoria because I agree with them. But I also want to make it clear to others that I do not support your anecdotal transphobic claim/implication that being trans is mostly a sexual perversion. --- So what reason do you believe people who don't have gender dysphoria but still are transgender? Some people fantasize about having genitalia of the opposite gender due to a crippling porn addiction, which is why I believe it can be a sexual fetish. But why do you think more people are transgender than those diagnosed with gender dysphoria? --- Basically, I think gender is entirely socially constructed. Those who identify as trans but don’t experience dysphoria wish to perform gender roles opposite of what is associated with their sex. With the rise in trans activism, identifying as trans has become more acceptable/desirable in some circles than just being a straight guy who “acts like a woman”	oeazau	CMV: No one chooses to be Trans.	Objectively I think being trans is one of the hardest personal experiences that someone can go through. With the potential to lack support from family and friends to the lifelong possibility of being outed and issues day to day your have to face. No matter how cis/straight passing someone is there is still incidents where things come up that remind you of being trans. Forever you will be outed every time you go to the doctor. Social security number checks will have your old name even if its legally changed. Early stages when you have to come out to nearly every person you meet just to be seen as who you are. Theres no real way to "hide it" from everyone. The government is also constantly trying to police the bodies of trans people. theres so much pressure from every side to be a specific kind of person. Its also a struggle to find people you can relate to. For a lot of people they always have felt like they were trans even from before they knew what social norms were. I just don't understand the argument of it being a choice. Who would choose to make their life so hard? Who would risk losing people they love? Just let trans people live and stop making them feel even more of an outcast than so many already do.	PublicLizard	7	7	[ { "author": "morerandom2020", "id": "h45uk38", "score": 0, "text": "So a study/book came out that teen girls go trans at astranomicly higher rates if they knew a trans person \n\nSo people were curious why\n\nThey then studied rates among freon women who knew a trans women \n\nMuch much lower \n\nS...	[ { "author": "Gumboy52", "id": "h456u9j", "score": 7, "text": "Do you believe that a person can be trans without experiencing gender dysphoria?", "timestamp": 1625503583 }, { "author": "PooDough1", "id": "h45950h", "score": -9, "text": "2 google searches.\n\"According to the D...	[ "h45uk38", "h460nbt", "h460z89", "h461xce", "h46200q", "h462wrp", "h47hn7y" ]	[ "h456u9j", "h45950h", "h45aabp", "h45ayh3", "h45byh0", "h45cw0g", "h45f7ps" ]
CMV: Lobbying shouldn't be legal in any level of government For the purposes of this cmv, I'll be talking about the US legislature, as it's the flavor of corruption I'm most familiar with. Lobbying with money has only served to hurt the American people, if you need to pay legislators to pass or deny a law with money, chances are you're not asking them to vote with their conscience, only their greed. A good example is the tobacco lobbyists paying huge amounts of money to state legislatures to cover up the enormous health risks caused by smoking in 1999. Their efforts to keep lung cancer and other health risks out of public service announcements continue to this day. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/10/2/124 https://ash.org/tobacco-money/#:~:text=At%20the%20federal%20level%2C%20the,Senate%2C%20and%20our%20Federal%20Agencies. Another good example is how tax filing software companies like TurboTax pour money into Congress to prevent intuitive tax filing laws from being passed www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-fight-to-stop-americans-from-filing-their-taxes-for-free/amp?espv=1 Lobbying with bribes in governments can only serve to hurt its people, and should be illegalized. Unfortunately, the only legal way to prevent lobbying would require the people getting lobbied to to ban it, which I don't see happening for obvious reasons. CMV	Have you ever sent a letter to your congressperson asking them to back a law? Congrats, you have lobbied for a law. Lobbying is the foundation of our governmental system. We have representatives who represent constituents, and how else are constituents supposed to let their representatives know what the constituents want? --- I apologize for using the word lobbying incorrectly, but what I meant was specifically(which i feel came across in the guts of my post) lobbyists having giant sums of money that they can use to sway the decisions of legislators. I think everyone should be able to argue their point, but they shouldn't argue their points with money. --- What do you mean by “have giant sums of money that can be used to sway”? Should news networks not be able to talk about politicians? Should you not be able to put a political sign in your yard? Surely your position is somewhere in between there, but chances are it won’t result in what you’re trying to achieve.	Lobbying is a double edge sword. Its the only way the average person has to petition the federal government. While Corporations and wealthy individuals have disproportionate influence lobbying, its not like corporations and wealthy people stop having access to politicians if you make lobbying illegal. All banning lobbying would is make it so the average person can't petition the federal government. --- I'm not saying that we should abridge the right to petition as prescribed by the 1st amendment, I'm saying that we should remove the ability to bribe legislators with money, services, and products to pass or deny laws. The tobacco industry didn't keep the lung cancer causation under wraps because they were good at arguing, they kept it under wraps by showering money on legislators. Businesses could send in people to argue their case in Congress, but they would have to rely on the lobbyists' debating ability rather than the amount of capital they can lavish on legislators. --- Then your problem has more to do with the structure of lobbying then actual lobbying. In the case of Corporations and wealthy individuals specifically, they fund studies to get the conclusions they want and present it to politicians accordingly or present actions that are beneficial for the country. That's how you get bills like a bailout for Bezos' Space company or decades of Doctors going as far as selling cigarettes to patients. On top of that, nearly every issue in the public sphere of conciseness is a result of lobbying and if you kept going down the rabbit hole on a lot of these issues you will find more dishonesty. For example, there is a reason Greenpeace is against Nuclear energy as they don't just operate for the environment.	tvi992	CMV: Lobbying shouldn't be legal in any level of government	For the purposes of this cmv, I'll be talking about the US legislature, as it's the flavor of corruption I'm most familiar with. Lobbying with money has only served to hurt the American people, if you need to pay legislators to pass or deny a law with money, chances are you're not asking them to vote with their conscience, only their greed. A good example is the tobacco lobbyists paying huge amounts of money to state legislatures to cover up the enormous health risks caused by smoking in 1999. Their efforts to keep lung cancer and other health risks out of public service announcements continue to this day. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/10/2/124 https://ash.org/tobacco-money/#:~:text=At%20the%20federal%20level%2C%20the,Senate%2C%20and%20our%20Federal%20Agencies. Another good example is how tax filing software companies like TurboTax pour money into Congress to prevent intuitive tax filing laws from being passed www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-fight-to-stop-americans-from-filing-their-taxes-for-free/amp?espv=1 Lobbying with bribes in governments can only serve to hurt its people, and should be illegalized. Unfortunately, the only legal way to prevent lobbying would require the people getting lobbied to to ban it, which I don't see happening for obvious reasons. CMV	MangleRang	3	3	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "i39jztw", "score": 29, "text": "Have you ever sent a letter to your congressperson asking them to back a law? Congrats, you have lobbied for a law.\n\nLobbying is the foundation of our governmental system. We have representatives who represent constituents, and how e...	[ { "author": "KMKEEPS", "id": "i39i3nl", "score": 441, "text": "Lobbying is a double edge sword. Its the only way the average person has to petition the federal government. While Corporations and wealthy individuals have disproportionate influence lobbying, its not like corporations and wealthy peopl...	[ "i39jztw", "i39lko8", "i39nspz" ]	[ "i39i3nl", "i39jm4j", "i39ln9e" ]
CMV: Lobbying shouldn't be legal in any level of government For the purposes of this cmv, I'll be talking about the US legislature, as it's the flavor of corruption I'm most familiar with. Lobbying with money has only served to hurt the American people, if you need to pay legislators to pass or deny a law with money, chances are you're not asking them to vote with their conscience, only their greed. A good example is the tobacco lobbyists paying huge amounts of money to state legislatures to cover up the enormous health risks caused by smoking in 1999. Their efforts to keep lung cancer and other health risks out of public service announcements continue to this day. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/10/2/124 https://ash.org/tobacco-money/#:~:text=At%20the%20federal%20level%2C%20the,Senate%2C%20and%20our%20Federal%20Agencies. Another good example is how tax filing software companies like TurboTax pour money into Congress to prevent intuitive tax filing laws from being passed www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-fight-to-stop-americans-from-filing-their-taxes-for-free/amp?espv=1 Lobbying with bribes in governments can only serve to hurt its people, and should be illegalized. Unfortunately, the only legal way to prevent lobbying would require the people getting lobbied to to ban it, which I don't see happening for obvious reasons. CMV	Don’t get me wrong, I think corporate and big money influencing big government is cancer, but lobbying is (in theory) how average people heard in the legislature. Say you’re a grassroots movement trying to outlaw a particular industrial chemical from being spilled into the local aquifer. How do you get your proposed policy change heard and legislated? By lobbying Same goes for policy changes spearheaded by groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving --- I made a mistake by saying lobbying; what I meant is legalizing bribery as an option for lobbyists to use. Grassroots movements and corporations alike could send in lobbyists, but the lobbyists shouldn't be able to lavish money on legislators. --- They can’t. Direct contributions to politicians are capped and closely monitored. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ As you can see, the limits are very low. --- Unfortunately, that's only for election campaigns. Once the person is in office they can take whatever bribes they want from the tobacco industry. --- That is not true and extremely illegal. Political activists love to mislead on this, but there are strict rules governing political contributions. People can & do go to jail over violations. There are no (legal) bribes.	Lobbying is a double edge sword. Its the only way the average person has to petition the federal government. While Corporations and wealthy individuals have disproportionate influence lobbying, its not like corporations and wealthy people stop having access to politicians if you make lobbying illegal. All banning lobbying would is make it so the average person can't petition the federal government. --- I'm not saying that we should abridge the right to petition as prescribed by the 1st amendment, I'm saying that we should remove the ability to bribe legislators with money, services, and products to pass or deny laws. The tobacco industry didn't keep the lung cancer causation under wraps because they were good at arguing, they kept it under wraps by showering money on legislators. Businesses could send in people to argue their case in Congress, but they would have to rely on the lobbyists' debating ability rather than the amount of capital they can lavish on legislators. --- Bribery is already illegal. Delta please. --- Read the articles I linked. It's not illegal at all. It's just part for the course in politics. --- Is Bernie accepting bribes when he listens to his doners? Many people lobbied Bernie recently for him to advocate for student loan forgiveness, this is not a position he held previously. Many of those people who pushed him to advocate for it give him money. Has Bernie been bribed in this scenario?	tvi992	CMV: Lobbying shouldn't be legal in any level of government	For the purposes of this cmv, I'll be talking about the US legislature, as it's the flavor of corruption I'm most familiar with. Lobbying with money has only served to hurt the American people, if you need to pay legislators to pass or deny a law with money, chances are you're not asking them to vote with their conscience, only their greed. A good example is the tobacco lobbyists paying huge amounts of money to state legislatures to cover up the enormous health risks caused by smoking in 1999. Their efforts to keep lung cancer and other health risks out of public service announcements continue to this day. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/10/2/124 https://ash.org/tobacco-money/#:~:text=At%20the%20federal%20level%2C%20the,Senate%2C%20and%20our%20Federal%20Agencies. Another good example is how tax filing software companies like TurboTax pour money into Congress to prevent intuitive tax filing laws from being passed www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-fight-to-stop-americans-from-filing-their-taxes-for-free/amp?espv=1 Lobbying with bribes in governments can only serve to hurt its people, and should be illegalized. Unfortunately, the only legal way to prevent lobbying would require the people getting lobbied to to ban it, which I don't see happening for obvious reasons. CMV	MangleRang	5	5	[ { "author": "3720-To-One", "id": "i39jrdp", "score": 48, "text": "Don’t get me wrong, I think corporate and big money influencing big government is cancer, but lobbying is (in theory) how average people heard in the legislature.\n\nSay you’re a grassroots movement trying to outlaw a particular indus...	[ { "author": "KMKEEPS", "id": "i39i3nl", "score": 441, "text": "Lobbying is a double edge sword. Its the only way the average person has to petition the federal government. While Corporations and wealthy individuals have disproportionate influence lobbying, its not like corporations and wealthy peopl...	[ "i39jrdp", "i39keii", "i39n0w1", "i39nm4b", "i39s41j" ]	[ "i39i3nl", "i39jm4j", "i39n4a4", "i39ndpx", "i39orre" ]
CMV: Americans are less racist than Europeans As stated, America imo is less racist than Europe. Why? For starters, there's a lot more people of color in the States than in Europe. Britain and France are two countries you probably think of as very diverse in Europe. France and Britain however are both 80+% white. America is only around 60% white. Most white people have grown up with brown/blacks all their lives. The only reason you hear more about racist incidents in America is because there is a lot more interactions with colored people and they also have more media presence in the world. Europe, especially in the Eastern regions, are highly racist or ignorant of POC. [Look at this footage of Ukrainian soldiers beating/harassing brown students trying to leave the country.](https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/indians-students-fleeing-ukraine-brutally-beaten-by-forces-at-borders-563156.html) Also a map of the world's countries by racism: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/)	No. Diversity ≠ Equity, Harmony, or the absence of racism. It may be a different brand of racism, but there is racism just the same. --- Let's say there are two cities that a black man can move to. One is 40% colored people, one is 15% colored people. Which one do you think is more inclusive to colored people? --- Let's say there are two farms that a black man can work on. The one in Alabama has a 95% black workforce, the one in Ohio has a 40% black workforce. The year is 1862, which one do you think is more inclusive of colored people? Your entire line of thinking is skewed. My state is 19% non-white. My city is 49% non-white. My neighborhood is 10% non-white. Less than 10 miles from my home, there are entire public school systems that have less than 15 non-white students enrolled across all grades. If you head the other direction the same distance, still within the suburbs of my city, you'll find neighborhoods that are less than 3% white and schools where there are no white kids enrolled at all.	"Look at this one instance" can be countered with one instance of American racism. You'll need to use statistics, not what amounts to anecdotal evidence. --- Aha! What about rates of interracial marriage? Higher in America, checkmate. --- Absolute, or relative to the populations of non-majority people?	tuoqkb	CMV: Americans are less racist than Europeans	As stated, America imo is less racist than Europe. Why? For starters, there's a lot more people of color in the States than in Europe. Britain and France are two countries you probably think of as very diverse in Europe. France and Britain however are both 80+% white. America is only around 60% white. Most white people have grown up with brown/blacks all their lives. The only reason you hear more about racist incidents in America is because there is a lot more interactions with colored people and they also have more media presence in the world. Europe, especially in the Eastern regions, are highly racist or ignorant of POC. [Look at this footage of Ukrainian soldiers beating/harassing brown students trying to leave the country.](https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/indians-students-fleeing-ukraine-brutally-beaten-by-forces-at-borders-563156.html) Also a map of the world's countries by racism: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/)	ScholaroftheWorld1	3	3	[ { "author": "pant0folaia", "id": "i35189k", "score": 5, "text": "No. Diversity ≠ Equity, Harmony, or the absence of racism.\n\nIt may be a different brand of racism, but there is racism just the same.", "timestamp": 1648926274 }, { "author": "ScholaroftheWorld1", "id": "i365lmm", ...	[ { "author": "Morasain", "id": "i34xys4", "score": 1, "text": "\"Look at this one instance\" can be countered with one instance of American racism. You'll need to use statistics, not what amounts to anecdotal evidence.", "timestamp": 1648924655 }, { "author": "ScholaroftheWorld1", "id...	[ "i35189k", "i365lmm", "i37fgne" ]	[ "i34xys4", "i34yk98", "i34yrcq" ]
CMV: The Canadian government should send the military out for arrest the protesting Truckers for interfering with national and international trade. *to not for Title says it all for those who don't know (I only found out about this last night) 10%-15% of Truckers in Canada decided to protest the vaccine mandate ~~(which is provincial not federal but wouldn't expect these idiots to know that)~~ requiring them to be vaccinated to enter the US and enter Canada. So for the past 5 days they have completely blockaded the Capital Ottawa and are shutting down border crossing areas between the US and Canada. They are also carrying Nazi and Confederate flags. The Towing companies have refused to help and it is a mess. The RCMP seems to be outnumbered or having issues. They are all over the country completely disrupting everything and the 85% that are the other Truckers just want this to end so they can go home and finish their work. Absolute Circus. Edit- It is federal jurisdiction over the borders TIL	Why send the military to arrest civilians blocking traffic? Presumably you believe that the police are not capable of arresting these protesters. Could you explain that? --- They're trying and failing plus the military has more power you can't just tell them to fuck off. --- You're american, so let's put this in the context of america, since they are actively planning to do the same thing in DC very shortly. Would it be appropriate, in your mind, for the military to come in and force these people out? As a reminder, that is explicitly against all federal laws regarding the military. The military explicitly does not have policing power and cannot be debutized to have policing power.	You want people arrested for peacefully protesting their government? Hm. --- No for intentional disrupting trade and movement between nations and provinces. --- Are those crimes in Canada or are you suggesting they be arrested without being charged with a crime?	sitgdx	CMV: The Canadian government should send the military out for arrest the protesting Truckers for interfering with national and international trade.	*to not for Title says it all for those who don't know (I only found out about this last night) 10%-15% of Truckers in Canada decided to protest the vaccine mandate ~~(which is provincial not federal but wouldn't expect these idiots to know that)~~ requiring them to be vaccinated to enter the US and enter Canada. So for the past 5 days they have completely blockaded the Capital Ottawa and are shutting down border crossing areas between the US and Canada. They are also carrying Nazi and Confederate flags. The Towing companies have refused to help and it is a mess. The RCMP seems to be outnumbered or having issues. They are all over the country completely disrupting everything and the 85% that are the other Truckers just want this to end so they can go home and finish their work. Absolute Circus. Edit- It is federal jurisdiction over the borders TIL	Andalib_Odulate	3	3	[ { "author": "seanflyon", "id": "hvcwqa1", "score": 1, "text": "Why send the military to arrest civilians blocking traffic? Presumably you believe that the police are not capable of arresting these protesters. Could you explain that?", "timestamp": 1643851255 }, { "author": "Andalib_Odu...	[ { "author": "burneraccount706", "id": "hvar1p6", "score": 18, "text": "You want people arrested for peacefully protesting their government? Hm.", "timestamp": 1643821605 }, { "author": "Andalib_Odulate", "id": "hvare6q", "score": -6, "text": "No for intentional disrupting tra...	[ "hvcwqa1", "hvcxt1g", "hvgaufx" ]	[ "hvar1p6", "hvare6q", "hvarld3" ]
CMV: There is a difference between racism and knowing that stereotypes exist for a reason Basically the title. I think there’s a big difference between the two and I’m tired of pretending there isn’t. Nowadays, especially on Reddit, it feels like if you say anything regarding anyone’s race at all you are going to be lambasted by the keyboard warriors of Justice and righteousness and perfect equality. To clarify: racism is bad. I’m not someone who considers themself a racist. Racism is hate or discrimination against someone for something that is utterly out of their control. It’s not fair, it’s not cool, and I wish we could do away with it as a whole. However, that is not the same as someone saying “black people commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime”. That is also different from saying “black people are violent”. These two things are separated by a very fine line, but one of them is simply a fact and the other is letting the facts cloud your judgement and allowing that poor judgment to hurt others. Idk, mostly I just see a lot of hate for people who are making claims based on truth and fact and being bombarded with claims of racism and bigotry and it bothers me. It also affects a lot of media, like when headlines say “local teenage van driver kills 3 year old” or something, and it happens to be someone who is a minority, yet they have no qualms with calling out white people. Is there a big enough difference to people for it to matter to them? Or is it strictly racist to point out a fact? CMV?	You have falsely identified a “fact” and attributed it to race. That is racism or at the very least implicit bias. Violent crime is statistically more prevalent among those who have experienced violent crime, who have experienced poverty, and those who have experienced substance use or mental health issues. This demographic disproportionately represents POC due to … well American History. Don’t forget black people weren’t allowed to share public spaces until 50 years ago. That’s 2 generations, not really enough time to equalize outcomes without systemic barriers. You’re using the outcomes of historical trauma to justify a view that is incorrect in its premise. Statistically data suggests black people commit violent crime more often. This is due to historical events, Jim Crow policy, segregation & desegregation, under served communities, wealth inequality, and over representation of police in low income communities. --- I didn’t attribute it to race, I just stated that they do have a higher record of violent crime. I don’t think it’s because they are black, but they do happen to be black. As for the data trend, could you bring a source to prove it’s incorrect? I’ve been corrected in the comments in that they are not guilty of more crime but rather arrested for more crime, but those two things are not mutually exclusive. It could be one or the other or both. You try to tell me that the statistic is wrong, then justify why they are committing violent crime? I’m more than a little confused. --- How do you feel about the following statements? "White people are more likely to be terrorists than all other races combined" "White people are responsible for the majority of violent crime" Both of those statements are fact, they are 100% true. Do you think they are problematic at all, and if so, why?	Facts don't exist in a vacuum. Facts exist to further arguments. Arguments can well be racist. Simply saying "I'm just stating a fact" is always a lie, because anytime you would be compelled to say that, you are engaged in a conversation. Something prompted you to state that fact. Some facet of the discussion compelled you to raise this fact, in service of proving some sort of point. So when you feel compelled to say "I'm just stating a fact", sit back and think if that is true. Think about why you are raising this fact. Think about what the intended impact this fact is supposed to have upon your audience. If you state a fact, which colors a minority in a negative light, for the purposes of casting that minority in a bad light, that's not great. Stating facts about crime in black neighborhoods may be facts, but are you using them to argue that black people are violent? You claim there is a distinction here, but I hope I've shown that is often not really the case. --- I’d defer to my example of media, the facts that maybe a black person killed someone but the media calls them some weird new descriptor to avoid the fact that they’re black(through words or images) is an example of a fact not being used for an argument, just to spread word. Though, on the opposite side of the spectrum, if an article was titled: Black teen murders family of 5 and really pushes the fact that they are black, I’d argue that it’s racist. It feels like a taboo that media won’t touch with a 15 foot pole, when it’s just facts. In that same vein, is it better to hide the truth because it hurts people’s feelings? Not to say we need to depict it in a manner that is inherently offensive, but rather that these facts are facts, and awareness should be spread about them. Like how a certain minorities suicide rates being higher than most, we don’t generally want them to kill themselves. We want them to be comfortable and happy, so we spread awareness. Do we stop spreading awareness because some people might be offended by that? Apparently, in some contexts. --- I dont know what country you've been living in, but in America its very much the opposite, in that when a black person commits a crime its usually mentioned, and when a white person does, their race doesnt come into it. If a Muslim shoots up a school, the headlines often mention their religion, regardless of motive, (not that ANY motive is good) but when a white person does, its always just "teenager." Immigrants are almost always defined by their immigrant status, and white people are just people.	1l2nqmk	CMV: There is a difference between racism and knowing that stereotypes exist for a reason	Basically the title. I think there’s a big difference between the two and I’m tired of pretending there isn’t. Nowadays, especially on Reddit, it feels like if you say anything regarding anyone’s race at all you are going to be lambasted by the keyboard warriors of Justice and righteousness and perfect equality. To clarify: racism is bad. I’m not someone who considers themself a racist. Racism is hate or discrimination against someone for something that is utterly out of their control. It’s not fair, it’s not cool, and I wish we could do away with it as a whole. However, that is not the same as someone saying “black people commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime”. That is also different from saying “black people are violent”. These two things are separated by a very fine line, but one of them is simply a fact and the other is letting the facts cloud your judgement and allowing that poor judgment to hurt others. Idk, mostly I just see a lot of hate for people who are making claims based on truth and fact and being bombarded with claims of racism and bigotry and it bothers me. It also affects a lot of media, like when headlines say “local teenage van driver kills 3 year old” or something, and it happens to be someone who is a minority, yet they have no qualms with calling out white people. Is there a big enough difference to people for it to matter to them? Or is it strictly racist to point out a fact? CMV?	BigBandit01	3	3	[ { "author": "Nate-dude", "id": "mvuj4oj", "score": 1, "text": "You have falsely identified a “fact” and attributed it to race. \n\nThat is racism or at the very least implicit bias. \n\nViolent crime is statistically more prevalent among those who have experienced violent crime, who have experienc...	[ { "author": "TemperatureThese7909", "id": "mvucbux", "score": 222, "text": "Facts don't exist in a vacuum. Facts exist to further arguments. Arguments can well be racist. \n\n\nSimply saying \"I'm just stating a fact\" is always a lie, because anytime you would be compelled to say that, you are enga...	[ "mvuj4oj", "mvukujb", "mw0xwh0" ]	[ "mvucbux", "mvufdxq", "mvugaf2" ]
CMV: It’s bad that the state department revoked the visa of a Rumeysa Ozturk without providing any evidence of wrongdoing On Tuesday evening, a Tufts graduate student was detained by ICE in Somerville, MA. The student had a valid student visa but it was revoked on Tuesday. The department of homeland security claimed that the student supported Hamas and for that reason her visa was revoked. No details or evidence was provided to support that claim. The student has not been charged with any crime. The only two actions news outlets have identified that the student took related to the Hamas-Israel war were to publish an article and help organize a potluck to support Palestinian students. The article was published in the student newspaper and argued that Tufts University should follow the recommendations of the student union resolution to boycott Sabra, divesting from Israeli companies, and condemn the genocide of Palestinians. I think it’s wrong that a student would have their visa revoked and then be detained in a prison in Louisiana without any evidence of wrongdoing being presented. Article about the detainment: https://apnews.com/article/tufts-student-detained-massachusetts-immigration-08d7f08e1daa899986b7131a1edab6d8 Article the student published: https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkj	When did this happen? Yesterday? Do you know the details of what the student did? What if they did something awful that ICE has documents but obviously isn't immediately broadcast to the public because of legal guidelines. It \might\ be unjust. It probably is unjust. But too early to tell. --- It happened on Tuesday and no details or evidence have been provided, that’s what I think is so messed up. What legal guidelines would prevent authorities from explaining why she’s detained? --- No details provided to the justice system or no details provided to the public?	Do you not remember what campuses were like this time last year? --- Why is that an immigration matter? --- This person did more than “organize a potluck” and you’re being disingenuous.	1jlfocq	CMV: It’s bad that the state department revoked the visa of a Rumeysa Ozturk without providing any evidence of wrongdoing	On Tuesday evening, a Tufts graduate student was detained by ICE in Somerville, MA. The student had a valid student visa but it was revoked on Tuesday. The department of homeland security claimed that the student supported Hamas and for that reason her visa was revoked. No details or evidence was provided to support that claim. The student has not been charged with any crime. The only two actions news outlets have identified that the student took related to the Hamas-Israel war were to publish an article and help organize a potluck to support Palestinian students. The article was published in the student newspaper and argued that Tufts University should follow the recommendations of the student union resolution to boycott Sabra, divesting from Israeli companies, and condemn the genocide of Palestinians. I think it’s wrong that a student would have their visa revoked and then be detained in a prison in Louisiana without any evidence of wrongdoing being presented. Article about the detainment: https://apnews.com/article/tufts-student-detained-massachusetts-immigration-08d7f08e1daa899986b7131a1edab6d8 Article the student published: https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkj	Guilty_Scar_730	3	3	[ { "author": "Intrepid_Doubt_6602", "id": "mk343g9", "score": -24, "text": "When did this happen? Yesterday?\n\nDo you know the details of what the student did? What if they did something awful that ICE has documents but obviously isn't immediately broadcast to the public because of legal guidelines....	[ { "author": "gamercer", "id": "mk35dqf", "score": -14, "text": "Do you not remember what campuses were like this time last year?", "timestamp": 1743114927 }, { "author": "dowker1", "id": "mk35n29", "score": 3, "text": "Why is that an immigration matter?", "timestamp": 174...	[ "mk343g9", "mk36228", "mk36ss5" ]	[ "mk35dqf", "mk35n29", "mk368d0" ]
CMV: Diversity programs are not good for society since they are not meritocratic So in India, where I belong, there are <20% of the women in top engineering colleges who are women. The entrance exams are objective - pure problem solving. If you say that women can't compete with these objective exams - you are saying that women are inherently less smart than men. If you argue that women are as smart as men, they shouldn't need a quota system to get into these colleges. After entering, each branch should have at least 20% women in every branch. This is BS too since when I see the scores in University examinations, women are overwhelmingly performing less than men when it comes to marks scored. Finally, there is a trend in my company where a set of people are complaining women aren't 50% of leadership positions. If you're inlet is skewed, why shouldn't leadership positions be? We have lesser female engineers. What's then the logic behind asking for 50% females in leadership positions? Not only does this undermine the actual achievers, it also makes leadership worse. It's really hard to work under someone who is way out of their depth or competence. Creates problems for everyone under them. But it's a huge taboo to say that ones female boss is an idiot - even though I can say that comfortably about my male bosses. I am all for solving these problems at their root cause. If women are faring worse in engineering competitives, I'm all for programs that encourage women and develop their competence in problem solving, math, physics, chemistry, spatial intelligence and verbal and non verbal reasoning. This forced percentage politics is not a good thing.	>So in India, where I belong, there are <20% of the women in top engineering colleges who are women. If you have to explain this, you have one of two options: 1. women are inherently dumber than men in engineering, therefore that's reflected in our colleges; 2. women are inherently just as smart as men, but due to socioeconomic factors, women are less likely to enter colleges. Explanation 1 is misogynistic and not reflective of the situation on the ground. If you talk to any female engineers you will quickly realise that explanation 2 is much more accurate. Many girls, especially in Asia, are discouraged from STEM from a very young age. Whenever a girl in school has to make a choice to go down a STEM path or not, there is always significant pressure from peers and family to choose the non-STEM path. This is further exacerbated by the belief that women _are dumber_ than men in STEM, where women are often rejected partially because of such a belief. That's what these quota systems are in place, to reverse the built-in misogyny of a society. To make it more appealing for girls to choose STEM in their studies, and hopefully, over time, removes the stigma that women are dumber than men in engineering. --- Those disadvantaged women don't benefit from leg ups at IITs. Because other women, with plenty of financial resources, with equal amount of 'coaching' access to books and time - they will be the ones benefiting from these schemes. --- I thought your issue was that diversity wasn't meritocratic and that's a problem? How is giving advantages to women of lower socioeconomic status more meritocratic than giving women of means advantages? Neither "having money" nor "not having money" are earned qualities. --- I think my title was not specific enough. I am talking about one particular diversity initiative - that of having hard minimum quotas for women. It isn't linked with economics in this case. It's a gender based quota. I would be okay with it if it had an economic component to it - since I know for a fact in lower income households, on an average - they are less likely to support a girl child for higher education and would want to get her married off instead. --- Here's an exact counter to your argument. There is research that shows the average women is smarter than the average man, but that among elite intellectuals there are mostly men. However, this study shows that these differences do not account for why so few women are in STEM. This study is from the USA: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06292-0\\](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06292-0\) So, the question is would this apply to India? Almost certainly. India has all the hallmarks of misogyny keeping women down more than actual talent. And let's not forget that the caste system is a far worse culprit of non-meritocracy than some bill to hold onto 20% women. Anecdotally, the women in my STEM class had ALL been told that men were better at engineering. Do you think that creates a fun atmosphere for learning? Astrophysics PhD women have told how their advisor wanted to sleep with them. Women all over have PhDs and masters degrees, so I highly doubt that women are actually incapable of competing on merit for IITs. There are women researchers in the USA who are among the best researchers in the USA, and the USA acts as a brain drain for the entire world, so the researchers in the USA are among the best in the world. Women don't seem to have trouble competing, they seem to have more trouble getting men to chill so they can focus on studying. As further evidence for no real divide, we can look to chess where women have been discouraged from competing for many decades. As the bigotry they face has decreased, the percentage of women grandmasters has continued to increase, implying that they were always capable of competing, but society didn't make it easy to compete.	To clarify, do you mean specifically for India or does your view apply everywhere? --- Everywhere is pretty vast, I wouldn't claim to know about every other place 😅 I do know India the best since I studied, worked and hired here. When I worked abroad I didn't hire so I don't know the academic situation there we'll enough. --- I appreciate the background you're providing. You're implying an answer but I want to be explicit for the benefit of others, your view is specifically for India? --- Yes and also specifically for the situation of 20% quota for women in the IITs. Sorry for the generic title 😅 was thinking as I wrote and can't change it now. --- No need to apologize. Generic titles are fine. Not every title can encapsulate the entirety of someones view. The clarity comes with the body of the post. If it's missing or unclear, people ask and the thread, comments, and replies are all the better since you answered.	1936ukk	CMV: Diversity programs are not good for society since they are not meritocratic	So in India, where I belong, there are <20% of the women in top engineering colleges who are women. The entrance exams are objective - pure problem solving. If you say that women can't compete with these objective exams - you are saying that women are inherently less smart than men. If you argue that women are as smart as men, they shouldn't need a quota system to get into these colleges. After entering, each branch should have at least 20% women in every branch. This is BS too since when I see the scores in University examinations, women are overwhelmingly performing less than men when it comes to marks scored. Finally, there is a trend in my company where a set of people are complaining women aren't 50% of leadership positions. If you're inlet is skewed, why shouldn't leadership positions be? We have lesser female engineers. What's then the logic behind asking for 50% females in leadership positions? Not only does this undermine the actual achievers, it also makes leadership worse. It's really hard to work under someone who is way out of their depth or competence. Creates problems for everyone under them. But it's a huge taboo to say that ones female boss is an idiot - even though I can say that comfortably about my male bosses. I am all for solving these problems at their root cause. If women are faring worse in engineering competitives, I'm all for programs that encourage women and develop their competence in problem solving, math, physics, chemistry, spatial intelligence and verbal and non verbal reasoning. This forced percentage politics is not a good thing.	Puzzleheaded-Page140	5	5	[ { "author": "GoSouthCourt", "id": "kh73uhv", "score": 173, "text": ">So in India, where I belong, there are <20% of the women in top engineering colleges who are women.\n\nIf you have to explain this, you have one of two options: 1. women are inherently dumber than men in engineering, therefore that...	[ { "author": "scarab456", "id": "kh75iio", "score": 38, "text": "To clarify, do you mean specifically for India or does your view apply everywhere?", "timestamp": 1704890058 }, { "author": "Puzzleheaded-Page140", "id": "kh76bfs", "score": 28, "text": "Everywhere is pretty vast...	[ "kh73uhv", "kh74nif", "kh75c7r", "kh76mv9", "kh825fa" ]	[ "kh75iio", "kh76bfs", "kh76stm", "kh76wbc", "kh77a40" ]
CMV: Woman's history month should only celebrate the women who actually were apart of history not the modern day woman who never had to go through history Modern day women didn't go through right issues or anything it was all historical women who had to do it like random women get congratulated for it being women's history month what did they do for the congratulation? Nothing it's literally called women's history month it should be abt women of the past. I've seen companies celebrate it by talking abt the characters they own that are women it's literally supposed to be abt women's history not a fictional character. This is going to be downvoted to oblivion ofc I see that coming. Ik the women might claim they deserve this month but it's only the past women who deserve it in my opinion. I'm open to my mind being changed...	why not both? It sounds like you only think this because of the word "history", which is immaterial to what woman's history month actually is and what it's for. --- Why would it add the word history for no reason the month is clearly intended for the women who actually were a part of history and had to fight for rights --- Womens history month also allows us to celebrate the women who today are able to accomplish such things due to them. --- "history" --- A study of history will connect themes to the present and future, its fairly normal. --- The whole point of the history month is how it was hard to accomplish things as a women in history nowadays it's just as common as a man's --- Quick question, how many female billionaires can you name?	But woman still do go through struggles like the women previously before,. They face those struggles of assault, discrimination, roles etc. women’s history month acknowledges the effort women contributed and also how it helps current women, celebrating current women as well isn’t some back-stab to the women in history, it’s actually a good thing that we are continuing to appreciate women throughout time --- The purpose of the month is for what women have accomplished not some modern day women going through things otherwise just call it woman's support month or something --- This just feels like code for “feminism already won and women have everything they could ever want and so they should just stop all this celebration nonsense” It’s as if you dogmatically agree that the women of today aren’t accomplishing anything --- I don't have a problem with the month itself but random women who never had to deal with the right issues of the past should not get congratulated --- So, once again, “women have nothing left to accomplish about equality” Is certainly one of the takes out there but it is an incredibly sexist one --- Explain to me a right men have that women don't I'll wait --- Well the mask has truly come off now, hasn’t it How about the right to make medical decisions about your body? Men certainly think they can deny certain health care to women. If it suddenly became law that men can no longer get vasectomies you’d probably be crying about freedom and rights. But when this country seeks to revoke women’s right to abortion, oh well that doesn’t count, women have all the rights!	1l335mf	CMV: Woman's history month should only celebrate the women who actually were apart of history not the modern day woman who never had to go through history	Modern day women didn't go through right issues or anything it was all historical women who had to do it like random women get congratulated for it being women's history month what did they do for the congratulation? Nothing it's literally called women's history month it should be abt women of the past. I've seen companies celebrate it by talking abt the characters they own that are women it's literally supposed to be abt women's history not a fictional character. This is going to be downvoted to oblivion ofc I see that coming. Ik the women might claim they deserve this month but it's only the past women who deserve it in my opinion. I'm open to my mind being changed...	animeman117	7	7	[ { "author": "Soggy-Ad-1152", "id": "mvxmnt3", "score": 16, "text": "why not both? It sounds like you only think this because of the word \"history\", which is immaterial to what woman's history month actually is and what it's for.", "timestamp": 1749036782 }, { "author": "animeman117", ...	[ { "author": "Strange_You_1226", "id": "mvxmzr1", "score": 12, "text": "But woman still do go through struggles like the women previously before,. They face those struggles of assault, discrimination, roles etc. women’s history month acknowledges the effort women contributed and also how it helps cur...	[ "mvxmnt3", "mvxmunc", "mvxom13", "mvxoq87", "mvxreq2", "mvxru0y", "mvxvepq" ]	[ "mvxmzr1", "mvxn9ln", "mvxnsdp", "mvxoamf", "mvxog5w", "mvxooh2", "mvxp3ju" ]
CMV: Parents should have less legal authority over their kids. First of all, let me just clarify that I am speaking from my US reference point. I would be interested to hear the policies of other countries, but I don't know enough to judge them for this CMV. When I say that parents should have legal authority, I am referring to how, in many situations, children are essentially considered property of their parents, which can let them get away with neglecting their kids, abusing them, or denying them of basic things that will be essential for them once they reach adulthood. This is especially is true in the realms of schooling, health, and religion. _Schooling_: in many states, children are allowed to be homeschooled with little to no oversight from the government, giving the parents complete authority. There have been cases where children enter adulthood illiterate, or where parents try to teach their kids the Hitler Youth programming. There also have been cases where children were abused and the government never had any way to even check on these kids because they weren't going to school. For instance, just this past month, a man was found captive by his family. He had disappeared after they allegedly started homeschooling him, and was enslaved by them for 20 years. This is why parents should not have such complete control over their children's education. Homeschooling should be more well-regulated, and require educational standards as well as yearly home visits and health checkups. _Health_: I already touched on this a little bit in the previous paragraph by saying that homeschooled kids should be required to have yearly health check-ups. There should also be a legal recourse for kids to get medical help even if their parents are denying it. Recently there have been some kids that have died because they were not vaccinated. I even met a teenager who wanted to get vaccinated, and they were old enough to know what they were doing, but their parents wouldn't let them. Meanwhile, I have a friend whose parents didn't believe in going to the doctor, even when he started walking with a limp mysteriously. So when he became an adult he finally went to the doctor and they said that his limp was caused by Lyme disease that could have been treated early on. So that's another example. And then there's the circumcision debate. Why are we giving non-essential surgery to our children when they can make an informed decision for themselves later in life? _Religion_: the problem here is that freedom of religion apparently applies to children as property of their parents instead of as individuals. Parents are given broad leeway to teach their kids whatever they want, even indoctrinating them into cults in some circumstances. It's not a problem that they are teaching religion, but it's a problem that they are shutting down all exploration into learning about other religions. At the very least, kids should have access to education that is nonreligious. I guess this is somewhat tied into the education paragraph then.	I practice family law in Canada, so my answer is cribbed almost entirely from Canadian legal understandings of parent's authority and responsibilities. That being said, I'd suggest that parents should have the authority necessary to raise their children. However, this authority comes with responsibilities. So long as the adult is responsible for the child, they have obligations, such as: * Maintaining a loving, nurturing and supportive relationship with the child; * Seeing to the daily needs of the child, which include housing, feeding, clothing, physical care and grooming, health care, daycare and supervision, and other activities appropriate to the developmental level of the child and the resources available to the parent; * Consulting with the other parent and appropriate experts regarding major issues in the health, education, religion and welfare of the child; * Encouraging the child to foster appropriate inter-personal relationships; * Exercising appropriate judgment about the child’s welfare, consistent with the child’s developmental level and the resources available to the parent; and * Providing financial support for the child So long as they adhere to their responsibilities, they should have the authority to make decisions for the child in the child's best interests. These decisions include decisions related to the child's * needs, given the child’s age and stage of development; * relationships; and * the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage. Where a parent cannot do so, the courts or child welfare services can step in. However, the until proven otherwise, the default position should be that parents have the ability to make decisions for their children. --- > the default presumption should continue to be that parents are capable of making decisions for their children. Where a parent cannot do so, the courts or child welfare services can step in to varying degrees of intensity. I'm not necessarily suggesting something is extremist that. What I'm asking for is more oversight in some circumstances, such as in homeschooling. I'm also asking for more autonomy for the in some circumstances where the parents is working against either the child's individual liberties to things like freedom of religion, or against the recommendation of a doctor or educator despite the child agreeing with that doctor or educator. --- You have a misunderstanding of what freedom of religion is. It means that the government can't tell you what religion to practice. It does not say that parents can't bring their kids to church. In fact, this would be the government overstepping their bounds and breaking the separation of church and state rules. The ACLU would sue the government on behalf of the parents and they would win, unless the parents were part of an abusive cult.	What if the kid doesn’t like needles or watches anti-vaxxer tiktoks? What if the kid wants to join scientology like their crush Tom Cruise? --- Saying the parents shouldn't be allowed to home school their kids because they don't want the kids to know evolution exists doesn't mean kids are allowed to stay home and not go to school. You can in fact be against both of those things --- Great. But who then makes the decision if we can't trust the parents or the children to make decisions? Should the government make all the decisions for everyone? Do you trust the current administration to make the tight choice?	1jkjcf8	CMV: Parents should have less legal authority over their kids.	First of all, let me just clarify that I am speaking from my US reference point. I would be interested to hear the policies of other countries, but I don't know enough to judge them for this CMV. When I say that parents should have legal authority, I am referring to how, in many situations, children are essentially considered property of their parents, which can let them get away with neglecting their kids, abusing them, or denying them of basic things that will be essential for them once they reach adulthood. This is especially is true in the realms of schooling, health, and religion. _Schooling_: in many states, children are allowed to be homeschooled with little to no oversight from the government, giving the parents complete authority. There have been cases where children enter adulthood illiterate, or where parents try to teach their kids the Hitler Youth programming. There also have been cases where children were abused and the government never had any way to even check on these kids because they weren't going to school. For instance, just this past month, a man was found captive by his family. He had disappeared after they allegedly started homeschooling him, and was enslaved by them for 20 years. This is why parents should not have such complete control over their children's education. Homeschooling should be more well-regulated, and require educational standards as well as yearly home visits and health checkups. _Health_: I already touched on this a little bit in the previous paragraph by saying that homeschooled kids should be required to have yearly health check-ups. There should also be a legal recourse for kids to get medical help even if their parents are denying it. Recently there have been some kids that have died because they were not vaccinated. I even met a teenager who wanted to get vaccinated, and they were old enough to know what they were doing, but their parents wouldn't let them. Meanwhile, I have a friend whose parents didn't believe in going to the doctor, even when he started walking with a limp mysteriously. So when he became an adult he finally went to the doctor and they said that his limp was caused by Lyme disease that could have been treated early on. So that's another example. And then there's the circumcision debate. Why are we giving non-essential surgery to our children when they can make an informed decision for themselves later in life? _Religion_: the problem here is that freedom of religion apparently applies to children as property of their parents instead of as individuals. Parents are given broad leeway to teach their kids whatever they want, even indoctrinating them into cults in some circumstances. It's not a problem that they are teaching religion, but it's a problem that they are shutting down all exploration into learning about other religions. At the very least, kids should have access to education that is nonreligious. I guess this is somewhat tied into the education paragraph then.	Square-Dragonfruit76	3	3	[ { "author": "advocatus_ebrius_est", "id": "mjvt4x4", "score": 4, "text": "I practice family law in Canada, so my answer is cribbed almost entirely from Canadian legal understandings of parent's authority and responsibilities. \n\nThat being said, I'd suggest that parents should have the authority ne...	[ { "author": "Z7-852", "id": "mjvozj1", "score": 14, "text": "What if the kid doesn’t like needles or watches anti-vaxxer tiktoks?\n\nWhat if the kid wants to join scientology like their crush Tom Cruise?", "timestamp": 1743015047 }, { "author": "Rabbid0Luigi", "id": "mjvpqii", "s...	[ "mjvt4x4", "mjvwtby", "mjvz4qa" ]	[ "mjvozj1", "mjvpqii", "mjvq7f8" ]
CMV: Being healthy and obese is like being a healthy smoker. 1) Most research suggests these two health conditions are causal high-risk health factors. That is, they either directly or indirectly cause symptoms. Being asymptomatic is not necessarily a sign of being healthy. 2) Due to their high-risk, the absence of symptoms does not suggest they will or will not cause future symptoms. Statistically-speaking, you could die from something else, but this is a slippery slope away from healthy living. 3) Both of these conditions are extremely difficult to kick (indeed, for many, are lifelong), and are a battle against genetics and brain chemistry. 4) Both contain components of choice, addiction potential, and genetic predispositions. The main difference people we see these differently is a reaction to a compounding mental health issue of lack of body acceptance (e.g. body dysmorphia). The problem with this argument (from a utilitarian perspective) is that obesity is a far greater danger to public health than body dysmorphia. Corollary (but not the primary CMV): General medical doctors should not be afraid to report health concerns incidental to a primary complaint. Bedside manner aside, not reporting someone to be overweight or telling them there are high risks to smoking/being overweight would be avoiding their responsibilities as healthcare workers, regardless of the patient's view on the subject. Disclaimers: 1) I do not advocate body shaming,socio-cultural shame is a large factor in modifying behavior without pharmaceutical/surgical intervention. I look at the effects of body-shaming as an observer, not as a participant and certainly not as an advocate. Shame has certainly been used as an institutional tool before, however. 2) I personally hold this view, am technically "overweight", acknowledge I'm overweight, and am glad if/when a doctor tells me I'm overweight. (BMI~26.5, not muscular). I don't take offense, but I also don't have people regularly telling me this as some sort of reminder of failure to lose weight. I almost wish I would. > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I don't entirely understand your view here or what you are asking to be changed. What is it about your view that is different than the almost entirely undisputed fact that obesity and smoking are major health risk factors? Or if you can't put that into words maybe try to describe the view you are arguing against. --- Hmm. Perhaps fine-tuning is required. I frequently make this comparison, as people see smoking shaming as more culturally acceptable, whereas body shaming is absolutely not acceptable. Perhaps I'm using it as a proxy argument to get around the body shaming. It seems like an effective argument, but it makes me uncomfortable because it's shaming by imaginary proxy. Perhaps that's not wrong? In essence, I have a strong argument that I don't like using. I'm hoping someone can convince me it's not a good argument. Maybe a better view to change is "This comparison is the best argument." Changing my view would require presenting a stronger argument, I suppose. --- Nobody should be shaming smokers, but at a base level no one needs to smoke. We know that a lot of smoking is caused by one's environment. Almost entirely really. Even if one didn't have relatives that smoked growing up, or friends that did it, it's still a reaction to stress in the world. We do need to eat though, and a lot of what markets give us can be harmful. A lot of healthy food isn't very healthy, but the average person needs a degree in biology and medicine to parse through the what and whys. That's why efforts to reduce obesity and other epidemics are done by multiple bodies of science and social engineering. Obesity is just a different thing altogether, so drawing a comparison is nice to make a broad point, but we need to leave it behind at some point. One can be healthy and obese, since what classifies as obese isn't simply "morbidly obese" as we picture. I classify as obese and I ride my bike every day and exercise. It's my body shape, frame, weight, and height. But otherwise I'm fit and regularly exercise to extents other, skinnier people don't.	So? Either one can be relatively healthy compared to other people with other problems (or other people with the same problem). A person that is overweight, but can easily bicycle 10 miles a day is probably healthier than a regular-weight couch potato that would collapse if you dropped them a mile down some hiking trail somewhere. Not being overweight (or smoking) is one aspect of a multi-faceted characteristic called "health". There are a lot of other ones. Heck, they're both healthy compared to alcoholics... and a lot less likely to kill other people, too. --- Appeal to worse problems is an informal logical fallacy. I wasn't really discussing holistic health, just the specific comparison between health/risk factors of obesity to smoking, in the context of behavior modification and societal shame. --- Yes, but it's still important to stress to people that smoke and/or gain weight that they can and should attempt to be healthy in other ways, in spite of their respective addictions. I really seriously doubt that, in this day and age, anyone doesn't know that smoking and being obese ("overweight" BMIs appear to be mostly unhealthy solely because they often leads to being obese) are bad for their health. The main difference with smokers is that they make other people unhealthy by their actions, which is an important distinction when it comes to societal pressure and "shame".	60pmd9	CMV: Being healthy and obese is like being a healthy smoker.	1) Most research suggests these two health conditions are causal high-risk health factors. That is, they either directly or indirectly cause symptoms. Being asymptomatic is not necessarily a sign of being healthy. 2) Due to their high-risk, the absence of symptoms does not suggest they will or will not cause future symptoms. Statistically-speaking, you could die from something else, but this is a slippery slope away from healthy living. 3) Both of these conditions are extremely difficult to kick (indeed, for many, are lifelong), and are a battle against genetics and brain chemistry. 4) Both contain components of choice, addiction potential, and genetic predispositions. The main difference people we see these differently is a reaction to a compounding mental health issue of lack of body acceptance (e.g. body dysmorphia). The problem with this argument (from a utilitarian perspective) is that obesity is a far greater danger to public health than body dysmorphia. Corollary (but not the primary CMV): General medical doctors should not be afraid to report health concerns incidental to a primary complaint. Bedside manner aside, not reporting someone to be overweight or telling them there are high risks to smoking/being overweight would be avoiding their responsibilities as healthcare workers, regardless of the patient's view on the subject. Disclaimers: 1) I do not advocate body shaming,socio-cultural shame is a large factor in modifying behavior without pharmaceutical/surgical intervention. I look at the effects of body-shaming as an observer, not as a participant and certainly not as an advocate. Shame has certainly been used as an institutional tool before, however. 2) I personally hold this view, am technically "overweight", acknowledge I'm overweight, and am glad if/when a doctor tells me I'm overweight. (BMI~26.5, not muscular). I don't take offense, but I also don't have people regularly telling me this as some sort of reminder of failure to lose weight. I almost wish I would. > 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!*	Jorgisven	3	3	[ { "author": "MasterGrok", "id": "df89xsg", "score": 6, "text": "I don't entirely understand your view here or what you are asking to be changed. What is it about your view that is different than the almost entirely undisputed fact that obesity and smoking are major health risk factors? Or if you can...	[ { "author": "hacksoncode", "id": "df8y55d", "score": 1, "text": "So? Either one can be relatively healthy compared to other people with other problems (or other people with the same problem). \n\nA person that is overweight, but can easily bicycle 10 miles a day is probably healthier than a regular-...	[ "df89xsg", "df8btar", "df8ee5j" ]	[ "df8y55d", "df9dp0j", "df9e2ot" ]
CMV: Liberalism should not support Islam I know that liberalism calls for tolerating all races, religions, ethnicities etc. but it seems strange to me that Liberals (In the US where I'm from) go to such lengths to defend Islam. Obviously not Muslims harbor extreme beliefs, but for the most part Islam seems to be: 1) A Patriarchy Society 2) Women are treated as second-class citizens with few rights. 3) LGBT rights are non-existent and in many countries across the Muslim world, punishable by death or lifetime imprisonment. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory This is the biggest outrage to me! I mean how can you possibly be a liberal and defend this!! Also there's this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38013351 - a woman who is raped in Dubai, reports it and is herself imprisoned! I mean this actually happened in our present-day world! This is like something out of the Salem Witch Trials!!! Why should we support these people? I don't think as liberals we should support hate-filled movements like the KKK or Neo-Nazis or harsh dictatorships like the Russians or North Koreans - we shouldn't support people so diametrically opposed to our values! So why do US liberals seem to support Islam so much? _____ > 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!*	Liberalism does not "defend Islam". It defends religious freedom, which just happens to mean defending Muslims from unfair discrimination. That does not at all mean liberals agree with the beliefs of Islam. It just means they support a Muslim's right to believe it. --- But what if their belief is that my sexuality should be punished by death? Why should we defend that?? How is that right??? --- You are fundamentally misunderstanding the situation, and I don't think I can describe it any better than I already did. Defending an individual's right to believe what they want to believe (and not be discriminated against for it) is not the same as defending the actual things that said person believes. Liberals do the former, but not necessarily the latter. You are implying that they do the latter, which is not true in the case that you are discussing. --- Okay, yea I guess my disagreement with that is I think something things aren't defendable. Like the "right to believe anything" shouldn't be extended to the right to believe in hatred. --- Well, that is a rather extremist belief which is also dangerous as it may lead to cases of supporting the idea of thought-crime. Your philosophy on this is definitely not liberal; quite the opposite. --- I don't really see how: "I don't want you around if you want to kill me" is an extreme belief. --- Even if someone wants to kill you, they are not doing anything wrong if they are not actually trying to kill you. They have every right to be around. Should someone be thrown in jail for wanting to rob a bank, even if they never even made plans to actually do it? I'm sure you can extrapolate from here why doing this is a very bad idea for a society. --- Isn't it my right to live in a society where people don't want to kill me? Like if you went into work everyday and sat next to someone who wanted to kill you, you would be totally 100% okay with that, even though he never actually tried yet? --- No, it really isn't your right to live in such a society where people don't want to kill you. It is the law that if a person actually attempts to kill you, then they can be fully prosecuted, but simply thinking of something horrible isn't illegal. I agree with you that you wouldn't want to live in such a society, but that's far from being a right.	Those same views are held by mainstream republicans. Should we be intolerant of them? Free speech is free speech. --- > Those same views are held by mainstream republicans. Should we be intolerant of them? Of course. When Republicans pass laws to try to restrict Womens rights and LGBT rights they should 100% be opposed. --- Ok so why is it oppose the GOP but ban Muslims? --- I'm not pro-Muslim ban. I guess I'm asking why Liberals aren't more critical of Islam when it advocates horrible things. --- How many liberals have you met that support blatant sexism or homophobia in any context, Muslim or otherwise? --- Ok then why are we allies with these countries where sexism and homophobia are the law?? --- Not because of liberals, but because of complicated histories dating back further than the present liberal thinking. It's not a liberal president in office makin' deals with SA, bud. Many/most liberals strongly object to the friendliness with Saudi Arabia. --- >It's not a liberal president in office makin' deals with SA, bud. Yea obviously not, but what did Obama do in 8 years? --- In regards to SA? Nothing. And he was criticized by significant portions of the left for it.	60p0jf	CMV: Liberalism should not support Islam	I know that liberalism calls for tolerating all races, religions, ethnicities etc. but it seems strange to me that Liberals (In the US where I'm from) go to such lengths to defend Islam. Obviously not Muslims harbor extreme beliefs, but for the most part Islam seems to be: 1) A Patriarchy Society 2) Women are treated as second-class citizens with few rights. 3) LGBT rights are non-existent and in many countries across the Muslim world, punishable by death or lifetime imprisonment. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory This is the biggest outrage to me! I mean how can you possibly be a liberal and defend this!! Also there's this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38013351 - a woman who is raped in Dubai, reports it and is herself imprisoned! I mean this actually happened in our present-day world! This is like something out of the Salem Witch Trials!!! Why should we support these people? I don't think as liberals we should support hate-filled movements like the KKK or Neo-Nazis or harsh dictatorships like the Russians or North Koreans - we shouldn't support people so diametrically opposed to our values! So why do US liberals seem to support Islam so much? _____ > 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!*	BikerMouseFrmMars	9	9	[ { "author": "SchiferlED", "id": "df85hqp", "score": 61, "text": "Liberalism does not \"defend Islam\". It defends religious freedom, which just happens to mean defending Muslims from unfair discrimination. That does not at all mean liberals agree with the beliefs of Islam. It just means they support...	[ { "author": "PM_For_Soros_Money", "id": "df83y7w", "score": 5, "text": "Those same views are held by mainstream republicans. Should we be intolerant of them? Free speech is free speech. ", "timestamp": 1490117866 }, { "author": "BikerMouseFrmMars", "id": "df841he", "score": 3, ...	[ "df85hqp", "df85oj8", "df85vzd", "df877my", "df87n48", "df87txk", "df88851", "df88f83", "df8bkxv" ]	[ "df83y7w", "df841he", "df849fs", "df84xiu", "df851jj", "df85arr", "df85r1r", "df85yyc", "df86752" ]
CMV: It is never healthy to have unquestioning devotion to a person, group of people, or set of beliefs We do not live in a world of absolutes. I always like to jokingly say that the only thing that is black and white in this world is that there is no such thing as black and white. Which is why it’s so alarming to see people from all walks of life devote themselves to celebrities, political parties, religions, etc with unquestioning intensity. Critical thinking is a dying skill and it’s terrifying. This is the second time I’ve posted on this subreddit because I have strong beliefs but I also love to learn. It’s never comfortable but I grow from being wrong and filling gaps in my knowledge. And I feel that far too few people do that.	I think there is some grey area in regards to beliefs. I don't think I will ever be convinced that its OK to rape someone. --- Good point, which sort of proves the ironic paradox of my statement about how there is nuance to everything, in this case the nuance being to my statement about beliefs --- This commenter gave my exact question. The thing is I agree with your idea, but to borrow someone else's phrase "don't be so open minded that your brain falls out." Do I think that gravity is absolute? No. In theory I am willing to accept I'm wrong but I can't even begin to fathom how you could go about changing my mind on what gravity is and the basics mechanisms of how it works. For all intents and purposes I don't question gravity. I don't tie myself to the floor to stop myself floating away, I don't walk off my balcony just to test if gravity still works. To whatever extent I don't consider gravity absolute, to whatever extent I am willing to entertain the notion that rape is a good thing; it's such a tiny tiny fraction, more lip service than a real possibility that I wouldn't argue if you called it unquestioning and I would see nothing wrong withthat.	I have an unquestioning devotion to the idea that murder is wrong. You believe that devotion is unhealthful? --- Unhealthy? Not necessarily. But is murder always wrong? No. --- The belief is literally unhealthy for him if he has to choose between letting 20 people be murdered (and he is 1 of the 20) or murdering 1 person himself	1jliecg	CMV: It is never healthy to have unquestioning devotion to a person, group of people, or set of beliefs	We do not live in a world of absolutes. I always like to jokingly say that the only thing that is black and white in this world is that there is no such thing as black and white. Which is why it’s so alarming to see people from all walks of life devote themselves to celebrities, political parties, religions, etc with unquestioning intensity. Critical thinking is a dying skill and it’s terrifying. This is the second time I’ve posted on this subreddit because I have strong beliefs but I also love to learn. It’s never comfortable but I grow from being wrong and filling gaps in my knowledge. And I feel that far too few people do that.	potatolover83	3	3	[ { "author": "Rainbwned", "id": "mk3rms1", "score": 20, "text": "I think there is some grey area in regards to beliefs. I don't think I will ever be convinced that its OK to rape someone.", "timestamp": 1743121961 }, { "author": "potatolover83", "id": "mk3sk6c", "score": 9, "t...	[ { "author": "Grand-Expression-783", "id": "mk3smvj", "score": 0, "text": "I have an unquestioning devotion to the idea that murder is wrong. You believe that devotion is unhealthful?", "timestamp": 1743122293 }, { "author": "potatolover83", "id": "mk3tlxb", "score": 2, "text"...	[ "mk3rms1", "mk3sk6c", "mk3vaft" ]	[ "mk3smvj", "mk3tlxb", "mk3u34b" ]
CMV: Asking someone "where are you originally from" is totally fine and not a racist thing to do The post is inspired by [this](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/04/22/students-avoid-making-eye-contact-could-guiltyof-racism-oxford/) piece of news, which can be summarised to: >Other examples of “everyday racism” include asking someone where they are “originally” from, students were told. I believe that is totally OK to ask someone "where are you originally from" and that this question does not fall under the definition of racist: > a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. I don't believe that anything in the question "where are you from originally" creates discrimination nor that it shows prejudice. It has been used on me and i have used it as well, and at the least it's a very nice conversation starter - talk and learn about other cultures. Please CMV	I think the reason this question can be seen as bigoted or close-minded is the expectations the questioners seem to have. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking someone where they are originally from (other than ending the question with a preposition /s). However, if the questioner assumes the answer will be one thing, and continues to press the issue when they don't receive the answer they expected, that is a problem. For example, this is a situation I see pretty frequently at work. A person (typically, but not exclusively, a white person) asks a non-white person "where are you originally from". The non-white person answers "Pittsburgh" or "San Francisco" or "Atlanta". The questioner then presses the issue, saying something along the lines of "OK, but where are you really from?", or "I mean before that, where are you from?" The implicit meaning behind the question, at this point, is this, "You can't really be from America because you don't look like my idea of what an American looks like. Therefore, you must be from somewhere other than America." The problem here is that the questioner is implying that non-white Americans (I most often, in my line of work, see this with white Americans asking Hispanic or Indian Americans) are somehow less American than themselves because they look different. The question itself is not a problem, so long as the questioner remains open-minded, and does not try to insert their preconceived notions about what the answer to the question should be. --- OK, i might be doing part of that, but i don't feel i have ill intentions. As i wrote above, i live in Sweden (although not a native Swede). So if meet someone called "Hassan ab Mustafa" (fictional name), even if they have been born in Sweden i can't picture them running together with their Viking band of misfits - so yes, i will probably ask a followup question in the form of "was it your parents or grandparents that moved here, and from where?" Again, i don't feel that i am superior to this person, and he is probably much more of a Swede than i am (since i have only been living in Sweden for 10 years). However, i can't stop myself from asking this person about their heritage... --- >So if meet someone called "Hassan ab Mustafa" (fictional name), even if they have been born in Sweden i can't picture them running together with their Viking band of misfits - so yes, i will probably ask a followup question in the form of "was it your parents or grandparents that moved here, and from where?" This is why "what is your ethnicity?" is not an offensive question, but "where are you really from?" is. I am an American who's biracial but definitely looks brown. A lot of people can't tell my ethnicity, and they're curious, which is totally cool with me. But asking me where I'm really from implies that my ethnicity makes me less American than white people. It's also important to remember the cultural differences between the US and most European countries--most other countries in general, really. The native people of the US were victims of genocide. There aren't very many of them left. The vast majority of Americans are the descendants of immigrants, and relatively recently on a historical scale (within the last 250 years). So while there is a single ethnicity that native Swedes have, that isn't the case for Americans. Americans don't look like any one particular thing. But we still consider white people more American than brown people, regardless of how recently their ancestors immigrated. We consider brownness an indicator of foreignness, and that's racist.	It depends on why you're asking it. If you're asking it because their skin colour or face shape makes them look like an outsider and you want to find out the origin of their outsiderness which you assume is somewhere in the deep of africa or asia, you are treating people of different races differently in a negative way. If however you ask everyone that, including white people, it's less racist. --- For context, i live in Sweden, but i am not a native Swede (i am a caucasian European from the south). The usual targets of this question for me are: * People with "non-traditional" Swedish names (first or last) * People of non-white colour * People who match my idea of "East Asia" looks * People, who although white, "sound different" (ex-pats) So as you can see, it's a mixture of "race" and other characteristics. However, my main point is that after they tell me "i am from Iran, China, Sudan, Ireland or USA" i don't have different feelings for them. I still evaluate them as an individual and yes, i might ask questions about their culture and how they ended up in Sweden but i am also prepared to talk about my culture and how i ended up in Sweden. I recognise that they are "different" from the norm, but that does not mean that i feel superior to them. Do you still feel this is "racist"? --- Yes. You're selecting outsiders based on their skin colour, appearance, sounds, and asking them questions to reinforce their outsider status, ones which they are often asked several times a day. Not only this, but you've been informed how it makes people feel. They have to be polite to you, but many probably feel quite awkward being repeatedly asked that.	68sgva	CMV: Asking someone "where are you originally from" is totally fine and not a racist thing to do	The post is inspired by [this](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/04/22/students-avoid-making-eye-contact-could-guiltyof-racism-oxford/) piece of news, which can be summarised to: >Other examples of “everyday racism” include asking someone where they are “originally” from, students were told. I believe that is totally OK to ask someone "where are you originally from" and that this question does not fall under the definition of racist: > a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. I don't believe that anything in the question "where are you from originally" creates discrimination nor that it shows prejudice. It has been used on me and i have used it as well, and at the least it's a very nice conversation starter - talk and learn about other cultures. Please CMV	dstergiou	3	3	[ { "author": "VVillyD", "id": "dh0wqym", "score": 138, "text": "I think the reason this question can be seen as bigoted or close-minded is the expectations the questioners seem to have. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking someone where they are originally from (other than ending the questio...	[ { "author": "Nepene", "id": "dh0wlw0", "score": 3, "text": "It depends on why you're asking it. If you're asking it because their skin colour or face shape makes them look like an outsider and you want to find out the origin of their outsiderness which you assume is somewhere in the deep of africa o...	[ "dh0wqym", "dh0wvih", "dh1bgri" ]	[ "dh0wlw0", "dh0wqzi", "dh0x2ns" ]
CMV: Asking someone "where are you originally from" is totally fine and not a racist thing to do The post is inspired by [this](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/04/22/students-avoid-making-eye-contact-could-guiltyof-racism-oxford/) piece of news, which can be summarised to: >Other examples of “everyday racism” include asking someone where they are “originally” from, students were told. I believe that is totally OK to ask someone "where are you originally from" and that this question does not fall under the definition of racist: > a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. I don't believe that anything in the question "where are you from originally" creates discrimination nor that it shows prejudice. It has been used on me and i have used it as well, and at the least it's a very nice conversation starter - talk and learn about other cultures. Please CMV	I think the reason this question can be seen as bigoted or close-minded is the expectations the questioners seem to have. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking someone where they are originally from (other than ending the question with a preposition /s). However, if the questioner assumes the answer will be one thing, and continues to press the issue when they don't receive the answer they expected, that is a problem. For example, this is a situation I see pretty frequently at work. A person (typically, but not exclusively, a white person) asks a non-white person "where are you originally from". The non-white person answers "Pittsburgh" or "San Francisco" or "Atlanta". The questioner then presses the issue, saying something along the lines of "OK, but where are you really from?", or "I mean before that, where are you from?" The implicit meaning behind the question, at this point, is this, "You can't really be from America because you don't look like my idea of what an American looks like. Therefore, you must be from somewhere other than America." The problem here is that the questioner is implying that non-white Americans (I most often, in my line of work, see this with white Americans asking Hispanic or Indian Americans) are somehow less American than themselves because they look different. The question itself is not a problem, so long as the questioner remains open-minded, and does not try to insert their preconceived notions about what the answer to the question should be. --- OK, i might be doing part of that, but i don't feel i have ill intentions. As i wrote above, i live in Sweden (although not a native Swede). So if meet someone called "Hassan ab Mustafa" (fictional name), even if they have been born in Sweden i can't picture them running together with their Viking band of misfits - so yes, i will probably ask a followup question in the form of "was it your parents or grandparents that moved here, and from where?" Again, i don't feel that i am superior to this person, and he is probably much more of a Swede than i am (since i have only been living in Sweden for 10 years). However, i can't stop myself from asking this person about their heritage... --- Ah, so you are pressing them to demonstrate their outside status to you when they fail to live up to their stereotypes, helping them feel that no matter how long they have lived here you are the doctor who can diagnose their true outsiderness. You can't stop this, you have no control over your mouth. --- But, it's not an outsider status - it's just different. I never thought "oh, you are from Iran, i won't talk to you any more". I think: "Oh, you are from Iran, that's cool, i don't know people from there. Can you tell me about your country, culture, food?" Nowhere in my mind i think "i am better than an Iranian". I might joke about how our empires (i am originally Greek) used to fight 2500 years ago, and joke on who kicked whose ass but that's about it. Now, today, we are different, but we are equal. Does realising a difference make me racist? --- You might not think those things, but there are others who do. This person has likely been reminded over and over throughout their life of their "outsider" status. Sometimes from very bigoted people. By asking them this question and then pressing the matter, you are reminding them (yet again) that they don't look like they belong. Consider how demeaning that must feel eventually, if you are being asked this kind of question for your whole life despite being born in the same country as the person asking.	It depends on why you're asking it. If you're asking it because their skin colour or face shape makes them look like an outsider and you want to find out the origin of their outsiderness which you assume is somewhere in the deep of africa or asia, you are treating people of different races differently in a negative way. If however you ask everyone that, including white people, it's less racist. --- i dont think its racist to ask someone where theyre from if the have a different appearence ... for example where i live, there are mostly white people, so if you see someone thats black or brown etc. they stick out ... so if you ask them (without a negative undertone or intention) where theyre from, its not racist. you are just curious and maybe want to learn a bit about that persons culture (if they were born somewhere else). i think its just like asking someone if they have a different accent etc.. its only racist, in my opinion, if you have racist intentions... --- >so if you see someone thats black or brown etc. they stick out So basically you're saying to them "Hello, your skin colour is different from mine and most people here, you are an outsider, explain yourself." --- no ... my thinking is: hi, you look different then most people here, that intrests me, how did you end up here and, if they werent born here, what made you decide to choose this country? same thing if they have a different accent. it just makes me curious if i see something/someone different. i dont think that this makes me racist ... maybe that person has an interesting story to tell or needs help because they are not familiar with (in my case) german culture or language. --- Many people prefer not to be repeatedly judged for how they are different, to be told they were from somewhere else, to be asked why they chose to be in this country, and you are still judging people as out of this country for their skin colour.	68sgva	CMV: Asking someone "where are you originally from" is totally fine and not a racist thing to do	The post is inspired by [this](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/04/22/students-avoid-making-eye-contact-could-guiltyof-racism-oxford/) piece of news, which can be summarised to: >Other examples of “everyday racism” include asking someone where they are “originally” from, students were told. I believe that is totally OK to ask someone "where are you originally from" and that this question does not fall under the definition of racist: > a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. I don't believe that anything in the question "where are you from originally" creates discrimination nor that it shows prejudice. It has been used on me and i have used it as well, and at the least it's a very nice conversation starter - talk and learn about other cultures. Please CMV	dstergiou	5	5	[ { "author": "VVillyD", "id": "dh0wqym", "score": 138, "text": "I think the reason this question can be seen as bigoted or close-minded is the expectations the questioners seem to have. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking someone where they are originally from (other than ending the questio...	[ { "author": "Nepene", "id": "dh0wlw0", "score": 3, "text": "It depends on why you're asking it. If you're asking it because their skin colour or face shape makes them look like an outsider and you want to find out the origin of their outsiderness which you assume is somewhere in the deep of africa o...	[ "dh0wqym", "dh0wvih", "dh0x53t", "dh0xv79", "dh0y4wf" ]	[ "dh0wlw0", "dh0wt5i", "dh0x3tc", "dh0xaub", "dh0xd16" ]
CMV: BLM shouldn't be apart of the pride flag as they are two issues I've been seeing posts pushing for BLM to be integrated into the LGBTQ+ flag. I'm all for BLM, and I'm all for LGBTQ+ rights. However, I feel like integrating them kinda takes away from each other. Cops don't kill gay people at the rate as they do black people. Gay people have their own issues, and POC have issues as well. But why integrate the two flags? I feel like if we did, we should include all marginalized movements in one flag; LGBTQ, jewish movement, feminism, etc. That's just my two cents, but I'd like to hear other opinions.	Are people advocating for this as a permanent change, or are they just doing it because there happens to be an ongoing BLM protest movement during pride month this year --- Some are calling permanent adding black and brown to the LGBTQ flag. https://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/06/08/philly-pride-flag-black-brown/ --- So there isn't _one_ pride flag. There are many different ones with different sets of colours, stripes, etc. There is one that mostly became the "default" but there isn't one central pride authority that decides this. Additionally there are massive issues within the queer community with racism. Also while queer rights have come a long way for white people, they still have a long way to go for a lot of minority communities. This flag isn't trying to co-op BLM. It is trying to acknowledge the issues of LGBT people of colour. That their families are less accepting. That they are more likely to face violence (black trans women are one of the most vulnerable groups in the US). Before I moved I was part of my local LGBT society. We had discussions on multiple occasions about the fact that we had a problem with lack of minorities. How do you resolve this problem? The best way is to have other minorities involved. So you end up in a catch-22. To get other minority groups involved you need to get other minority groups involved. Things like this flag help to send the message that they are welcome. It is just one step towards fixing this catch-22.	That has nothing to do with what I just asked at all lmao, sorry if you spent a minute there writing. I don’t know if I wasn’t clear in my question. Why would a racial issue be conjoined with a battle of sexual orientation acceptance. --- [removed] --- Sorry, u/theholysun – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+5+Appeal+theholysun&message=theholysun+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/hexhzo/-/fvv24m6/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted.	hexhzo	CMV: BLM shouldn't be apart of the pride flag as they are two issues	I've been seeing posts pushing for BLM to be integrated into the LGBTQ+ flag. I'm all for BLM, and I'm all for LGBTQ+ rights. However, I feel like integrating them kinda takes away from each other. Cops don't kill gay people at the rate as they do black people. Gay people have their own issues, and POC have issues as well. But why integrate the two flags? I feel like if we did, we should include all marginalized movements in one flag; LGBTQ, jewish movement, feminism, etc. That's just my two cents, but I'd like to hear other opinions.	[deleted]	3	3	[ { "author": "MercurianAspirations", "id": "fvu26tg", "score": 38, "text": "Are people advocating for this as a permanent change, or are they just doing it because there happens to be an ongoing BLM protest movement during pride month this year", "timestamp": 1592989281 }, { "author": "Wa...	[ { "author": "Aeocry", "id": "fvuj3k2", "score": 1, "text": "That has nothing to do with what I just asked at all lmao, sorry if you spent a minute there writing. I don’t know if I wasn’t clear in my question.\n\nWhy would a racial issue be conjoined with a battle of sexual orientation acceptance.", ...	[ "fvu26tg", "fvu2c9p", "fvu4ks1" ]	[ "fvuj3k2", "fvv24m6", "fvv28o2" ]
CMV: people who are pro vaccine are allowed to spew all the misinformation they want and anyone who states any counter facts that could subjectively be viewed as anti vax are berated and censored in almost all major platforms. Don’t know if this really belongs in this sub but I don’t know where else to have this conversation. Everywhere I look I see people constantly say the same thing over and over. “It’s because of the unvaccinated that this pandemic is still ongoing” “Children must get vaccinated to help stop the spread” “The unvaccinated are 10-20 times more likely to die or be hospitalized than the vaccinated” There’s more but I think you get the picture. The first two are obviously wrong and have basically the same argument, it has become very obvious that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated. All you have to do is look at the most vaccinated countries in the world and see that they are going through the biggest spikes of cases since the pandemic started. Furthermore, these countries do not allow the unvaccinated to roam freely with the mandates that have been imposed. The third point is a half truth since it depends on what demographic you’re talking about. When talking about the elderly and people who suffer from two or more comorbidities than it’s a true statement. Every other demographic, that statistic is thrown out the window. If you try to state these facts in the major platforms you’re instantly censored and I’ve been banned in many subreddits by stating these facts due to promoting “anti vax sentiment”. But how is this viewed as anti vax? It just is what it is. I’m not promoting the obvious false and wild conspiracies that the extreme anti vax community spews. I find it dangerous though that any talk that could subjectively be viewed as anti vax is immediately silenced. Living in a world that operates like this can lead to many problems that I don’t think needs to be explained. The funny thing about all of this is that I’m double vaxxed but just because I am and see the positives that it does bring doesn’t mean that I’m a part of “team pro vax” and can’t have views that are against the popular narrative. Edit: I wanted to thank everyone who changed my mind. You helped me realize my flaws in my arguments and to be better prepared with sources if I’m to make claims that I believe are facts when they’re just clearly anecdotal evidence. I was also told that I should be awarding deltas to people who helped change my mind with an explanation of how you changed my mind. It’s getting late and I work early tomorrow so I’ll be going through the comments again tomorrow after work and do so. This experience further solidifies my beliefs that censorship of free speech of any kind is detrimental to society. If we’re not able to have a calm and respectful discussion about any topic no matter how divided each party is then all that will do is leave us within our own echo chambers to feed our beliefs no matter how wrong they might be. Thanks again!	>The first two are obviously wrong and have basically the same argument, it has become very obvious that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated Do you have a source for this? The vaccine reduced your odds of catching it in the first place, which reduces your chance of spreading it. It also shortens the time that you are contagious and lowers how contagious you are. Edit: Since I asked for sources, I ought to... [Can COVID-19 Be Spread By Someone Who Has Been Vaccinated?](https://hive.rochesterregional.org/2021/12/can-covid-be-spread-by-someone-who-has-been-vaccinated) >* Vaccinated patients are 2/3 less likely to harbor COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated people >* Vaccinated people carry viral particles for shorter amounts of time compared to unvaccinated people >* Viral particles in vaccinated people are weaker than those found in unvaccinated people [No, vaccinated people are not ‘just as infectious’ as unvaccinated people if they get COVID](https://theconversation.com/no-vaccinated-people-are-not-just-as-infectious-as-unvaccinated-people-if-they-get-covid-171302) --- So every article that I read that states that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus are a little dated. I would agree that was probably the case but it seems very obvious to me that it’s not longer true with Omicron. All you have to do is look at the most vaccinated countries in the world and look at their curves. They are currently going through a rise in cases that are either much greater or just as bad as any wave since the pandemic started. These countries also have mandates that don’t allow the unvaccinated to be out in the general public as much as the vaccinated. I know this part is anecdotal but absolutely everyone who I personally know that caught omicron is double vaxxed and has spread it to their entire family, me included. I will admit that I am having trouble finding sources that state this as absolute fact but I would argue that could be because basically everything that counters the narrative is being suppressed. --- > I will admit that I am having trouble finding sources that state this as absolute fact but I would argue that could be because basically everything that counters the narrative is being suppressed. This is an unprovable argument and falls into conspiracy theory territory. Either provide sources or concede the point, otherwise you're being argumentative based on your feelings and not the facts being presented.	> it has become very obvious that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated. But...they're not. [Here's](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/by-the-numbers-covid-19-vaccines-and-omicron) a source for the vaccines having an effect in reducing the probability of infection (against omicron specifically), and if you don't get infected you don't spread it. --- I said it before to someone else here and I’ll say it again. Omicron has absolutely exploded everywhere. Everyone in my circle and everyone in their circles are all vaccinated and the vast majority of us has gotten omicron and we’re all infecting each other with this variant. --- Symptoms are less severe. Cantagious period is shorter...	shkogy	CMV: people who are pro vaccine are allowed to spew all the misinformation they want and anyone who states any counter facts that could subjectively be viewed as anti vax are berated and censored in almost all major platforms.	Don’t know if this really belongs in this sub but I don’t know where else to have this conversation. Everywhere I look I see people constantly say the same thing over and over. “It’s because of the unvaccinated that this pandemic is still ongoing” “Children must get vaccinated to help stop the spread” “The unvaccinated are 10-20 times more likely to die or be hospitalized than the vaccinated” There’s more but I think you get the picture. The first two are obviously wrong and have basically the same argument, it has become very obvious that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated. All you have to do is look at the most vaccinated countries in the world and see that they are going through the biggest spikes of cases since the pandemic started. Furthermore, these countries do not allow the unvaccinated to roam freely with the mandates that have been imposed. The third point is a half truth since it depends on what demographic you’re talking about. When talking about the elderly and people who suffer from two or more comorbidities than it’s a true statement. Every other demographic, that statistic is thrown out the window. If you try to state these facts in the major platforms you’re instantly censored and I’ve been banned in many subreddits by stating these facts due to promoting “anti vax sentiment”. But how is this viewed as anti vax? It just is what it is. I’m not promoting the obvious false and wild conspiracies that the extreme anti vax community spews. I find it dangerous though that any talk that could subjectively be viewed as anti vax is immediately silenced. Living in a world that operates like this can lead to many problems that I don’t think needs to be explained. The funny thing about all of this is that I’m double vaxxed but just because I am and see the positives that it does bring doesn’t mean that I’m a part of “team pro vax” and can’t have views that are against the popular narrative. Edit: I wanted to thank everyone who changed my mind. You helped me realize my flaws in my arguments and to be better prepared with sources if I’m to make claims that I believe are facts when they’re just clearly anecdotal evidence. I was also told that I should be awarding deltas to people who helped change my mind with an explanation of how you changed my mind. It’s getting late and I work early tomorrow so I’ll be going through the comments again tomorrow after work and do so. This experience further solidifies my beliefs that censorship of free speech of any kind is detrimental to society. If we’re not able to have a calm and respectful discussion about any topic no matter how divided each party is then all that will do is leave us within our own echo chambers to feed our beliefs no matter how wrong they might be. Thanks again!	Kemomiwiwane	3	3	[ { "author": "radialomens", "id": "hv345eo", "score": 11, "text": ">The first two are obviously wrong and have basically the same argument, it has become very obvious that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated\n\nDo you have a source for this? The vaccine reduced y...	[ { "author": "Salanmander", "id": "hv34coy", "score": 18, "text": "> it has become very obvious that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated. \n\nBut...they're not. [Here's](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/by-the-numbers-covid-19-vaccines-and-omicron) a source...	[ "hv345eo", "hv35w8f", "hv39z4z" ]	[ "hv34coy", "hv36iww", "hv36v7l" ]
CMV: people who are pro vaccine are allowed to spew all the misinformation they want and anyone who states any counter facts that could subjectively be viewed as anti vax are berated and censored in almost all major platforms. Don’t know if this really belongs in this sub but I don’t know where else to have this conversation. Everywhere I look I see people constantly say the same thing over and over. “It’s because of the unvaccinated that this pandemic is still ongoing” “Children must get vaccinated to help stop the spread” “The unvaccinated are 10-20 times more likely to die or be hospitalized than the vaccinated” There’s more but I think you get the picture. The first two are obviously wrong and have basically the same argument, it has become very obvious that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated. All you have to do is look at the most vaccinated countries in the world and see that they are going through the biggest spikes of cases since the pandemic started. Furthermore, these countries do not allow the unvaccinated to roam freely with the mandates that have been imposed. The third point is a half truth since it depends on what demographic you’re talking about. When talking about the elderly and people who suffer from two or more comorbidities than it’s a true statement. Every other demographic, that statistic is thrown out the window. If you try to state these facts in the major platforms you’re instantly censored and I’ve been banned in many subreddits by stating these facts due to promoting “anti vax sentiment”. But how is this viewed as anti vax? It just is what it is. I’m not promoting the obvious false and wild conspiracies that the extreme anti vax community spews. I find it dangerous though that any talk that could subjectively be viewed as anti vax is immediately silenced. Living in a world that operates like this can lead to many problems that I don’t think needs to be explained. The funny thing about all of this is that I’m double vaxxed but just because I am and see the positives that it does bring doesn’t mean that I’m a part of “team pro vax” and can’t have views that are against the popular narrative. Edit: I wanted to thank everyone who changed my mind. You helped me realize my flaws in my arguments and to be better prepared with sources if I’m to make claims that I believe are facts when they’re just clearly anecdotal evidence. I was also told that I should be awarding deltas to people who helped change my mind with an explanation of how you changed my mind. It’s getting late and I work early tomorrow so I’ll be going through the comments again tomorrow after work and do so. This experience further solidifies my beliefs that censorship of free speech of any kind is detrimental to society. If we’re not able to have a calm and respectful discussion about any topic no matter how divided each party is then all that will do is leave us within our own echo chambers to feed our beliefs no matter how wrong they might be. Thanks again!	> it has become very obvious that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated. That just isn't true. Not sure how you've come to that as an "obvious" conclusion, but the data says otherwise: [Pfizer vaccine shows 94% effectiveness against asymptomatic transmission of COVID](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/pfizer-vaccine-shows-94-effectiveness-asymptomatic-transmission-covid/story?id=76389615). Early on in the pandemic, people claiming it didn't prevent transmission was a repeated falsehood based on the fact that Fauci said we didn't know if it prevents transmission. When the vaccine was first approved the only studies were based on personal safety and effectiveness and they just hadn't studied transmission at that point. When they later did do studies on transmission it turned out to significantly reduce spread. > The third point is a half truth since it depends on what demographic you’re talking about. When talking about the elderly and people who suffer from two or more comorbidities than it’s a true statement. Every other demographic, that statistic is thrown out the window. Its true for the [US population as a whole](https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/01/14/unvaccinated-people-17-times-more-likely-hospitalized/6511901001/), which I'm not sure how you'd read it any other way than that. I would read this as a population wide stat, which is what it is. --- If you read what I wrote after that I agreed that early on the vaccines did help stop transmission. That just isn’t the case anymore. You don’t need sources, you just have to look at all of the cases exploding world wide especially in the most vaccinated countries. Omicron changed everything. As for your second argument, I read the article and that’s a general statement. Like I said, it mostly depends on age and comorbidities. I saw a chart not too long ago (yes I don’t have the link to provide) that shows how significantly hospitalization drops with younger age brackets. Numbers are also skewed because when someone is hospitalized who has covid, it doesn’t matter if the reason why they’re hospitalized is due to covid or not, they will be added to the statistic, same with death actually. --- The people who say “you don’t need sources” are the ones that need sources the most. You absolutely need sources to make any statements about statistics and epidemiology.	>The first two are obviously wrong and have basically the same argument, it has become very obvious that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated Do you have a source for this? The vaccine reduced your odds of catching it in the first place, which reduces your chance of spreading it. It also shortens the time that you are contagious and lowers how contagious you are. Edit: Since I asked for sources, I ought to... [Can COVID-19 Be Spread By Someone Who Has Been Vaccinated?](https://hive.rochesterregional.org/2021/12/can-covid-be-spread-by-someone-who-has-been-vaccinated) >* Vaccinated patients are 2/3 less likely to harbor COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated people >* Vaccinated people carry viral particles for shorter amounts of time compared to unvaccinated people >* Viral particles in vaccinated people are weaker than those found in unvaccinated people [No, vaccinated people are not ‘just as infectious’ as unvaccinated people if they get COVID](https://theconversation.com/no-vaccinated-people-are-not-just-as-infectious-as-unvaccinated-people-if-they-get-covid-171302) --- So every article that I read that states that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus are a little dated. I would agree that was probably the case but it seems very obvious to me that it’s not longer true with Omicron. All you have to do is look at the most vaccinated countries in the world and look at their curves. They are currently going through a rise in cases that are either much greater or just as bad as any wave since the pandemic started. These countries also have mandates that don’t allow the unvaccinated to be out in the general public as much as the vaccinated. I know this part is anecdotal but absolutely everyone who I personally know that caught omicron is double vaxxed and has spread it to their entire family, me included. I will admit that I am having trouble finding sources that state this as absolute fact but I would argue that could be because basically everything that counters the narrative is being suppressed. --- > So every article that I read that states that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus are a little dated. I would agree that was probably the case but it seems very obvious to me that it’s not longer true with Omicron. [This article is 9 hours old](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/the-new-omicron-subvariant-is-more-contagious-but-vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-to-spread-it-study-finds.html) [This is 8 days old](https://www.fastcompany.com/90715463/cdc-as-omicron-spread-unvaccinated-were-5-times-more-likely-to-get-infected-than-boosted-adults) Yes, the vaxxed are more likely to spread omicron than to spread previous strains. The unvaxxed are also more likey to spread omicron than they were previous strains. Yes, vaccinated people can spread it. But are they as likely to spread it to as many people? No. Meanwhile, other strains are still out there. And there will be new strains. Which means being vaccinated and not knowing what strain you're going to catch, you're still less likely to pass it on if you're vaccinated. Edit: In any case, it's not "obviously wrong" to state that the vaxxed spread it less than the unvaxxed. The opposite is just a conclusion you came to without evidence. All evidence available (and really, all sense) indicates that the people making this claim are reasonable, and those denying it are making things up. Edit 2: [A source from Jan. 3rd](https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/omicron-evades-immunity-better-than-delta-danish-study-finds-2022-01-03/): "The study also found that booster-vaccinated people are less likely to transmit the virus, regardless of the variant, than the unvaccinated."	shkogy	CMV: people who are pro vaccine are allowed to spew all the misinformation they want and anyone who states any counter facts that could subjectively be viewed as anti vax are berated and censored in almost all major platforms.	Don’t know if this really belongs in this sub but I don’t know where else to have this conversation. Everywhere I look I see people constantly say the same thing over and over. “It’s because of the unvaccinated that this pandemic is still ongoing” “Children must get vaccinated to help stop the spread” “The unvaccinated are 10-20 times more likely to die or be hospitalized than the vaccinated” There’s more but I think you get the picture. The first two are obviously wrong and have basically the same argument, it has become very obvious that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated. All you have to do is look at the most vaccinated countries in the world and see that they are going through the biggest spikes of cases since the pandemic started. Furthermore, these countries do not allow the unvaccinated to roam freely with the mandates that have been imposed. The third point is a half truth since it depends on what demographic you’re talking about. When talking about the elderly and people who suffer from two or more comorbidities than it’s a true statement. Every other demographic, that statistic is thrown out the window. If you try to state these facts in the major platforms you’re instantly censored and I’ve been banned in many subreddits by stating these facts due to promoting “anti vax sentiment”. But how is this viewed as anti vax? It just is what it is. I’m not promoting the obvious false and wild conspiracies that the extreme anti vax community spews. I find it dangerous though that any talk that could subjectively be viewed as anti vax is immediately silenced. Living in a world that operates like this can lead to many problems that I don’t think needs to be explained. The funny thing about all of this is that I’m double vaxxed but just because I am and see the positives that it does bring doesn’t mean that I’m a part of “team pro vax” and can’t have views that are against the popular narrative. Edit: I wanted to thank everyone who changed my mind. You helped me realize my flaws in my arguments and to be better prepared with sources if I’m to make claims that I believe are facts when they’re just clearly anecdotal evidence. I was also told that I should be awarding deltas to people who helped change my mind with an explanation of how you changed my mind. It’s getting late and I work early tomorrow so I’ll be going through the comments again tomorrow after work and do so. This experience further solidifies my beliefs that censorship of free speech of any kind is detrimental to society. If we’re not able to have a calm and respectful discussion about any topic no matter how divided each party is then all that will do is leave us within our own echo chambers to feed our beliefs no matter how wrong they might be. Thanks again!	Kemomiwiwane	3	3	[ { "author": "AnythingApplied", "id": "hv34qv8", "score": 27, "text": "> it has become very obvious that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated. \n\nThat just isn't true. Not sure how you've come to that as an \"obvious\" conclusion, but the data says otherwise: [P...	[ { "author": "radialomens", "id": "hv345eo", "score": 11, "text": ">The first two are obviously wrong and have basically the same argument, it has become very obvious that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated\n\nDo you have a source for this? The vaccine reduced y...	[ "hv34qv8", "hv38sqy", "hv395b8" ]	[ "hv345eo", "hv35w8f", "hv36szd" ]
CMV: Nuclear energy is no alternative to renewable energy sources, because we can not store the waste safely for millions of years. I'm talking about the depleted fuel which needs to be stored until it's radiation is safe, which will take millions of years for some fission products. IMO storing the depleted fuel on earth is a time bomb. There just are no geologically stable sites, at least not for this enormous timespan. There will be an Earthquake or an eruption or maybe just water coming in. And this will disturb the deposit and may expose the environment to it. Also humans can't preserve Knowledge for this long. How do you make sure, 100,000 years from now (a tiny, tiny, timespan compared to how long it hast to be stored) no one will go into that weird cave and poke those barrels with his spear? How do you even warn someone in a distance future about this? (nice german wiki-article about this https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomsemiotik) So my point is: As long as we cannot store the waste or reuse it until safe, we cannot use nuclear power Many of my points were inspired by the documentation "Into Eternity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(film)	I'm going to disagree here. The waste isn't that big of a deal. First, there's a very simple solution to it: monitoring. Store it somewhere safe to start with, keep good tabs on it, and if something starts degrading, fix it. Just like we don't expect bridges and other structures to stay up forever on their own, and regularly inspect, clean, paint and fix them as needed. Second, there are ways of consuming this waste that aren't getting used. The real problem with nuclear is economics. It's just not profitable to build anymore. Nuclear is very expensive in startup costs, and cheap solar and wind cut very badly into its business model, and that's something unlikely to ever change, because solar and wind are much more amenable to mass manufacturing, so they'll only get cheaper still. --- Yeah you are right, we don't build infrastructure for a million years. but we don't expect to be around in a million years, so no reason for that. The wast on the other hand, will be here and still dangerous even in 10 million years --- After 10 000 years, it'll be less dangerous than the [original ore](https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-319-93919-3_19/MediaObjects/331627_2_En_19_Fig15_HTML.png). Less if you seperate the various components of the fuel. That said, consider the waste of every other energy source. Unlike nuclear power, their waste is not radioactive. Mercury emissions from coal power, for example will continue to exist until the literal end of the universe. (or until someone throws it into a reactor).	You know nuclear includes both fusion and fission, right? Which one are you talking about? Because fusion doesn't create that much waste. --- I'm only talking about fission since it's the tech we have. --- We have fusion tech, it's just not producing more energy than it's consuming at the moment.	hexbd1	CMV: Nuclear energy is no alternative to renewable energy sources, because we can not store the waste safely for millions of years.	I'm talking about the depleted fuel which needs to be stored until it's radiation is safe, which will take millions of years for some fission products. IMO storing the depleted fuel on earth is a time bomb. There just are no geologically stable sites, at least not for this enormous timespan. There will be an Earthquake or an eruption or maybe just water coming in. And this will disturb the deposit and may expose the environment to it. Also humans can't preserve Knowledge for this long. How do you make sure, 100,000 years from now (a tiny, tiny, timespan compared to how long it hast to be stored) no one will go into that weird cave and poke those barrels with his spear? How do you even warn someone in a distance future about this? (nice german wiki-article about this https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomsemiotik) So my point is: As long as we cannot store the waste or reuse it until safe, we cannot use nuclear power Many of my points were inspired by the documentation "Into Eternity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(film)	globus243	3	3	[ { "author": "dale_glass", "id": "fvu17n3", "score": 6, "text": "I'm going to disagree here. The waste isn't that big of a deal. First, there's a very simple solution to it: monitoring. Store it somewhere safe to start with, keep good tabs on it, and if something starts degrading, fix it. Just like w...	[ { "author": "JohnReese20", "id": "fvu0flj", "score": 6, "text": "You know nuclear includes both fusion and fission, right? Which one are you talking about? Because fusion doesn't create that much waste.", "timestamp": 1592987475 }, { "author": "globus243", "id": "fvu0izq", "sco...	[ "fvu17n3", "fvu1xs5", "fvu3a8g" ]	[ "fvu0flj", "fvu0izq", "fvu0lar" ]
CMV: Most people who stigmatise suicide do so for selfish reasons I'd argue serious mental health problems that prevent you from enjoying your life are no different from serious physical problems that prevent you from enjoying your life. Despite that, most people have more sympathy for people who seek euthanasia due to physical illness than those who want to committ suicide. Imo, this is due to other people not wanting to deal with the grief of being left. In effect, this just isolates the misery to the person affected. By not committing suicide, they continue to he depressed but other people don't have to be slightly bothered by the grief of it.	What's the stigma exactly? Because I don't think suicide is good, not because I think the people who do it are bad people, but because I think that people in vulnerable situations can often have difficulties seeing other solutions and impulsive irreversable decisions aren't necesserily a good idea. --- The stigma that it's a "selfish" thing to do. --- People say it is selfish because it can often leave burdens on their family. My friend's wife killed herself when they had 2 kids under 3. Euthanasia is done under completely different circumstances and needs to be approved. There's still stigma around it, especially if the person is young.	Mental health is not a good enough reason to kill yourself because overwhelming majority of mental health issues are manageable and treatable. Especially Depression, which is arguably the number one mental illness responsible for suicidal thoughts and is the least reasonable reason to commit suicide. --- Manageable isn't the same as cured and I think it should be up to the invidiviual whether it's reasonable or not. --- Sure but it's everyone else that has to deal with you choosing to end your life after you are gone. If you stubbed your toe and decided fuck it and blow your head off with a shotgun, that's unreasonable whether you believe it to be or not.	192uma2	CMV: Most people who stigmatise suicide do so for selfish reasons	I'd argue serious mental health problems that prevent you from enjoying your life are no different from serious physical problems that prevent you from enjoying your life. Despite that, most people have more sympathy for people who seek euthanasia due to physical illness than those who want to committ suicide. Imo, this is due to other people not wanting to deal with the grief of being left. In effect, this just isolates the misery to the person affected. By not committing suicide, they continue to he depressed but other people don't have to be slightly bothered by the grief of it.	Anonon_990	3	3	[ { "author": "Vesurel", "id": "kh4x4i3", "score": 111, "text": "What's the stigma exactly? Because I don't think suicide is good, not because I think the people who do it are bad people, but because I think that people in vulnerable situations can often have difficulties seeing other solutions and im...	[ { "author": "Mono_Clear", "id": "kh4y241", "score": -10, "text": "Mental health is not a good enough reason to kill yourself because overwhelming majority of mental health issues are manageable and treatable.\n\nEspecially Depression, which is arguably the number one mental illness responsible for s...	[ "kh4x4i3", "kh4yaql", "kh51jz1" ]	[ "kh4y241", "kh4zfxk", "kh4zz1v" ]
CMV: If a crime is attempted but no harm is done and no property is taken, then no punishment should follow. Let me preface this by saying 1) I understand this is a controversial and maybe flawed position, but I'm hoping to explore its limits and implications. 2) I used ChatGPT to parse and format my ideas, but all content below is my own thought. My view is that in cases where someone attempts a crime—say, breaking into a bank—but is apprehended before any money is taken, any person harmed, or any lasting damage done, then they should not be punished in the same way as someone who actually commits the crime. In fact, I would argue they shouldn't be punished at all, beyond perhaps being monitored or given counseling. The reasoning is this: * Harm Principle: In a legal and moral system grounded in harm reduction, punishment should correlate with actual harm caused. If no money was taken, no people were hurt, and the situation was fully reversed without lasting consequences, then punishing someone for a thought or intention (no matter how serious) ventures into pre-crime or "thought crime" territory. * Moral Development: People are complex, and some who act rashly may be on the brink of a life-altering realization. If someone tries to commit a crime but ultimately fails (or is stopped), that moment of confrontation could be a turning point. Harsh punishment might remove any chance for rehabilitation by reinforcing a criminal identity. * Legal Consistency: Attempt laws often blur the line between planning and action. At what point does someone go from being a fantasist to a criminal? Is intent enough? Does possession of tools prove intent? If no actual harm occurred, maybe we should err on the side of caution and treat these cases as cry-for-help situations rather than crimes. So, CMV: If someone attempts a crime but is apprehended before anything is taken or anyone is harmed, they should be let go without punishment, because punishing intent without impact crosses into dangerous moral territory.	You'd be OK if I were to receive no punishment for shooting at you and missing? --- Yeah. No one was harmed and it's very difficult to ascertain one's state of mind at the moment of an action. --- > No one was harmed Being shot at can cause psychological harm; speaking from experience.	It’s not dangerous moral territory. In society, laws prevent things from happening that we don’t want happening. There are no morals issues with saying that we don’t want crimes to be attempted. --- >laws prevent things from happening that we don’t want happening. Laws don't prevent anything. Laws only say for which actions a government will utilize coercion to attempt to provide restitution or punishment after a certain thing has happened. --- Which prevents things from happening. Murder is a crime we lock people up for. Since people don’t want to get locked up, they don’t murder. The fear of being locked up prevents millions and millions of murders every single day.	1jl5k4j	CMV: If a crime is attempted but no harm is done and no property is taken, then no punishment should follow.	Let me preface this by saying 1) I understand this is a controversial and maybe flawed position, but I'm hoping to explore its limits and implications. 2) I used ChatGPT to parse and format my ideas, but all content below is my own thought. My view is that in cases where someone attempts a crime—say, breaking into a bank—but is apprehended before any money is taken, any person harmed, or any lasting damage done, then they should not be punished in the same way as someone who actually commits the crime. In fact, I would argue they shouldn't be punished at all, beyond perhaps being monitored or given counseling. The reasoning is this: * Harm Principle: In a legal and moral system grounded in harm reduction, punishment should correlate with actual harm caused. If no money was taken, no people were hurt, and the situation was fully reversed without lasting consequences, then punishing someone for a thought or intention (no matter how serious) ventures into pre-crime or "thought crime" territory. * Moral Development: People are complex, and some who act rashly may be on the brink of a life-altering realization. If someone tries to commit a crime but ultimately fails (or is stopped), that moment of confrontation could be a turning point. Harsh punishment might remove any chance for rehabilitation by reinforcing a criminal identity. * Legal Consistency: Attempt laws often blur the line between planning and action. At what point does someone go from being a fantasist to a criminal? Is intent enough? Does possession of tools prove intent? If no actual harm occurred, maybe we should err on the side of caution and treat these cases as cry-for-help situations rather than crimes. So, CMV: If someone attempts a crime but is apprehended before anything is taken or anyone is harmed, they should be let go without punishment, because punishing intent without impact crosses into dangerous moral territory.	_robjamesmusic	3	3	[ { "author": "Kedulus", "id": "mk0pu66", "score": 12, "text": "You'd be OK if I were to receive no punishment for shooting at you and missing?", "timestamp": 1743086836 }, { "author": "_robjamesmusic", "id": "mk0qff8", "score": -7, "text": "Yeah. No one was harmed and it's ver...	[ { "author": "jweezy2045", "id": "mk0qh06", "score": 4, "text": "It’s not dangerous moral territory. In society, laws prevent things from happening that we don’t want happening. There are no morals issues with saying that we don’t want crimes to be attempted.", "timestamp": 1743087018 }, { ...	[ "mk0pu66", "mk0qff8", "mk0r00x" ]	[ "mk0qh06", "mk0qvpd", "mk0r412" ]
CMV: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified. One of the most fundamental rules of civilized warfare (at least as civilized as warfare can be) is that belligerent nations must not deliberately target noncombatants. The atomic bomb, however, is a uniquely destructive weapon with more potential to cause civilian casualties than any other. In the case of the two bombs that were dropped on Japan, over 66,000 died in Hiroshima and 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki just from the blasts. Several tens of thousands more would later die from radiation-induced sicknesses. While I am aware that these bombs were aimed at military targets, Truman and the other leaders responsible for the bombings must have known that a disproportionately large number of civilians would inevitably perish as a direct result of the bombs. This is, in my opinion, almost the same as targeting them intentionally. Because atomic bombs have such a high potential for causing civilian casualties, their use is only justified in my opinion if the country using them is threatened with equal or greater destruction. Japan in 1945 was simply not capable of threatening the United States in this manner. At that point in the war, the Imperial Japanese Army was a shadow of what it was in the 1930s and the Imperial Japanese Navy had been almost completely destroyed. As far as I know, Japan was not developing its own atomic bombs at the time and still doesn't have any of its own. Because of these facts, the use of the bombs on Japan was not proportionate to the threat that Japan presented to the United States. Despite the predictions for a higher death toll, a US invasion of Japan would have been a more ethical option because the vast majority of the civilian deaths that would have occurred would not have been intentional. Unlike atomic bombs, soldiers with guns are capable of limiting the civilian casualties they cause. Their targets would have been the Japanese troops who resisted them, and although tragic, the act of killing an enemy soldier is both morally and legally justified. It is an entirely different matter from killing a noncombatant. I also believe that the vast majority of American troops would not have gone out of their way to kill Japanese civilians who did not resist them. Any who did would have been tried and punished as war criminals. Finally, the invasion may not have even been necessary. There is speculation that Japan was already going to surrender after the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, which forced the already weakened Japanese Army to fight a two-front war. Any reasonable person in that situation would know that the only sensible course of action would be to surrender, and not all of the Japanese leaders were fanatics. The Emperor himself was sane enough to surrender after the bombs were dropped, for example. If he was sane enough to do this, then he would probably be sane enough to surrender in the face of overwhelming conventional force. But even if Japan didn't surrender because of Manchuria, the invasion of Japan would have been the more ethical option because of the reasons above. In short, I believe that the atomic bombings were unjustified because they were used with the knowledge that most of those who died because of them would be noncombatants, because their use was not proportionate to the threat that Japan presented to the US, and because Japan might have been about to surrender anyway.	>One of the most fundamental rules of civilized warfare (at least as civilized as warfare can be) is that belligerent nations must not deliberately target noncombatants There is no such thing as civilized warfare. The Axis countries were consistently bombing civilians as well as torturing, raping and killing citizens of conquered cities. This ignores the entire holocaust aspect of the war as well. > The atomic bomb, however, is a uniquely destructive weapon with more potential to cause civilian casualties than any other. In the case of the two bombs that were dropped on Japan, over 66,000 died in Hiroshima and 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki just from the blasts. Several tens of thousands more would later die from radiation-induced sicknesses. While I am aware that these bombs were aimed at military targets, Truman and the other leaders responsible for the bombings must have known that a disproportionately large number of civilians would inevitably perish as a direct result of the bombs. This is, in my opinion, almost the same as targeting them intentionally. The military targets were near civilian populations. That was a decision made by Japan. As was their decision to attack the United States. >Despite the predictions for a higher death toll, a US invasion of Japan would have been a more ethical option because the vast majority of the civilian deaths that would have occurred would not have been intentional. Why are the lives of Japanese people more important than the US? Japan decided to side with Germany. Japan decided to attack the United States. Japan decided not to surrender. Why should US citizens be killed so that we can "politely" end the war with Japan. Japan also committed countless atrocities and tortured and killed US prisoners of war. >Finally, the invasion may not have even been necessary. There is speculation that Japan was already going to surrender after the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, which forced the already weakened Japanese Army to fight a two-front war. That's a very easy stance to take 80 years after the war from the comfort of a library. --- The Japanese did commit some pretty heinous war crimes, true. But your argument seems to be that the fact they did these things justifies committing similar acts against them. It does not. It makes us no better. --- >The Japanese did commit some pretty heinous war crimes, true. But your argument seems to be that the fact they did these things justifies committing similar acts against them. It providing a fact based context as to what our soldiers were facing if we opted for a prolonged land invasion. It provides a real-life example of what acts were continuing to be carried out, every single day, that the war continued. The US was not conducting biowarfare experiments on captured soldiers, Japan was. Why should we be subjecting our citizens to that risk in the name of "civility"? --- This isn't about "civility," it's about upholding the principles of a just war, which is that you do not intentionally kill noncombatants. Even if your opponent doesn't follow the rules, you're no better if you don't. --- >you do not intentionally kill noncombatants. The existence of the atomic bomb is the ultimate demonstration of the meaninglessness of this argument. All it took was 2 men to drop little boy on Hiroshima. Probably could have been accomplished with 1. Well over 100k people worked on creating it at los Alamos. Woukd it have been unacceptable for the Japanese army to attack los alamos? Or did it only become acceptable once the fruits of that labor was placed in the hands of people tasked with deploying it? This isn't merely a hypothetical question. Read up on the [Norwegian heavy water sabotage](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage) for a specific example. Only 2 years earlier the sabotage of the nazi atomic weapons research program required multiple noncombatant deaths. What distinguishes a combatant from a noncombatant in a world where cities or more can be erased with a single bomb but creating said bomb requires a city?	The atomic bombings were 100% justified. Japan at the time was not ready to surrender unconditionally and there was a concern that a weapons demonstration would have not done the job. Such a demonstration would have detonated a nuclear weapon in a non-inhabited but observable area to compel Japan to surrender. And at that time where during the attack of Pearl Harbor, if the U.S decided to physically travel to Japan...it would not only be a "very costly invasion"...but most likely a one way ticket...again, not an option, as prisoners of war were treated horribly. The recent experience in the battles in Iwo Jima and Okinawa were very costly in terms of US and Japanese casualties, despite the destruction of the Japanese air force and navy. There was a widespread belief among American military planners that the Japanese would fight to the last man. Kamikaze Suicide attacks were fairly common, which at the time, had made a strong psychological impact on US military decision-makers who reckoned that the whole country would be mobilized to defend the home islands if necessary. And of course, The US military was unwilling to say it could win the war without the bomb, but that was VERY much the case. Unfortunate as it was, it also propelled countries into the atomic age for various benefits. Had the bomb not been dropped, due to the Japanese will to NOT surrender unconditionally, we would all be living in Man in The High Castle Times...basically, if Japan and Germany won, splitting the U.S in half... --- >Had the bomb not been dropped, due to the Japanese will to NOT surrender unconditionally, we would all be living in Man in The High Castle Times...basically, if Japan and Germany won, splitting the U.S in half... I was with you for most of of your post, but lets not pretend that the Atomic Bomb not working would have let Japan conquer the US. The Atomic Bomb was not the equivalent of throwing the Ring Into Mount Doom, something that saved the good guys at the very last moment from otherwise certain defeat.... Japan was already largely defeated on a strategic level, they just were not willing to throw in the towel, so the only question was how many people were going to die by bomb/starvation or invasion before they gave up. --- Who can truely say what might've been? Who knows if Japan would've been able to create their own type of Bomb, given they theoretically refuse to surrender and no Atomic threat from the U.S. Traveling to Japan to attack and then ensure the country wasn't in the midst of building their own bomb, not only would've greatly benefited the Japanese, but unless many of those ships back then had enough fuel to do a round trip...You get it. Back then, Japan was more advanced...so assuming there was no atomic bomb, Japan didn't want to surrender, what would've stopped them from doing the same thing to us. --- >Who can truely say what might've been? Who knows if Japan would've been able to create their own type of Bomb, given they theoretically refuse to surrender and no Atomic threat from the U.S. And how were they going to deliver said bomb given that they were blockaded by air and sea? >so assuming there was no atomic bomb, Japan didn't want to surrender, what would've stopped them from doing the same thing to us. Once again, the air and naval blockade. Remember, no ICBMs, and no suitcase nukes. Japan didn't even have a bomber large enough to carry a nuke to the US even if they made one... >Back then, Japan was more advanced... Japan got lucky with the long lance torpedo, the one thing they had better than the US. Other than that we had a better fighter (the Hellcat had a 19 to 1 kill ratio) we had better bombers (since we had one that could actually deliver a nuke) we had radar guided bombs, we had MUCH BETTER antiaircraft guns because we had proximity fuses and they didn't... How was Japan "more advanced" exactly? Also here was the ticking clock Japan was on even if we didn't nuke them, starvation... [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4p34oh/how\_serious\_a\_problem\_was\_starvation\_in\_japan\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4p34oh/how_serious_a_problem_was_starvation_in_japan_in/) >In a typical case that August \[1944\], well before the systematic destruction of urban centers by air raids, 30 percent of the work force at the Mitsubishi glass factory in Tsurumi was found to be suffering from beriberi \[a malnourishment disease\]. By 1945, food shortages were disrupting the war effort and rending the social fabric. Factory absenteeism rose nation-wide, in large part because workers took time off to bargain and barter for food in the countryside. By July \[1945\], absentee rates in major cities stood at 40 percent or more, with the food problem being cited as a major contributing factor. And >The average calorie intake per person had by this time \[late 1945\] declined to far less than deemed necessary even for an individual engaged in light work. Starvation would have brought Japan to its knees if a nuke didn't. In effect if WW2 was a bar fight, by mid 1945, the allies had Japan on the ground, the nukes were just a kick to the nuts that made them decide it was smarter to stay there than try to stand back up and force us to wallop them with a chair a few more times instead. --- Mainly their Airplanes. Way more advanced than the U.S at the time and that's not a secret. In terms of who had the better Air Force, it was not us back then. Now, sure...before, no. Again, unless you can see into the future, you can't say the Japanese didn't have when they eventually could've built..I understand what you're saying, but as time wouldve progressed, who's to say the Japanese would not have come up with some outrageous crazy plan to get back at the Americans. Who knows what they could've built!	shhw3j	CMV: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified.	One of the most fundamental rules of civilized warfare (at least as civilized as warfare can be) is that belligerent nations must not deliberately target noncombatants. The atomic bomb, however, is a uniquely destructive weapon with more potential to cause civilian casualties than any other. In the case of the two bombs that were dropped on Japan, over 66,000 died in Hiroshima and 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki just from the blasts. Several tens of thousands more would later die from radiation-induced sicknesses. While I am aware that these bombs were aimed at military targets, Truman and the other leaders responsible for the bombings must have known that a disproportionately large number of civilians would inevitably perish as a direct result of the bombs. This is, in my opinion, almost the same as targeting them intentionally. Because atomic bombs have such a high potential for causing civilian casualties, their use is only justified in my opinion if the country using them is threatened with equal or greater destruction. Japan in 1945 was simply not capable of threatening the United States in this manner. At that point in the war, the Imperial Japanese Army was a shadow of what it was in the 1930s and the Imperial Japanese Navy had been almost completely destroyed. As far as I know, Japan was not developing its own atomic bombs at the time and still doesn't have any of its own. Because of these facts, the use of the bombs on Japan was not proportionate to the threat that Japan presented to the United States. Despite the predictions for a higher death toll, a US invasion of Japan would have been a more ethical option because the vast majority of the civilian deaths that would have occurred would not have been intentional. Unlike atomic bombs, soldiers with guns are capable of limiting the civilian casualties they cause. Their targets would have been the Japanese troops who resisted them, and although tragic, the act of killing an enemy soldier is both morally and legally justified. It is an entirely different matter from killing a noncombatant. I also believe that the vast majority of American troops would not have gone out of their way to kill Japanese civilians who did not resist them. Any who did would have been tried and punished as war criminals. Finally, the invasion may not have even been necessary. There is speculation that Japan was already going to surrender after the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, which forced the already weakened Japanese Army to fight a two-front war. Any reasonable person in that situation would know that the only sensible course of action would be to surrender, and not all of the Japanese leaders were fanatics. The Emperor himself was sane enough to surrender after the bombs were dropped, for example. If he was sane enough to do this, then he would probably be sane enough to surrender in the face of overwhelming conventional force. But even if Japan didn't surrender because of Manchuria, the invasion of Japan would have been the more ethical option because of the reasons above. In short, I believe that the atomic bombings were unjustified because they were used with the knowledge that most of those who died because of them would be noncombatants, because their use was not proportionate to the threat that Japan presented to the US, and because Japan might have been about to surrender anyway.	TheRedBiker	5	5	[ { "author": "CountryMacJones", "id": "hv2ncwz", "score": 62, "text": ">One of the most fundamental rules of civilized warfare (at least as civilized as warfare can be) is that belligerent nations must not deliberately target noncombatants\n\nThere is no such thing as civilized warfare. The Axis coun...	[ { "author": "Obiwandkinobee", "id": "hv2ndo0", "score": 8, "text": "The atomic bombings were 100% justified.\n\n\nJapan at the time was not ready to surrender unconditionally and there was a concern that a weapons demonstration would have not done the job. Such a demonstration would have detonated a...	[ "hv2ncwz", "hv2p69i", "hv2td8t", "hv2v4fj", "hv48na9" ]	[ "hv2ndo0", "hv2nqi4", "hv2ob4v", "hv2pdud", "hv2q5oj" ]
CMV: Social media encourages extremist positions and radicalization 1. Most social media platforms serve as echo chambers either through implicit algorithms designed specifically around a user or through explicitly segregated communities like subreddits 2. Social media is easy to manipulate. One troll can have a huge impact, and organizations or governments take this to the next level with shills and bots. 3. Upvoting systems naturally favor extremist and clickbait views. Rational positions not only grab less attention, but do not inspire support. Extreme positions tend to get upvoted on YouTube, TikTok, etc. due to having a stronger emotional impact on the targeted group. 4. Extremists are the loudest online. Centrist positions critical of both sides gets attacked by extremists on both sides. 5. Social media distorts reality of users. The real world isn’t close to what each social media platform wants us to think. For example, Bernie didn’t sweep in 2020 like reddit was so assured of. Here’s some related sources: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/768319934/senate-report-russians-used-used-social-media-mostly-to-target-race-in-2016 https://apnews.com/8890210ce2ce4256a7df6e4ab65c33d3 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1WN23T https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveandriole/2019/10/11/mueller-was-right-again-this-time-its-russian-election-interference-with-social-media/amp/ https://youtu.be/tR_6dibpDfo https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/poi3.236 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/opinion/sunday/facebook-twitter-terrorism-extremism.amp.html https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Countering%20the%20Appeal%20of%20Extremism%20Online_1.pdf https://www.voxpol.eu/download/report/Unraveling-the-Impact-of-Social-Media-on-Extremism.pdf	[removed] --- Thank you for your points. I think that filtering your feed or banning others only exasperated the echo chamber problem. The solution is better education. We need to encourage critical minds that will be less susceptible to manipulation and group think. We also need to find some fix to social media as it is enabling extremism in its current state. --- Better education, hmm. How does teach someone how not to group think and be critical, I wonder? I would describe myself a pretty independent thinking person, but how do we pass that on to other people? Its not a classroom subject that can be tested, and we need to still respect peoples opinion and not put a boot on their neck to make them think what we want them to think. I just worry that in the quest to de-radicalize we would end up becoming radical. I feel like the whole engagement model of these sites needs to be changed where people are rewarded for good positive content, instead of easy negative content. As much as I hate twitter, I still go on daily to see what inane/insane thing people are talking about. And there might be an extreme case where people limit themselves on social media. Maybe even classifying social media addiction as a disease.	I think the problem is less the systems (although there [definitely are problems with some of the platform](https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.11211) whether they are intentional or not) and more a problem with people wanting to feel comfortable and reinforced. One of the things I like about this sub is that most people posting are looking to be challenged and will accept opposing arguments to expand their view on the issue. Allowing your positions to be challenged puts the user in a position of vulnerability that will make people uncomfortable. Social media allows for us to surround ourselves with people who will always agree with us and that tendency can push to further extremes. Of course, it also allows for us to interact with people who have differing and opposing viewpoints much more easily than IRL too. If you're willing to work through that discomfort, you can interact with a lot of people who have very different views and life experiences. I feel like I've learned a lot from interacting with people on Reddit from different places and people with different viewpoints, so I feel like the users choosing to entrench themselves and not step out of their comfort zone should share at least some of the blame for this problem. --- Unfortunately corners of social media like this subreddit are not the primary way most users interact with social media. I would say the overwhelming majority of users only surround themselves with like minded individuals, unless they are part of an outrage mob trying to cancel someone famous. --- My argument was that it is how people choose to act (i.e. choosing to avoid discomfort) that encourages extremism rather than the platform itself. So, I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing?	hel8dg	CMV: Social media encourages extremist positions and radicalization	1. Most social media platforms serve as echo chambers either through implicit algorithms designed specifically around a user or through explicitly segregated communities like subreddits 2. Social media is easy to manipulate. One troll can have a huge impact, and organizations or governments take this to the next level with shills and bots. 3. Upvoting systems naturally favor extremist and clickbait views. Rational positions not only grab less attention, but do not inspire support. Extreme positions tend to get upvoted on YouTube, TikTok, etc. due to having a stronger emotional impact on the targeted group. 4. Extremists are the loudest online. Centrist positions critical of both sides gets attacked by extremists on both sides. 5. Social media distorts reality of users. The real world isn’t close to what each social media platform wants us to think. For example, Bernie didn’t sweep in 2020 like reddit was so assured of. Here’s some related sources: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/768319934/senate-report-russians-used-used-social-media-mostly-to-target-race-in-2016 https://apnews.com/8890210ce2ce4256a7df6e4ab65c33d3 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1WN23T https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveandriole/2019/10/11/mueller-was-right-again-this-time-its-russian-election-interference-with-social-media/amp/ https://youtu.be/tR_6dibpDfo https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/poi3.236 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/opinion/sunday/facebook-twitter-terrorism-extremism.amp.html https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Countering%20the%20Appeal%20of%20Extremism%20Online_1.pdf https://www.voxpol.eu/download/report/Unraveling-the-Impact-of-Social-Media-on-Extremism.pdf	bazookatroopa	3	3	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "fvt3to0", "score": 2, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1592963549 }, { "author": "bazookatroopa", "id": "fvt7gt6", "score": 2, "text": "Thank you for your points. I think that filtering your feed or banning others only exasperated the echo cha...	[ { "author": "ishiiman0", "id": "fvrxwfk", "score": 49, "text": "I think the problem is less the systems (although there [definitely are problems with some of the platform](https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.11211) whether they are intentional or not) and more a problem with people wanting to feel comfortabl...	[ "fvt3to0", "fvt7gt6", "fvtac9x" ]	[ "fvrxwfk", "fvrybtj", "fvryv1q" ]
CMV: If you think a question in a post is too simple, you should scroll past it instead of saying “just google it” or “ask ChatGPT.” People don’t say this to me very often, but it’s annoying when they do. What I especially get annoyed by, though, is when I see people answer like this in hobby subreddits. It’s actually just a little heartbreaking when I see someone new to a hobby ask an admittedly beginner question to the group, only to be met with “just google it.” I remember being new to something. It’s exciting. You found something you really like, and better yet you’ve found that there are thousands, sometimes millions of people that also like it. What I also remember is that you don’t know what you don’t know. Whether you’re explicitly stating that you’re a newbie and you’re looking for input on where to go from where you are, or you’re just asking something that’s simpler than you know it to be, it’s pedantic, elitist, and unwelcoming to say “just google it.” I’m not even saying that you SHOULD say something else. Just keep scrolling if you can’t think of anything to say other than that. Let someone who hasn’t grown cynical provide some advice. You will find something that you want to interact with, that pleases where your level of knowledge is. I can understand telling someone to google something if you guide them toward what to google. I was talking to someone about working out and I knew that what he was referring to had to do with slow twitch and fast twitch muscle growth, and I knew the terms but I couldn’t speak confidently about the difference at that time, so I told him that that’s what he should look more into. That was my attempt to guide him in the right direction. I did not say just a general “just google muscle growth.” That would have been insulting. My understanding about Reddit is that it really is designed for conversation. That doesn’t mean every conversation is designed for me. That doesn’t mean every conversation will benefit from my input. If all I want to say is “google it,” I’m better off just saying nothing.	While I generally agree with you, in the spirit of the sub: Gathering your own information is an important skill to have and everyone’s time is important. If you make a post that is a simple question while that doesn’t break the rules per se of a sub. You’ve essentially wasted the time of every person who views your post. While that type of activity isn’t specifically bannable, it is right to be discouraged. --- Wasted how much time? 5 seconds to two minutes, depending on how long the post is and how much you choose to read? I feel like that can be totally forgiven. Gathering your own information is great. “Google it” is not an attempt to help people learn how to gather their own information. You don’t know what you don’t know. If someone is asking something that seems simple, they likely don’t know where to start, or they googled it and got a thousand responses and don’t know which is right, so they want to talk to the people that live in that thing. --- 2 minutes multiplied by the hundreds of times that the same basic questions get asked in some subs is quite a lot of time in the end. --- Why does that matter? Nobody is forcing anyone to be here or to read every question. --- It's a waste of everyone's time. --- Not if they scroll past it. A few seconds of wasted time is nothing. --- Times the amount of these posts, times the amount of people, equals a lot of time wasted. --- This is the second time someone has made this argument. I don’t get it at all. Time isn’t pulled from a pool of collective time that can run dry. It’s personal for every person. If you waste ten seconds of a hundred people’s time, that’s not 1000 seconds pulled from a pool that has a limited amount of time in it. That’s just ten seconds of 100 people’s days. --- Here's a way to help you visualize the point they're making with that. You would agree it would be wrong to kick the shins of some stranger unprovoked, yes? Now, would it be less wrong, equally wrong, or more wrong to kick the shins of a thousand people? There isn't some universal pool of shin being kicked, but it's still the multiplicity of a bad act, affecting more people. Law already works like this. 5 counts of a crime is sentenced more severely than one count. So if we accept multiplicity of a wrong increases the "wrongness", and that it's (very slightly) wrong to waste 10 seconds of someone's time, we must conclude it is 100 times more wrong to waste 100 people's time. This is their reasoning, anyways. I think it's at least logically valid.	As a counterpoint, one of the great joys of being new to a hobby is learning about it, and learning on your own is much more satisfying than being handed an answer. In the case that the question really is something that a novice will be able to figure out on their own with a google search, suggesting that they do so is providing them a path to that enjoyment. Why wouldn't we want to do that? Who knows what enjoyable rabbit holes we might deprive them of experiencing by just scrolling past. --- Sure. So guide them toward the answer. Tell them what to google. Don’t just say to google it. If you don’t want to do that, then say nothing. --- But in the case that it really is that simple, saying "just google it", where "it" is literally the question they've just asked in the post, is guiding them toward the answer. They already know what to google, and the only guidance they need is the assurance that it will produce the result they're looking for. Telling them to just google it gives that assurance. I think the problem here is that you're assuming that the phrase is always said in a mean spirited and condescending way, and while it is certainly true that it is sometimes used in that manner, that's not always the case. --- I’m assuming that it’s an attempt to prevent a conversation on a platform designed for conversation, so if someone wants to prevent that then I’m not sure why they’re here. Sure you can say “just google {that thing you asked about}”, but how does that serve the purpose of the platform? If you’re going to do that, why not just stay silent, not burden yourself with doing the work yourself for OP, and either leave the platform or find a post that you can actually contribute some knowledge to? Google gives thousands of answers, and there are actual experts and vets here on Reddit. Why not get the right answer directly from a source, if you can? --- And that's an inappropriate assumption. Again, it is sometimes used that way, but other times, it's not. It helps the conversation because it helps to develop a new member of the community. That person can get the easy stuff out of the way with that google search, then come back with more nuanced questions that promote better conversation. And the other half of it is that just giving the same answer that google would give isn't conversation. It's a single question asked and answered, and don't really give the community anything to talk about. Encouraging that kind of question to be handled elsewhere improves the overall quality of the sub in question. --- And if you don’t think the question is nuanced enough, you can just scroll past it. --- But that's back to depriving the asker of the joy of figuring it out for themselves, and it's failing to do your part to improve the quality of the conversation. --- So if someone asks a question that you view as too simple, and others engage with it in ways that create a nice conversation, you’d improve the quality of the conversation by recommending that OP Google it? --- If others have already engaged, then there's no need, but "just google it" is a reasonable response out of the gate.	1jkgicm	CMV: If you think a question in a post is too simple, you should scroll past it instead of saying “just google it” or “ask ChatGPT.”	People don’t say this to me very often, but it’s annoying when they do. What I especially get annoyed by, though, is when I see people answer like this in hobby subreddits. It’s actually just a little heartbreaking when I see someone new to a hobby ask an admittedly beginner question to the group, only to be met with “just google it.” I remember being new to something. It’s exciting. You found something you really like, and better yet you’ve found that there are thousands, sometimes millions of people that also like it. What I also remember is that you don’t know what you don’t know. Whether you’re explicitly stating that you’re a newbie and you’re looking for input on where to go from where you are, or you’re just asking something that’s simpler than you know it to be, it’s pedantic, elitist, and unwelcoming to say “just google it.” I’m not even saying that you SHOULD say something else. Just keep scrolling if you can’t think of anything to say other than that. Let someone who hasn’t grown cynical provide some advice. You will find something that you want to interact with, that pleases where your level of knowledge is. I can understand telling someone to google something if you guide them toward what to google. I was talking to someone about working out and I knew that what he was referring to had to do with slow twitch and fast twitch muscle growth, and I knew the terms but I couldn’t speak confidently about the difference at that time, so I told him that that’s what he should look more into. That was my attempt to guide him in the right direction. I did not say just a general “just google muscle growth.” That would have been insulting. My understanding about Reddit is that it really is designed for conversation. That doesn’t mean every conversation is designed for me. That doesn’t mean every conversation will benefit from my input. If all I want to say is “google it,” I’m better off just saying nothing.	Golem_of_the_Oak	9	9	[ { "author": "OldTiredGamer86", "id": "mjv12w2", "score": 3, "text": "While I generally agree with you, in the spirit of the sub:\n\nGathering your own information is an important skill to have and everyone’s time is important. \n\nIf you make a post that is a simple question while that doesn’t break...	[ { "author": "XenoRyet", "id": "mjv2vvi", "score": 5, "text": "As a counterpoint, one of the great joys of being new to a hobby is learning about it, and learning on your own is much more satisfying than being handed an answer.\n\nIn the case that the question really is something that a novice will b...	[ "mjv12w2", "mjv1upp", "mjv5j7i", "mjv63pr", "mjv7mys", "mjv7zc6", "mjv8u5x", "mjv979i", "mjwbrwb" ]	[ "mjv2vvi", "mjv36xh", "mjv447v", "mjv51r5", "mjv76ec", "mjv7e45", "mjv7mdm", "mjv7vgr", "mjv8e3d" ]
CMV: "Reversing" discrimination is great, as long as it is proportional, and effectively resolves discrimination in the past. This always seemed like common sense to me. If I have 120 dollars total, and I give person A 100 dollars, and person B 20 dollars, the right thing to do to fix this injustice would be to take 40 dollars from person A, leaving both people with 60 dollars. I think most would agree this is good and fair. Let's say I hire 100 people, all white people, because I'm a huge racist. And my country is, lets say, only about 60% white. If my successor adjusts the hiring priorities until our employees now are 60% white, 40% people of color, so the workforce now better reflects the demographics of the country, this strikes me as fair, and of benefit to both society overall and the interests of justice. If you discriminate in one direction, it seems like your choices are either 1) ignore it or 2) redistribute resources in the other direction to fix it.	> If you discriminate in one direction, it seems like your choices are either 1) ignore it or 2) redistribute resources in the other direction to fix it. Why do you not include option 3 -- stop the discrimination and distribute fairly moving forward? It's like you said your solution and the worst possible solution are the only two options intentionally? --- That seems like option 2) to me, because you are redistributing resources in the other direction to fix discrimination that occurred in the past. --- Let's use your example -- > If I have 120 dollars total, and I give person A 100 dollars, and person B 20 dollars, the right thing to do to fix this injustice would be to take 40 dollars from person A, leaving both people with 60 dollars. This is your option 2 - redistribute "the other direction" Option 3 is - everyone who got money already keeps what they have but moving forward everyone will always get an equal share of all money distributed. --- That seems like option 1) ignore it. You are doing nothing to resolve the original injustice. Assuming they are paid equally from that point out, Person A will always have more money than Person B. --- It's not option 1. You said option 1 was ignore it. Option 3 is not ignoring it. It is recognizing the wrong but simply fixing it moving forward, not retroactively. First you said there was no option 3. Then you said option 3 was the sam as option 2 -- it wasn't. Then you said option 3 is the same as option 1. --- Option 3 prevents it from reoccurring in the future, which is good, but it doesnt address or repair the original harm, so that counts as ignoring it to me, since nothing was done to "resolve the discrimination of the past" per my title. --- Person A didn't do anything wrong. They didn't distribute the money. You can either do reparations to person B, which would be giving them $80 or be fair in the future. Being fair in the future *is* doing something. Take Red lining. They made the Fair Housing Act. This made red lining illegal. According to you this is "ignoring it". Yet look today. We can clearly see the positive effects of the legislation.	>If I have 120 dollars total, and I give person A 100 dollars, and person B 20 dollars, the right thing to do to fix this injustice would be to take 40 dollars from person A, leaving both people with 60 dollars. I think most would agree this is good and fair. The argument is that you give B 80 dollars to make up the difference. A may have benefited from the discrimination, but they shouldn’t suffer from retroactive policies if they didn’t engage in the discrimination. If our purpose here is to level the playing field, you don’t bring the highest variable down. You raise the lowest variable up. --- But I only have 120 dollars total, can't make up 80 more dollars out of thin air. --- And for THAT specific scenario you'd be correct with your options, but the real world won't always work like that --- In the real world we are also limited by finite resources though. --- Yes but as has been proven time and time again, 90%+ of companies can easily pay everyone who works there more --- Oh sure, I totally agree on that front. I definitely think all types of communities are underserved essentially, we don't need to fund white communities less than we are now. But I do think if we're going to double the budget to fund healthcare or education for example, we should focus on the most underserved communities which, for historical reasons, would be primarily of races that were discriminated against. --- Oh yeah whoever needs help more should get it first for sure I agree on that	192hcz0	CMV: "Reversing" discrimination is great, as long as it is proportional, and effectively resolves discrimination in the past.	This always seemed like common sense to me. If I have 120 dollars total, and I give person A 100 dollars, and person B 20 dollars, the right thing to do to fix this injustice would be to take 40 dollars from person A, leaving both people with 60 dollars. I think most would agree this is good and fair. Let's say I hire 100 people, all white people, because I'm a huge racist. And my country is, lets say, only about 60% white. If my successor adjusts the hiring priorities until our employees now are 60% white, 40% people of color, so the workforce now better reflects the demographics of the country, this strikes me as fair, and of benefit to both society overall and the interests of justice. If you discriminate in one direction, it seems like your choices are either 1) ignore it or 2) redistribute resources in the other direction to fix it.	Plastic-Abroc67a8282	7	7	[ { "author": "DoubleGreat44", "id": "kh2a8zs", "score": 6, "text": "> If you discriminate in one direction, it seems like your choices are either 1) ignore it or 2) redistribute resources in the other direction to fix it.\n\nWhy do you not include option 3 -- stop the discrimination and distribute fa...	[ { "author": "DeltaBlues82", "id": "kh2avv0", "score": 18, "text": ">If I have 120 dollars total, and I give person A 100 dollars, and person B 20 dollars, the right thing to do to fix this injustice would be to take 40 dollars from person A, leaving both people with 60 dollars. I think most would ag...	[ "kh2a8zs", "kh2apfe", "kh2bd6c", "kh2bu1w", "kh2cotu", "kh2dfzd", "kh2oopc" ]	[ "kh2avv0", "kh2az6a", "kh2cvd0", "kh2f52u", "kh2falw", "kh2gb4e", "kh2gj2v" ]
CMV: The LGBTQ+ community is going about gaining acceptance wrong and is treating symptoms instead of trying to cure the underlying problem. From my albeit limited knowledge of the community as a whole and its inner workings I see a number groups of people who feel disenfranchised banding together with their loved ones to portray themselves as a larger, singular group to gain representation in the political arena. This is fine if they can keep their message clear and universal and don't devolve into tribalism or office politics within their own group. Which does not seem to be the case. Often fractures form because of past grievances, inherit bias, attempts to quantify the whole by the beliefs of the majority, exclusion of groups, and the inability to create a focused message that has universal appeal. Many lesbians and gay men have had issues in the past and were often critical of each other but put those aside (for the most part) to stand as the foundation of the group. The Trans community is newer and is still in a fracture form with older generations wanting to retain their identity under the term transsexual, and younger generations wanting to go to the term transgendered. They also seem to argue over when one can claim the mantle of trans with some insisting of full transition (hormones, surgery, and even going as far as changing the speech and mannerisms) and others wanting to be able to just declare their identity. As well as a lot of in-between levels. The infighting is something that seems to cause a lot of headaches in the community while weakening their unity and message. There are also communities that seem adjacent but get denied by the lgbtq+ community for a lot of the same reasons they were rejected in some circles of the larger society. Other-kin (Furries to those that are unfamiliar though the term in considered by them to be as offensive as tranny or fagget by the trans and gay community respectively) are often treated as a fetish group or degenerates. This is the same treatment that these groups were once treated with by the mainstream populace. There are even lesser known groups like trans-racials that are probably best known with Rachel Dolezal. Often the cited reasoning behind not giving their group recognition is that they are culturally appropriating and never had to endure the suffering that others born into the group did. This seems to be a point of contention between biological women and trans-women but while I'll agree the argument has some merit the issue is not what I'm arguing so I'll leave it to other discussions to settle. The issue of race and racism does have underlying similarity to the lgbtq+ movement, at least as far as the potential endpoint of eliminating discrimination, but there seems to be little solidarity shared between the groups and if they could combine their efforts and treat each other as equals then they might be able to more easily enact change in they would be happier with. If instead of each taking their community as a whole and demanding representation and legal protection from discrimination they decided to be more inclusive with an ideal that protects everyone from discrimination based on appearance, lifestyle choices, and what they do in the bedroom and with whom (as long as it is consensual and non-harmful) then would likely have enough political clout to achieve their goals. Not only would that protect them but other groups like polygamist, and even groups that might arise in the future like people who have genetic or cybernetic alterations or digital intelligences will have a underlying foundation of rights to not be discriminated against without having to go through the whole struggle of getting public attention to their existence, being treated as sub-human, being attacked for nothing more than being themselves, appealing to lawmakers for change, protesting in the streets, being attacked again and again letting the politicians look bad through martyrdom and finally having to settle on some crappy compromise that you can cling to as a victory but doesn't really change anything much and instead relies on the court of public opinion to keep you from suffering the worst of it too publicly because your group is too small to affect the real change needed.	The trans community isn’t “newer.” Pride was started by trans women. All this says to me is, “I don’t know the actual history of the LGBT movement.” Here’s a trans woman, Sylvia Rivera, talking about trans struggles within the LGBT movement in 1973. https://youtu.be/Jb-JIOWUw1o You’re also kidding yourself if you think other movements (like racial movements) are any more unified. Like... they’re not. Virtually every social movement is just as fractious as the LGBT movement. Also, the thing you’re proposing the LGBT movement do... is what they’re doing. They’re a wide swath representing all peoples who face marginalization as a result of sexual deviation. They’re literally laying the foundation for any sexual minority to not face discrimination. --- You are right that I don't know much of the history of the movement. To be honest I don't know if I'm willing to even try to learn. What I am saying is that instead of focusing on being a group that focuses on discrimination on the bases of sexual deviation they should combine their efforts with any other group that is attempting to fight discrimination in other forms that isn't looking to spread it (hate groups) or excuse wrong doing and band together into a new group to fight discrimination with over reaching laws that grant all equal protection and allows for the later exclusion of groups (for example pedophiles or sex offenders) based on reasoned debate instead of fear mongering and popular votes. --- ... this is what LGBT advocacy groups do though. [Here is an article](https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/05/30/75-lgbt-groups-coalition-support-black-lives-matter-glaad-trevor-project-human-rights-watch/) about them working with BLM for example. See also [here](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/lgbtq-pride-protest-black-lives-matter-1011734/). The HRC works in partnership with other groups on [immigration and asylum](https://www.hrc.org/resources/immigration-refugee-and-asylum) and on [economic inequality](https://www.hrc.org/blog/hrc-president-alphonso-david-releases-corporate-equality-index-at-world-eco). They also partner with [Mental Health America on mental health issues](https://www.mhanational.org/blog/minority-mental-health-notacharacterflaw).	There is a lot going on in this post. What exactly is the view that you want challenged? That the LGBTQ movement isn’t gaining acceptance in the right way? Or that the community is too fractured to affect change? --- Essentially both. if they message was more oriented toward something like a constitutional amendment that protects from discrimination and non-equal treatment for all people instead of trying to get protection for their selves then that would be a goal that would be more inclusion to each group and would better gain the momentum of these groups. Start with the premise of all people should be equal under the law and decide who should be excluded and for what reasons and instead or just leaving it up to votes of majority leave it to well reasoned debate. --- Well, every activism issue is this way, not just the LGBTQ movement. Of course intersectionality can be useful, but legislation (at least in the US) is often focused on a particular issue. As an example, vegan activists work toward ending animal cruelty. Sure they can also be concerned with things like worked exploitation that might be affected by the agricultural industry. Someone who is pro choice works toward abortion access. They might also be concerned with race issues since minorities often have more difficulty accessing adequate healthcare. But if all activists were worried about all issues, it would be impossible to affect change. Whether it is good or bad, no group is monolithic. So trying to join ALL groups together would only lead to more disagreement. Not sure how old you are, but this was an issue with the Occupy movement. On the one hand, it was great to see diverse groups come together, the movement fell apart because as more groups joined, there was no singular goal the movement was working towards so it became very fragmented.	henao6	CMV: The LGBTQ+ community is going about gaining acceptance wrong and is treating symptoms instead of trying to cure the underlying problem.	From my albeit limited knowledge of the community as a whole and its inner workings I see a number groups of people who feel disenfranchised banding together with their loved ones to portray themselves as a larger, singular group to gain representation in the political arena. This is fine if they can keep their message clear and universal and don't devolve into tribalism or office politics within their own group. Which does not seem to be the case. Often fractures form because of past grievances, inherit bias, attempts to quantify the whole by the beliefs of the majority, exclusion of groups, and the inability to create a focused message that has universal appeal. Many lesbians and gay men have had issues in the past and were often critical of each other but put those aside (for the most part) to stand as the foundation of the group. The Trans community is newer and is still in a fracture form with older generations wanting to retain their identity under the term transsexual, and younger generations wanting to go to the term transgendered. They also seem to argue over when one can claim the mantle of trans with some insisting of full transition (hormones, surgery, and even going as far as changing the speech and mannerisms) and others wanting to be able to just declare their identity. As well as a lot of in-between levels. The infighting is something that seems to cause a lot of headaches in the community while weakening their unity and message. There are also communities that seem adjacent but get denied by the lgbtq+ community for a lot of the same reasons they were rejected in some circles of the larger society. Other-kin (Furries to those that are unfamiliar though the term in considered by them to be as offensive as tranny or fagget by the trans and gay community respectively) are often treated as a fetish group or degenerates. This is the same treatment that these groups were once treated with by the mainstream populace. There are even lesser known groups like trans-racials that are probably best known with Rachel Dolezal. Often the cited reasoning behind not giving their group recognition is that they are culturally appropriating and never had to endure the suffering that others born into the group did. This seems to be a point of contention between biological women and trans-women but while I'll agree the argument has some merit the issue is not what I'm arguing so I'll leave it to other discussions to settle. The issue of race and racism does have underlying similarity to the lgbtq+ movement, at least as far as the potential endpoint of eliminating discrimination, but there seems to be little solidarity shared between the groups and if they could combine their efforts and treat each other as equals then they might be able to more easily enact change in they would be happier with. If instead of each taking their community as a whole and demanding representation and legal protection from discrimination they decided to be more inclusive with an ideal that protects everyone from discrimination based on appearance, lifestyle choices, and what they do in the bedroom and with whom (as long as it is consensual and non-harmful) then would likely have enough political clout to achieve their goals. Not only would that protect them but other groups like polygamist, and even groups that might arise in the future like people who have genetic or cybernetic alterations or digital intelligences will have a underlying foundation of rights to not be discriminated against without having to go through the whole struggle of getting public attention to their existence, being treated as sub-human, being attacked for nothing more than being themselves, appealing to lawmakers for change, protesting in the streets, being attacked again and again letting the politicians look bad through martyrdom and finally having to settle on some crappy compromise that you can cling to as a victory but doesn't really change anything much and instead relies on the court of public opinion to keep you from suffering the worst of it too publicly because your group is too small to affect the real change needed.	Isekai_litrpg	3	3	[ { "author": "_samah_", "id": "fvsahao", "score": 13, "text": "The trans community isn’t “newer.” Pride was started by trans women.\n\nAll this says to me is, “I don’t know the actual history of the LGBT movement.”\n\nHere’s a trans woman, Sylvia Rivera, talking about trans struggles within the LGBT ...	[ { "author": "justtrollingkindness", "id": "fvscb91", "score": 4, "text": "There is a lot going on in this post. What exactly is the view that you want challenged? That the LGBTQ movement isn’t gaining acceptance in the right way? Or that the community is too fractured to affect change?", "timest...	[ "fvsahao", "fvsgmbi", "fvsnfo9" ]	[ "fvscb91", "fvsez9n", "fvsfw0f" ]
CMV: People who talk about how bad the world is are actively contributing to the problems they complain about. The people who will go on social media to complain about an article they just read and the bad social implications, or talk about how the world is terrible and there are just so many bad things that can never be changed are unbelievable hypocrites. They're just contributing to pessimism about the world and drawing conclusions primarily based on echo chambers to make other people think the world is in an awful place. They never actively fight for a cause or support a movement in a substantial way, and they're not bringing anything to light that wasn't already common knowledge. On top of that, the least you could do is start insightful conversation on the state of politics or the economy or social issues, but they never do. They just complain. So in the process of doing nothing but complaining, they end up making the world around them slightly worse every time they do.	What if my complaint is, "The world is bad because people don't complain enough"? --- I absolutely understand raising concerns about issues. It's totally a valid and legitimate thing to have issues with the way things are. However, I believe 'complaining', in the essence of the word, is just not constructive. Perhaps we view complaining differently, but the proper way to voice your complaints is to start a dialogue, not to publically rant. --- But whether or not you think it's constructive is irrelevant to whether or not I'm contributing to the problems I'm complaining about. --- I see where you're coming from, but hear me out. If someone is just lamenting about the issues of the world, they're only going to make people feel like the world is a far worse place than it really is. They're feeding the beast with pessimism, and as a result, it makes the problem worse. For instance: You're really annoyed with an issue, say US immigration policy, and so every day we go out to grab a bite to eat or play a game of golf you bring up how horrible the government is and how they never get anything done and with the people in office right now the country's doomed. You'll bring it up to whoever comes with us whenever there's a lull in the conversation. All you're doing is making people feel like the government is an awful band of people who have done nothing good for immigration policy, even though that's not really the case. Making people feel like the issues are worse than they are and that we're hopeless to find a solution is only making things worse because you're destroying morale. --- >they're only going to make people feel like the world is a far worse place than it really is. Even if that was the case, it just might motivate the listener to do something about it. Thus, their complaining would have indirectly made the world better and helped solve the problem they were complaining about. The main issue I see with your assertion here is that it's based on a hypothetical situation that can go both ways. Sure, complaining might just create an feedback loop of negativity, but it might be the perspective somebody needed to realize that a problem existed or was worth caring about.	I would argue that the act of complaining, while annoying to you, has a net positive to that person's mental health, because they are able to vent and receive sympathy for their frustrations. So the person complaining is in effect, improving the world by improving their personal mood, enabling them to focus on the things they need to focus on. --- ∆ Gotta give you the delta on this one. Very unique point of view. Well put :) --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/firingallcylinders ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/firingallcylinders)). ^[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": "firingallcylinders" } DB3PARAMSEND)	60ifxr	CMV: People who talk about how bad the world is are actively contributing to the problems they complain about.	The people who will go on social media to complain about an article they just read and the bad social implications, or talk about how the world is terrible and there are just so many bad things that can never be changed are unbelievable hypocrites. They're just contributing to pessimism about the world and drawing conclusions primarily based on echo chambers to make other people think the world is in an awful place. They never actively fight for a cause or support a movement in a substantial way, and they're not bringing anything to light that wasn't already common knowledge. On top of that, the least you could do is start insightful conversation on the state of politics or the economy or social issues, but they never do. They just complain. So in the process of doing nothing but complaining, they end up making the world around them slightly worse every time they do.	Redsecurity	5	3	[ { "author": "PreacherJudge", "id": "df6mqdi", "score": 5, "text": "What if my complaint is, \"The world is bad because people don't complain enough\"?", "timestamp": 1490036504 }, { "author": "Redsecurity", "id": "df6n0vk", "score": 1, "text": "I absolutely understand raising...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "df6plfp", "score": 2, "text": "I would argue that the act of complaining, while annoying to you, has a net positive to that person's mental health, because they are able to vent and receive sympathy for their frustrations. So the person complaining is in effect, imp...	[ "df6mqdi", "df6n0vk", "df6n4t7", "df6p215", "df6pnth" ]	[ "df6plfp", "df6qbwt", "df6qdzf" ]
CMV: The drama with the antiwork sub isn't isolated, but is rather a mirror of reddit in general For those who aren't aware, the founder (or one of the founders) of the antiwork sub turned out to be a 30 year old dog walker who has little to no formal education or work experience. After she was removed, the next leader to step forward was a "long time unemployed" 21 year old anarchist, again with no real education or work experience. These were the folks who were deciding what should be allowed, who should be allowed, and lecturing people on the evils of work. Through the drama, it turned out other mods were similar in their work experience and came from a similar sphere, one even being a roommate. I believe this event allowed us to look into the looking glass of reddit overall. There are young, inexperienced, and often uneducated people as mods across the many subs who are deciding what is and isn't racist, what is and isn't sexist, what is and isn't transphobic, or whatever their favorite -ist or -phobic is to such an extent that real meaningful conversation is muted. I've seen the process of selecting new mods in my 8+ years here and it usually involves two basic selection criteria. 1) Do you have significant time to dedicate to a volunteer gig? 2) Have you contributed positively to the community for a considerable amount of time, which generally is a scrub of contributions to ensure that you have helped to make the sub an echo chamber based on the echoes the current mods like to hear. While there are plenty of good moderators out there, it seems that the system of selecting mods lends itself to Doreenism and it would be almost impossible for her to be more typical than atypical as a mod. Change my view, and I would be particularly interested in hearing why I am wrong from the mods of this sub (who I suspect are extremely good), but more importantly the mods of other boutique subs.	>There are young, inexperienced, and often uneducated people as mods across the many subs who are deciding what is and isn't racist, what is and isn't sexist, what is and isn't transphobic, or whatever their favorite -ist or -phobic is to such an extent that real meaningful conversation is muted. Do you not want these people to make decisions themselves? Who should they defer to? Where's the problem with every sub setting its own standards? --- > Do you not want these people to make decisions themselves? Who should they defer to? Combining these, I am not particularly trying to say what is or isn't right for reddit. My statement is more that this is the reality that reddit has created. [The 9th most popular website](https://ahrefs.com/blog/most-visited-websites/) has created a system where, if my hypothesis is correct, mostly uneducated and inexperienced people are deciding what is and isn't allowable speech. It seems like reddit owes it to their users and investors to create site-wide standards that paid moderators, not volunteers, are paid to enforce. > Where's the problem with every sub setting its own standards? Facebook, Twitter, and other sites have created site-wide standards and rely on user reporting and AI to have paid employees ultimately enforce those standards. Even though those standards are heavily debated in society, they are transparent, relatively predictable, and ultimately the moderators are accountable to the company and the shareholders. With reddit, the opposite is true. That may have worked okay 8 years ago, but as it grows in popularity and becomes public it will no longer work. --- > It seems like reddit owes it to their users and investors to create site-wide standards that paid moderators, not volunteers, are paid to enforce. That's completely unworkable. Anyone on Reddit can start a subreddit dedicated to basically any topic. Reddit simply couldn't function if it had to hire someone to mod the subreddit I start tomorrow about ketamine and women with daddy issues. And even if it could people wouldn't want it. People on Reddit don't like the jannies but they really don't like the admins and more micromanaging from a website with financial ties to unsavory partners isn't something most Redditors want. Now you might say, maybe Reddit hires professional mods for its largest subs but that causes its own problems. That creates a two-tiered system where larger subs have professional mods who apply standards a little more evenly but are fundamentally motivated by fulfilling their obligations to Reddit not the user of the sub, and smaller subs that have more leeway in applying rules but are still fickle and beholdened to few people.	[deleted] --- I think he is saying the people who run reddit at the 'coalface' are generally uneducated busybodies getting dopamine hits by banning people. --- [deleted]	sh9t1i	CMV: The drama with the antiwork sub isn't isolated, but is rather a mirror of reddit in general	For those who aren't aware, the founder (or one of the founders) of the antiwork sub turned out to be a 30 year old dog walker who has little to no formal education or work experience. After she was removed, the next leader to step forward was a "long time unemployed" 21 year old anarchist, again with no real education or work experience. These were the folks who were deciding what should be allowed, who should be allowed, and lecturing people on the evils of work. Through the drama, it turned out other mods were similar in their work experience and came from a similar sphere, one even being a roommate. I believe this event allowed us to look into the looking glass of reddit overall. There are young, inexperienced, and often uneducated people as mods across the many subs who are deciding what is and isn't racist, what is and isn't sexist, what is and isn't transphobic, or whatever their favorite -ist or -phobic is to such an extent that real meaningful conversation is muted. I've seen the process of selecting new mods in my 8+ years here and it usually involves two basic selection criteria. 1) Do you have significant time to dedicate to a volunteer gig? 2) Have you contributed positively to the community for a considerable amount of time, which generally is a scrub of contributions to ensure that you have helped to make the sub an echo chamber based on the echoes the current mods like to hear. While there are plenty of good moderators out there, it seems that the system of selecting mods lends itself to Doreenism and it would be almost impossible for her to be more typical than atypical as a mod. Change my view, and I would be particularly interested in hearing why I am wrong from the mods of this sub (who I suspect are extremely good), but more importantly the mods of other boutique subs.	NoFunHere	3	3	[ { "author": "Madauras", "id": "hv198ek", "score": 221, "text": ">There are young, inexperienced, and often uneducated people as mods across the many subs who are deciding what is and isn't racist, what is and isn't sexist, what is and isn't transphobic, or whatever their favorite -ist or -phobic is ...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "hv189x8", "score": 2, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1643657893 }, { "author": "tirikai", "id": "hv18jsb", "score": 4, "text": "I think he is saying the people who run reddit at the 'coalface' are generally uneducated busybodies getting dopa...	[ "hv198ek", "hv1d3z8", "hv1gv7w" ]	[ "hv189x8", "hv18jsb", "hv18p8a" ]
CMV: Unions Are No Longer A Net Positive Hey friends, I’m open to being wrong about this because it’s gotten to a point when friends who work in unions are so loudly outspoken about their views and aggressively deny any -what I would deem valid- points I make. I’m genuinely willing to be wrong, I just haven’t been convinced yet. I worked in a Canadian union on the east coast for about a year and found the stereotype of “protecting the lazy” to be true. A union member was caught napping in an inconspicuous location and was sent home for the day. He filed a grievance with his shop steward that he was tired and not being given adequate breaks. (We were given a paid 30 minute break, a paid 20 minute break and a paid 30 minute lunch on an 8 hour day, not including the paid lunch). His union fought for him, got him paid in full for that day and an additional 20 minute paid break. Make that make sense? There’s also quite often an unearned sense of entitlement that many -not all- union members have that they’re untouchable. I find unions promote seniority over meritocracy often. When strikes happen, it’s often because they aren’t getting the raises they want, so they’re legally able to not work, disrupt service and prevent hiring new employees or bringing in scabs. My view is that if you’re told no, it’s wildly childish to hamstring a company into giving you what you want: 1. When it’s not earned and 2. when the money may not be there to give every employee a raise. Seeing this, I absolutely understand why companies don’t want staff to unionize. When I bring any of this up to friends, it’s just met with “but solidarity, but collective bargaining, but that’s not ALL unions” I say this while acknowledging that unions have done incredible work and that’s why we have child labour laws, a five day work week and many protections for workplace safety. With all of this said, what purpose do they serve in today’s workforce? Some will say it’s to keep CEO wages in check but that’s clearly not working even in unionized workplaces. Looking forward to this and absolutely willing in good faith to be wrong.	"When strikes happen, it’s often because they aren’t getting the raises they want, so they’re legally able to not work, disrupt service and prevent hiring new employees or bringing in scabs. My view is that if you’re told no, it’s wildly childish to hamstring a company into giving you what you want: 1. When it’s not earned and 2. when the money may not be there to give every employee a raise. Seeing this, I absolutely understand why companies don’t want staff to unionize." Then why are you part of a union if not to engage in collective barganing? You can't really be arguing in good faith that its unfair that workers demand fair compensation and raises to account for rising costs of living. --- That’s where the disparity is. Obviously union positions have negotiated much higher rates so when I see a union striking over wage stagnation but they’re making 2.5x minimum wage, it’s not really an unfair wage they’re being paid. --- I think the point you should be focusing on is rent seeking behavior. Look at the port unions and teamsters. A small number of people made themselves middle men, and extort money from everyone d else, preventing automation and other things that are a net benefit to everyone else. Unions can, and usually do, have the same monopolist and anti-competitive behaviors of everyone else. We need to break up excessively large and powerful ones.	So I think your biggest and most real gripe here is about the strikes, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way. You say it's childish, wildly childish even, to strike when being told no after asking for a raise. That door swings both ways though. Why does the company get to say no to a proposed compensation agreement, and that's a totally legitimate thing, but if the workers say no, it's wildly childish? The whole point is to put the workers and owners/managers on equal footing. Without a union, owners and managers can just refuse to participate in negotiations, and you get fired if you don't like it. With the union, the workers get that same power, and can "fire" the owners if they don't like the deal. That's what a strike is, preventing the owners from doing their jobs and earning their money, just like firing a worker is preventing that worker from doing their job and earning their money. That equality means everyone has to come to the negotiating table in good faith. And the kicker there is that if you are an employer who is doing that anyway, then having your folks unionize isn't a threat to you. We can get into your other points in a bit, but I think we need to settle this aspect first. --- Hint. They aren’t arguing in good faith --- Who isn't arguing in good faith, and what makes you say that they aren't? Either way, the point stands. In a system that puts both sides on equal footing, even if both parties come to the table in bad faith, you still eventually get to the good result.	1l2o0n2	CMV: Unions Are No Longer A Net Positive	Hey friends, I’m open to being wrong about this because it’s gotten to a point when friends who work in unions are so loudly outspoken about their views and aggressively deny any -what I would deem valid- points I make. I’m genuinely willing to be wrong, I just haven’t been convinced yet. I worked in a Canadian union on the east coast for about a year and found the stereotype of “protecting the lazy” to be true. A union member was caught napping in an inconspicuous location and was sent home for the day. He filed a grievance with his shop steward that he was tired and not being given adequate breaks. (We were given a paid 30 minute break, a paid 20 minute break and a paid 30 minute lunch on an 8 hour day, not including the paid lunch). His union fought for him, got him paid in full for that day and an additional 20 minute paid break. Make that make sense? There’s also quite often an unearned sense of entitlement that many -not all- union members have that they’re untouchable. I find unions promote seniority over meritocracy often. When strikes happen, it’s often because they aren’t getting the raises they want, so they’re legally able to not work, disrupt service and prevent hiring new employees or bringing in scabs. My view is that if you’re told no, it’s wildly childish to hamstring a company into giving you what you want: 1. When it’s not earned and 2. when the money may not be there to give every employee a raise. Seeing this, I absolutely understand why companies don’t want staff to unionize. When I bring any of this up to friends, it’s just met with “but solidarity, but collective bargaining, but that’s not ALL unions” I say this while acknowledging that unions have done incredible work and that’s why we have child labour laws, a five day work week and many protections for workplace safety. With all of this said, what purpose do they serve in today’s workforce? Some will say it’s to keep CEO wages in check but that’s clearly not working even in unionized workplaces. Looking forward to this and absolutely willing in good faith to be wrong.	hawdawgz	3	3	[ { "author": "nekomawler", "id": "mvuddk3", "score": 11, "text": "\"When strikes happen, it’s often because they aren’t getting the raises they want, so they’re legally able to not work, disrupt service and prevent hiring new employees or bringing in scabs. My view is that if you’re told no, it’s wil...	[ { "author": "XenoRyet", "id": "mvuglkk", "score": 4, "text": "So I think your biggest and most real gripe here is about the strikes, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way.\n\nYou say it's childish, wildly childish even, to strike when being told no after asking for a raise. That door swing...	[ "mvuddk3", "mvuq9zz", "mvusqv6" ]	[ "mvuglkk", "mvujkpd", "mvukrm8" ]
CMV: If you don't look nor sound like your preferred gender, you should stick to the one you represent. I find it really confusing when someone who is male-presenting states themselves as a female without trying to look like one. Presentation matters a lot. Just in the same way someone dresses to impress either employers, friends or partners, someone who wants to be called by other pronouns should look the part first. I believe this should be the least amount of standard we should subject gender-fluid people, gender is a social construct but our society is built around social norms, those that want to fit in should try to adjust to them.	what if they are male presenting and are literally a female --- If they sound like a woman and feel like one i don't have much to add. Masculine women are still women. Is this hypothetical person a "butch" female or a female transitioning? --- [deleted] --- That's a question too hard for me to answer, but we as humans can usually tell what gender someone is just by looking and hearing them, it comes naturally. --- But two people could see someone and come to two different conclusions about what they are, perhaps because they're looking at different features. --- True. But dressing like you want to present helps people understand what you're going for. --- What does that look like? For example, my wife is fairly androgynous and gets mistaken for a man or a boy all the time despite being a middle aged woman with boobage. She's a cisgender woman. What does 'dressing like you want to present' for her look like to you? I'm curious if you can do it without devolving into femme presenting stereotypes.	You're saying here that the chief problem here with transgenderism is that you might have a hard time identifying their gender. Compare this problem to the problems transgendered people face, like discrimination, hatred, far more attention than they likely ever wanted, public scrutiny, open hostility, the list goes on and on... Keep in mind, we can't solve both problems. Either we force transgender people to NOT transition and keep all of them miserable just so that we don't have a few moments of confusion when identifying their gender (and by the way, it's not that hard to tell, but for the sake of argument, let's still entertain it as a possibility), or we allow them to be who they are so we can cut down on the hatred and hostility against them. We can't have both. Sure seems to me like the latter is a far worse set of problems, so I'd rather focus on solving those. --- I believe that hostility to transgendered people comes from confusion to their presented gender and lack of education from part of the public. There should be laws that protect and ensure trans rights, but there should also be ways to help them look the part to fit into society; no, i'm not talking about sex-change surgery. --- >I believe that hostility to transgendered people comes from confusion to their presented gender and lack of education from part of the public. This explanation just doesn't add up. Why would people be hostile towards someone just because they had some difficulty identifying their gender? Is this common behavior for someone to HATE someone else because of a little social confusion? The way you present it, it seems on par with not understanding something that someone said in casual conversation. We're talking about very low-stakes social situations where people are just chatting, exchanging ideas, etc. Have you ever had an instance of "hmm, I couldn't quite hear what he said because he's pretty soft spoken, so now I'm going to HATE him and be hostile towards him and post on social media about how he disgusts me"?? I'm gonna guess that, no, this never happened. The hate clearly comes from a place of over-relying on controlling your surroundings, of living an exclusive lifestyle with zero tolerance for the mere EXISTENCE of transgender people. It is not at all about simply having trouble identifying them in public; the "problem" clearly does not go away if these transgender people simply did a way better job of making themselves look like the other gender. --- This has nothing to do with the question at hand. I don't know all of the reasons people hate stuff, we can't please everybody. I'm saying that if trans people want to be treated like their desired gender, they should try to look like it. --- >I don't know all of the reasons people hate stuff But you DO at least have the ability to put some thought into why they do hate stuff, and I feel like myself and the other person in this thread have presented you with all sorts of solid reasoning into why your hypothesis doesn't make any sense here. What's your response to any of that? --- I know trans hate is rooted on many other things rather than just looks, but hate will realistically never be resolved just by doing one small change. If we take lots of small steps most issues could be corrected, and i still believe that trans people should do more work than just stating their pronouns if they want to be viewed as their preferred gender. I thank you for sharing your insight, it made me realize there are still bigger issues than just this one. !delta --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/malachai926 ([28∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/malachai926)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	sh17yf	CMV: If you don't look nor sound like your preferred gender, you should stick to the one you represent.	I find it really confusing when someone who is male-presenting states themselves as a female without trying to look like one. Presentation matters a lot. Just in the same way someone dresses to impress either employers, friends or partners, someone who wants to be called by other pronouns should look the part first. I believe this should be the least amount of standard we should subject gender-fluid people, gender is a social construct but our society is built around social norms, those that want to fit in should try to adjust to them.	Winter_Dragonfruit_2	7	7	[ { "author": "hashtagboosted", "id": "huzo81v", "score": 5, "text": "what if they are male presenting and are literally a female", "timestamp": 1643635770 }, { "author": "Winter_Dragonfruit_2", "id": "huzoyl0", "score": 1, "text": "If they sound like a woman and feel like one ...	[ { "author": "malachai926", "id": "huzrd0k", "score": 13, "text": "You're saying here that the chief problem here with transgenderism is that you might have a hard time identifying their gender.\n\nCompare this problem to the problems transgendered people face, like discrimination, hatred, far more...	[ "huzo81v", "huzoyl0", "huzrsht", "huzusia", "huzvxrc", "huzwenl", "hv0cc5l" ]	[ "huzrd0k", "huztokn", "huzvmnx", "huzxjno", "huzyf99", "hv00arq", "hv00c94" ]
CMV: having a "socialist" attitude is the optimal, rational, way for mankind to survive and thrive with no casualities I'm going to define left and right as two specific mindsets. Kinda broad, abstract way of defining them. - "Socialism", the "left", in which a person is caring about not only its wellbeing but also the others', as long as they don't clash, finding a reasonable compromise in which either of them can do whatever they want if it does not influence negatively the other. The product of work is redistributed so that in the long term the people living in the bottom parts of society is never poor or at risk, and everybody gets to keep most of their wealth anyway. - "Individualism", the "right", in which a person cares about his own personal freedom and success, believing that life is a competition, a zero-sum game. People must adhere to the "normality": common sense, as in "what things have always been" is not to be doubted. Personal freedom is only limited so that people won't steal or kill or harass others. Private property is absolute; the market must not be limited. Okay so: why should someone decide to join the right? The reason I've come with is that they're afraid of others' personalities, ideas, even existence, and is super unsure of their personal identity, sexuality, gender, status, etc. Considering that we have people in the world that are worth as much as the GDP of a small country, and that production of food, housing and medicines is plenty for everyone to live a decent life, why are we still considering it viable for the human race? Warfare, for example, has been invented so that a group of people could prevail ideologically, or economically, on another; if a group of people is endangered, and another would accept it and help it and find a way to cohabit, why war? Sharing is easier, does not kill people and culturally enrich usually. I feel like all of us, for the sake of this planet and the human race, should have a "Star Trek" attitude in which we all try not to hurt each other; only ideas that endanger the well being of other people are to be denied. There are many ideologies that claim that we are in danger of being replaced, or hurt, or enslaved or whatever, by others. I'm a white, cisgender, bisexual, former middle class guy that could be referred to as "privileged", "cuck", "forgotten" person depending on the interlocutor: but I don't feel it at all. No one else other than some guy who is scared by the gay black communist bogeyman is going to hurt me. I pay my taxes and I enjoy paying knowing that they are spent so that we can all be better together, as long as of course, they are reasonable. I also would like people to have equal, free access to education, health, market and medias (both 2 way and 1 way), reasonably. I know it's hard to make a country work. But why aren't we arguing on how to solve issues such as climate warming, ageing demographics, poverty, hunger and nudging the details? By now public education should have taught us that hating on others is dangerous, and integration is possible if both parts are ready to concede that they aren't superior. Immigration is a non issue: there is plenty of land, food and materials. States should simply enforce human rights and self determination. Heck, even allow people to live in some sort of anarcho-capitalist enclave if they wish. The world is big enough and being wealthy makes people have less children and live longer, as proven by the demographics of western countries, Japan and China, so that no one really has to fight with the other. (Yes, society will be older and not so numerous, but we are going to be fine if everyone is feed and taken care of.) We have seen where unrestricted capitalism has taken us. We know how shitty is to be poor. So why are we such assholes to each other? It's okay to have different ideas, even calling each other slurs, but why people vote for hurting other classes of people? Yes, they want to live better, but why is wealthy people voting so that poor people gets even more screwed? Why a 400 million people country/union is so scared of 200 thousands people fleeting from war and poverty? Why, if we really are so incompatible, aren't we throwing money at the other nation and stop it? Why are we still thinking that personal success is the key to solving every single issue? Why unlimited free market when in about 100 years it still didn't solve poverty, sickness, and so on? Why fight when it only ends in people getting more and more miserable? Capitalism won't make everyone a billionaire. It barely provides some sort of personal security. It's so damn irrational to me to argue that free market is going to solve everything and people should be afraid of others. My view is that socialism, specially if it does not mean full on communism, is the only rational solution to society; the rest is misinformation, egoism, or straight on evilness. EDIT: Thanks everyone. Of course my opinions are kinda naive and limited. I'll try to read all the posts. _____ > 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!*	So I personally believe in a hybrid. I believe some markets, like healthcare and military should be governmentally run, and most of the rest of the economy should be a free market with regulations (similar the US economy today (minus government healthcare)). To your CMV, Free markets accomplish several things better than government run markets: - Innovate. The free market has consistently pushed companies to innovate. Because if you don't, you will eventually lose your business. Free-market innovation has dominated many fields and create products that one can say with near certainty would not have been around if not for the free market. Governments are notorious for lack of innovation, less-than-ideal use of resources, and being "behind the times". Private market innovates much much better and our global technology would not be where it is today without private market innovation. - Incentives. The free-market gives people choice. It gives you the choice to work as a Starbucks barista for life and live a simple life, work on a cruise ship, or work your ass off and try to become wealthy to support you and your family. This freedom and opportunity provides incentives to work hard and make socially-desirable decisions. If all wealth were redistributed, why would anyone work? I wouldn't. People would no longer have the incentive to make those good decisions. People would more-likely to not go to school - because what is the point? The incentive structure, while difficult and unfair, also promotes good behavior. And to rid of that would likely result in people making less socially desirable and prudent decisions. Some would still succeed, many would not. - Purpose: Similar to the last point, working hard and living life like no one owes you anything gives you a purpose. Gives you something to be proud of. Humans are complex, but one thing that seems universal is that humans derive much satisfaction from working hard and seeing result. Getting hand-outs from the government does not give that same sense of purpose. - Resources: Lastly, the earth has limited resources of things that people want. If we all get income from the government, is everyone going to move to the beach? To Southern California? To Paris? Are we all going to want to eat the finest dishes? If we all get income, who will actually do the work? Who will be the janitors, construction workers? Who gets access to the best healthcare? If automation gets much, much more prevalent then maybe that is part of a solution, but as of now, that won't work. There are inherent inequalities no matter what redistribution scheme happens and people will become very, very frustrated if they feeling trapped by a socialist bubble that does not give them the opportunity to work hard to be more financially stable and be more comfortable. This frustration will probably result in some sort of backlash over the most desirable resources, and there will be no legit way to divide them. Overall, as I said before I think a hybrid is the best system. It helps protect those who are not as competitive, or who make mistakes, but also allows people to thrive, succeed, and innovate to help others. Right now, in the US there is absolutely unstable and unfair levels of inequality. We need to invest more in public education, infrastructure, and put higher taxes on the ultra-rich. We also need to work on changing the academic and employment environment - changing the fact that decisions you make when you are 16, or 20, will drastically shape the direction of your life. But for reasons stated above, absolute socialism will not be the answer IMO. --- My point was hybrid nonetheless. European socialists are usually about making the economy more fair, not USSR 2.0. See the SPD in the Europarliament. You can have a free market and all the benefits you are talking about. You're agreeing with me there. My point is really why someone would rationally be against it. --- >why someone would rationally be against it. I think in your definition of Right per your post, "believing that life is a competition, a zero-sum game" is moreso villainizing those who you feel that fall in that category. If you ask many of them the general consensus is that they believe that free markets and low taxes (read: government interference) is a net positive for both themselves and others. They feel that many people abuse and or become dependant on government assistance programs, which they feel is bad for those individuals and the taxpayers. They also feel that gov regulatory programs get in the way of "prosperity for all" by introducing unfair standards for businesses, thus reducing competition and therefore jobs, economic security, etc (i.e. harms us all). Basically it boils down to the expectation that individuals with good work ethic and a solid sense of personal responsibility should be free of restraints by government. Note that I believe, like you, that a purist view of Individualism is as impractical as a purist view of socialism and that a hybrid is the intellectually honest and practical way forward. I just think that your definition needs a little cleaning up is all. EDIT: I see you've addressed this concern further down the thread.	History has taught us that socialism fails. I mean, capitalism may as well, but it's got socialism beat for the time being. --- I didn't say let's go full on CCCP. I said unrestricted, unruled free market is dangerous and to be avoided. People should aim to the best outcome for everyone, not personal profit over everything. --- Yeah, but you've defined socialism in such a way that it is t socialism. It's just being nice. To that extent I agree - being nice is awesome. It's just not socialism.	60g92p	CMV: having a "socialist" attitude is the optimal, rational, way for mankind to survive and thrive with no casualities	I'm going to define left and right as two specific mindsets. Kinda broad, abstract way of defining them. - "Socialism", the "left", in which a person is caring about not only its wellbeing but also the others', as long as they don't clash, finding a reasonable compromise in which either of them can do whatever they want if it does not influence negatively the other. The product of work is redistributed so that in the long term the people living in the bottom parts of society is never poor or at risk, and everybody gets to keep most of their wealth anyway. - "Individualism", the "right", in which a person cares about his own personal freedom and success, believing that life is a competition, a zero-sum game. People must adhere to the "normality": common sense, as in "what things have always been" is not to be doubted. Personal freedom is only limited so that people won't steal or kill or harass others. Private property is absolute; the market must not be limited. Okay so: why should someone decide to join the right? The reason I've come with is that they're afraid of others' personalities, ideas, even existence, and is super unsure of their personal identity, sexuality, gender, status, etc. Considering that we have people in the world that are worth as much as the GDP of a small country, and that production of food, housing and medicines is plenty for everyone to live a decent life, why are we still considering it viable for the human race? Warfare, for example, has been invented so that a group of people could prevail ideologically, or economically, on another; if a group of people is endangered, and another would accept it and help it and find a way to cohabit, why war? Sharing is easier, does not kill people and culturally enrich usually. I feel like all of us, for the sake of this planet and the human race, should have a "Star Trek" attitude in which we all try not to hurt each other; only ideas that endanger the well being of other people are to be denied. There are many ideologies that claim that we are in danger of being replaced, or hurt, or enslaved or whatever, by others. I'm a white, cisgender, bisexual, former middle class guy that could be referred to as "privileged", "cuck", "forgotten" person depending on the interlocutor: but I don't feel it at all. No one else other than some guy who is scared by the gay black communist bogeyman is going to hurt me. I pay my taxes and I enjoy paying knowing that they are spent so that we can all be better together, as long as of course, they are reasonable. I also would like people to have equal, free access to education, health, market and medias (both 2 way and 1 way), reasonably. I know it's hard to make a country work. But why aren't we arguing on how to solve issues such as climate warming, ageing demographics, poverty, hunger and nudging the details? By now public education should have taught us that hating on others is dangerous, and integration is possible if both parts are ready to concede that they aren't superior. Immigration is a non issue: there is plenty of land, food and materials. States should simply enforce human rights and self determination. Heck, even allow people to live in some sort of anarcho-capitalist enclave if they wish. The world is big enough and being wealthy makes people have less children and live longer, as proven by the demographics of western countries, Japan and China, so that no one really has to fight with the other. (Yes, society will be older and not so numerous, but we are going to be fine if everyone is feed and taken care of.) We have seen where unrestricted capitalism has taken us. We know how shitty is to be poor. So why are we such assholes to each other? It's okay to have different ideas, even calling each other slurs, but why people vote for hurting other classes of people? Yes, they want to live better, but why is wealthy people voting so that poor people gets even more screwed? Why a 400 million people country/union is so scared of 200 thousands people fleeting from war and poverty? Why, if we really are so incompatible, aren't we throwing money at the other nation and stop it? Why are we still thinking that personal success is the key to solving every single issue? Why unlimited free market when in about 100 years it still didn't solve poverty, sickness, and so on? Why fight when it only ends in people getting more and more miserable? Capitalism won't make everyone a billionaire. It barely provides some sort of personal security. It's so damn irrational to me to argue that free market is going to solve everything and people should be afraid of others. My view is that socialism, specially if it does not mean full on communism, is the only rational solution to society; the rest is misinformation, egoism, or straight on evilness. EDIT: Thanks everyone. Of course my opinions are kinda naive and limited. I'll try to read all the posts. _____ > 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!*	satuprinssi	3	3	[ { "author": "NPR_is_not_that_bad", "id": "df68cjh", "score": 97, "text": "So I personally believe in a hybrid. I believe some markets, like healthcare and military should be governmentally run, and most of the rest of the economy should be a free market with regulations (similar the US economy today...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "df63s7g", "score": 3, "text": "History has taught us that socialism fails. I mean, capitalism may as well, but it's got socialism beat for the time being. ", "timestamp": 1490013743 }, { "author": "satuprinssi", "id": "df63ude", "score": 5, "te...	[ "df68cjh", "df68oy4", "df6d052" ]	[ "df63s7g", "df63ude", "df63x4n" ]
CMV: Conspiracy theorists, the most insane ones and far-out-of-touch type people all lean Right. And most do honestly. When I say conspiracy theorists, I mean shit like New World Order. Central banking/Freemason cranks. Illuminati, or "Deep State" crazies. Believers in superscience Nazi secret societies that operate in the shadows. Flat Earthers. Reptilian overlord believers, spirit science types and UFO podcast type conspiracy people all lean rightwards. They tend to universally side with right viewpoints, support trump or musk, and often even integrate them into their fantastical silly narratives and warped, diseased world views. I have yet to encounter anyone this far out of touch with reality who is still left-leaning. Maybe decades back this would've been possible- exaggerated Hippie stereotypes or some type of soviet bolsheviks who wax about dialectical materialism and rail against science or nasa, but that sort of imagery feels long gone from our social landscape. Centrist or slightly liberal and still drinking the koolaide? Maybe sometimes. But never leftists. When I say Conspiracy theorist, I do mean an entire worldview that is lost to reality, facts and borders zealotry or a cult-mentality, so much so that it consumes the person's identity. This includes political ideologies. You and someone might disagree on the tenants of feminism, but no one that's a feminist or believes in LGBTQ+ rights, but these are conceptual critiques. No one who believes in the Patriarchy, as a systematic belief also will try to convince you that there is secret cabal of men in hooded robes getting together to plot woman's repression throughout history or a secret world order is planning a christian uprising with aliens, working towards the Republic of Gilead. You may agree or disagree with BLM or Critical Race Theory, but there are 0 podcasts Get Out was a documentary. People who dislike colonialism, capitalism, racism and patriarchy as a societal/historical critique it based in reality and sociology. It's an opinion of fairness, justice and equality. They do not believe a global world order created these working with Bigfoot or Bernie is empowered by secret cyborgs from the future. Maaaaybe you could find something in psychoanalysis, eastern spirituality or silicon valley/Elizabeth Holmes type cults? Okay, I will concede in advance to very, terminally 'reddit' type people: Futurists, believers in singularity and posthumanism, Less Wrong types. They can be kinda funny and very overly convinced in scienceism, but again this comes with the caveat these people are typically 'prediction types' or strong hopefuls, rather than 'X rules the world and is against, hiding the truth'. Those oft lean leftist. Still you won't find a fundamentalist singularity-zealot or posthumanism believer nearly as convinced as the flat earth lizard type person, and not nearly as strong in numbers, influence or absolute delusion. The most radical of them won't be-so as righty Q-anon types. And with the recent advances in robotics and AI, like c'mon? They kinda have a reason to believe what they do and definitely have more evidence validating them than the other side. There is crazy shit like Yakub from the Nation of Island and Scientology, but these are absolutely not Left-leaning and their supporters simply aren't. I do not fully understand why this is. Perhaps, I think it is an unavoidable consequence of our current era, that the conspiracy theorist or the right winger always leans to the right. But it may be a simple facet that leftists are rooted in facts and rationality, and such cannot be made to believe in secret lizard space-alien overlords or flat Earth, but such conspiracies do not have an inherent leaning towards right or left. It's probably simply the dull fact that right leaning people have less cognitive filtering to keep out crazy bullshit and junk like this. Could someone prove wrong or convince me otherwise?	You should visit Bristol in the UK. Plenty of far left conspiracies there. --- Really? I'd be fascinated to meet them. --- I recommend you listen to a podcast called “Marianna in Conspiracyland”. It’s not set in Bristol but it covers a lot of conspiracy theories across the spectrum. A lot of conspiracy theorists are crusty new age weirdos who are absolutely not on the right. People who believe in alternative medicine and think that pharmaceutical companies are poisoning us. Look at Piers Corbyn, the brother of former Labour party leader and socialist Jeremy Corbyn, as an example of this. I saw a few anti-vax protests in London when the pandemic was going on and it was a weird mix of alt-right/libertarian types, Piers Corbyn types, and healing crystal mums.	Are you sure you're not simply... dealing with far right conspiracies and ignoring far left conspiracy theories which can explain the skewed perception? --- What are some far left conspiracy theories then? --- Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front have some very extreme views that are not evidence based. I don’t know if they qualify as conspiracy theories. But I am familiar with animal rights activists spreading disinformation about biomedical research. Also, some anti-vaxxers started out on the left as well. I think there is a preponderance of conspiracy theories on the right, but they exist on the left too.	1jkaogd	CMV: Conspiracy theorists, the most insane ones and far-out-of-touch type people all lean Right. And most do honestly.	When I say conspiracy theorists, I mean shit like New World Order. Central banking/Freemason cranks. Illuminati, or "Deep State" crazies. Believers in superscience Nazi secret societies that operate in the shadows. Flat Earthers. Reptilian overlord believers, spirit science types and UFO podcast type conspiracy people all lean rightwards. They tend to universally side with right viewpoints, support trump or musk, and often even integrate them into their fantastical silly narratives and warped, diseased world views. I have yet to encounter anyone this far out of touch with reality who is still left-leaning. Maybe decades back this would've been possible- exaggerated Hippie stereotypes or some type of soviet bolsheviks who wax about dialectical materialism and rail against science or nasa, but that sort of imagery feels long gone from our social landscape. Centrist or slightly liberal and still drinking the koolaide? Maybe sometimes. But never leftists. When I say Conspiracy theorist, I do mean an entire worldview that is lost to reality, facts and borders zealotry or a cult-mentality, so much so that it consumes the person's identity. This includes political ideologies. You and someone might disagree on the tenants of feminism, but no one that's a feminist or believes in LGBTQ+ rights, but these are conceptual critiques. No one who believes in the Patriarchy, as a systematic belief also will try to convince you that there is secret cabal of men in hooded robes getting together to plot woman's repression throughout history or a secret world order is planning a christian uprising with aliens, working towards the Republic of Gilead. You may agree or disagree with BLM or Critical Race Theory, but there are 0 podcasts Get Out was a documentary. People who dislike colonialism, capitalism, racism and patriarchy as a societal/historical critique it based in reality and sociology. It's an opinion of fairness, justice and equality. They do not believe a global world order created these working with Bigfoot or Bernie is empowered by secret cyborgs from the future. Maaaaybe you could find something in psychoanalysis, eastern spirituality or silicon valley/Elizabeth Holmes type cults? Okay, I will concede in advance to very, terminally 'reddit' type people: Futurists, believers in singularity and posthumanism, Less Wrong types. They can be kinda funny and very overly convinced in scienceism, but again this comes with the caveat these people are typically 'prediction types' or strong hopefuls, rather than 'X rules the world and is against, hiding the truth'. Those oft lean leftist. Still you won't find a fundamentalist singularity-zealot or posthumanism believer nearly as convinced as the flat earth lizard type person, and not nearly as strong in numbers, influence or absolute delusion. The most radical of them won't be-so as righty Q-anon types. And with the recent advances in robotics and AI, like c'mon? They kinda have a reason to believe what they do and definitely have more evidence validating them than the other side. There is crazy shit like Yakub from the Nation of Island and Scientology, but these are absolutely not Left-leaning and their supporters simply aren't. I do not fully understand why this is. Perhaps, I think it is an unavoidable consequence of our current era, that the conspiracy theorist or the right winger always leans to the right. But it may be a simple facet that leftists are rooted in facts and rationality, and such cannot be made to believe in secret lizard space-alien overlords or flat Earth, but such conspiracies do not have an inherent leaning towards right or left. It's probably simply the dull fact that right leaning people have less cognitive filtering to keep out crazy bullshit and junk like this. Could someone prove wrong or convince me otherwise?	brandygang	3	3	[ { "author": "amemingfullife", "id": "mjtobhu", "score": 10, "text": "You should visit Bristol in the UK. Plenty of far left conspiracies there.", "timestamp": 1742992995 }, { "author": "brandygang", "id": "mjtoo7s", "score": 2, "text": "Really? I'd be fascinated to meet them....	[ { "author": "HeroBrine0907", "id": "mjtnv58", "score": 24, "text": "Are you sure you're not simply... dealing with far right conspiracies and ignoring far left conspiracy theories which can explain the skewed perception?", "timestamp": 1742992825 }, { "author": "brandygang", "id": "m...	[ "mjtobhu", "mjtoo7s", "mjtqiu1" ]	[ "mjtnv58", "mjtolv0", "mjtpg6i" ]
CMV: Trumps increase in federal funding for private schools is a good thing. First of all, I must declare that I am not American; I am in fact Australian, and an Australian student currently studying in a private school on top of that. I believe that trumps plans to to increase the federal funding for private schools is a good thing because of these reasons: 1. It allows organizations that are interested in educated young people (usually Christian churches) with additional support from themselves do so easier with federal assistance, meaning that you have more students being educated with less federal spending. 2. It encourages families of average income to pay to send their children to private schools, both giving the child a better education (usually) and costing the federal government less. 3. The shift from massive public schools to small private schools allows teachers to be paid better, and overall encourages a better teaching environment 4. encouraging smaller private schools results in a more personalized learning experience, removing the need for schools to not care about individual students. _____ > 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 reminds me of the Dutch system, where the national government fully funds private schools and parents pay nothing. But there are a few critical differences between the two systems: 1. Private schools aren't allowed to charge parents. They can ask for financial support, but schools can't refuse children when their parents can't pay. 2. Quality control. In the Netherlands there is a strict quality control to both public and private schools and schools who don't perform good enough are closed. 3. Inclusivity. Dutch private schools can't refuse children at will. There are only a few grounds on which schools can refuse children and those grounds have to be consistent. When a school refuses a child the school has to find a fitting school for the child. I'm missing all of those points in the current plans, which worries me. The quality of public schools will decrease while the children have nowhere else to go. This will only increase inequality while it is already huge. --- While I may be wrong on this, I'm pretty sure that because you have less people attending the public schools (they've moved over to the now more affordable private schools) you have more money being put in per student in the public system - giving them an overall better education. Of course, those students wouldn't move over immediately so the advantages to this take a few years to really kick in. --- Except the money for these private schools doesn't appear from the air - it gets deducted from the public schools budget. So when the children who are capable of getting into these private schools go, they take budget with them. The kids who are ineligible for these schools, or whose parents can't pay/don't care enough to get their kids into a private school get left in a school that has now had all the best students and a lot of funding yanked. Without that money, they can't hire good teachers, can't afford extra-curriculars, advanced classes, etc. and the school withers. The proposed system is a great mechanism for private enterprise to drain the public educational system dry, subsidizing students who already have a leg up at the expense of those who don't. It would allow private schools to skirt the regulations public schools are required to follow, could subsidize bullshit false education - we the taxpayers could be paying for private schools to churn out graduates who have been indoctrinated into pseudoscience.	Wait... I'm not familiar with the situation, but why should government subsidize a private industry? I thought Trump was about less government, not more government? If the private education industry can't support itself, why shouldn't it be allowed to collapse? Also, why is funding private schools the solution to shitty public schools? If private schools are doing okay, but public schools are failing - wouldn't the most logical course of action be to fund the public schools instead? edit:typo --- Because it's cheaper to fund private schools - think of it as a co-payment rather than an entire one. At least in Australia anyway (last time I checked it was about 50% of the cost of a public school kid). Not OP btw, just another Australian. --- A copay lets more people participate in unequal opportunity. I'm not sure that's an appropriate solution to unequal opportunity. Honestly - there's no excuse for government not funding education enough to be competitive with private schools. In my country, public schools are quite good, and my high-school teacher friends all make over 90k/year. Just spend more on education. Most people have children - I don't think they'd object to improving public schools. It seems like a problem that shouldn't even exist - especially in the "richest country in the world". They have the money to improve education for everyone.	60g1tl	CMV: Trumps increase in federal funding for private schools is a good thing.	First of all, I must declare that I am not American; I am in fact Australian, and an Australian student currently studying in a private school on top of that. I believe that trumps plans to to increase the federal funding for private schools is a good thing because of these reasons: 1. It allows organizations that are interested in educated young people (usually Christian churches) with additional support from themselves do so easier with federal assistance, meaning that you have more students being educated with less federal spending. 2. It encourages families of average income to pay to send their children to private schools, both giving the child a better education (usually) and costing the federal government less. 3. The shift from massive public schools to small private schools allows teachers to be paid better, and overall encourages a better teaching environment 4. encouraging smaller private schools results in a more personalized learning experience, removing the need for schools to not care about individual students. _____ > 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!*	mcwelsh21	3	3	[ { "author": "verfmeer", "id": "df63jbj", "score": 7, "text": "It reminds me of the Dutch system, where the national government fully funds private schools and parents pay nothing. But there are a few critical differences between the two systems:\n\n1. Private schools aren't allowed to charge parents...	[ { "author": "stratys3", "id": "df633ge", "score": 19, "text": "Wait... I'm not familiar with the situation, but why should government subsidize a private industry? I thought Trump was about less government, not more government?\n\nIf the private education industry can't support itself, why shouldn't...	[ "df63jbj", "df63sl1", "df64mgt" ]	[ "df633ge", "df63a0s", "df63goh" ]
CMV: If "From the river to the sea" is antisemitic, then so is virtually every pro-Palestine chant The main reason people give for why "From the river to the sea" is antisemitic is that it appears in the [Hamas charter](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full): > Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. If the chant is antisemitic by virtue of association with Hamas, then every other pro-Palestine chant is too because practically all of them advocate for the same position - a free Palestine bounded by the Green Line and a liberation of Palestinians in Israel. Some other common justifications for why the chant is antisemitic are * It's original translation is "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab/Islamic". I agree that this version is antisemitic as it rejects the self-determination of Jews, but I cannot find any notable Palestinian organisations using this version or advocating this position. * It was started by the PLO, which was an extremist organisation when they started chanting it. The thing is, nearly all the chants we hear can be associated with the PLO because they were the primary force for Palestinian liberation for decades. There is no difference between "From the river to the sea" and other chants in this regard, so if the former is antisemitic, the latter is as well. I'd like to hear what makes this chant any different from chants like "Free Free Palestine" or "No justice, No peace!"	Hamas's 2017 charter was written to be more acceptable to the international community; the document you're citing is not the reason people have a problem with "from the river to the sea" ... that document was written to obfuscate that end goal, and to make it appear that Hamas would be satisfied with a two state solution, when in fact Hamas is saying that they'd accept a two state solution as an interim step only. The reason "from the river to the sea" is considered antisemitic is for the same reason that Hamas is minimizing it; because it calls for the removal of Jews from "Palestine, from the river to the sea"; that is, in both the Palestinian territories, and from Israel. The term was not coined by Hamas; it was coined by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (then a terrorist organization responsible for e.g., the Munich Olympics kidnappings) and has been used by ISIS, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas spokespeople in reference to Palestine being Arab and Muslim "from the river to the sea", and in direct conjunction with calls for ethnic cleansing of Jews. If a slogan has often been used to call for ethnic cleansing, then why would you use it? Why use that particular slogan? Sure, it may not mean ethnic cleansing to you, but a "nazi salute" doesn't necessarily mean anything to do with Nazism to you. That doesn't mean using it is wise. If what you want is a peaceful two state solution, why not create a slogan that conveys that information? --- I can't find the official position that Hamas would only accept a two state solution as an interim step towards the extermination of Jews. Can you link the sources please? --- >I can't find the official position that Hamas would only accept a two state solution as an interim step towards the extermination of Jews. Can you link the sources please? The official position as in, 'written in Hamas's 2017 charter'? Or you mean senior Hamas officials saying this is their position more recently than 2017? I think a full reading of the 2017 charter makes it fairly obvious, although they took care to avoid "gotcha" soundbites like the 1988 charter. Paraphrasing for brevity, here's a selection from the charter: * Article 2 - Palestine is defined as all the land between the sea to the west, the Jordan to the east, Ras al-Naqurah in the north, and Umm al-Rashrash (coincidentally, post-1922 mandatory Palestine). * Article 3 - Palestine is an Arab Islamic land. * Article 4 - The Palestinians are the Arabs who lived in Palestine until 1947, and their descendants (if they were men). * Articles 7-9 establish that Islam should be the official religion because it's so tolerant and right * Articles 14-17 basically say that Hamas's conflict is with "the Zionist project" (that is, Israel) not with Jews, and that Hamas is fine with Jews' religion (quite a turnabout from the 1988 charter!) * Article 19 - "Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate." * Article 20 - repeating the first part of what you quoted: "Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea." * Article 21 rejects the Oslo accords (so Hamas is not binding itself to peace based on a two state solution) * And article 23 brings it home ... "Hamas stresses that transgression against the Palestinian people, usurping their land and banishing them from their homeland cannot be called peace. Any settlements reached on this basis will not lead to peace. Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah." * Article 27 - There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital. So about 1/2 the way through the Hamas charter, we've established that Hamas believes any solution in which the state of Israel exists is not "peace" and that "resistance and jihad" will continue until there is no such state. Does this charter explicitly call for the extermination of Jews? No, of course not -- it just calls out that any Jews that are not ethnically Arab Palestinians are not "Palestinians" at all, and calls for a state from the 'river to the sea' characterized by freedom and pluralism ... for Arab Palestinians only, governed by Islamic law. I see this is getting a little long -- let me know your thoughts, and if it's helpful I'll compile high-profile statements by Hamas officials vis. their long term goals. IIRC, Hamas held a conference a couple years back to talk about how to govern Palestine once 'liberation' is achieved, which directly hits the 'Jewish question'. It's Arabic-language FYI, but not too hard to get translated. --- Okay, so if the phrase is antisemitic because the Charter is antisemitic, is "Free Palestine" antisemitic as well? --- I can't see why it would be, any more than "Free Tibet" (which it is modelled after) is antisemitic. The problem is with advocating for a one-state solution or the destruction of Israel without considering or caring about the impact to non-Arabs. Nothing about "free Palestine" implies you mean "destroy Israel" or "deprive Jews native to Israel of self-determination as a part of freeing Palestine." --- The challenge is the chant can also describe a two-state solution: a free Palestine bounded by the Green Line and a liberation of Palestinians in Israel. That's identical to the "Free Palestine" position. Unless you think that "Free Palestine" doesn't concern Palestinians living in Israel? --- It says "Palestine will be free", not "Palestinians will be free", so I don't see how a Palestine bounded by the green line is a reasonable interpretation of "from the river to the sea", which is pretty unambiguous about what borders it's defining	>If the chant is antisemitic by virtue of association with Hamas It's not antisemitic because of an association with Hamas. It's antisemitic because, in the current environment, a Palestine stretching from the river to the see would be controlled by Hamas, a group that has set their sights on the eradication of Jews from the region. It could also be considered antisemitic as the chant attempts to deny self-determination to the millions of Jewish peoples living in the region who might not necessarily want to live in a Palestinian state. --- Well, too bad. Palestine was totally fine, jews Christian’s and Muslims coexisted peacefully. Till white European Jewish settlers came… --- >Palestine was totally fine... Palestine is one of the most historically contested territories on the planet. It's been conquered by dozens of nations and armies, has never been fully independent, and has always been the subject of religious conflict. Religious conflicts in the region have existed for centuries as well - even in times of peace, non-Muslims were forced to pay tribute to their Muslim rulers through a tax on non-Muslims. --- Immediately discrediting anything you say after claiming that “from the river to the sea” is anti semitic --- Please present an argument. --- No reason to argue, your pro genocide viewpoint is not going to change because of some random redditor --- You're on a subreddit called change my view, not dismiss, make up, and insult. Arguing for / against any given position is the point of this community, my dude.	191sgb2	CMV: If "From the river to the sea" is antisemitic, then so is virtually every pro-Palestine chant	The main reason people give for why "From the river to the sea" is antisemitic is that it appears in the [Hamas charter](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full): > Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. If the chant is antisemitic by virtue of association with Hamas, then every other pro-Palestine chant is too because practically all of them advocate for the same position - a free Palestine bounded by the Green Line and a liberation of Palestinians in Israel. Some other common justifications for why the chant is antisemitic are * It's original translation is "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab/Islamic". I agree that this version is antisemitic as it rejects the self-determination of Jews, but I cannot find any notable Palestinian organisations using this version or advocating this position. * It was started by the PLO, which was an extremist organisation when they started chanting it. The thing is, nearly all the chants we hear can be associated with the PLO because they were the primary force for Palestinian liberation for decades. There is no difference between "From the river to the sea" and other chants in this regard, so if the former is antisemitic, the latter is as well. I'd like to hear what makes this chant any different from chants like "Free Free Palestine" or "No justice, No peace!"	GoSouthCourt	7	7	[ { "author": "badass_panda", "id": "kgxnbnv", "score": 202, "text": "Hamas's 2017 charter was written to be more acceptable to the international community; the document you're citing is not the reason people have a problem with \"from the river to the sea\" ... that document was written to obfuscat...	[ { "author": "MrGraeme", "id": "kgxmt52", "score": 13, "text": ">If the chant is antisemitic by virtue of association with Hamas\n\nIt's not antisemitic because of an association with Hamas. It's antisemitic because, in the current environment, a Palestine stretching from the river to the see would b...	[ "kgxnbnv", "kgxr236", "kgxxqkc", "kgy7pl6", "kgy8l4a", "kgyb4xt", "kgyexem" ]	[ "kgxmt52", "kgxn6dz", "kgxrf11", "kgxrmw8", "kgxsazg", "kgxslvh", "kgxtdxf" ]
CMV: If Brandon Herrera gets the GOP nomination for TX-23, he will lose the general election For those of you who are unaware, a gun YouTuber named Brandon Herrera is running for Congress to oust Tony Gonzalez after he voted in favor of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act after the Uvalde school shooting. Gonzales is a Republican that is more on the moderate side considering his vote for the gun control act mentioned above, his vote with 46 House Republicans to codify same sex marriage into law, simplifying work visas and his support of Ukraine and Israel during their respective conflicts. https://gonzales.house.gov Herrera on the other hand is not moderate on many issues, which may cost the GOP TX-23. With Uvalde in the minds of many people within the district and Herrera’s outspoken support for gun rights, that could turn the district blue if he is the front runner for the GOP https://brandonherreraforcongress.com In the past few elections with the exception of 2022, the GOP has often barely hung onto the district in the past few elections. 2014- GOP 49.8% Dem 47.7% 2016- GOP 48.3% Dem 47% 2018- GOP 49.2% Dem 48.7% 2020 (first election with Tony Gonzalez)- GOP 50.6% Dem 46.6% 2022- GOP 55.8% Dem 38.7% https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_23rd_congressional_district It’s very interesting that the district turned bright red in 2022 despite a major school shooting within the district just a few months before Election Day.	It became bright red in 2022 because of redistricting. Any republican can win there --- I seem to have a hard time finding a source of redistricting for tx23 specifically, do you have a source for that? --- You can check out 538's analysis [here](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/texas/). It went from a +5 to a +13 district thanks to the new maps.	His district is Mexican, Mexicans drive pickup trucks and shoot AR15s even if they vote democrat, and you dont win their vote with the homosexual stuff. --- But Hispanics are less likely to own guns than both white and black Americans according to Pew Research… https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/ --- Well yeah when you tell a pollster "Toma tus preguntas y mételas por el culo" that isnt a "yes we own guns"	191uybp	CMV: If Brandon Herrera gets the GOP nomination for TX-23, he will lose the general election	For those of you who are unaware, a gun YouTuber named Brandon Herrera is running for Congress to oust Tony Gonzalez after he voted in favor of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act after the Uvalde school shooting. Gonzales is a Republican that is more on the moderate side considering his vote for the gun control act mentioned above, his vote with 46 House Republicans to codify same sex marriage into law, simplifying work visas and his support of Ukraine and Israel during their respective conflicts. https://gonzales.house.gov Herrera on the other hand is not moderate on many issues, which may cost the GOP TX-23. With Uvalde in the minds of many people within the district and Herrera’s outspoken support for gun rights, that could turn the district blue if he is the front runner for the GOP https://brandonherreraforcongress.com In the past few elections with the exception of 2022, the GOP has often barely hung onto the district in the past few elections. 2014- GOP 49.8% Dem 47.7% 2016- GOP 48.3% Dem 47% 2018- GOP 49.2% Dem 48.7% 2020 (first election with Tony Gonzalez)- GOP 50.6% Dem 46.6% 2022- GOP 55.8% Dem 38.7% https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_23rd_congressional_district It’s very interesting that the district turned bright red in 2022 despite a major school shooting within the district just a few months before Election Day.	DaleGribble2024	3	3	[ { "author": "Sapphfire0", "id": "kgy5u1y", "score": 17, "text": "It became bright red in 2022 because of redistricting. Any republican can win there", "timestamp": 1704746561 }, { "author": "DaleGribble2024", "id": "kgy6hax", "score": -1, "text": "I seem to have a hard time f...	[ { "author": "MathematicianThat402", "id": "kgya6fs", "score": 7, "text": "His district is Mexican, Mexicans drive pickup trucks and shoot AR15s even if they vote democrat, and you dont win their vote with the homosexual stuff.", "timestamp": 1704747989 }, { "author": "DaleGribble2024", ...	[ "kgy5u1y", "kgy6hax", "kgy99fp" ]	[ "kgya6fs", "kgyayyk", "kgybtrz" ]
CMV: The War On Drugs failed due to the punishments not being severe enough The War on Drugs could have went significantly better had the DEA been able to request harsher sentences for distribution. Specifically corporal punishment and public executions for distribution would have made the drug problem in the United States negligible had they been enforced. Prison sentences cause people to disassociate the punishment from the crime due to their lengthly and impersonal nature and by contrast caning can be done in full very soon after the crime has been commited and is very personal and intense despite being on a whole less severe than a prison sentence. Public execution within a year of the crime is also a good measure since it will save money (we will be reducing the amount of appeals to one) and it will serve as a vivid denunciation of drug distribution and prevent perpetrators from reoffending. _____ > 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!*	If corporal punishment and public executions gone ahead and successfully deterred distribution, then the War on Drugs would still have been a failure, because it would have been unjust - a violation of human rights, a betrayal of the values of personal freedom, and a destruction of American identity. America would become a fascist tyranny with moral standing no better than the Phillipines. That would be like winning a battle to lose the war, or cutting off your nose to spite your face, or draining the baby out with the bathwater. But it wouldn't have worked anyway - precisely because America is such a rich honeypot of buyers and such a large market, and the the values of capitalism are so entrenched in the American psyche that a higher government penalty would simply mean a higher black market price and financial reward to the distributor/seller. In America (and not so much in other countries perhaps) as risk increases, so does reward/incentive - and the world is full of very poor people willing to take that risk. Switzerland won the war on drugs - by giving them away for free! That's how you destroy the production/distribution incentive, you nationalize it and offer it at zero cost. What drug seller wants to sell into a market where the government has reduced the price to zero? --- > If corporal punishment and public executions gone ahead and successfully deterred distribution, then the War on Drugs would still have been a failure, because it would have been unjust - a violation of human rights, a betrayal of the values of personal freedom, and a destruction of American identity. America would become a fascist tyranny with moral standing no better than the Phillipines. That would be like winning a battle to lose the war, or cutting off your nose to spite your face, or draining the baby out with the bathwater. Human rights are a human construct and one that isn't benefiting American society at the moment unless you consider massive drug use to be a contribution to humanity. A self identity based on a dysfunctional social construct isn't one worthy of being preserved. >But it wouldn't have worked anyway - precisely because America is such a rich honeypot of buyers and such a large market, and the the values of capitalism are so entrenched in the American psyche that a higher government penalty would simply mean a higher black market price and financial reward to the distributor/seller. In America (and not so much in other countries perhaps) as risk increases, so does reward/incentive - and the world is full of very poor people willing to take that risk. Increasing risk does not inherently increase incentive. There reaches a point especially when the risk is risk of bodily harm as opposed to financial problems that nobody will be willing to be a drug dealer due to the expected outcome being negative. >Switzerland won the war on drugs - by giving them away for free! That's how you destroy the production/distribution incentive, you nationalize it and offer it at zero cost. What drug seller wants to sell into a market where the government has reduced the price to zero? Methadone subsitution for rehabilitation is not the same thing as giving away drugs for free to undercut dealers. Plus why would you want to undercut dealers since that would just mean that you have the same problem but it is government subsidized. --- Are you honestly suggesting that we get rid of or seriously scale back human rights? You said human rights aren't doing America any good but the way I see it, human rights are the reason it's called the land of the free. --- Human rights might be the reason why America is called the land of the free but does that means that they are good for America? I think that China will overtake America due to not having human rights holding it back from progress. --- You don't think that human rights are a good thing? Great. There is a reason then why we can simply ignore what you have to say. Sure we can have anything if we control and restrict and ignore all human rights but we are left with a society that most wouldn't like to live in. --- What would you not like about a society like Singapore's? --- Singapore is a small island nation-state with a population of just over 5 million people. It can only stop the influx of drugs because they heavily monitor their borders. The USA simply cannot do that. Aside from the fact that the US population is more than 60x the size of Singapore with 120 miles of coastline as compared to the continental USA's approximate 9000 miles of border. As for their society? They have no free press or freedom of speech and the government often censors any politically, racially or religiously sensitive material. Homosexuality between men is outlawed, human trafficking is a serious issue, and there are no rights for foreign workers. Meaning migrants are not given a minimum wage, limited hours, safety protections, or employment benefits leading to approximately 1 in 4 people in Singapore being a migrant as opposed to the approximate 12% in the USA. And on the topic of caning, caning is never used as the sole punishment in Singapore. It is only ever used in conjunction with a minimum of 3 months in prison. People aren't "caned and sent on their way" they are caned and then thrown in prison.	That's true. Al McCoy makes your argument in most of his books, including Politics of Heroin in SE Asia. You can effectively eliminate drug sale if you're a fascist government. Just shoot anyone you even half suspect of involvement without a trial, and people will pretty quickly stop selling smack. We can't do that though. --- Why can't we do that? --- The US is a democracy. People have the right to a trial. --- They have trials in Singapore and Saudi Arabia. --- There is a thriving drug market in Saudi, and Singapore. --- [citation needed] --- https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/drug-dealing-in-saudi-arabia-sounds-like-a-very-stressful-business	60engc	CMV: The War On Drugs failed due to the punishments not being severe enough	The War on Drugs could have went significantly better had the DEA been able to request harsher sentences for distribution. Specifically corporal punishment and public executions for distribution would have made the drug problem in the United States negligible had they been enforced. Prison sentences cause people to disassociate the punishment from the crime due to their lengthly and impersonal nature and by contrast caning can be done in full very soon after the crime has been commited and is very personal and intense despite being on a whole less severe than a prison sentence. Public execution within a year of the crime is also a good measure since it will save money (we will be reducing the amount of appeals to one) and it will serve as a vivid denunciation of drug distribution and prevent perpetrators from reoffending. _____ > 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!*	Blood_tree	7	7	[ { "author": "swearrengen", "id": "df5udx7", "score": 12, "text": "If corporal punishment and public executions gone ahead and successfully deterred distribution, then the War on Drugs would still have been a failure, because it would have been unjust - a violation of human rights, a betrayal of th...	[ { "author": "LtFred", "id": "df5teu6", "score": 9, "text": "That's true. Al McCoy makes your argument in most of his books, including Politics of Heroin in SE Asia. You can effectively eliminate drug sale if you're a fascist government. Just shoot anyone you even half suspect of involvement without ...	[ "df5udx7", "df5ur5i", "df5v6q6", "df5vefc", "df5vjg2", "df5w06i", "df5wjxz" ]	[ "df5teu6", "df5tg17", "df5ti0a", "df5tlhe", "df5u7rt", "df5u8zt", "df5uk06" ]
CMV: The War On Drugs failed due to the punishments not being severe enough The War on Drugs could have went significantly better had the DEA been able to request harsher sentences for distribution. Specifically corporal punishment and public executions for distribution would have made the drug problem in the United States negligible had they been enforced. Prison sentences cause people to disassociate the punishment from the crime due to their lengthly and impersonal nature and by contrast caning can be done in full very soon after the crime has been commited and is very personal and intense despite being on a whole less severe than a prison sentence. Public execution within a year of the crime is also a good measure since it will save money (we will be reducing the amount of appeals to one) and it will serve as a vivid denunciation of drug distribution and prevent perpetrators from reoffending. _____ > 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!*	Would you apply this to Marijuana as severely as cocaine, meth, and heroin? --- No --- How would you apply it to Marijuana? --- Same basic logic but because it isn't as bad the sentences will be slightly less. --- Explain to me what 'slightly less' than capital punishment is? --- Only using corporal punishment and using slightly better corporal punishment. 25 lashes instead of 50 lashes. --- Are you honestly joking? This isn't the middle ages, you can't just go around giving lashes for fucking weed. --- Isn't it better to get lashes and then be let go then to rot in prison? --- Ideally there wouldn't be punishments for such a relatively harmless substance. The war on drugs failed because prohibition doesn't work. Never has prohibition on any substance ever worked.	That's true. Al McCoy makes your argument in most of his books, including Politics of Heroin in SE Asia. You can effectively eliminate drug sale if you're a fascist government. Just shoot anyone you even half suspect of involvement without a trial, and people will pretty quickly stop selling smack. We can't do that though. --- Why can't we do that? --- The US is a democracy. People have the right to a trial. --- They have trials in Singapore and Saudi Arabia. --- There is a thriving drug market in Saudi, and Singapore. --- [citation needed] --- https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/drug-dealing-in-saudi-arabia-sounds-like-a-very-stressful-business --- I want statistics, I don't want a vice article. By vice's articles I could conclude that feederism is a common fetish. --- The study referenced in the article states that roughly 25% of people had abused alcohol. As such we can extrapolate there is some substantial market for alcohol, a drug. Marginalization results in people operating in the margins. Colorado has seen a marked decrease in heroin abuse and a whole other host of positive things after legalizing weed.	60engc	CMV: The War On Drugs failed due to the punishments not being severe enough	The War on Drugs could have went significantly better had the DEA been able to request harsher sentences for distribution. Specifically corporal punishment and public executions for distribution would have made the drug problem in the United States negligible had they been enforced. Prison sentences cause people to disassociate the punishment from the crime due to their lengthly and impersonal nature and by contrast caning can be done in full very soon after the crime has been commited and is very personal and intense despite being on a whole less severe than a prison sentence. Public execution within a year of the crime is also a good measure since it will save money (we will be reducing the amount of appeals to one) and it will serve as a vivid denunciation of drug distribution and prevent perpetrators from reoffending. _____ > 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!*	Blood_tree	9	9	[ { "author": "750lucklord", "id": "df5v4jz", "score": 1, "text": "Would you apply this to Marijuana as severely as cocaine, meth, and heroin?", "timestamp": 1489990010 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "df5v5i3", "score": 0, "text": "No", "timestamp": 1489990074 }, { ...	[ { "author": "LtFred", "id": "df5teu6", "score": 9, "text": "That's true. Al McCoy makes your argument in most of his books, including Politics of Heroin in SE Asia. You can effectively eliminate drug sale if you're a fascist government. Just shoot anyone you even half suspect of involvement without ...	[ "df5v4jz", "df5v5i3", "df5v79y", "df5vdml", "df5vhm2", "df5voi7", "df5vt7y", "df5w073", "df5w2d6" ]	[ "df5teu6", "df5tg17", "df5ti0a", "df5tlhe", "df5u7rt", "df5u8zt", "df5uk06", "df5uv6x", "df5vb5r" ]
CMV: The War On Drugs failed due to the punishments not being severe enough The War on Drugs could have went significantly better had the DEA been able to request harsher sentences for distribution. Specifically corporal punishment and public executions for distribution would have made the drug problem in the United States negligible had they been enforced. Prison sentences cause people to disassociate the punishment from the crime due to their lengthly and impersonal nature and by contrast caning can be done in full very soon after the crime has been commited and is very personal and intense despite being on a whole less severe than a prison sentence. Public execution within a year of the crime is also a good measure since it will save money (we will be reducing the amount of appeals to one) and it will serve as a vivid denunciation of drug distribution and prevent perpetrators from reoffending. _____ > 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!*	People still use drugs in the Philippines right? There are still drug addicts there correct? --- Duterte is not as able to effectively enforce policy due to the Philippines being a third world country with corruption and he still made drug usage go down. The United States would have much better outcomes due to a better police force. --- Do you think the American public would tolerate public executions or corporal punishment for something as simple a smoking a joint? Or helping others to smoke a joint. Or the idea that the American Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment so your idea would be impossible anyway. --- > Do you think the American public would tolerate public executions or corporal punishment for something as simple a smoking a joint? Or helping others to smoke a joint. This is not about usage, it is about distribution, and I was mostly talking about harder drugs such as heroin. >Or the idea that the American Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment so your idea would be impossible anyway. Cruel and unusual punishment is a social construct and its interpretation differs according to time and culture. Placing such a reverence towards the constitution constitutes the bibliolatry that the founding fathers wanted to prevent hence why they considered it to be a living and breathing document. --- Cruel and unusual punishment is part of the Bill of rights. Which is a very important part of the Constitution. We can't have public beatings and killings because people have a right against those practices. A pesky thing that Constitution is. --- You just responded to my argument against your position by restating it. This is the exact thing that Christian fundamentalists do when they are challenged. The only difference is that your bible is the constitution and it doesn't even say it is infalliable. --- You didn't make a meritorious argument. If we win the war on Drugs by ripping up the Constitution then we really didn't win anything. We just became a country that got rid of a bunch of human rights. Sure it would a lot easier to target crime if we removed all human rights, but we wouldn't have a county. Let me know what rights would you let me strip from you. --- Why do you care so much about human rights that you see it as being some sort of god? I don't care about severe punishments for crime since I am not a criminal and only criminals should care about that. --- The better question is why you care so little about them. I asked you a simple question. What rights could I take from you. I'm still waiting my answer. To speak, assemble, due process before the law. You have a lot to pick from. And you still have to justify your case. And you haven't done that yet. Sure we could murder every single person that we even thought did drugs. That would solve things as well. Or we start to look at drugs as a medical problem and not a criminal one like other countries have done. Because that seems to work a lot better. At least it works a lot better then trying to justify taking rights away from people. --- I already said that I am perfectly OK with forgoing my right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment since I will never need that right. I guess Freedom of Assembly is another one I am willing to give up since I don't intend on overthrowing the government any time soon. --- Imagine they suspect you of distributing drugs, wrongly ofcourse. Now imagine they indeed disregarded human rights and torture a confession out of you. Would you feel society improved because drug use would drastically decrease? If so how many innocent people can the government kill and or torture before you feel it would not be worth it?	That's true. Al McCoy makes your argument in most of his books, including Politics of Heroin in SE Asia. You can effectively eliminate drug sale if you're a fascist government. Just shoot anyone you even half suspect of involvement without a trial, and people will pretty quickly stop selling smack. We can't do that though. --- Why can't we do that? --- The US is a democracy. People have the right to a trial. --- They have trials in Singapore and Saudi Arabia. --- There is a thriving drug market in Saudi, and Singapore. --- [citation needed] --- https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/drug-dealing-in-saudi-arabia-sounds-like-a-very-stressful-business --- I want statistics, I don't want a vice article. By vice's articles I could conclude that feederism is a common fetish. --- The study referenced in the article states that roughly 25% of people had abused alcohol. As such we can extrapolate there is some substantial market for alcohol, a drug. Marginalization results in people operating in the margins. Colorado has seen a marked decrease in heroin abuse and a whole other host of positive things after legalizing weed. --- 86% of Americans use alcohol so that means that the laws caused a decrease to almost a quarter of what it would be at otherwise. >Marginalization results in people operating in the margins. Colorado has seen a marked decrease in heroin abuse and a whole other host of positive things after legalizing weed. Weed is not the same thing as hard drugs and it is unclear whether a bad policy is better than no policy. --- You're moving the goalposts now. Weed is the main arrest made in the war on drugs.	60engc	CMV: The War On Drugs failed due to the punishments not being severe enough	The War on Drugs could have went significantly better had the DEA been able to request harsher sentences for distribution. Specifically corporal punishment and public executions for distribution would have made the drug problem in the United States negligible had they been enforced. Prison sentences cause people to disassociate the punishment from the crime due to their lengthly and impersonal nature and by contrast caning can be done in full very soon after the crime has been commited and is very personal and intense despite being on a whole less severe than a prison sentence. Public execution within a year of the crime is also a good measure since it will save money (we will be reducing the amount of appeals to one) and it will serve as a vivid denunciation of drug distribution and prevent perpetrators from reoffending. _____ > 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!*	Blood_tree	11	11	[ { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "df5tgcy", "score": 3, "text": "People still use drugs in the Philippines right?\n\nThere are still drug addicts there correct?", "timestamp": 1489986404 }, { "author": "Blood_tree", "id": "df5tl0l", "score": 0, "text": "Duterte is not as a...	[ { "author": "LtFred", "id": "df5teu6", "score": 9, "text": "That's true. Al McCoy makes your argument in most of his books, including Politics of Heroin in SE Asia. You can effectively eliminate drug sale if you're a fascist government. Just shoot anyone you even half suspect of involvement without ...	[ "df5tgcy", "df5tl0l", "df5tt48", "df5u6jg", "df5vfuq", "df5vohq", "df5vtvn", "df5w07y", "df5w5gr", "df5wdm0", "df6s8dc" ]	[ "df5teu6", "df5tg17", "df5ti0a", "df5tlhe", "df5u7rt", "df5u8zt", "df5uk06", "df5uv6x", "df5vb5r", "df5vhwd", "df5vtqh" ]
CMV: Sociology is not a real science and has no real applications Sociology is not a real science and has no real applications. Sociology is not a real science because it does not have universal consistency. People and society are too unpredictable to study, document, and infer based on past data. A person or group of individual could act one way for one reason, and another can act the same way for another reason. For example, a group of people who identify as "emo" could inflict self-harm because of oppression, self-hate, anger, sadness, trendy, etc. There are just too many reasons. Humans are so complex that it is pointless to try understand/infer because results and inferences have no meaning. Each human is individual and unique, thus it is pointless to try to understand them in groups. Why, then, collect data and try to infer for the future? Psychological/sociological tests have shown to have inconsistent findings because people vary too much; thus, it cannot be a science because data is useless and inconsistent. Finally, sociology is useless as it has no real life applications. Sociologist have argued amongst themselves for years trying to find a use for sociology, they have yet to agree on anything! Some think it should be used for societal change, some just want to collect data, and some want a little bit of both. Either way, there is no agreed use of sociology. I've never heard of sociology ever contributing to any societal changes. In sum, sociology is too inconsistent to be a science and has no real life implications. Change my view.	I am a PhD student and researcher, my research focuses on sociology of education and educational linguistics, so hopefully I can add a bit of an insider's perspective. > People and society are too unpredictable to study, document, and infer based on past data Sociological research tends to focus on particular aspects/ variables and specific populations. It doesn't claim to be able to predict human behaviour, but rather examine how particular groups and variables interact. >For example, a group of people who identify as "emo" could inflict self-harm because of oppression, self-hate, anger, sadness, trendy, etc. There are just too many reasons. All the more reason for good research. This is like saying "well lung cancer could be caused by smoking, exposure to asbestos, genetic factors...there's just too many reasons!". To me that makes a case that more research is needed to be able to examine the relationship between variables and get a better understanding of how lung cancer works. Same thing with self-harm. The more complex an issue, the more need to understand it and research it in depth. The greater our understanding of variables interacting with self-harm, the better we are able to treat it. >Humans are so complex that it is pointless to try understand/infer because results and inferences have no meaning. Many phenomena are complex. That does not stop us from researching them. Advanced mathematics or astrophysics are complex, but they are still considered useful sciences. Again, sociology is an extremely wide field that aims to investigate specific aspects of society, not come up with 'general laws of humanity'. The more research that is done, the greater our understanding of different aspects/ groups of society. >Each human is individual and unique, thus it is pointless to try to understand them in groups. The same could be said for hard sciences. "Well each human is unique, there is no way to group participants to test this new blood pressure medication". Surely we could group people into high, average, low blood pressure groups and extract some meaningful data? Why couldn't we do the same with a sociological variable? Compare how students from wealthy vs. poor backgrounds performs at school? Yes, the results will be influenced by other variables, but so would the medical research. >Finally, sociology is useless as it has no real life applications. Sociologist have argued amongst themselves for years trying to find a use for sociology, they have yet to agree on anything! This is a bit of a harsh and unfair claim, to say the least. From my own experience (sociology of education), research can help explain why some students perform better than others, why schooling may be unfair, how educational policy should be changed, how to teach more effectively etc. My own research examines how the curriculum and assessment can be unfair for certain students and how teachers can make it more accessible to students. In my view, making education equitable and improving teacher practice is pretty damn useful. Any good piece of research must make a case for its implications, my work would not have been published if others did not agree that it was timely, relevant, and useful. > I've never heard of sociology ever contributing to any societal changes Many disciplines may have very abstract applications, and more obvious applications might seem very removed from academia. To take your example of self-harm, how would hard sciences like physics or mathematics help us explain the issue, and treat it? Sociological research could explore why it occurs in certain populations, which could help counsellors identify at risk populations, which could help prevent self harm before it occurs, which could open up new research for the efficacy of preventative measures, which could... To borrow your argument, I've never of astronomy contributing to any societal changes. Does this mean it is not a legitimate science too? --- Ok, I must admit I got completely destroyed. I'm still sticking to my original "Humans are so complex that it is pointless to try understand/infer because results and inferences have no meaning." How would you explain Replication crisis in sociology/psychology then? People vary TOO much as opposed to "hard sciences." There is no law that says a person should behave x if y. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MDNvKXdLEM (This video sums up my argument in a more um..smarty manner.) ∆ --- >People vary TOO much as opposed to "hard sciences." Out of curiosity: Have you ever had any personal dealings with academia in the hard sciences? I can promise you, there are massive issues regarding replication there as well. http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox	Psychology which is basically the micro setting of sociology works pretty well even though the same rule (people are different) applies. And yet, under given circumstances we tend to respond similarly. There is nothing wrong with a scientific field which only does research because lots and lots of data will make sense after a while. And this one is difficult anyways, so maybe it just takes more time to systematically collect good data. Asking good questions for research is very difficult. You must know what you want to get out of it, and apparently they just don't know it yet. Think of sociology right now as a huge research which is in the data collection phase. Also, research question comes after data collection in this case. --- >Psychology which is basically the micro setting of sociology works pretty well Really? The replication crisis seems to indicate otherwise --- Depends on the field of Psychology. Some are faring better than others because their methods are much more precise and easy to replicate. Just take a look at how cognitive psychology and social psychology run their experiments and it becomes pretty clear.	60dq07	CMV: Sociology is not a real science and has no real applications	Sociology is not a real science and has no real applications. Sociology is not a real science because it does not have universal consistency. People and society are too unpredictable to study, document, and infer based on past data. A person or group of individual could act one way for one reason, and another can act the same way for another reason. For example, a group of people who identify as "emo" could inflict self-harm because of oppression, self-hate, anger, sadness, trendy, etc. There are just too many reasons. Humans are so complex that it is pointless to try understand/infer because results and inferences have no meaning. Each human is individual and unique, thus it is pointless to try to understand them in groups. Why, then, collect data and try to infer for the future? Psychological/sociological tests have shown to have inconsistent findings because people vary too much; thus, it cannot be a science because data is useless and inconsistent. Finally, sociology is useless as it has no real life applications. Sociologist have argued amongst themselves for years trying to find a use for sociology, they have yet to agree on anything! Some think it should be used for societal change, some just want to collect data, and some want a little bit of both. Either way, there is no agreed use of sociology. I've never heard of sociology ever contributing to any societal changes. In sum, sociology is too inconsistent to be a science and has no real life implications. Change my view.	UNLUCKYButKeepGoing	3	3	[ { "author": "Hairy_Bumhole", "id": "df5w4vj", "score": 22, "text": "I am a PhD student and researcher, my research focuses on sociology of education and educational linguistics, so hopefully I can add a bit of an insider's perspective.\n\n> People and society are too unpredictable to study, document...	[ { "author": "kozmikushos", "id": "df5ne47", "score": 2, "text": "Psychology which is basically the micro setting of sociology works pretty well even though the same rule (people are different) applies. And yet, under given circumstances we tend to respond similarly.\n\nThere is nothing wrong with a ...	[ "df5w4vj", "df5wli9", "df5y5t8" ]	[ "df5ne47", "df5qygv", "df5rpco" ]
CMV:The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 should be changed to only protect current employees and not potential ones. In 1978, the united States passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act which basically created a new classification of protected class to include women who are medically pregnant. This law makes it illegal for an employer (or potential employer) to discriminate against the woman for being pregnant. For the sake of this CMV, I will focus more on Potential Employers instead of current ones. It seems absolutely insane to me that companies are not allowed to "not hire" an applicant based on the fact that they are pregnant. If I am a business owner, and I am hiring for a position, why is it in the best interest of my business to hire someone who will require 12 to 26 weeks of leave within the next nine months? If I already have multiple employees that are going to be on leave due to child birth, and I am hiring a person to cover while we would be shorthanded, why would I be forced to hire someone who will need the same duration off as the workers I am already trying to cover for? Also, it sure seems like a terrible way to start off with a company, basically hiding that you are pregnant during an interview, or refusing to answer that question. Completely shattering any semblance of trust is not a good "foot in" to a career. So, say I hire someone to run the front desk of my ice cream stand. On the very first day, they tell me they are pregnant. Now I am automatically on a clock. I must now hire a second person and train them to do the exact same job for when my new hire will be taking 12 to 26 weeks of leave. So now I am having to pay wages/benefits/ect for two people instead of one, costing the business double. When the time comes, the first hire goes on 12 weeks of leave, and I have someone there to do the same job, and is able to show up to work every day. After the 12 to 26 weeks is up, I must give the first hire the job back, and let the second "reliable" employee go or find other work for them to do. How is this fair to the business, and how is this fair to the second hire who was able to do the job they hired on to do reliably? In my opinion, this law needs to be changed to ONLY reflect current employees, and not potential employees for the exact reasoning I wrote above. Why should a potential employer have massive expanded costs and needless frustration and hassle, when they COULD hire a reliable employee instead, and not have to worry about all of this? I understand that everyone needs equal opportunity to find employment, but that should also be expanded to the employer as well to find the best employee for the job they are able. It seems like this law actively sabotages the ability to do this. CMV (Resubmitted to add more info to the title and not break the rules) _____ > 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!*	>So now I am having to pay wages/benefits/ect for two people instead of one FMLA actually only requires that you hold the position for the person, it does not require you to pay them while they are on leave. Essentially your complaint would be you hired someone, trained them a bit, they left, forgot everything and now you have to retrain them. Additionally you have basically a year with them before they can take FMLA, so it's not like they can just get hired one day and take leave the next to have a job locked up when they are ready. [Source](http://www.fmla101.com/fmla-basics/fmla-eligibility.html) So now you just hired someone trained them and then they left, but don't need to hire them back. Finally FMLA only applies to larger companies which have 50 or more employees, so your mom & pop shop aren't going to be affected. Is it fair to the business? Maybe not. But is it good for society that mom's can have a job in order to support their baby instead of having to go on government assistance. I'd argue it's good and that it's a net gain for society. --- > FMLA actually only requires that you hold the position for the person, it does not require you to pay them while they are on leave. > One would still need to pay both parties for at least a short amount of time during the training process of the second hire. Also, there is not only wages, but benefits, UEI, ect that has to be paid for each on the payroll, regardless of whether they are "Active" employees. >Essentially your complaint would be you hired someone, trained them a bit, they left, forgot everything and now you have to retrain them. > Actually, I didn't think of this, but this would be a big concern as well. Someone who is new to a position will have a higher probability in forgetting how to perform their job, especially after going through a life-changing event such as childbirth, and it would potentially take even more resources to get them back up to a competent level. Wait, aren't you supposed to be changing my view? That actually strengthens my position. > Additionally you have basically a year with them before they can take FMLA, so it's not like they can just get hired one day and take leave the next to have a job locked up when they are ready. Source So now you just hired someone trained them and then they left, but don't need to hire them back. > Now this is something I was mentally incorrect on. I read the law and was under the presumption that it applied to all employees, and not just the ones who had been employed for over a year. While this does swing things a bit in the other direction, I feel that the cost of having to replace a worker who already knew they were going to need replacing should not fall on to the shoulders of the employer, especially if the next section is true: > Finally FMLA only applies to larger companies which have 50 or more employees, so your mom & pop shop aren't going to be affected. > So Mom & Pop places would be affected by this even harder as they already run slim on staff as it is. A major corporation will have a larger number of staff to be able to at least assist in getting a new person up to speed, even if they should not have to. A small M&P place will have a much more difficult time in many of the things I have mentioned above. > Is it fair to the business? Maybe not. But is it good for society that mom's can have a job in order to support their baby instead of having to go on government assistance. I'd argue it's good and that it's a net gain for society. > I would counter that it may teach people to wait until they are in a more comfortable position in order to have children. Also, there is nothing stopping "mom's" from holding a job, and then deciding to start a family. If the business decides that it wants to hire someone who may be a perfect fir for a position, and they are WILLING to allow the new hire the leave as they feel the hire would be a valuable asset for the business, that is their prerogative. I am just a firm believe that they should have the right to know all of the facts ahead of time in order to make the best decision for their business. --- > So Mom & Pop places would be affected by this even harder as they already run slim on staff as it is Your mom and pop shop can simply refuse to give special leave to a pregnant employee. > I would counter that it may teach people to wait until they are in a more comfortable position in order to have children. Not everyone who gets pregnant chooses to be pregnant (since we're talking American politics, let's emphasize the fact that no contraceptive is perfect and abortion is difficult to access and can be expensive). Allowing businesses to discriminate based on current pregnancy status inevitably becomes a tool to "teach" people with ovaries to avoid sexual activity. > I read the law and was under the presumption that it applied to all employees, and not just the ones who had been employed for over a year. While this does swing things a bit in the other direction... This should swing things almost entirely in the opposite direction. If someone is hired while pregnant, they aren't eligible for FMLA leave for that pregnancy unless they're a medical marvel; either the new hire takes time off according to other company leave policies, or they quit. The loss to the company becomes the same as if someone were hired and then left after a few months for any reason whatsoever, and turnover in general is a cost of doing business.	Just for clarification, you are only referring to potential employees that are pregnant not ones that are likely to become pregnant. --- I don't think there really is a way to judge a "likely to become pregnant" scale, at least reliably. This would only affect those who already know they are pregnant before accepting a job position. --- Well if there is a 28-year-old newlywed male v. same aged newlywed female with equal qualifications it might be a deciding factor.	9qpz8x	CMV:The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 should be changed to only protect current employees and not potential ones.	In 1978, the united States passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act which basically created a new classification of protected class to include women who are medically pregnant. This law makes it illegal for an employer (or potential employer) to discriminate against the woman for being pregnant. For the sake of this CMV, I will focus more on Potential Employers instead of current ones. It seems absolutely insane to me that companies are not allowed to "not hire" an applicant based on the fact that they are pregnant. If I am a business owner, and I am hiring for a position, why is it in the best interest of my business to hire someone who will require 12 to 26 weeks of leave within the next nine months? If I already have multiple employees that are going to be on leave due to child birth, and I am hiring a person to cover while we would be shorthanded, why would I be forced to hire someone who will need the same duration off as the workers I am already trying to cover for? Also, it sure seems like a terrible way to start off with a company, basically hiding that you are pregnant during an interview, or refusing to answer that question. Completely shattering any semblance of trust is not a good "foot in" to a career. So, say I hire someone to run the front desk of my ice cream stand. On the very first day, they tell me they are pregnant. Now I am automatically on a clock. I must now hire a second person and train them to do the exact same job for when my new hire will be taking 12 to 26 weeks of leave. So now I am having to pay wages/benefits/ect for two people instead of one, costing the business double. When the time comes, the first hire goes on 12 weeks of leave, and I have someone there to do the same job, and is able to show up to work every day. After the 12 to 26 weeks is up, I must give the first hire the job back, and let the second "reliable" employee go or find other work for them to do. How is this fair to the business, and how is this fair to the second hire who was able to do the job they hired on to do reliably? In my opinion, this law needs to be changed to ONLY reflect current employees, and not potential employees for the exact reasoning I wrote above. Why should a potential employer have massive expanded costs and needless frustration and hassle, when they COULD hire a reliable employee instead, and not have to worry about all of this? I understand that everyone needs equal opportunity to find employment, but that should also be expanded to the employer as well to find the best employee for the job they are able. It seems like this law actively sabotages the ability to do this. CMV (Resubmitted to add more info to the title and not break the rules) _____ > 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!*	RomusLupos	3	3	[ { "author": "rehcsel", "id": "e8aun8a", "score": 20, "text": ">So now I am having to pay wages/benefits/ect for two people instead of one\n\nFMLA actually only requires that you hold the position for the person, it does not require you to pay them while they are on leave. Essentially your complaint ...	[ { "author": "uknolickface", "id": "e8aup94", "score": 3, "text": "Just for clarification, you are only referring to potential employees that are pregnant not ones that are likely to become pregnant.", "timestamp": 1540308291 }, { "author": "RomusLupos", "id": "e8auvb8", "score": ...	[ "e8aun8a", "e8awlds", "e8b2ucc" ]	[ "e8aup94", "e8auvb8", "e8auz95" ]
CMV: "Classic Literature" that is assigned to average school students is not beneficial. So many works that are classified as classics and have been assigned to generation after generation are, in my opinion, doing no good for anyone. For reference, I'm referring to works like; "Romeo and Juliet" , "The Crucible" , "The Lord of the Flies" , "Fahrenheit 451" , and "The Grapes of Wrath". I am not saying I dislike all these works. I believe forcing such heavy works on students has led to a rather pervasive dislike of leisure reading. I also think they serve no real purpose educationally. I kind of feel like because they somehow got labeled as classic literature they just keep getting forced on class after class with no real reason or thought. If one wants to study a specific era or applicable field, then, by all means read them, but I don't think any average 10th grader needs to read "The Lord of the Flies" and Shakespeare really should be studied voluntarily.	The first time I was made to read Romeo and Juliet, I fell asleep on my book right in the middle of class, so trust me when I say I can see where you're coming from. When I walked out of that class I thought to myself that it was the single worst, most pointless, and impossibly difficult thing I had ever read, and never wanted to hear the name Shakespeare again for as long as I lived. But weird as it sounds, I'm an English major now. Elizabethan Era English is less of an annoyance than a buzzing housefly these days, but I never would have gotten to this point if I had been allowed to stop at, "do you bite your thumb at us sir?" Kids don't really know what they will like in the future, what their talents actually are, or what they can make a career out of, and schools forcing them to endure a wide breadth of subjects, many of which they will not enjoy, can help them to figure out what they do want. Being required to experience stories like Romeo and Juliet and Lord of the Flies it helps students to discover themselves, even if in many cases that only means discovering what they aren't. Most kids are going to be turned off by that stuff, and that's fine. But some, who otherwise wouldn't have even thought to try it out, will find their calling, and sometimes that takes time and repeated exposure as a person matures and changes. --- Even knowing most of them walked away with the wrong notion? That's a tragedy man, and yet people always are saying they want to be like them, I'm like "did you read the same play I did?" I love Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean the kids in freshman English are ready or willing to take it in --- Yup, even then. Sure, they're not understanding the satirical elements of R&J, there's still plenty of simpler lessons they can pick up from it. I don't think anyone's misunderstanding the fact that the whole tragedy was caused by a pointless grudge match between the Montagues and Capulets, for one thing. That is an excellent lesson to be planting into the heads of young Americans who are approaching voting age, with the modern US divided as it is by bipartisan politics. Besides if they don't read it then, when will it be appropriate for them? Is a mathematics major in college any more likely to take the time to sit down to properly understand a Shakespearean play than they were in high school? Maybe yes, they're more mature and their tastes could have changed. Maybe no, they're busier and already have an idea of what's important to their future and what's extraneous and can be ignored. It's really a case by case thing, that can't be predicted or catered to. Placing it at the HS level is about as mature as the students can get while still being before they all spread out and focus down on their majors in college. --- Well that's true, but in our county freshmen read Romeo and Juliet and to this day still reference it as the romance the desire to live up to. They don't care about the creepy age difference, they don't care about the needless ending, I mean at least share your plan first! Then they are dead, which sounds romantic to angst teens, but we're all hovering around 30, so I think non of them were ready for it. A few years can make a difference, maybe senior year? --- The fact that you consider "I mean at least share your plan first!" to be some kind of death-knell for the literary or romantic merit of Romeo and Juliet is really telling. The point is that these teens are being driven crazy by the stresses on them. --- It doesn't take anything from the literary merit. But I don't think this is a good romantic example. It's a good example of how teenagers make rash decisions and how lust and rebellion aren't great ways to live your life. They died barely knowing one another, that's not really a love story in my opinion. I love Shakespeare, this is a good work. --- That's probably actually a really fantastic reason to show it to freshmen. They're just starting to get into relationships and feel feelings and shit. That stuff is like a drug when it first starts. How many high schoolers said they'd be together forever? Showing them a piece of literature where the main characters are acting rashly, rebelling, acting solely on their feelings and their lust, and how all of these decisions ruin everything is a good warning for high schoolers about the dangers of losing your head to your idea of romance, no?	Is Lord of the Flies particularly difficult? --- No, but it's disturbing and taught me 0 life lessons and I wish I had never read it. --- Isn't the life lesson that, when in groups and isolated, humans will often break into smaller groups and attack each other? Isn't it a microcosm of human civilisation? I'd wager the fact that you found it disturbing means you got something out of it... --- I would disagree, I would only apply this to young males and since it's fiction it doesn't apply even more. The whole book was an exercise in frustration for me. --- You think only young males attack each other and form cliques? You don't see any benefit in reading fiction that seeks to explain human nature? I wonder how much of this entire CMV is based on the fact that perhaps you were poorly taught, rather than the content itself? --- No I don't think that, I do see value in learning about human nature, but I don't feel that this book taught me that. I don't see why this needs to devolve into attacking me and my education, I doubt you wrote the book, it's not personal, I simply don't like it or see much value in it. --- It's not an attack on you, buddy. I'm merely suggesting that if you think it doesn't apply to you because you're not a teenage boy, you may have missed something. That's not your problem, it's whoever taught the class.	60e1hr	CMV: "Classic Literature" that is assigned to average school students is not beneficial.	So many works that are classified as classics and have been assigned to generation after generation are, in my opinion, doing no good for anyone. For reference, I'm referring to works like; "Romeo and Juliet" , "The Crucible" , "The Lord of the Flies" , "Fahrenheit 451" , and "The Grapes of Wrath". I am not saying I dislike all these works. I believe forcing such heavy works on students has led to a rather pervasive dislike of leisure reading. I also think they serve no real purpose educationally. I kind of feel like because they somehow got labeled as classic literature they just keep getting forced on class after class with no real reason or thought. If one wants to study a specific era or applicable field, then, by all means read them, but I don't think any average 10th grader needs to read "The Lord of the Flies" and Shakespeare really should be studied voluntarily.	slytherin-by-night	7	7	[ { "author": "StinkySardines", "id": "df5yaan", "score": 5, "text": "The first time I was made to read Romeo and Juliet, I fell asleep on my book right in the middle of class, so trust me when I say I can see where you're coming from. When I walked out of that class I thought to myself that it was th...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "df5rqme", "score": 7, "text": "Is Lord of the Flies particularly difficult? ", "timestamp": 1489983248 }, { "author": "slytherin-by-night", "id": "df5rs4l", "score": 0, "text": "No, but it's disturbing and taught me 0 life lessons and I wish I...	[ "df5yaan", "df6345r", "df68e8g", "df68xrn", "df6fgi7", "df6gza8", "df6tjt9" ]	[ "df5rqme", "df5rs4l", "df5ryz8", "df5s67h", "df5s858", "df5sowd", "df5su8v" ]
CMV: Desire to see all races represented in settings that have no reason to have them is anti-diversity A common sentiment today is that settings with largely white people are not diverse enough and when re-adapting the work featuring them should be changed to have more representation of all races, in the name of diversity. In my opinion, it makes perfect sense when depicting a setting that is supposed to be multi-racial, e.g. when dealing with an older work set in America which underrepresented non-whites. On the other hand, it has the opposite effect when dealing with works set in environments that are in real life dominated by one race, or fictional environments that are based on these or are ambiguous about their races – in these cases attempting to bring the setting to American racial ratio is in fact anti-diversity. A common modern-day example is Witcher. It’s based on medieval Poland, where non-white people were virtually non-existent (canonically in the setting they exist in other parts of the world, but are extremely rare in areas where main action takes place). Poland did not become white-dominated because whites oppressed or killed other races – they were simply the only race that existed there historically (at least in the period of history we know enough about). It was in fact similar in this to vast majority of Europe (except areas bordering Africa, such as Middle East and Mediterranean), and for that matter the same is still true for most areas outside of Europe (e.g. in Hong Kong most of the people around me were Asians and in Tanzania most were predictably black). So when American public and/or companies say something along the lines of “the white-dominated environment is wrong, stuck in the past, and not healthy”, they are in fact saying this about environment that still (perhaps unbeknownst to them) exists on most of the planet. The countries with multiple races present in significant amounts are a minority, and historically most of them became that way not for healthy reasons - either because of past slavery (US, Brazil) or past colonialism (UK, France). Even so, in real world we have a variety of racial ratios – many areas are largely monoracial, some have two-race mix in different ratios, some have white, black and asian represented but again in varying ratios. For that matter race is far from the only hereditary division humans obsess about, it’s just the one dominant specifically in US politics – many “monoracial” environments have deep divisions along ethnic lines (many of which translate into differing appearance, even if in the traditional sense, race is the same) or other lines (e.g. India’s castes) The current US focus on diversity originates from desire to solve issues that are domestic and largely US-specific. However, when the desire for diversity is taken out of its context and applied in exact same form to international culture, this approach is both ignorant and, in desire to see the varying racial environments of the world (and fictional worlds based on them), all homogenized to the specific ratios Americans see around themselves, goes strongly against the whole idea of diversity. For that matter even if you argue that multiracial environments are healthy and are the future of humanity, the desire to see only multiracial environments in mass culture would be similar to the desire to see only healthy people. EDIT: Since most comments focus on the Witcher, I wanted to clarify that it was used only as example of the trend, and my main point is that as stated above, is that homogenizing all the environments towards the american racial environment, is not what diversity is about, and in fact goes against the concept - i.e. diversity is not limited to having a specific racial combination around.	>A common modern-day example is Witcher. The Witcher is a fantasy world. It may be based on Medieval Poland, but it isn't. This is a world where super-human swordsmen fight giant bug monsters with magic fireballs... but black people is too hard to accept? --- It isn't even really based on medieval poland. Plenty of the monsters originate from myths from other time periods and regions. In the games, it becomes super obvious that some of the groups are coded as belonging to very different populations based on chosen accents for the voice acting. The "the witcher is based on medieval poland" thing is just accentuated by people who want to complain about diversity. --- The monsters are actually all based on Polish folklore, however they are not alway s depicted according to the folklore (it could be people giving familiar names to monsters they ended up with). Culturally the Northen Kingdoms setting is very much Polish (although it may not be obvious to a person who is not familiar with Slavic cultures). There are exceptions, e.g. some other countries are very much not based on Poland, plus the reimagined fairy tales from the first book are most common European ones, but these do not affect the main cast. --- Here's Andrzej Sapkowski, the author of Witcher series (translated from Polish with DeepL): > The Witcher, Geralt, does indeed bear a quite "Slavic" name, and there are "Slavic" notes in the ono- and toponomastics. There is a lech and a kikimora, but there is also an Andersen-esque mermaid and a beast taken from Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont. The Witcher series is a classical and canonical fantasy and, as Wokulski told Starsky, has as much Slavic flavour as poison in a match. > [...] > In my books, as far as I remember, the color of the skin is not mentioned too precisely, so adapters have a great field of play here, everything is possible and acceptable, after all, it could have been so. Source is "Książki. Magazyn do czytania", February 2020 issue	In medieval Poland, there were no dragons. No one spoke English and people speaking English at the time would have sounded much different. The music is full of instruments that didn't exist at the time and certainly not in Poland. The word "fuck" didn't exist until the early renaissance, but the show is peppered with it. And, yeah while some of the mythology is inspired by Polish myth, they borrow the look of these creatures and a myriad of details from the whole history of myth and media. So with all of these additions meant to appeal to an audience's enjoyment and identification with this purely fictional fantasy story, why is the preservation of an all white cast deadly important? --- Let's put it this way - if there was a book based on African folklore and it predictably had an all-black cast, but a TV series made it interracial, there would be a huge outcry about appropriation, etc. Point is, Polish is a distinct culture with its traditions, and when US progressives who have instinctive aversion to all-whiteness (for reasons that may be good when applied to US) view the very idea that a land can have overwhelming majority of one race as wrong and want to change it to what they are used to seeing around themselves, this is narrow-minded and only harms diversity (which is about many aspects, not just the racial ratio about you). --- In a world where djinn exist, how can you claim the Witcher in "based on" Polish folklore to the extent that it should be populated exclusively by eastern europeans? --- There are plenty of stories where e.g. vampires exist, but that are set in decidedly American-looking cities. In fact "X, but with supernatural" is a common genre in either books or shows. The books are as Polish as Buffy is American. The difference may be that if you are not familiar with any slavic culture, you may not even see the elements that refer to Polish culture.	sgghc0	CMV: Desire to see all races represented in settings that have no reason to have them is anti-diversity	A common sentiment today is that settings with largely white people are not diverse enough and when re-adapting the work featuring them should be changed to have more representation of all races, in the name of diversity. In my opinion, it makes perfect sense when depicting a setting that is supposed to be multi-racial, e.g. when dealing with an older work set in America which underrepresented non-whites. On the other hand, it has the opposite effect when dealing with works set in environments that are in real life dominated by one race, or fictional environments that are based on these or are ambiguous about their races – in these cases attempting to bring the setting to American racial ratio is in fact anti-diversity. A common modern-day example is Witcher. It’s based on medieval Poland, where non-white people were virtually non-existent (canonically in the setting they exist in other parts of the world, but are extremely rare in areas where main action takes place). Poland did not become white-dominated because whites oppressed or killed other races – they were simply the only race that existed there historically (at least in the period of history we know enough about). It was in fact similar in this to vast majority of Europe (except areas bordering Africa, such as Middle East and Mediterranean), and for that matter the same is still true for most areas outside of Europe (e.g. in Hong Kong most of the people around me were Asians and in Tanzania most were predictably black). So when American public and/or companies say something along the lines of “the white-dominated environment is wrong, stuck in the past, and not healthy”, they are in fact saying this about environment that still (perhaps unbeknownst to them) exists on most of the planet. The countries with multiple races present in significant amounts are a minority, and historically most of them became that way not for healthy reasons - either because of past slavery (US, Brazil) or past colonialism (UK, France). Even so, in real world we have a variety of racial ratios – many areas are largely monoracial, some have two-race mix in different ratios, some have white, black and asian represented but again in varying ratios. For that matter race is far from the only hereditary division humans obsess about, it’s just the one dominant specifically in US politics – many “monoracial” environments have deep divisions along ethnic lines (many of which translate into differing appearance, even if in the traditional sense, race is the same) or other lines (e.g. India’s castes) The current US focus on diversity originates from desire to solve issues that are domestic and largely US-specific. However, when the desire for diversity is taken out of its context and applied in exact same form to international culture, this approach is both ignorant and, in desire to see the varying racial environments of the world (and fictional worlds based on them), all homogenized to the specific ratios Americans see around themselves, goes strongly against the whole idea of diversity. For that matter even if you argue that multiracial environments are healthy and are the future of humanity, the desire to see only multiracial environments in mass culture would be similar to the desire to see only healthy people. EDIT: Since most comments focus on the Witcher, I wanted to clarify that it was used only as example of the trend, and my main point is that as stated above, is that homogenizing all the environments towards the american racial environment, is not what diversity is about, and in fact goes against the concept - i.e. diversity is not limited to having a specific racial combination around.	Ancquar	4	4	[ { "author": "RuroniHS", "id": "huw16i0", "score": 31, "text": ">A common modern-day example is Witcher.\n\nThe Witcher is a fantasy world. It may be based on Medieval Poland, but it isn't. This is a world where super-human swordsmen fight giant bug monsters with magic fireballs... but black peop...	[ { "author": "-paperbrain-", "id": "huw27ck", "score": 40, "text": "In medieval Poland, there were no dragons. No one spoke English and people speaking English at the time would have sounded much different.\n\nThe music is full of instruments that didn't exist at the time and certainly not in Poland....	[ "huw16i0", "huw9est", "huwpds3", "huwx2sh" ]	[ "huw27ck", "huw9rmo", "huwagcb", "huwblvh" ]
CMV: I don't believe in giving homeless people money. I used to, but not anymore. It's not because they're going to buy drugs with it either. If they are, then that's on them. But I stopped because I've come to realize that I started giving every single homeless person money, and it adds up. I took a tally of how much I gave in a month and it added up to some $360ish USD. What really topped it off though was when I was at a Wawa in Tampa, FL and a homeless man asked me for money. I gave home a five and I guess he saw more in my wallet and asked for a ten... that was the last time I gave any money to a homeless guy. I thought about this the other day and I'm driving in Monterey, CA and I see a kid, gosh... he couldn't have been any more than 17 years old with the top of a pizza box standing on the median asking for money. The part that bothers me the most is that I continued driving.	Why is the distinction of having a home the make or break for you? That just means that in addition to having fiscal problems, they also don't have close ones that can help them through. Besides spending too much, couldn't the same be said of people that are wealthier? If you gave $5 to all of your more fiscally secure acquaintances, wouldn't that still leave you spending too much? What is the difference between spending 360 dollars a month on friends than homeless people? Is it simply knowing that they are both grateful and going to be interacting with you in the future? --- That's a good perspective... never thought about it like that. --- If this changed your view even partially, you should award a delta.	It doesn't sound you actually "don't believe in giving homeless people money" as any kind of general principle, you just don't know how to manage your money properly and have apparently decided to blame "the homeless." Like, seriously: $360 in a month of just giving change randomly whenever you run into someone homeless? If I went out and actively gave out all my change, I don't think I would break $100 in a month. And I live in an area with a lot of homeless. --- How would this be a problem with money management? I have my shit together, I just think I can save more of it for myself. I'm wasn't giving change to these guys either... usually like a few bucks or more a piece. --- You have a problem with money management because you "took a tally" at the end of the month and only at that moment realized you'd spent $360 on homeless people. And yes, I assumed that we weren't just talking quarters, but that's still ridiculously high, and speaks to you just not paying that much attention to what's going on with your money.	60clf2	CMV: I don't believe in giving homeless people money.	I used to, but not anymore. It's not because they're going to buy drugs with it either. If they are, then that's on them. But I stopped because I've come to realize that I started giving every single homeless person money, and it adds up. I took a tally of how much I gave in a month and it added up to some $360ish USD. What really topped it off though was when I was at a Wawa in Tampa, FL and a homeless man asked me for money. I gave home a five and I guess he saw more in my wallet and asked for a ten... that was the last time I gave any money to a homeless guy. I thought about this the other day and I'm driving in Monterey, CA and I see a kid, gosh... he couldn't have been any more than 17 years old with the top of a pizza box standing on the median asking for money. The part that bothers me the most is that I continued driving.	supermoto007	3	3	[ { "author": "MegaZeroX7", "id": "df59wwi", "score": 11, "text": "Why is the distinction of having a home the make or break for you? That just means that in addition to having fiscal problems, they also don't have close ones that can help them through.\n\nBesides spending too much, couldn't the same ...	[ { "author": "Literally_Herodotus", "id": "df5edj4", "score": 7, "text": "It doesn't sound you actually \"don't believe in giving homeless people money\" as any kind of general principle, you just don't know how to manage your money properly and have apparently decided to blame \"the homeless.\"\n\nL...	[ "df59wwi", "df5g39s", "df5hb31" ]	[ "df5edj4", "df5ftsb", "df5fzwl" ]
CMV: If you are on the left, you really shouldn't want internet services to be a public utility This is based on the assumption that you like it when access to internet services are shut off to conservatives, as well as extremist right wing groups. If internet services were a utility, then freedom of association would be removed from service providers. EG - A power company isn't allowed to shut off service to a house because they don't like the owners polical views. If internet services were a public utility, Amazon couldn't shut off services to that one racist right wing group. And it isn't unreasonable at all to think the supreme court could rule that the "internet" includes websites (especially social media platforms), so Trump couldn't be banned from Twitter or Facebook.	>If internet services were a utility, then freedom of association would be removed from service providers. EG - A power company isn't allowed to shut off service to a house because they don't like the owners polical views. Power companies can shut of power to a particular house that is engaged in illegal activities. If a group is doing things such as organizing violence, encouraging targeted harassment, or planning seditious activity, their activities are no longer protected by their "political views". Public utilities are not an unalienable right. The utility company and law enforcement can shut them off for a variety of reasons. --- Did the group that Amazon cut off service to do anything illegal? I'm actually asking my understanding is that they did not break the law --- Amazon isn’t the utility. You’re confusing webhost and ISP. --- Amazon was the domain provider, correct? --- incorrect. Amazon provided webservers for Parler to run software on and provided software utilities for Parler's software to use. Parler kept their domain name. Amazon just refused to continue to run Parler's software on Amazon's servers.	Can I ask what your definition of "on the left" is? Because it seems very different than mine. --- This view is limited to those on the left that wish to censor speech. I guess it really doesn't even matter what side of the political spectrum one is on, but being against free speech and being on the right isn't really a thing --- >being against free speech and being on the right isn't really a thing Sure it is. Try saying something against the military or the county around right wingers. They will try to silence you right quick. Hell, a lot of the people who are against swearing in public are conservative. --- Okay, sure. Don't have any problem with that. --- And would you also admit that not everyone on the left is anti-freedom of speech?	oeddxb	CMV: If you are on the left, you really shouldn't want internet services to be a public utility	This is based on the assumption that you like it when access to internet services are shut off to conservatives, as well as extremist right wing groups. If internet services were a utility, then freedom of association would be removed from service providers. EG - A power company isn't allowed to shut off service to a house because they don't like the owners polical views. If internet services were a public utility, Amazon couldn't shut off services to that one racist right wing group. And it isn't unreasonable at all to think the supreme court could rule that the "internet" includes websites (especially social media platforms), so Trump couldn't be banned from Twitter or Facebook.	ZeusThunder369	5	5	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "h45ksny", "score": 6, "text": ">If internet services were a utility, then freedom of association would be removed from service providers. EG - A power company isn't allowed to shut off service to a house because they don't like the owners polical views.\n\nPower compa...	[ { "author": "StanePantsen", "id": "h45kwgt", "score": 3, "text": "Can I ask what your definition of \"on the left\" is? Because it seems very different than mine.", "timestamp": 1625510710 }, { "author": "ZeusThunder369", "id": "h45m9wq", "score": -2, "text": "This view is li...	[ "h45ksny", "h45l90f", "h45mq0l", "h45qtqj", "h45viti" ]	[ "h45kwgt", "h45m9wq", "h45mtn3", "h45nhsv", "h45nvyd" ]
CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. We care a lot about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. We can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing. The youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.	No one is entitled to anything, which makes the whole argument seem pointless. Entitlement is not a force of nature --- I believe we are entitled to basic human rights. --- Yes, and some people believe that we should be entitled to respect. But entitlement is enforced by society, it's not something assigned by a spirit or a natural force.	I think it’s morally good to have a base level of respect for everyone. Do you disagree? --- I disagree that it’s necessarily morally good to have a base level of verbal respect for everyone. --- It just makes sense as an opportunistic argument	1bp0jqu	CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect	So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. We care a lot about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. We can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing. The youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.	Odd_Profession_2902	3	3	[ { "author": "Dyeeguy", "id": "kwsdn3i", "score": 2, "text": "No one is entitled to anything, which makes the whole argument seem pointless. Entitlement is not a force of nature", "timestamp": 1711542406 }, { "author": "Odd_Profession_2902", "id": "kwsdsjy", "score": 1, "text"...	[ { "author": "Nrdman", "id": "kwse0z0", "score": 17, "text": "I think it’s morally good to have a base level of respect for everyone. Do you disagree?", "timestamp": 1711542583 }, { "author": "Odd_Profession_2902", "id": "kwsfaq8", "score": -6, "text": "I disagree that it’s ne...	[ "kwsdn3i", "kwsdsjy", "kwshggh" ]	[ "kwse0z0", "kwsfaq8", "kwsgttl" ]
CMV: If a carbon tax is introduced and disadvantaged people's cost of living goes up by $0.01 or more, then they should be heavily compensated per disadvantage At the moment, disadvantaged people (e.g. non-white people, overweight people, poor people, short people, ugly people, uneducated people, etc) have to go through a lot of pain. They are told continuously to accept that life is unfair, accept that their lives are harder/worse, accept that they need to find a way to enjoy watching the privileged have better/easier lives and find a way to be a good sport about it, accept that if they help the world then their lives will still not get any better and accept that they will still have to help the world despite the world causing the many inequalities that they face. Considering how serious climate change is, I am fine with introducing a carbon tax. What I am not fine with is not compensating disadvantaged people. They already have to go through pain, it is absolutely cruel to force them to go through more pain by causing their cost of living to increase AND getting them to thank the world for putting them in pain. Therefore in order to reduce the pain of the disadvantaged, we need to make sure that if their cost of living increases by $0.01 or more, they are heavily compensated for it. This will also reduce their pain as the world will be forced to apologise for the pain that the disadvantaged had to go through. CMV. Why shouldn't disadvantaged people be heavily compensated per disadvantage if a carbon tax is introduced? EDIT: I now accept that for disadvantages that aren't so clear cut (e.g. how you work out if someone is gay) then this would be difficult. However I still believe that if your disadvantage is clear cut then you should still get heavy compensation for it even if the country has to go into more debt to pay you. It is much more important to ensure that the disadvantaged aren't in more pain. _____ > 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!*	These are two independent issues. Even if there is not a carbon tax, we are still obligated to do something about disadvantaged people, to let them live a quality of life that is accepted by everyone else. Even if we (unjustifiably) do nothing about disadvantaged people, that still doesn't make doing something about climate change a bad idea. Carbon taxes will help everyone, including disadvantaged groups, in the long run. --- No they're not. My point is that a carbon tax increases the cost of living which increases the pain that disadvantaged people are in. Therefore if you want a carbon tax - fine, I do too. However I believe disadvantaged people should be compensated for it so we can reduce their pain. I agree, we should do something about disadvantaged people. We should compensate them. I disagree with your final point. Let's say there's a straight white male who is short therefore he gets paid less than his taller co-workers and has a harder time in dating. Well thanks to society, he is in pain now. The only way to reduce that pain is to compensate him for it. --- Financial compensation isn't really the only way of reducing his pain. Having a bit more money might help give him an equal pay to his taller coworkers, but the coworkers in the office who showed him less respect because of his height will still show him less respect. Those who wouldn't date him because of his height still won't date him. Money would be nice sure, but if you actually want them to be less disadvantaged working towards removing stereotypes and bigotry is a better solution than a paycheck.	Why just a carbon tax. What about property tax, income tax, business tax sales tax and any other type of tax I missed. And if I'm bi but am rich what tax do I have when compared to a trans millionaire vs a black female. Your tax scale would be insanely complicated. --- I certainly agree, the disadvantaged should continue to pay all taxes but receive compensation back depending on how many disadvantages they have. How will the tax scale be insanely complicated? You get more compensation if you have more disadvantages. That doesn't sound so difficult and it would also reduce the pain of disadvantaged people. Sounds like a win-win to me. --- So a str male should pay more because?	6wpv6x	CMV: If a carbon tax is introduced and disadvantaged people's cost of living goes up by $0.01 or more, then they should be heavily compensated per disadvantage	At the moment, disadvantaged people (e.g. non-white people, overweight people, poor people, short people, ugly people, uneducated people, etc) have to go through a lot of pain. They are told continuously to accept that life is unfair, accept that their lives are harder/worse, accept that they need to find a way to enjoy watching the privileged have better/easier lives and find a way to be a good sport about it, accept that if they help the world then their lives will still not get any better and accept that they will still have to help the world despite the world causing the many inequalities that they face. Considering how serious climate change is, I am fine with introducing a carbon tax. What I am not fine with is not compensating disadvantaged people. They already have to go through pain, it is absolutely cruel to force them to go through more pain by causing their cost of living to increase AND getting them to thank the world for putting them in pain. Therefore in order to reduce the pain of the disadvantaged, we need to make sure that if their cost of living increases by $0.01 or more, they are heavily compensated for it. This will also reduce their pain as the world will be forced to apologise for the pain that the disadvantaged had to go through. CMV. Why shouldn't disadvantaged people be heavily compensated per disadvantage if a carbon tax is introduced? EDIT: I now accept that for disadvantages that aren't so clear cut (e.g. how you work out if someone is gay) then this would be difficult. However I still believe that if your disadvantage is clear cut then you should still get heavy compensation for it even if the country has to go into more debt to pay you. It is much more important to ensure that the disadvantaged aren't in more pain. _____ > 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": "yyzjertl", "id": "dm9vjqt", "score": 2, "text": "These are two independent issues.\n\nEven if there is not a carbon tax, we are still obligated to do something about disadvantaged people, to let them live a quality of life that is accepted by everyone else.\n\nEven if we (unjustifiably)...	[ { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "dm9v57u", "score": 5, "text": "Why just a carbon tax. \n\nWhat about property tax, income tax, business tax sales tax and any other type of tax I missed. \n\nAnd if I'm bi but am rich what tax do I have when compared to a trans millionaire vs a black female. \n\n...	[ "dm9vjqt", "dm9vwsy", "dma1a1f" ]	[ "dm9v57u", "dm9vgms", "dm9vhrl" ]
CMV: If a carbon tax is introduced and disadvantaged people's cost of living goes up by $0.01 or more, then they should be heavily compensated per disadvantage At the moment, disadvantaged people (e.g. non-white people, overweight people, poor people, short people, ugly people, uneducated people, etc) have to go through a lot of pain. They are told continuously to accept that life is unfair, accept that their lives are harder/worse, accept that they need to find a way to enjoy watching the privileged have better/easier lives and find a way to be a good sport about it, accept that if they help the world then their lives will still not get any better and accept that they will still have to help the world despite the world causing the many inequalities that they face. Considering how serious climate change is, I am fine with introducing a carbon tax. What I am not fine with is not compensating disadvantaged people. They already have to go through pain, it is absolutely cruel to force them to go through more pain by causing their cost of living to increase AND getting them to thank the world for putting them in pain. Therefore in order to reduce the pain of the disadvantaged, we need to make sure that if their cost of living increases by $0.01 or more, they are heavily compensated for it. This will also reduce their pain as the world will be forced to apologise for the pain that the disadvantaged had to go through. CMV. Why shouldn't disadvantaged people be heavily compensated per disadvantage if a carbon tax is introduced? EDIT: I now accept that for disadvantages that aren't so clear cut (e.g. how you work out if someone is gay) then this would be difficult. However I still believe that if your disadvantage is clear cut then you should still get heavy compensation for it even if the country has to go into more debt to pay you. It is much more important to ensure that the disadvantaged aren't in more pain. _____ > 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!*	Yeah. That's called a progressive tax. We have that. --- Not the same thing. I want disadvantaged people to be heavily compensated per disadvantage. A progressive tax only considers one factor - income. --- Disadvantaged at what? How do we know people are disadvantaged? We would need some kind of system where we assign a number to represent the value of things and allow people to exchange them. Then we could compare how much of these "value points" each person gains or loses each year. Those gaining few value points could be considered disadvantaged. That's what money is. --- Disadvantaged in life. We ask how much harder someone's life is due to a certain attribute - e.g. height, race, weight, etc. Wrong. We can just compensate people for each disadvantage like I said. --- Yeah buy why? If they're disadvantaged, if their life is harder, why wouldn't it show up economically? --- Not all attributes have an economic aspect to them. For example, non-whites have a harder time in dating - there isn't necessarily an economic aspect to that. However they should still receive compensation since the world made their lives harder. --- How much? --- That's not my point, my point is that disadvantaged people should be compensated per disadvantage to reduce their pain. If you disagree with the idea of them being compensated, you're not going to agree with me on how much the compensation should be anyway. However let's just say that $200 is definitely not enough. If it were in the tens of thousands per disadvantage, I would be quite happy with that. --- It's my point. How much? I agree they should be compensated. How much? How? I'm half black but look white. Do I get compensation? Would I take a DNA test to establish my "disadvantage"? What about people born into less ambitious families? They didn't choose their lot; should they be compensated? Would it be okay to compensate them with money and things like services or foods? Where would the money come from? Taxes? Would I file for this disadvantage status? It kinda sound like the system we have now. You're just arguing that being ugly or being black is a disability. --- I'm a redditor, I'm not going to have the data to work out how much it could/should be. Governments would though and/or they would know people who could work out how much it could/should be. ∆ I will give you a delta though for the reasons I've mentioned to other users. I now realise that some disadvantages aren't so clear cut. However I believe that if a disadvantage is clear cut then absolutely there should be heavy compensation for it even if the country has to go into more debt for it. --- >However I believe that if a disadvantage is clear cut The number of advantages that are clear cut is just about 0. Google "female pay gap" and you'll find hundreds of studies and articles coming to various conclusions all the way from 23% difference to them having an advantage. And that's with one of the more straight forward disadvantages. Rather than $$$ compensation, we should instead be implementing policies and laws that strive to decrease the disadvantages. Rather than giving a black male $300 a month, we should instead be removing laws that target black folks, we should be investing more money in school systems in majority black areas, we should be punishing police officers engaging in racial profiling, we should be punishing employers that are discriminatory in their hiring practices. The list goes on and on. We should be doing these things, not just giving them a random ass sum of money that is definitely going to piss off the folks paying for those sums of money.	Why just a carbon tax. What about property tax, income tax, business tax sales tax and any other type of tax I missed. And if I'm bi but am rich what tax do I have when compared to a trans millionaire vs a black female. Your tax scale would be insanely complicated. --- I certainly agree, the disadvantaged should continue to pay all taxes but receive compensation back depending on how many disadvantages they have. How will the tax scale be insanely complicated? You get more compensation if you have more disadvantages. That doesn't sound so difficult and it would also reduce the pain of disadvantaged people. Sounds like a win-win to me. --- So a str male should pay more because? --- A straight male should pay more because happiness and success doesn't just happen because you put effort into it. It happens due to outside factors as well (e.g. society treating you better because you're straight). Therefore if you've had an easier/better life then you should compensate those who haven't been so lucky. --- So a gay male can use a massive amount of carbon and pay the same as I. The better question is why are we making it more economically easy for a gay man to screw up the environment. Should we just write a check to anyone who is gay. If I decide to sleep with a dude tomorrow do I get paid now? --- Wrong. Both of you will pay the carbon tax, it's just that gay men will get compensation for it. Because ensuring disadvantaged people aren't in pain is much more important than protecting the environment. Yes. No because sleeping with a guy doesn't mean you're gay. --- If one person is getting compensated and I'm not we aren't paying the same tax. Can you prove I'm not gay? Or at least bi? I don't really think you can't. Can you see the problems here. --- ∆ I'll give you a delta because you have partially changed my view. Okay, I accept that it would be difficult to compensate people since some disadvantages aren't black and white, some disadvantages are hard to prove, etc. However what about the disadvantages which are black and white such as people who are educated vs people who are not, poor people vs wealthy people, short people vs tall people. So I now think that if your disadvantage is black and white then you still should receive heavy compensation. --- How are any of those "disadvantages" black and white? >Educated vs not Where is the line? Do high school dropouts rate as more disadvantaged than college dropouts? Do GED earners who started a successful business get more compensation than those with advanced degrees who are underemployed and struggling to pay off student loans? --- ∆ I guess you're right, most disadvantages aren't so black and white. However how can we reduce the pain of the disadvantaged then? Or are they just meant to accept that life is unfair? --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/uncoupdefoudre ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/uncoupdefoudre)). ^[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": "uncoupdefoudre" } DB3PARAMSEND)	6wpv6x	CMV: If a carbon tax is introduced and disadvantaged people's cost of living goes up by $0.01 or more, then they should be heavily compensated per disadvantage	At the moment, disadvantaged people (e.g. non-white people, overweight people, poor people, short people, ugly people, uneducated people, etc) have to go through a lot of pain. They are told continuously to accept that life is unfair, accept that their lives are harder/worse, accept that they need to find a way to enjoy watching the privileged have better/easier lives and find a way to be a good sport about it, accept that if they help the world then their lives will still not get any better and accept that they will still have to help the world despite the world causing the many inequalities that they face. Considering how serious climate change is, I am fine with introducing a carbon tax. What I am not fine with is not compensating disadvantaged people. They already have to go through pain, it is absolutely cruel to force them to go through more pain by causing their cost of living to increase AND getting them to thank the world for putting them in pain. Therefore in order to reduce the pain of the disadvantaged, we need to make sure that if their cost of living increases by $0.01 or more, they are heavily compensated for it. This will also reduce their pain as the world will be forced to apologise for the pain that the disadvantaged had to go through. CMV. Why shouldn't disadvantaged people be heavily compensated per disadvantage if a carbon tax is introduced? EDIT: I now accept that for disadvantages that aren't so clear cut (e.g. how you work out if someone is gay) then this would be difficult. However I still believe that if your disadvantage is clear cut then you should still get heavy compensation for it even if the country has to go into more debt to pay you. It is much more important to ensure that the disadvantaged aren't in more pain. _____ > 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	11	11	[ { "author": "fox-mcleod", "id": "dm9yxld", "score": 1, "text": "Yeah. That's called a progressive tax. We have that. ", "timestamp": 1504006665 }, { "author": "antilisterine", "id": "dm9zqsa", "score": 1, "text": "Not the same thing. I want disadvantaged people to be heavily ...	[ { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "dm9v57u", "score": 5, "text": "Why just a carbon tax. \n\nWhat about property tax, income tax, business tax sales tax and any other type of tax I missed. \n\nAnd if I'm bi but am rich what tax do I have when compared to a trans millionaire vs a black female. \n\n...	[ "dm9yxld", "dm9zqsa", "dm9zydp", "dma1ve5", "dma1ypu", "dma23tq", "dma2682", "dma2blz", "dma3lbv", "dma3u24", "dmabwzw" ]	[ "dm9v57u", "dm9vgms", "dm9vhrl", "dm9vtqn", "dm9w7n3", "dm9wpwn", "dm9wtu1", "dm9ypqa", "dmajwtv", "dmbftjq", "dmbfuub" ]
CMV: If a carbon tax is introduced and disadvantaged people's cost of living goes up by $0.01 or more, then they should be heavily compensated per disadvantage At the moment, disadvantaged people (e.g. non-white people, overweight people, poor people, short people, ugly people, uneducated people, etc) have to go through a lot of pain. They are told continuously to accept that life is unfair, accept that their lives are harder/worse, accept that they need to find a way to enjoy watching the privileged have better/easier lives and find a way to be a good sport about it, accept that if they help the world then their lives will still not get any better and accept that they will still have to help the world despite the world causing the many inequalities that they face. Considering how serious climate change is, I am fine with introducing a carbon tax. What I am not fine with is not compensating disadvantaged people. They already have to go through pain, it is absolutely cruel to force them to go through more pain by causing their cost of living to increase AND getting them to thank the world for putting them in pain. Therefore in order to reduce the pain of the disadvantaged, we need to make sure that if their cost of living increases by $0.01 or more, they are heavily compensated for it. This will also reduce their pain as the world will be forced to apologise for the pain that the disadvantaged had to go through. CMV. Why shouldn't disadvantaged people be heavily compensated per disadvantage if a carbon tax is introduced? EDIT: I now accept that for disadvantages that aren't so clear cut (e.g. how you work out if someone is gay) then this would be difficult. However I still believe that if your disadvantage is clear cut then you should still get heavy compensation for it even if the country has to go into more debt to pay you. It is much more important to ensure that the disadvantaged aren't in more pain. _____ > 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!*	Why just a carbon tax. What about property tax, income tax, business tax sales tax and any other type of tax I missed. And if I'm bi but am rich what tax do I have when compared to a trans millionaire vs a black female. Your tax scale would be insanely complicated. --- I certainly agree, the disadvantaged should continue to pay all taxes but receive compensation back depending on how many disadvantages they have. How will the tax scale be insanely complicated? You get more compensation if you have more disadvantages. That doesn't sound so difficult and it would also reduce the pain of disadvantaged people. Sounds like a win-win to me. --- So a str male should pay more because? --- A straight male should pay more because happiness and success doesn't just happen because you put effort into it. It happens due to outside factors as well (e.g. society treating you better because you're straight). Therefore if you've had an easier/better life then you should compensate those who haven't been so lucky. --- So a gay male can use a massive amount of carbon and pay the same as I. The better question is why are we making it more economically easy for a gay man to screw up the environment. Should we just write a check to anyone who is gay. If I decide to sleep with a dude tomorrow do I get paid now? --- Wrong. Both of you will pay the carbon tax, it's just that gay men will get compensation for it. Because ensuring disadvantaged people aren't in pain is much more important than protecting the environment. Yes. No because sleeping with a guy doesn't mean you're gay. --- If one person is getting compensated and I'm not we aren't paying the same tax. Can you prove I'm not gay? Or at least bi? I don't really think you can't. Can you see the problems here. --- ∆ I'll give you a delta because you have partially changed my view. Okay, I accept that it would be difficult to compensate people since some disadvantages aren't black and white, some disadvantages are hard to prove, etc. However what about the disadvantages which are black and white such as people who are educated vs people who are not, poor people vs wealthy people, short people vs tall people. So I now think that if your disadvantage is black and white then you still should receive heavy compensation. --- How are any of those "disadvantages" black and white? >Educated vs not Where is the line? Do high school dropouts rate as more disadvantaged than college dropouts? Do GED earners who started a successful business get more compensation than those with advanced degrees who are underemployed and struggling to pay off student loans?	Yeah. That's called a progressive tax. We have that. --- Not the same thing. I want disadvantaged people to be heavily compensated per disadvantage. A progressive tax only considers one factor - income. --- Disadvantaged at what? How do we know people are disadvantaged? We would need some kind of system where we assign a number to represent the value of things and allow people to exchange them. Then we could compare how much of these "value points" each person gains or loses each year. Those gaining few value points could be considered disadvantaged. That's what money is. --- Disadvantaged in life. We ask how much harder someone's life is due to a certain attribute - e.g. height, race, weight, etc. Wrong. We can just compensate people for each disadvantage like I said. --- Yeah buy why? If they're disadvantaged, if their life is harder, why wouldn't it show up economically? --- Not all attributes have an economic aspect to them. For example, non-whites have a harder time in dating - there isn't necessarily an economic aspect to that. However they should still receive compensation since the world made their lives harder. --- How much? --- That's not my point, my point is that disadvantaged people should be compensated per disadvantage to reduce their pain. If you disagree with the idea of them being compensated, you're not going to agree with me on how much the compensation should be anyway. However let's just say that $200 is definitely not enough. If it were in the tens of thousands per disadvantage, I would be quite happy with that. --- It's my point. How much? I agree they should be compensated. How much? How? I'm half black but look white. Do I get compensation? Would I take a DNA test to establish my "disadvantage"? What about people born into less ambitious families? They didn't choose their lot; should they be compensated? Would it be okay to compensate them with money and things like services or foods? Where would the money come from? Taxes? Would I file for this disadvantage status? It kinda sound like the system we have now. You're just arguing that being ugly or being black is a disability.	6wpv6x	CMV: If a carbon tax is introduced and disadvantaged people's cost of living goes up by $0.01 or more, then they should be heavily compensated per disadvantage	At the moment, disadvantaged people (e.g. non-white people, overweight people, poor people, short people, ugly people, uneducated people, etc) have to go through a lot of pain. They are told continuously to accept that life is unfair, accept that their lives are harder/worse, accept that they need to find a way to enjoy watching the privileged have better/easier lives and find a way to be a good sport about it, accept that if they help the world then their lives will still not get any better and accept that they will still have to help the world despite the world causing the many inequalities that they face. Considering how serious climate change is, I am fine with introducing a carbon tax. What I am not fine with is not compensating disadvantaged people. They already have to go through pain, it is absolutely cruel to force them to go through more pain by causing their cost of living to increase AND getting them to thank the world for putting them in pain. Therefore in order to reduce the pain of the disadvantaged, we need to make sure that if their cost of living increases by $0.01 or more, they are heavily compensated for it. This will also reduce their pain as the world will be forced to apologise for the pain that the disadvantaged had to go through. CMV. Why shouldn't disadvantaged people be heavily compensated per disadvantage if a carbon tax is introduced? EDIT: I now accept that for disadvantages that aren't so clear cut (e.g. how you work out if someone is gay) then this would be difficult. However I still believe that if your disadvantage is clear cut then you should still get heavy compensation for it even if the country has to go into more debt to pay you. It is much more important to ensure that the disadvantaged aren't in more pain. _____ > 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	9	9	[ { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "dm9v57u", "score": 5, "text": "Why just a carbon tax. \n\nWhat about property tax, income tax, business tax sales tax and any other type of tax I missed. \n\nAnd if I'm bi but am rich what tax do I have when compared to a trans millionaire vs a black female. \n\n...	[ { "author": "fox-mcleod", "id": "dm9yxld", "score": 1, "text": "Yeah. That's called a progressive tax. We have that. ", "timestamp": 1504006665 }, { "author": "antilisterine", "id": "dm9zqsa", "score": 1, "text": "Not the same thing. I want disadvantaged people to be heavily ...	[ "dm9v57u", "dm9vgms", "dm9vhrl", "dm9vtqn", "dm9w7n3", "dm9wpwn", "dm9wtu1", "dm9ypqa", "dmajwtv" ]	[ "dm9yxld", "dm9zqsa", "dm9zydp", "dma1ve5", "dma1ypu", "dma23tq", "dma2682", "dma2blz", "dma3lbv" ]
CMV: If a carbon tax is introduced and disadvantaged people's cost of living goes up by $0.01 or more, then they should be heavily compensated per disadvantage At the moment, disadvantaged people (e.g. non-white people, overweight people, poor people, short people, ugly people, uneducated people, etc) have to go through a lot of pain. They are told continuously to accept that life is unfair, accept that their lives are harder/worse, accept that they need to find a way to enjoy watching the privileged have better/easier lives and find a way to be a good sport about it, accept that if they help the world then their lives will still not get any better and accept that they will still have to help the world despite the world causing the many inequalities that they face. Considering how serious climate change is, I am fine with introducing a carbon tax. What I am not fine with is not compensating disadvantaged people. They already have to go through pain, it is absolutely cruel to force them to go through more pain by causing their cost of living to increase AND getting them to thank the world for putting them in pain. Therefore in order to reduce the pain of the disadvantaged, we need to make sure that if their cost of living increases by $0.01 or more, they are heavily compensated for it. This will also reduce their pain as the world will be forced to apologise for the pain that the disadvantaged had to go through. CMV. Why shouldn't disadvantaged people be heavily compensated per disadvantage if a carbon tax is introduced? EDIT: I now accept that for disadvantages that aren't so clear cut (e.g. how you work out if someone is gay) then this would be difficult. However I still believe that if your disadvantage is clear cut then you should still get heavy compensation for it even if the country has to go into more debt to pay you. It is much more important to ensure that the disadvantaged aren't in more pain. _____ > 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!*	Why just a carbon tax. What about property tax, income tax, business tax sales tax and any other type of tax I missed. And if I'm bi but am rich what tax do I have when compared to a trans millionaire vs a black female. Your tax scale would be insanely complicated. --- I certainly agree, the disadvantaged should continue to pay all taxes but receive compensation back depending on how many disadvantages they have. How will the tax scale be insanely complicated? You get more compensation if you have more disadvantages. That doesn't sound so difficult and it would also reduce the pain of disadvantaged people. Sounds like a win-win to me. --- So a str male should pay more because? --- A straight male should pay more because happiness and success doesn't just happen because you put effort into it. It happens due to outside factors as well (e.g. society treating you better because you're straight). Therefore if you've had an easier/better life then you should compensate those who haven't been so lucky. --- So a gay male can use a massive amount of carbon and pay the same as I. The better question is why are we making it more economically easy for a gay man to screw up the environment. Should we just write a check to anyone who is gay. If I decide to sleep with a dude tomorrow do I get paid now? --- Wrong. Both of you will pay the carbon tax, it's just that gay men will get compensation for it. Because ensuring disadvantaged people aren't in pain is much more important than protecting the environment. Yes. No because sleeping with a guy doesn't mean you're gay. --- The environment is an existential concern for all of us. Prioritizing that behind disadvantaged people's pain is essentially saying that it's better if we're all dead than for the world to be unfair. Then there's the issue that disadvantage isn't binary and some would be impossible to operationalize into policy. If sleeping with a guy doesn't prove you're gay, what would be acceptable proof? And do you really want a government ruling on who is and isn't ugly?	Yeah. That's called a progressive tax. We have that. --- Not the same thing. I want disadvantaged people to be heavily compensated per disadvantage. A progressive tax only considers one factor - income. --- Disadvantaged at what? How do we know people are disadvantaged? We would need some kind of system where we assign a number to represent the value of things and allow people to exchange them. Then we could compare how much of these "value points" each person gains or loses each year. Those gaining few value points could be considered disadvantaged. That's what money is. --- Disadvantaged in life. We ask how much harder someone's life is due to a certain attribute - e.g. height, race, weight, etc. Wrong. We can just compensate people for each disadvantage like I said. --- Yeah buy why? If they're disadvantaged, if their life is harder, why wouldn't it show up economically? --- Not all attributes have an economic aspect to them. For example, non-whites have a harder time in dating - there isn't necessarily an economic aspect to that. However they should still receive compensation since the world made their lives harder. --- How much?	6wpv6x	CMV: If a carbon tax is introduced and disadvantaged people's cost of living goes up by $0.01 or more, then they should be heavily compensated per disadvantage	At the moment, disadvantaged people (e.g. non-white people, overweight people, poor people, short people, ugly people, uneducated people, etc) have to go through a lot of pain. They are told continuously to accept that life is unfair, accept that their lives are harder/worse, accept that they need to find a way to enjoy watching the privileged have better/easier lives and find a way to be a good sport about it, accept that if they help the world then their lives will still not get any better and accept that they will still have to help the world despite the world causing the many inequalities that they face. Considering how serious climate change is, I am fine with introducing a carbon tax. What I am not fine with is not compensating disadvantaged people. They already have to go through pain, it is absolutely cruel to force them to go through more pain by causing their cost of living to increase AND getting them to thank the world for putting them in pain. Therefore in order to reduce the pain of the disadvantaged, we need to make sure that if their cost of living increases by $0.01 or more, they are heavily compensated for it. This will also reduce their pain as the world will be forced to apologise for the pain that the disadvantaged had to go through. CMV. Why shouldn't disadvantaged people be heavily compensated per disadvantage if a carbon tax is introduced? EDIT: I now accept that for disadvantages that aren't so clear cut (e.g. how you work out if someone is gay) then this would be difficult. However I still believe that if your disadvantage is clear cut then you should still get heavy compensation for it even if the country has to go into more debt to pay you. It is much more important to ensure that the disadvantaged aren't in more pain. _____ > 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	7	7	[ { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "dm9v57u", "score": 5, "text": "Why just a carbon tax. \n\nWhat about property tax, income tax, business tax sales tax and any other type of tax I missed. \n\nAnd if I'm bi but am rich what tax do I have when compared to a trans millionaire vs a black female. \n\n...	[ { "author": "fox-mcleod", "id": "dm9yxld", "score": 1, "text": "Yeah. That's called a progressive tax. We have that. ", "timestamp": 1504006665 }, { "author": "antilisterine", "id": "dm9zqsa", "score": 1, "text": "Not the same thing. I want disadvantaged people to be heavily ...	[ "dm9v57u", "dm9vgms", "dm9vhrl", "dm9vtqn", "dm9w7n3", "dm9wpwn", "dm9xaqt" ]	[ "dm9yxld", "dm9zqsa", "dm9zydp", "dma1ve5", "dma1ypu", "dma23tq", "dma2682" ]
CMV: In light of the chaos in the House of Representatives, we should replace all of them. Recently, the House voted to remove its Speaker and we’ve had the last two weeks without a functioning Congress. 1. The American people should want Congress to function, and that is primarily through compromise and consensus building. Congress is the primary federal governing body and it should represent the will of the people. Now we all know there was a rule that a single member could call a vote to remove the Speaker. While I think that’s a silly rule, this post isn’t about the rules, this post is about the Standard that we should be holding our representatives up to. Simply put, we should hold our Reps to a higher standard than “they were just following the rules.” There was so much vitriol for Senate Republicans when they blocked Garland from taking a seat on the SCOTUS, but they were “just following the rules.” The rules are there as a back stop, but we should be holding our leaders to a higher standard. 2. The House should have the right to remove their leader. Clearly in the case of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but also when the majority feels there is a different direction to go. That being said, I don’t think there’s a need for a rule change (maybe requiring more than 1 member to call a vote, but still keeping the power in the House.) 3. Because 1 is true, we should not be ok with Representatives removing McCarthy without a plan in place to address what should happen next. Obviously this means that Matt Gaetz and his few far-right colleagues that joined him were definitely in the wrong for calling the vote and voting, but I also hold the House Dems responsible. My only reasoning for the Dem vote to remove McCarthy was that they knew the Republicans couldn’t find a leader because of this small group of dissenters. They chose for the House to stop functioning, so the Republicans would be in chaos, clearly so they’d have a leg up in the next election. This looks like a clear case of politics over party. Now then, here’s the unrealistic part of my view. I think there should be, in this case either Dems who will cross over and elect this temporary speaker who seems to at least have respect on both sides. Or Republicans and Dems need to work together to find a moderate from either party that they can work with. If they do not do that immediately, they should be replaced. That means that you should vote against your incumbent. They have decided to continue to hold the country hostage, but history shows me that you’re going to vote for the incumbent. So CMV: We should replace all of The House of Representatives.	>My only reasoning for the Dem vote to remove McCarthy was that they knew the Republicans couldn’t find a leader because of this small group of dissenters. They removed him because he supports policy they don't, is a pathological liar, supported Trump, denied their policies floor votes, among many other reasons including the fact that zero Democrats supported him for Speaker. They voted to removed him because he is a terrible Speaker, person, and legislator. They would have removed him at any time given the opportunity. They were not sent to Congress to aid a MAGA extremist agenda, but the prevent it. --- If that is the case, then surely there is a more moderate Republican that they could support who isn’t McCarthy. I’m certain that if the Dems of the House picked ANY Republican they could swing the few votes required to elect a speaker. But they won’t do that because of the political games that are more important than a functioning government. --- Why can't a couple republicans cross the aisle and vote for Jeffries? Why is it that the dems have to compromise here?	> There was so much vitriol for Senate Republicans when they blocked Garland from taking a seat on the SCOTUS, but they were “just following the rules.” No, they weren't. > My only reasoning for the Dem vote to remove McCarthy was that they knew the Republicans couldn’t find a leader because of this small group of dissenters. Not at all. McCarthy could still be Speaker today had he cut a deal with Dems. Hell, McCarthy could be Speaker again tomorrow if he cuts a deal with Dems. It would be exceptionally easy and the "concessions" Dems would ask for would be things like getting the House back to work and keeping the government open. --- What rule did the Senate republicans break? Why did no one sue them? They were within their rights, they were just wrong in not giving him at least a hearing or a vote. Also, why haven’t the House Dems listed publicly their compromises to elect a GOP speaker? My guess is because they don’t have those compromises. It’s their way or the highway. Just like the GOP. --- > What rule did the Senate republicans break? Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. > Why did no one sue them? Because there aren't really mechanisms in place to combat absolute shamelessness at the highest levels of the US government, as Republicans have increasingly greedily taken advantage of for over a generation now. > Also, why haven’t the House Dems listed publicly their compromises to elect a GOP speaker? Because if terms come from Democrats, the majority will reject them outright as the Dems' plan. Republicans have the majority. If they don't actually have the power to get the House operational with that majority, it needs to be their option B to go to Dems. It's presumptuous and wrong for me to tell you that you need saving and I'm your savior for the good of the country even though you won the election. It's right for me to let you know I'm here for you and I'm willing, ready, and able to provide the assistance you need if it's in the best interest of the country.	17d94f7	CMV: In light of the chaos in the House of Representatives, we should replace all of them.	Recently, the House voted to remove its Speaker and we’ve had the last two weeks without a functioning Congress. 1. The American people should want Congress to function, and that is primarily through compromise and consensus building. Congress is the primary federal governing body and it should represent the will of the people. Now we all know there was a rule that a single member could call a vote to remove the Speaker. While I think that’s a silly rule, this post isn’t about the rules, this post is about the Standard that we should be holding our representatives up to. Simply put, we should hold our Reps to a higher standard than “they were just following the rules.” There was so much vitriol for Senate Republicans when they blocked Garland from taking a seat on the SCOTUS, but they were “just following the rules.” The rules are there as a back stop, but we should be holding our leaders to a higher standard. 2. The House should have the right to remove their leader. Clearly in the case of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but also when the majority feels there is a different direction to go. That being said, I don’t think there’s a need for a rule change (maybe requiring more than 1 member to call a vote, but still keeping the power in the House.) 3. Because 1 is true, we should not be ok with Representatives removing McCarthy without a plan in place to address what should happen next. Obviously this means that Matt Gaetz and his few far-right colleagues that joined him were definitely in the wrong for calling the vote and voting, but I also hold the House Dems responsible. My only reasoning for the Dem vote to remove McCarthy was that they knew the Republicans couldn’t find a leader because of this small group of dissenters. They chose for the House to stop functioning, so the Republicans would be in chaos, clearly so they’d have a leg up in the next election. This looks like a clear case of politics over party. Now then, here’s the unrealistic part of my view. I think there should be, in this case either Dems who will cross over and elect this temporary speaker who seems to at least have respect on both sides. Or Republicans and Dems need to work together to find a moderate from either party that they can work with. If they do not do that immediately, they should be replaced. That means that you should vote against your incumbent. They have decided to continue to hold the country hostage, but history shows me that you’re going to vote for the incumbent. So CMV: We should replace all of The House of Representatives.	rex_lauandi	3	3	[ { "author": "Biptoslipdi", "id": "k5v7ems", "score": 39, "text": ">My only reasoning for the Dem vote to remove McCarthy was that they knew the Republicans couldn’t find a leader because of this small group of dissenters.\n\nThey removed him because he supports policy they don't, is a pathological l...	[ { "author": "kneeco28", "id": "k5v5bbm", "score": 25, "text": "> There was so much vitriol for Senate Republicans when they blocked Garland from taking a seat on the SCOTUS, but they were “just following the rules.” \n\nNo, they weren't. \n\n> My only reasoning for the Dem vote to remove McCarthy w...	[ "k5v7ems", "k5v84x6", "k5vaay2" ]	[ "k5v5bbm", "k5v5vcd", "k5v72ap" ]
CMV: Teaching the logical consequences of atheism to a child is disgusting I will argue this view with some examples. 1. The best friend of your child dies. Your child asks where his friend went after dying. An atheist who would stand to his belief would answer: "He is nowhere. He doesn't exist anymore. We all will cease to exist after we die." Do you think that will help a child in his grief? It will make their grief worse. 2. Your child learns about the Holocaust. He asks if the nazis were evil people. A consequent atheist would answer: "We think they were evil because of our version of morality. But they thought they were good. Their is no finite answer to this question." Do you think that you can explain to a child that morality is subjective? You think this will help him growing into a moral person at all?	Atheists don't have to be moral subjectivists. For example, Utilitarianism is atheism compatible and is an objective morality. It would thoroughly denounce the Nazis because, you know, they hurt and killed so many people. --- What if an utilitarian believes that the jews control the world and that the nazis were right for killing them to prevent them from doing harm? --- Are you religious and do you not believe in subjective morality?	The issue here is explaining the concepts poorly, not that they are inherently bad. 1. You tell you child that their friend might be condemned to purgatory to differ for eternity if they weren’t good during their life, and we have no way of knowing if they will suffer or not. 2. The Nazis were only bad because they broke the rules in the this book. I won’t teach you any framework by which to evaluate acts that aren’t in this book. Neither of those are good explanations from a religious standpoint. It has nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with tailoring your explanation to the context. --- This is a great answer. And if OP doesn't respond, then this whole thread needs to be nuked. --- I would assume this kind of question, written the way it is, is only ever done in bad faith. I know too many christians who do exactly this nonsense.	1hht70d	CMV: Teaching the logical consequences of atheism to a child is disgusting	I will argue this view with some examples. 1. The best friend of your child dies. Your child asks where his friend went after dying. An atheist who would stand to his belief would answer: "He is nowhere. He doesn't exist anymore. We all will cease to exist after we die." Do you think that will help a child in his grief? It will make their grief worse. 2. Your child learns about the Holocaust. He asks if the nazis were evil people. A consequent atheist would answer: "We think they were evil because of our version of morality. But they thought they were good. Their is no finite answer to this question." Do you think that you can explain to a child that morality is subjective? You think this will help him growing into a moral person at all?	Soma_Man77	3	3	[ { "author": "Falernum", "id": "m2tl9lv", "score": 27, "text": "Atheists don't have to be moral subjectivists. For example, Utilitarianism is atheism compatible and is an objective morality. \n It would thoroughly denounce the Nazis because, you know, they hurt and killed so many people.", "time...	[ { "author": "duskfinger67", "id": "m2tlnol", "score": 139, "text": "The issue here is explaining the concepts poorly, not that they are inherently bad. \n\n1. You tell you child that their friend might be condemned to purgatory to differ for eternity if they weren’t good during their life, and we h...	[ "m2tl9lv", "m2tozfc", "m2tq40s" ]	[ "m2tlnol", "m2tm4q3", "m2tmvy9" ]
CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way. (1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser. (2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties. (3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case (4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party. (5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs "should" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is "fair." The American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!	I can see merits to both systems. For example, say you know that you are correct, but you are not sure that you can win a court case against a much wealthier opponent. So you want to file a lawsuit against somebody. It is not a frivolous suit by any means, but the decision is far from guaranteed to go in your favor. So that means in the American system, a poorer person could sue a wealthier entity. Even if the poor person is only working with one lawyer, or a very small team, they can afford it even if they lose. However, if they lose, are they now on the hook for the entire legal bill, paid for by a giant cooperation with a team of fancy, expensive lawyers? For an example, let's say I sue Walmart because I think that their negligence caused some damage to my property in their store. This isn't a frivolous lawsuit, this is genuine, and I have a strong case, but for whatever reason, I lose the case. Do i now owe Walmart the millions of dollars that they may have spent on their defense, even if I was only suing for some smaller amount of damages, and paid my own lawyer several thousand only? --- If the decision is questionable, then it is not a meritorious suit. That's the point. Civil lawsuits should be for where it is clear that someone is more wrong than not, and there is good reason to believe that just compensation is being denied. Your scenario is more someone MAY be more wrong than not, it's not clear; or, they may not be denying just compensation, it's not clear; or both. That's not a meritorious claim. I can't even imagine a case where Walmart damaged many thousands of dollars worth of property (and it would have to be many thousands to make validate spending a few thousand on legal expenses) and it wasn't clear who was at fault. If you can give me a realistic scenario, I'll be inclined to give a delta for a one off instance. But you're going to have to come up with something realistic. EDIT: should be "highly questionable" we go into rational analysis below, but I can see how what I said here could be misconstrued as being only about being fully justified. Which was not my intent. I recognize that all cases carry some burden of risk. --- >If the decision is questionable, then it is not a meritorious suit. Are you seriously saying that every case that has ever been lost by a plaintiff was frivolous? --- No. I'm saying that if it's a 50/50 toss up, then there's reason to believe that the other party is fully at fault. The British system puts the burden upon the person bringing the claim to at least believe that they have a claim where they are likely to win. Sure, sometimes such people will still lose. But the British system forces a person to think harder about risk/reward instead of jumping straight to being litigious. Because of that, btw, it's less likely for large corporations to spend "millions" defending a smallish claim. As such claims are more rare. Also, I edited my response while you were responding to that . . The edit I made is here: >I can't even imagine a case where Walmart damaged many thousands of dollars worth of property (and it would have to be many thousands to make validate spending a few thousand on legal expenses) and it wasn't clear who was at fault. > >If you can give me a realistic scenario, I'll be inclined to give a delta for a one off instance. But you're going to have to come up with something realistic. --- >But the British system forces a person to think harder about risk/reward instead of jumping straight to being litigious. Do you not agree that It could make somebody not pursue a case that they could win? Say you think that there's a 90% chance that you're awarded a 20,000 dollar decision, but a 10% chance that you're forced to pay 300,000 dollars in legal bills for Walmart. Mathematically, you shouldn't file that case. --- Your argument fails though. You are suggesting that we examine this from the perspective of rational actors. If we are going to go by rational actor analysis, then Walmart won't spend $300,000 to defend a $20,000 claim where they have a 90% chance of losing Walmart's expected return is: ((-$300,000 + -20,000) \* .9) + (20,000\* .1) = -$286,000 My expected return is: ((20,000)\.9) - ((300,000 + 20,000) \ .1) = -14,000. So yes, I'd be a fool to file. But Walmart would be a bigger fool to spend $300,000 on the case. So, by your criteria of rational actors, they wouldn't. --- Except that Walmart has the added incentive of making it well known that they don't back down when sued, they will happily spend 286,000 dollars to prevent dozens of other suits, because each of those plaintiffs now knows that walmart will drag it through the courts, and you have a negative expected value from the case. Walmart isn't looking through the perspective of a single case, they're looking at affecting the behavior of all other people moving forward. --- >Walmart isn't looking through the perspective of a single case, Which makes it only multiplicatively worse. If we have 1,000 cases with the same expected outcome as above, Walmart will ends up $286,000,000 in the hole. Which, even for Walmart, isn't worth it. You're trying to get out of a rational actor argument by saying "But we shouldn't expect rational actors" What am I missing? --- Say walmart thinks they may get sued by this type of case 20 times a year. For simple math, it's always the same 90/10 fight over 20 grand. If they immediately settle every time, then people wont be afraid to file this suit against them. They know they get their 20k payout, because walmart wont go to court. However, if walmart goes to court just once, it makes you think twice about whether or not you want to risk it. If walmart fights the first fight, and loses, they've now spent 286k. If that gets 15 other people to not sue at all, because they are afraid of losing, Walmart is now better off. They would have to settle each of those 15 cases for 20k, costing them 300k, but now since people know "Walmart doesn't settle, and my expected value of this case is negative" Walmart has actually won. --- Sure, they're better off than if 15 people did sue them. But, they are fighting 5 cases, each with a -286,000 expected value. They are out $1,430,000. Whereas if they settled all 20 cases they would be out 400,000. But those aren't their only 2 options. They also have the option of limiting the amount of work each attorney will do on such a case. Say they decide they'll still fight, but will only spend twice the demand amount to defend a case. So, they'll defend each case for $40,000. Now, the expected utility for those filing is $12,000 for the individuals. Their expected losses are only -$52,000 per case. At that point, they WILL come out better off than if 20 cases are filed. They will be out 260,000 rather than being out 400,000. However, notice what happened -- the person filing is now right to expect a positive return. There is a point where it is rational for Walmart to defend cases in order to have a chilling effect on some others. But it also rational for each person who is not chilled to file their case. That outcome is nowhere close to $300,000 for a 20,000 case with a 90% chance of losing! --- We can pick random numbers all day and argue about them specifically, it doesn't make a difference. The fact of the matter that there is an incentive for Walmart to defend themselves in losing cases, and there is a reason Joe Sixpack wouldnt want to risk his life savings for a small payout. The downside of the british system is that it makes it more difficult to sue somebody who is wealthier than you are. You can argue that that downside isn't enough to make it worse than the American system, but you can't argue that it's not a downside. --- >We can pick random numbers all day and argue about them specifically, it doesn't make a difference. Except it does because that's your argument . . . For every level of "how good is this case?" there is a rational amount of money to spend pursuing that case for both parties. That amount of money is rarely significantly larger than the claim value. My argument here is that most of the types of cases you are talking about are already chilled under the American system precisely because most people don't have the money to put an attorney on the payroll to pursue the claim in the first place. Under the British system, chilling effects of large corporations still exist, yes. Maybe even they are worse. However, people also now have access to the courts that they don't have under the American system. To me, access is a greater concern. That said, I will grant that under the very limited scenario of an individual not pursuing a particular case out of fear of losing, the bar might be lower under the British system than the American . So !delta that for some individuals, fear would make the British system worse. However, I give that with the caveat that I still don't see how limiting access to the courts for poor people is not a worse outcome overall, and is not offset by the fact that some individuals will still be afraid to bring a case. Being afraid to bring a case, at least puts the choice on the harmed party rather than them having no choice due to financial situation. --- I just decided to scroll past most of that, but I think you're ignoring settlements. In the American system, if I got a 25% chance to win $100,000, then I should try to settle for $25,000. In Britain, there's a penalty. We both know I'm not going to trial. So the settlement will be lower.	I’m the US, frivolous cases are also remarkably rare, but various lobbying groups have perpetuated a media campaign to make them seem more common then they really are—the classic example is the “hot coffee” incident, where McDonalds successfully put the idea in the public consciousness that it was filled by a crazy Karen-type, but it was actually filled by someone hoping to get their medical bills covered after they got third-degree burns from the coffee. Similarly, I’m not sure how the British system does more to encourage out of court settlements then we do here. It’s pretty common to settle out of court. --- I'm sorry, but SLAPP cases are by definition frivolous and corporations and wealthy people bring them against people unable to defend themselves (and sometimes even those who can defend themselves) all the time. That's why a few states have actually started enacting laws to prevent that type of abuse. But they haven't done anything to enable poor people to bring meritorious cases. --- Yeah, I’m not saying they don’t happen, but your argument is based on this idea that there’s a significantly greater number of frivolous lawsuits in the US than in the UK—of course some number exists in both places, but it’s not clear to me why you think the number is so much higher in the US. --- Because in the UK, cases that are designed merely to silence the opposition are very likely to lose in court, and the filing party will then be stuck with a much higher cost for having brought the case. It is a financial incentive against SLAPP suits. Of course they still do happen. But they also seem to be much rarer. It takes a little digging to find more than a few examples; while in the USA such cases are relatively common in most states without robust SLAPP protections. --- You can’t make a statistical argument without citing any data—like it’s easy to say that you think certain policy decisions make these cases less likely, but if you’re not point at actually real world data showing a statistical difference between these two countries then there’s not really much to talk about --- I said "seem." If you'd like to CMV, then it's on you to provide the statistics to change my perception. I'm not here to defend my view from all valid contests, I'm here to have it changed. But I'm not going to change merely because someone asked me too. Please, make the argument using data. I welcome it. --- >If you'd like to CMV, then it's on you to provide the statistics to change my perception. That is so fucking bizarre. "I have this opinion that I formed without any basis in fact or truth. It just seems like it's how it is." Then you shift the burden of proof onto the people you are arguing. Are you tricking us into doing you social science homework? Or do you just go around forming strong opinions based on a gut feeling? --- >That is so fucking bizarre. "I have this opinion that I formed without any basis in fact or truth. It just seems like it's how it is." Then you shift the burden of proof onto the people you are arguing. I have this opinion based on statements made by practicing attorneys and the reading I have done on the topic. My view is not arbitrary and uninformed, though it is not an expert opinion. If someone is going to say "Your view is wrong and here's the data to prove it" I'll change my view. Saying "I think your view is wrong, go find data to support it" is NOT actively engaging in trying to change my view. It's just saying "I don't accept your view because I haven't seen any data to support it." Which is fine, people are allowed differing opinions. Particularly when neither is an expert. In this forum it is not incumbent upon me to defend my view. It is incumbent upon respondents to change it. I am not trying to prove I'm correct. Rule B doesn't preclude asking for evidence to support a counter-claim. It precludes asking for unreasonable degrees of proof. If someone is saying "there's data that shows you're wrong, go find it" It is not unreasonable to say "If such data exists, point me towards it." --- >I have this opinion based on statements made by practicing attorneys and the reading I have done on the topic. If you have nothing substantial to back up your reasoning, this is the equivalent of Facebook research. You watched a video where some people said some things you don't fully comprehend, and took their opinion to be your own. --- Do you only hold opinions for those topics in which you are a bona fide expert? --- Yes. I would never say something is "far superior" to something else while in a public forum without understanding why I believe that. That's a bold claim which requires just as strong of a leg to stand on. --- I explained why I believe it. That you find it a bold claim is your opinion. Feel free to convince me it's a better opinion in this case than my own. Saying "you're not an expert, therefore you're opinion is unfounded, therefore you are wrong" is not an argument I will respond to by changing my mind.	14gzx57	CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.	(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser. (2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties. (3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case (4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party. (5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs "should" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is "fair." The American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!	kingpatzer	13	12	[ { "author": "onetwo3four5", "id": "jp8yply", "score": 65, "text": "I can see merits to both systems. For example, say you know that you are correct, but you are not sure that you can win a court case against a much wealthier opponent. \n\n\nSo you want to file a lawsuit against somebody. It is not a...	[ { "author": "jacobissimus", "id": "jp8z2yg", "score": 13, "text": "I’m the US, frivolous cases are also remarkably rare, but various lobbying groups have perpetuated a media campaign to make them seem more common then they really are—the classic example is the “hot coffee” incident, where McDonalds ...	[ "jp8yply", "jp8zyvj", "jp90qdw", "jp91f7o", "jp92x84", "jp94hxp", "jp95pgp", "jp9757g", "jp988h2", "jp99ujr", "jp9b8ho", "jp9c7p1", "jp9icdg" ]	[ "jp8z2yg", "jp90gjz", "jp90yoe", "jp91sxe", "jp92f5c", "jp92o53", "jp9d78b", "jp9fs5v", "jp9g8vg", "jp9hhcg", "jp9izan", "jp9jsm5" ]
CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way. (1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser. (2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties. (3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case (4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party. (5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs "should" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is "fair." The American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!	I can see merits to both systems. For example, say you know that you are correct, but you are not sure that you can win a court case against a much wealthier opponent. So you want to file a lawsuit against somebody. It is not a frivolous suit by any means, but the decision is far from guaranteed to go in your favor. So that means in the American system, a poorer person could sue a wealthier entity. Even if the poor person is only working with one lawyer, or a very small team, they can afford it even if they lose. However, if they lose, are they now on the hook for the entire legal bill, paid for by a giant cooperation with a team of fancy, expensive lawyers? For an example, let's say I sue Walmart because I think that their negligence caused some damage to my property in their store. This isn't a frivolous lawsuit, this is genuine, and I have a strong case, but for whatever reason, I lose the case. Do i now owe Walmart the millions of dollars that they may have spent on their defense, even if I was only suing for some smaller amount of damages, and paid my own lawyer several thousand only? --- If the decision is questionable, then it is not a meritorious suit. That's the point. Civil lawsuits should be for where it is clear that someone is more wrong than not, and there is good reason to believe that just compensation is being denied. Your scenario is more someone MAY be more wrong than not, it's not clear; or, they may not be denying just compensation, it's not clear; or both. That's not a meritorious claim. I can't even imagine a case where Walmart damaged many thousands of dollars worth of property (and it would have to be many thousands to make validate spending a few thousand on legal expenses) and it wasn't clear who was at fault. If you can give me a realistic scenario, I'll be inclined to give a delta for a one off instance. But you're going to have to come up with something realistic. EDIT: should be "highly questionable" we go into rational analysis below, but I can see how what I said here could be misconstrued as being only about being fully justified. Which was not my intent. I recognize that all cases carry some burden of risk. --- >Civil lawsuits should be for where it is clear that someone is more wrong than not, I don't understand this. If the outcome is already decided, why are you going to court in the first place? --- >I don't understand this. If the outcome is already decided, why are you going to court in the first place? It's not already decided. People who are in the right sometimes lose. But, in the USA, they aren't going to court because they don't have access to the courts because they can't afford the attorney fees. In the UK at least they have a choice. --- Okay but this study seems to indicate that there are more civil cases filed per person in the US than ENGLAND 5,806 per 100,000 people versus 3,681 and that the cost of a contract action as a % of value is less in the US 14.4% plays 23.4%. [HARVARD JOHN M. OLIN CENTER FOR LAW, ECONOMICS, AND BUSINESS COMPARATIVE LITIGATION RATES J. Mark Ramseyer & Eric B Rausmusen](http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Ramseyer_681.pdf) So ENGLISH lawyers file fewer cases but take a bigger cut of those they do.	I’m the US, frivolous cases are also remarkably rare, but various lobbying groups have perpetuated a media campaign to make them seem more common then they really are—the classic example is the “hot coffee” incident, where McDonalds successfully put the idea in the public consciousness that it was filled by a crazy Karen-type, but it was actually filled by someone hoping to get their medical bills covered after they got third-degree burns from the coffee. Similarly, I’m not sure how the British system does more to encourage out of court settlements then we do here. It’s pretty common to settle out of court. --- I'm sorry, but SLAPP cases are by definition frivolous and corporations and wealthy people bring them against people unable to defend themselves (and sometimes even those who can defend themselves) all the time. That's why a few states have actually started enacting laws to prevent that type of abuse. But they haven't done anything to enable poor people to bring meritorious cases. --- Yeah, I’m not saying they don’t happen, but your argument is based on this idea that there’s a significantly greater number of frivolous lawsuits in the US than in the UK—of course some number exists in both places, but it’s not clear to me why you think the number is so much higher in the US. --- Because in the UK, cases that are designed merely to silence the opposition are very likely to lose in court, and the filing party will then be stuck with a much higher cost for having brought the case. It is a financial incentive against SLAPP suits. Of course they still do happen. But they also seem to be much rarer. It takes a little digging to find more than a few examples; while in the USA such cases are relatively common in most states without robust SLAPP protections. --- You can’t make a statistical argument without citing any data—like it’s easy to say that you think certain policy decisions make these cases less likely, but if you’re not point at actually real world data showing a statistical difference between these two countries then there’s not really much to talk about	14gzx57	CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.	(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser. (2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties. (3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case (4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party. (5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs "should" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is "fair." The American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!	kingpatzer	5	5	[ { "author": "onetwo3four5", "id": "jp8yply", "score": 65, "text": "I can see merits to both systems. For example, say you know that you are correct, but you are not sure that you can win a court case against a much wealthier opponent. \n\n\nSo you want to file a lawsuit against somebody. It is not a...	[ { "author": "jacobissimus", "id": "jp8z2yg", "score": 13, "text": "I’m the US, frivolous cases are also remarkably rare, but various lobbying groups have perpetuated a media campaign to make them seem more common then they really are—the classic example is the “hot coffee” incident, where McDonalds ...	[ "jp8yply", "jp8zyvj", "jp9cj2a", "jp9en3u", "jp9jh4a" ]	[ "jp8z2yg", "jp90gjz", "jp90yoe", "jp91sxe", "jp92f5c" ]
CMV: Tradition works and should be respected Tradition is a custom or mode of thought/behaviour that is passed down within a culture from generation to generation. This means that by its very definition, what has become traditional is something that fulfills a purpose and fulfils this purpose effectively. These can range from traditional values such as no sex before marriage (children raised by a married couple tend to do better than those who do not), cultural norms such as national holidays (a bridge to the past that makes us feel part of and strengthens community) or even family traditions like Friday dinners. Due to the fact these are passed down from generation to generation, the traditions that we are left with work as they have been tried and tastes ted over many generations. It’s the natural selection of ideas with the ones that work being the ones that continue to survive. Of course, I’m not suggesting the all traditions be blindly followed. Just because something “works” doesn’t mean that it is the right thing to do. There are and have been some horrible traditions that range from human sacrifices, child killing etc that served or serve a useful purpose but are ultimately an abhorrent practise. And of course, traditions are constantly adapting as the world changes. What might have worked in societies in the past might not be the most effective for our own times. However, I feel people these days are far too quick to dismiss tradition as archaic, old and something that should be scoffed at. This is the absolute wrong way to go about it. Traditions are the collective wisdom of many generations and most still serve a very relevant purpose to us and our society. This is why I say tradition should be respected. Not necessarily in the sense of admiration but in the sense that they contain wisdom and as such, we should hold a deferential regard to them until it becomes clear that an alternative mode of thought/behaviour or different way of doing things is better.	Tradition is just a nice word for 'that's what we've always done', which doesn't make it inherently a good thing in any way. Some traditions are useful, some are pointless. Something being a tradition doesn't say anything about how useful/good it is. --- I agree that just because something is a tradition, it doesn’t make it a good thing. I mentioned that in my OP and gave human sacrifices as an example. But I disagree that something being a tradition doesn’t say anything about how useful it is. To become a tradition, it will have had to have been passed down through multiple generations and served some purpose to keep it around. This by definition makes tradition useful. --- So, how is something like traditional genital mutilation or ritual sacrifice useful today? You can't say 'it isn't' because you just claimed that tradition is by definition useful, which would include these specific ones. If only some traditions are useful, it's not by definion useful. --- Why can’t I? In my OP I wasn’t arguing to follow tradition blindly. Just that there is wisdom in traditions and that they should be respected. Ritual sacrifice and genital mutilation are horrible by our own standards but they served a purpose in the times they were practised. --- You may not have intended to, but you are inherently attributing a positive value to something merely because it is a tradition. I would call that following blindly. So if you examine this response either you don't mean to say that "tradition has inherent value", which is fine, or you did, in which case tradition is being followed blindly (i.e. merely because it's tradition). If it's the former, then your view isn't actually attributing positive value to tradition! You're just saying "the traditions I agree with personally (or possibly the traditions that I don't disagree with) should be respected", which is subjective and not a view because it means "tradition" isn't special in any way.	just because tradition "works" doesnt mean it works "efficiency". just because 400 years ago we made butter by hand doesnt mean traditional butter making is more efficient than using a machine. --- It was the most effective form of making butter for thousands of years. But it’s become redundant as better methods of making butter have risen. That’s fine. But that doesn’t mean all traditions need to be scoffed. --- so would you say making butter by hand isnt the most effective method? should people who make butter by hand and claim its the better method because "its tradition" not be scoffed at? --- >This is why I say tradition should be respected. Not necessarily in the sense of admiration but in the sense that they contain wisdom and as such, we should hold a deferential regard to them until it becomes clear that an alternative mode of thought/behaviour or different way of doing things is better. --- something doesnt stop being tradition just because there is a better method, quite the opposite. so is your actual view "dont scoff at tradition as long as tradition is the most efficient known method"? why isnt your view "dont scoff at the most efficient method" instead?	1hhpyri	CMV: Tradition works and should be respected	Tradition is a custom or mode of thought/behaviour that is passed down within a culture from generation to generation. This means that by its very definition, what has become traditional is something that fulfills a purpose and fulfils this purpose effectively. These can range from traditional values such as no sex before marriage (children raised by a married couple tend to do better than those who do not), cultural norms such as national holidays (a bridge to the past that makes us feel part of and strengthens community) or even family traditions like Friday dinners. Due to the fact these are passed down from generation to generation, the traditions that we are left with work as they have been tried and tastes ted over many generations. It’s the natural selection of ideas with the ones that work being the ones that continue to survive. Of course, I’m not suggesting the all traditions be blindly followed. Just because something “works” doesn’t mean that it is the right thing to do. There are and have been some horrible traditions that range from human sacrifices, child killing etc that served or serve a useful purpose but are ultimately an abhorrent practise. And of course, traditions are constantly adapting as the world changes. What might have worked in societies in the past might not be the most effective for our own times. However, I feel people these days are far too quick to dismiss tradition as archaic, old and something that should be scoffed at. This is the absolute wrong way to go about it. Traditions are the collective wisdom of many generations and most still serve a very relevant purpose to us and our society. This is why I say tradition should be respected. Not necessarily in the sense of admiration but in the sense that they contain wisdom and as such, we should hold a deferential regard to them until it becomes clear that an alternative mode of thought/behaviour or different way of doing things is better.	TheMinisterForReddit	5	5	[ { "author": "Dennis_enzo", "id": "m2sxuve", "score": 50, "text": "Tradition is just a nice word for 'that's what we've always done', which doesn't make it inherently a good thing in any way. Some traditions are useful, some are pointless. Something being a tradition doesn't say anything about how us...	[ { "author": "ProDavid_", "id": "m2sy429", "score": 15, "text": "just because tradition \"works\" doesnt mean it works \"efficiency\".\n\njust because 400 years ago we made butter by hand doesnt mean traditional butter making is more efficient than using a machine.", "timestamp": 1734604273 }, ...	[ "m2sxuve", "m2syhl6", "m2sz7ka", "m2t0vls", "m2tdf4s" ]	[ "m2sy429", "m2syo9a", "m2sznm3", "m2t1zbn", "m2t34rw" ]
CMV: just because the video game is fictional does not give the writers the right to alter how a system of government functions and operates within the constraints of the procedures given to them by said government Feel free to correct any inaccuracies I'm saying this because the writers of Black ops Cold War have absolutely no idea how the CIA functions. Case in point, the CIA does not go around with guns killing people without authorization and even if they were given authorization, they wouldn't do it in such a open blatant manner such as having a gunfight on a rooftop especially during a very precarious situation where the Russians and the Americans have very heightened tensions. Adler would likely be arrested at the end of the very first mission or possibly shot depending on the severity. The fact that you see him throw a dude off of roof and then upon you releasing the prisoner, that guy is then shot by another member of his team. At no point are you giving the option to intervene or stop this from happening. The writers have absolutely no idea just how this would play out in reality. Let's imagine the most basic scenario possible: Adler knows that Arash is in town. You think he would report back to his superiors about the person they're chasing and he would wait for authorization. Obviously this wouldn't make good game design but it would make sense realistically. From there he's given authorization to capture and not kill. There's no gunfight, there's no battle on the rooftops and there's no escaping Target. They do a stakeout or they wake him out. After that they take the target to a safe house and they get the information. At no point is a gunfight remotely possible as an option. The CIA are not trained soldiers, they are expected to get information by any means necessary except the use of overwhelming force. Now had they sent the military in to capture arash then maybe the opening level would have gone differently. The thing is is that Adler is shown as a wild card. I understand that there have been some cases in history where people have gone off the rails. Adler is an example of a person who would likely be disavowed by the CIA or treated as an unperson. The fact that they wrote reagan to be incredibly stupid by trusting these people over the objections (very valid objections by the way) of his secretary that plausible deniability is the backbone of CIA operations and this could very well be illegal is shot down by woods saying that every mission they go on is technically illegal. This should be a massive red flag for Reagan to shut down this attempted operation. The situation with the USSR is at a state in-game where war is inevitable. Obviously it wasn't like this in reality considering the USSR was crumbling not to mention the situation with the Berlin Wall and everything else but the idea here is that Reagan is allowing the unsanctioned use of force by an outside party for illegal seizure of a foreign citizen. Not only is this a massive breach of ethics but this opens up the door for a federal investigation into Reagan himself likely leading to his impeachment. This will also get Adler possibly arrested and the rest of the team incarcerated. I don't know how the writing team could have missed this plot hole or just missed it in general. The rest of the game wouldn't even happen. If this were to happen in reality and no doubt it has happened in reality, the consequences for the player would be astronomically bad. The second level would be World War 3 and that's the end of the game. So I know it's going to be difficult but maybe somebody here could change my view. I'm open to discussion on the matter	Writers absolutely have the right to take creative liberty with how government works. If writers couldn't be creative, James Bond would not exist because there is no evidence that MI6 has "00" agents with licenses to kill. If writers could not be creative, the Men In Black movies would not exist because there is no MIB government agency handling extraterritorial affairs. If you dislike that creative choice, then sure. However, saying the writers do not have the right be creative is overreaching. --- I'm not saying they don't have the right to be creative I'm just saying that it shouldn't strain the players suspension of disbelief. It's one thing to put in weapons that didn't exist, that I'm fine with. It is another to fundamentally change the order in which things are done inside said organization. If they wanted to reflect the actual cia, they could have used different characters other than woods and mason. Some new blood would have been appreciated. At the very least, don't turn the first mission into a gunfight. You know the mission brick in the Wall? Something like that for the first mission would have been appreciated. A little spying or information gathering as the CIA are supposed to do. Leave the gunfights for another branch. This is also addressing the issue that somehow, these characters are able to operate guns that they shouldn't be able to know how to operate. I understand Mason and woods and possibly Adler but Bell should only know how to operate an rpk or a bizon. He's a Russian character so he should have at least some trouble with American guns Let alone be unable to understand English. If the game were being accurate, you'd be seen Russian subtitles despite the characters speaking English. He wouldn't know how to respond. Granted there is the option to change the subtitles but imagine yourself in his place. You've just been saved from Death by people you don't know and one of them tries to talk to you. You only know your mother tongue and you don't know the language they're speaking of. Then you are given a gun and told to go do something despite the fact that you don't know what they just said. Is any of this making sense? --- I mean at the end of the day it's fiction and very obviously fiction. Them taking creative license to tell the story they want is fine, as otherwise fiction would be very stale and boring. Plus it's harmless.	Anyone who’s worked in government knows it’s as boring as any other job. If they sticked to how everything actually is in reality then nobody would play the game --- Even police shows like The Rookie have the police constantly getting Into gunfights and huge life or death situations. Just one or two of the bigger episodes would be more excitement than most cops would see in their entire career, but they are dealing with these time after time. --- but that brings up the issue of not necessarily internal consistency but at least, like, internal realism and things seeming realistic for that portrayal of the world e.g. even though Criminal Minds shows a seemingly-unrealistic amount of serial killers (esp. those who are basically supervillain-level masterminds and/or have unusual kill methods) that's clearly just the way of the world the show establishes for itself but what's unrealistic even within the rules of that world is how so many of the "mythology" ones have either some sort of personal vendetta against and/or weird Sherlock/Moriarty-but-not-in-the-romantic-sense-people-sometimes-do-with-the-BBC-versions relationship with specific BAU agents to the point where it almost seems like everyone has their own archnemesis like a superhero would and it's only the rules of the world the show establishes (as well as the fact that very few of these guys were contemporaneously active) that kept them from forming a sort of Legion Of Doom	1mgwsmr	CMV: just because the video game is fictional does not give the writers the right to alter how a system of government functions and operates within the constraints of the procedures given to them by said government	Feel free to correct any inaccuracies I'm saying this because the writers of Black ops Cold War have absolutely no idea how the CIA functions. Case in point, the CIA does not go around with guns killing people without authorization and even if they were given authorization, they wouldn't do it in such a open blatant manner such as having a gunfight on a rooftop especially during a very precarious situation where the Russians and the Americans have very heightened tensions. Adler would likely be arrested at the end of the very first mission or possibly shot depending on the severity. The fact that you see him throw a dude off of roof and then upon you releasing the prisoner, that guy is then shot by another member of his team. At no point are you giving the option to intervene or stop this from happening. The writers have absolutely no idea just how this would play out in reality. Let's imagine the most basic scenario possible: Adler knows that Arash is in town. You think he would report back to his superiors about the person they're chasing and he would wait for authorization. Obviously this wouldn't make good game design but it would make sense realistically. From there he's given authorization to capture and not kill. There's no gunfight, there's no battle on the rooftops and there's no escaping Target. They do a stakeout or they wake him out. After that they take the target to a safe house and they get the information. At no point is a gunfight remotely possible as an option. The CIA are not trained soldiers, they are expected to get information by any means necessary except the use of overwhelming force. Now had they sent the military in to capture arash then maybe the opening level would have gone differently. The thing is is that Adler is shown as a wild card. I understand that there have been some cases in history where people have gone off the rails. Adler is an example of a person who would likely be disavowed by the CIA or treated as an unperson. The fact that they wrote reagan to be incredibly stupid by trusting these people over the objections (very valid objections by the way) of his secretary that plausible deniability is the backbone of CIA operations and this could very well be illegal is shot down by woods saying that every mission they go on is technically illegal. This should be a massive red flag for Reagan to shut down this attempted operation. The situation with the USSR is at a state in-game where war is inevitable. Obviously it wasn't like this in reality considering the USSR was crumbling not to mention the situation with the Berlin Wall and everything else but the idea here is that Reagan is allowing the unsanctioned use of force by an outside party for illegal seizure of a foreign citizen. Not only is this a massive breach of ethics but this opens up the door for a federal investigation into Reagan himself likely leading to his impeachment. This will also get Adler possibly arrested and the rest of the team incarcerated. I don't know how the writing team could have missed this plot hole or just missed it in general. The rest of the game wouldn't even happen. If this were to happen in reality and no doubt it has happened in reality, the consequences for the player would be astronomically bad. The second level would be World War 3 and that's the end of the game. So I know it's going to be difficult but maybe somebody here could change my view. I'm open to discussion on the matter	International-Box956	3	3	[ { "author": "deep_sea2", "id": "n6rvdav", "score": 27, "text": "Writers absolutely have the right to take creative liberty with how government works. If writers couldn't be creative, James Bond would not exist because there is no evidence that MI6 has \"00\" agents with licenses to kill. If writers ...	[ { "author": "random_radishes", "id": "n6rvn9b", "score": 2, "text": "Anyone who’s worked in government knows it’s as boring as any other job. If they sticked to how everything actually is in reality then nobody would play the game", "timestamp": 1754261173 }, { "author": "JawtisticShark"...	[ "n6rvdav", "n6rwnwk", "n6rygob" ]	[ "n6rvn9b", "n6rwy3t", "n6t1xiy" ]
CMV: All Driver License Renewals Should Require Passing Another Driver’s Test I promote implementing a universal rule that all drivers operating a motorized vehicle should have to re-take another driving test in order to renew their license once expired. Currently, drivers can renew their license without demonstrating any new competency or improvement than the first day they received their license (such as age 16 at the younger end of the spectrum). Some drivers even get worse over time but have no checks in place to help prevent accidents. I see several problems with this system: 1) Fatalities and injuries caused by cars and their drivers 2) Our driving ability changes with time 3) Cars get inspected for safety but drivers do not Point #1: Fatalities and injuries Some of the main reasons for car accidents stem from preventable reasons: speeding, distractions, not obeying traffic laws, etc. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), “A total of 36,096 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2019. The U.S. Department of Transportation's most recent estimate of the annual economic cost of crashes is $242 billion.” According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “An estimated 20,160 people died in motor vehicle crashes in the first half of 2021, up 18.4% over 2020.” Not only is this a public hazard, it’s a social and economic toll for all the damage done by drivers. Point #2: Driving changes over time You’re not the same driver you were when you first began driving. Some people develop shortcuts, old habits, bad habits, or suffer from physical impairments. Ex: Rolling the stop sign instead of coming to a complete stop. Some drivers might need other accommodations such as vision support, and limb and joint functioning to operate the vehicle safely. Ex: Someone with knee pain might have a harder time operating a clutch. These are generalizations, but I’m suggesting that everyone’s driving behavior changes over time. Point 3# Annual inspections Car are required to be inspected, or registered every year. But the people operating the vehicles are not asked to be re-evaluated. I know there are movements by insurance companies, and apps that track driving behavior. The Federal Highway Administration also implements different programs to reduce car incidents such as brighter signs, bicycle lanes, etc. These are helpful structural changes. However, this is not a direct means of actually determining if all drivers are up-to-date on driving regulations, and have the correct behavioral tendencies to stay safe on the road.	Your numbers representing fatal crashes do not correlate to a drivers ability. Large majority of fatal crashes come from distracted driving, driving under the influence, and excessive speeding. Those things won’t be stop by more frequent driving tests. Therefore you’d still see the same amount of fatalities regardless of more driving tests. --- Do you see any benefit in a driver being reminded occasionally of the safer ways to drive and having someone else hold them accountable? As opposed to a free system of no future testing. --- I'd wager most people are aware that these things aren't considered best practice, but choose to do them anyway. You can tell me an infinite amount of times that the law forbids me from turning right on red without stopping, but unless there's a cop there, I will continue to ignore the law. Or driving with only one hand on the wheel. Or, in the case of my first driver's test, not either having precognition and/or xray vision.	[removed] --- Yes, but it already takes all day in there 😂 --- [removed]	r5ehjb	CMV: All Driver License Renewals Should Require Passing Another Driver’s Test	I promote implementing a universal rule that all drivers operating a motorized vehicle should have to re-take another driving test in order to renew their license once expired. Currently, drivers can renew their license without demonstrating any new competency or improvement than the first day they received their license (such as age 16 at the younger end of the spectrum). Some drivers even get worse over time but have no checks in place to help prevent accidents. I see several problems with this system: 1) Fatalities and injuries caused by cars and their drivers 2) Our driving ability changes with time 3) Cars get inspected for safety but drivers do not Point #1: Fatalities and injuries Some of the main reasons for car accidents stem from preventable reasons: speeding, distractions, not obeying traffic laws, etc. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), “A total of 36,096 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2019. The U.S. Department of Transportation's most recent estimate of the annual economic cost of crashes is $242 billion.” According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “An estimated 20,160 people died in motor vehicle crashes in the first half of 2021, up 18.4% over 2020.” Not only is this a public hazard, it’s a social and economic toll for all the damage done by drivers. Point #2: Driving changes over time You’re not the same driver you were when you first began driving. Some people develop shortcuts, old habits, bad habits, or suffer from physical impairments. Ex: Rolling the stop sign instead of coming to a complete stop. Some drivers might need other accommodations such as vision support, and limb and joint functioning to operate the vehicle safely. Ex: Someone with knee pain might have a harder time operating a clutch. These are generalizations, but I’m suggesting that everyone’s driving behavior changes over time. Point 3# Annual inspections Car are required to be inspected, or registered every year. But the people operating the vehicles are not asked to be re-evaluated. I know there are movements by insurance companies, and apps that track driving behavior. The Federal Highway Administration also implements different programs to reduce car incidents such as brighter signs, bicycle lanes, etc. These are helpful structural changes. However, this is not a direct means of actually determining if all drivers are up-to-date on driving regulations, and have the correct behavioral tendencies to stay safe on the road.	Insightful_Remedies	3	3	[ { "author": "illerThanTheirs", "id": "hmmi5m8", "score": 6, "text": "Your numbers representing fatal crashes do not correlate to a drivers ability. Large majority of fatal crashes come from distracted driving, driving under the influence, and excessive speeding. \n\nThose things won’t be stop by mor...	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "hmmh9qa", "score": 0, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1638246175 }, { "author": "Insightful_Remedies", "id": "hmmiakp", "score": 3, "text": "Yes, but it already takes all day in there 😂", "timestamp": 1638246687 }, { "author": "[...	[ "hmmi5m8", "hmmijfj", "hmmocwq" ]	[ "hmmh9qa", "hmmiakp", "hmmjfl9" ]
CMV: Tariffs actually (politically) progressive To be clear, this is not a pro or anti Trump post. Just the subject of tariffs being discussed got me thinking about it. The global labor market seems to work in a 'lowest bidder' kind of way (i.e. "who can make these products at a quality level we deem acceptable for the lowest possible cost?"). In a lot of cases this ends up meaning the nation willing to subject its population to the lowest pay and working conditions 'wins', because they are the cheapest. Those countries end up dominating the global labor market at the expense of their working population, exacerbating poverty and all the societal issues that come with it. If tariffs are imposed by developed nations, it offsets at least some of the financial benefit obtained exploiting people who aren't protected by minimum wage or labor laws. It probably won't remove the exploitation, but at least the developed nations would no longer be deriving a benefit from it.	But how does that lead to developing nations changing their labor laws and wages? --- As I said in my post, it probably doesn't. That change would need to come from the country itself. But it does remove directly benefiting from the exploitation. --- But there would be better ways to implement this. Blanket tariffs give no incentive to stop exploitation. But a tariff of which the height depends on labor conditions, en environmental laws, etc. would. Such tariffs would be progressive. You can see this in the difference between Trumps tariffs and the left EU’s tariffs. Trump does a blanket tariff to protect US industry. The EU imposes a carbon tax, meaning that the tariffs are entirely dependent on emission. The first isn’t progressive, the second is	I don’t disagree with your title that Tariffs are politically progressive. Sometimes tariffs are justified it’s very much a case by case basis. But there are negatives to tariffs. It means less of your products are being brought which means less money coming in. It means that goods will be more expensive both the country who has imposed tariffs due to higher costs and less competition. Sometimes these negatives are justified if it means say, protecting a vulnerable industry that needs support (ie, farmers to ensure your nation has the capacity to grow food in times of crisis). So it really all depends on the situation. But in general, the less tariffs, the better. --- Thanks for the points, definitely agree on the case-by-case basis comment. My reason for posting is because I though tariffs were traditionally thought of as a conservative economic policy / tool. --- Aaah that’s a fair point. I think traditionally, tariffs were very much a conservative economic policy (at least here in the UK and Europe, I’m not 100% sure about the US). The old landed gentry, aristocrats and other members of the conservative elite favoured tariffs due to a combination of various factors such as fear of the rapid change brought about by industrialisation would have on the old ways.	1hho98n	CMV: Tariffs actually (politically) progressive	To be clear, this is not a pro or anti Trump post. Just the subject of tariffs being discussed got me thinking about it. The global labor market seems to work in a 'lowest bidder' kind of way (i.e. "who can make these products at a quality level we deem acceptable for the lowest possible cost?"). In a lot of cases this ends up meaning the nation willing to subject its population to the lowest pay and working conditions 'wins', because they are the cheapest. Those countries end up dominating the global labor market at the expense of their working population, exacerbating poverty and all the societal issues that come with it. If tariffs are imposed by developed nations, it offsets at least some of the financial benefit obtained exploiting people who aren't protected by minimum wage or labor laws. It probably won't remove the exploitation, but at least the developed nations would no longer be deriving a benefit from it.	Loose-Tumbleweed-468	3	3	[ { "author": "Twytilus", "id": "m2smmpc", "score": 11, "text": "But how does that lead to developing nations changing their labor laws and wages?", "timestamp": 1734596389 }, { "author": "Loose-Tumbleweed-468", "id": "m2smxf3", "score": -1, "text": "As I said in my post, it pr...	[ { "author": "TheMinisterForReddit", "id": "m2sn4gf", "score": 3, "text": "I don’t disagree with your title that Tariffs are politically progressive. \n\nSometimes tariffs are justified it’s very much a case by case basis. But there are negatives to tariffs. It means less of your products are being b...	[ "m2smmpc", "m2smxf3", "m2sorlk" ]	[ "m2sn4gf", "m2snhei", "m2sodb0" ]
CMV: Transracial adoptees can racially identify with the country they were born in Ok so for some context- I was adopted from China when I was a toddler. I was born in central China, abandoned at birth, and lived in an orphanage until being adopted. Now I’m in my 20’s living in Minnesota. I have no information on my medical or family history- so I have always just said I’m of Asian descent- and if I had to specify a country I say China. Probably on a monthly basis I get asked about my race. I always respond with “Chinese,” and most people are satisfied with that answer and drop the subject. However, I’ve met several people who don’t think I look Chinese and are dead set that I am [insert another race]. And if they know I’m adopted, they say something along the lines of you don’t really know if you’re Chinese because you don’t know your parents, so you could be anything. Yes- I know they are technically right- I don’t know if I’m actually of Chinese descent- but I personally find it very invasive and inappropriate to point that out. I also don’t know why it really matters. Sure there’s a good chance I’m not 100% Chinese, but who cares? Very few people are of purely one descent. And I feel like it’s hard to truly know your racial background without a DNA test. I don’t know why me being adopted bars me from saying I’m Chinese. Also a lot of these conversations are with people I don’t know too well- so I don’t really want to have an in depth conversation regarding identity/race/adoption. I genuinely don’t understand why people have a problem with me saying I’m Chinese. I already have a lot of insecurities related to race and being adopted, and this only heightens those insecurities. If anyone has a reason/argument for why I can’t/shouldn’t identify as Chinese I truly want to know. I really want to understand why so many people have said this to me. Thanks in advanced for all your input Edit 1- I just want to clarify- I know ethnicity/race/nationality are all different. From my experience, the average person off the street doesn’t know the nuances and differences between these ideas. Oftentimes people use nationality and ethnicity as a euphemism for race. I said this in a reply- but when people ask questions, it’s important to try and understand what the person is actually asking and wanting to know. Yes, there are people who are asking about my cultural background and if I participate in Chinese traditions, but most of the time people are asking about my background in the context of physical appearances. Also, I generally don’t mind when people are curious about my background. The two main problems I have is when it’s done in an inappropriate manner (like if it’s asked rudely or asked by a stranger at an inappropriate time), or if I say I am Chinese, then they say I can’t say I’m Chinese because I’m adopted and don’t know my biological history. When people make these comments, they’re saying I can’t say I’m of Chinese descent. At that point the conversation has nothing to do with whether or not I can identify with Chinese culture or heritage, but rather that I need to know my birth parents to truly be able to say I’m of Chinese descent biologically speaking. I also know that probably the topic that “race is a social construct” will come up. That’s a whole discussion of itself, but for all intents and purposes, I’m asking what’s wrong with saying I’m Chinese when people ask about my race in relation to my physical phenotype. I don’t see why people are so against me saying I’m Chinese in response to that question. I have had several people want to debate why I can’t say I am Chinese because I’m adopted - which is a conversation I don’t want to spend my energy on. Edit 2- Ok another clarification- transracial adoption means an adoption in which the parents and child are of different races. It has nothing to do with trying to change one’s race or intentionally presenting oneself as a different race.	First off, are you sure you don't mean mixed-race? Transracial usually refers to a person claiming to identify with a race they don't belong to, e.g., a pasty white lady claiming to be black. Not a Asian+Black kid saying he's black or asian. Apart from that, title and your OP don't quite line up here. Which would you like us to argue: A) Mixed-race adoptees can't racially identify with the country they were born in? B) You shouldn't say you're Chinese. --- Sorry I didn’t mean to be ambiguous. In the adoption world “transracial” means an adoption in which the child and parents are of different races, hence “trans.” It’s sometimes called interracial too. I’m not quite sure what you mean by arguments A and B. Because of my adoption situation, I do not know my biological parents. I was born in China, then adopted and moved to the States as a young kid. I’ve always said I am Chinese in response to people asking about my race (appearances, not ethnicity or culture), which in my mind is fair. But a lot of people I’ve encountered don’t like this answer because in their minds since I’m adopted, I don’t know my biological parents, therefore I cannot claim to be of any race because I’m not certain of it. While they’re right in saying I do not know my biological background, I disagree with the opinion that I cannot say I am of Chinese descent. Not sure if that addressed your confusion or not. --- Those people are very ignorant. China has an incredible amount of diversity and ethnicity is living within its borders. Racial, cultural, and national identities can be very personal and how people identify is going to be based off of their life and things like that. Also I just want to tell you that I am also a Chinese adoptee. Hi. The idea that people who are adopted that can't identify as a particular race or ethnicity due to the fact that they have been adopted especially by white people is an effort to erase the reality of adoptees. Especially because a racist person doesn't care if you are an adoptee. They look at you and then they decide how they are going to treat you. It's only been relatively recent that I've even thought about racial and Asian politics because I just wasn't taught that by my parents because they didn't know. So for a while I didn't relieve and think of myself as Asian even though I was technically so. I just didn't really connect with other Asian people. In some ways I still don't because they are living a life that I can't relate to but I do think of myself as, yes Asian now. Now what about Chinese? Some people have asked me where I'm from and for a while I was actually just saying China. But I think in many ways I think of myself more as a Chinese adoptee which I see is a little different than just being Chinese because one of them sort of implies that you know the language or that you grew up in a certain way but like for me I don't have that so it's almost like this weird kind of third culture kid kind of experienced I suppose. I don't know if this is changing your mind on anything I'm just pointing out that ultimately I think that person is pretty dumb. Remember races are social construct just like anything else. The Irish for example overnight went from being non-white to white just because of the political landscape.	"identity" is fundamentally a social concept, not a biological one. and when people ask, a large part of it is social and cultural, not just some interrogation into your genetic heritage. and yeah, you fall into an awkward situation since for many people, race (as a genetic matter) is closely tied to identity since most people aren't adopted. "american" or "mid-western" aren't really valid answers, even though they may be the most accurate, culturally speaking. so while "chinese" isnt an incorrect answer, it isn't also "correct" either. --- I get what you’re saying. I know that race is not the end all be all for identity. But when people are asking me about my race- I know they are referring to my physical appearance, not culture. They often pair the question with a comment about a particular physical feature of mine. If someone were to ask about my cultural background or ethnicity (textbook definition of ethnicity), I would never say Chinese since I grew up in the States and have little to no ties to Chinese culture. --- the thing is, those two questions are the same for a lot of people, both on the asking and answering side. obviously that isn't great, but it's how things are. so to some extent, you have to read the situation, and answer not what people directly ask, but rather what you think they want answered. a qualified answer would probably be the best of shitty options. "im chinese, but raised american" or something as an example.	17cv50a	CMV: Transracial adoptees can racially identify with the country they were born in	Ok so for some context- I was adopted from China when I was a toddler. I was born in central China, abandoned at birth, and lived in an orphanage until being adopted. Now I’m in my 20’s living in Minnesota. I have no information on my medical or family history- so I have always just said I’m of Asian descent- and if I had to specify a country I say China. Probably on a monthly basis I get asked about my race. I always respond with “Chinese,” and most people are satisfied with that answer and drop the subject. However, I’ve met several people who don’t think I look Chinese and are dead set that I am [insert another race]. And if they know I’m adopted, they say something along the lines of you don’t really know if you’re Chinese because you don’t know your parents, so you could be anything. Yes- I know they are technically right- I don’t know if I’m actually of Chinese descent- but I personally find it very invasive and inappropriate to point that out. I also don’t know why it really matters. Sure there’s a good chance I’m not 100% Chinese, but who cares? Very few people are of purely one descent. And I feel like it’s hard to truly know your racial background without a DNA test. I don’t know why me being adopted bars me from saying I’m Chinese. Also a lot of these conversations are with people I don’t know too well- so I don’t really want to have an in depth conversation regarding identity/race/adoption. I genuinely don’t understand why people have a problem with me saying I’m Chinese. I already have a lot of insecurities related to race and being adopted, and this only heightens those insecurities. If anyone has a reason/argument for why I can’t/shouldn’t identify as Chinese I truly want to know. I really want to understand why so many people have said this to me. Thanks in advanced for all your input Edit 1- I just want to clarify- I know ethnicity/race/nationality are all different. From my experience, the average person off the street doesn’t know the nuances and differences between these ideas. Oftentimes people use nationality and ethnicity as a euphemism for race. I said this in a reply- but when people ask questions, it’s important to try and understand what the person is actually asking and wanting to know. Yes, there are people who are asking about my cultural background and if I participate in Chinese traditions, but most of the time people are asking about my background in the context of physical appearances. Also, I generally don’t mind when people are curious about my background. The two main problems I have is when it’s done in an inappropriate manner (like if it’s asked rudely or asked by a stranger at an inappropriate time), or if I say I am Chinese, then they say I can’t say I’m Chinese because I’m adopted and don’t know my biological history. When people make these comments, they’re saying I can’t say I’m of Chinese descent. At that point the conversation has nothing to do with whether or not I can identify with Chinese culture or heritage, but rather that I need to know my birth parents to truly be able to say I’m of Chinese descent biologically speaking. I also know that probably the topic that “race is a social construct” will come up. That’s a whole discussion of itself, but for all intents and purposes, I’m asking what’s wrong with saying I’m Chinese when people ask about my race in relation to my physical phenotype. I don’t see why people are so against me saying I’m Chinese in response to that question. I have had several people want to debate why I can’t say I am Chinese because I’m adopted - which is a conversation I don’t want to spend my energy on. Edit 2- Ok another clarification- transracial adoption means an adoption in which the parents and child are of different races. It has nothing to do with trying to change one’s race or intentionally presenting oneself as a different race.	Successful-Shopping8	3	3	[ { "author": "KokonutMonkey", "id": "k5sw14t", "score": 3, "text": "First off, are you sure you don't mean mixed-race? Transracial usually refers to a person claiming to identify with a race they don't belong to, e.g., a pasty white lady claiming to be black. Not a Asian+Black kid saying he's black o...	[ { "author": "SpezEatLead", "id": "k5sm1dq", "score": 18, "text": "\"identity\" is fundamentally a social concept, not a biological one. and when people ask, a large part of it is social and cultural, not just some interrogation into your genetic heritage. \n\nand yeah, you fall into an awkward situa...	[ "k5sw14t", "k5sy04k", "k5t788b" ]	[ "k5sm1dq", "k5smwop", "k5snfve" ]
CMV: Fragile Femininity is much more common than Fragile Masculinity. I constantly see people claim that masculinity is super fragile. I kind of think this funny when you consider, that women are the ones who are often asking for safe spaces, claiming the existence of a rape culture and whining about patriarchy. Meanwhile, men are often pushing themselves to be as self reliant as possible. Men are less likely to be [emotionally jealous compared to women. ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201308/who-gets-more-jealous-men-or-women%3famp). Men [quite often don’t get therapy.](http://afccounselors.com/why-wont-men-go-to-therapy/). In my opinion, for better or worse, it’s often women who are the “fragile” ones. Men often close themselves off from the world when faced with trauma. Masculinity is not bad. Having a stiff upper lip is a trait that can and should be admired. So: CMV that Femininity is more fragile than masculinity. [Note: Sorry for my wording. I am willing to expand more if needed. This is more of rant about something that kind of pisses me off. Sorry if it’s too shirt]	You completely misunderstand the phrase. Fragile Masculinity refers to men's fear that they will not be seen as a "real man" if they say or do the wrong things. --- Well yeah. Some things can be seen as culturally manly while other things aren’t. Being a WWII vet is manly. Being afraid of saying something offensive, or being shy is not manly. Yes, I can agree that some take it too far, but some “people” think masculinity is bad, even toxic. Something that must be stopped and ended. --- There is nothing fragile about getting therapy. There is something fragile about not getting help just because one thinks that it is unmanly. And why is being shy inherently manly. Hell, why is when men show any emotion other than anger is it seen as unmanly. Men are people. We do have a wide range of emotions. Some men are shy because some people are shy. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. I think you want to base what being a man is only on what we have always thought was manly. I mean if I take a cooking class or write poetry does that make me less of a man. If I hold my emotions in so I can keep a facade of holding everything together, does that make me more of a man. I don't really think those two ideas are inherently true. They are just ideas of what we think is true. --- I can concede. However increasingly it feels like masculinity has been pushed to the sidelines. WWII vets didn’t have safe spaces. Men used to be able of coping with issues. I don’t think their is anything inherently wrong with getting therapy. I think we need to value masculinity again. --- Yes they did. WW11 vets had/have PTSD rehabilitation centres, WW11 vets have AA and NA, WW11 vets have churches that offer 1-1 time with pastors and preiests. WW11 vets have private meetings and ceremonies where it is disrespectful and wrong to protest, WW11 vets have ceremonies where it is disrespectful to talk about how the allies weren’t 100% good, or how about this battle was dumb, or just about ANYTHING about hitler. These are safe spaces. These are spaces where someone doesn’t pop in and acts all devils adovcate or shamey. Safe spaces have existed for centuries. There are PLENTY of spaces WW11 vets visit and have spent months at after war that are safe spaces. Do not act as if they did not need safe spaces.	> who are often asking for safe spaces, claiming the existence of a rape culture and whining about patriarchy. Meanwhile, men are often pushing themselves to be as self reliant as possible. Yet its often men freaking out about diversity because they essentially want their whole life to be a 'safe space' > rape culture Are you implying its fragile to not accept rape?? > whining about patriarchy. Shit I whine about the patriachy I just call them the 1% > Meanwhile, men are often pushing themselves to be as self reliant as possible. Are these the same men whose partners raise their children, wash their undies and cook their meals? > Men are less likely to be emotionally jealous compared to women. The very same article points out that men are more sexually jealous - why is one more "fragile" than the other > Men quite often don’t get therapy.. Men kill themselves 3x more often than women so really not sure if this is a positive at all > Men often close themselves off from the world when faced with trauma Not really considered healthy by most evidence on the matter > Having a stiff upper lip is a trait that can and should be admired. Plenty of women have this trait - there is nothing inherently masculine about it. I dunno I think men are our own worst enemies, we tell each other that emotions are weak then wonder why we don't understand ourselves, we put way too much value in money and wonder why our homelife sucks. The fact your view is that talking about trauma and complaining about real problems are weaknesses tells me you just drink the masculine cool-aid rather than actually have examples of how men are unfragile --- > Are you implying its fragile to not accept rape?? Sorry. Little context. I don’t believe that rape culture is a thing, because rape something looked on with disgust and horror. People know rape is wrong. > Shit I whine about the patriachy I just call them the 1% Then we are good friends. > The very same article points out that men are more sexually jealous - why is one more "fragile" than the other It’s justifiable to be jealous, if you got cuckholed. Being emotionally jealous is childish. > Are these the same men whose partners raise their children, wash their undies and cook their meals? In the past yes, but I find that men are learning how to be free from the system. >; Men kill themselves 3x more often than women so really not sure if this is a positive at all It’s not. Men just wish to “handle it themselves” which goes to show how much they wish to be as free and self reliant as possible. They don’t want to be “a burden”. >I dunno I think men are our own worst enemies, we tell each other that emotions are weak then wonder why we don't understand ourselves, we put way too much value in money and wonder why our homelife sucks. The fact your view is that talking about trauma and complaining about real problems are weaknesses tells me you just drink the masculine cool-aid rather than actually have examples of how men are unfragile. Much of it happened due to the collapse of the nuclear family. When families fell apart, men were forced to grow up. These days you have to make choices. --- > Being emotionally jealous is childish. Why is it childish to be jealous of your partner falling in love with someone else? --- It’s often paranoia, those type of people are like real like Yandre. --- Do you have any objective, non-cartoon related reasons that emotional jealousy is childish?	7heflf	CMV: Fragile Femininity is much more common than Fragile Masculinity.	I constantly see people claim that masculinity is super fragile. I kind of think this funny when you consider, that women are the ones who are often asking for safe spaces, claiming the existence of a rape culture and whining about patriarchy. Meanwhile, men are often pushing themselves to be as self reliant as possible. Men are less likely to be [emotionally jealous compared to women. ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201308/who-gets-more-jealous-men-or-women%3famp). Men [quite often don’t get therapy.](http://afccounselors.com/why-wont-men-go-to-therapy/). In my opinion, for better or worse, it’s often women who are the “fragile” ones. Men often close themselves off from the world when faced with trauma. Masculinity is not bad. Having a stiff upper lip is a trait that can and should be admired. So: CMV that Femininity is more fragile than masculinity. [Note: Sorry for my wording. I am willing to expand more if needed. This is more of rant about something that kind of pisses me off. Sorry if it’s too shirt]	mcgrathc09	5	5	[ { "author": "VernonHines", "id": "dqqci8b", "score": 42, "text": "You completely misunderstand the phrase. Fragile Masculinity refers to men's fear that they will not be seen as a \"real man\" if they say or do the wrong things.", "timestamp": 1512355697 }, { "author": "mcgrathc09", ...	[ { "author": "ThomasEdmund84", "id": "dqqdn8i", "score": 34, "text": "> who are often asking for safe spaces, claiming the existence of a rape culture and whining about patriarchy. Meanwhile, men are often pushing themselves to be as self reliant as possible.\n\nYet its often men freaking out about d...	[ "dqqci8b", "dqqcngb", "dqqcxbb", "dqqd7bq", "dqqrib3" ]	[ "dqqdn8i", "dqqe38u", "dqqe880", "dqqeabi", "dqqixu8" ]
CMV: The pro-choice movement hasn't done enough to justify taking rights away from a fetus I was originally raised as a conservative christian in a very politically active household. This led me to be pro-life, among other things. I came to view abortion as the taking of a life. Over time, I fell away from religion and became more and more liberal, but remained politically active. I personally am pro-choice but remain uncomfortable with abortion because I have never heard a pro-choice advocate reasonably defend the belief that the fetus has no rights compared to the woman. I've seen the issue presented and argued countless times by both sides and it seems like there has always been a disconnect between them. Pro-life advocates argue on behalf of the rights of the fetus and pro-choice advocates argue for the mother's rights. The arguments that pro-choice advocates seem to hold to in this particular debate are scientific. Basically, it seems like if the fetus is not viable, then an abortion is okay. However, given how those in the pro-choice camp tend to be the ones who push for equality and core rights for other marginalized groups, relying on an argument such as science seems out of character. It's tough for me to really prove a negative (i.e. that they haven't addressed something) with a whole lot of detail and support, but this is a conversation I've really been hoping to have, and have tried to have with some of my good friends. I would absolutely love to have my view changed, as I am pro-choice (I don't see someone else's choice as any of my business) and I just have this one issue with that position. I would love to hear the philosophical, legal, or even a convincing scientific argument for why a fetus should have no rights until viability (or otherwise). Thanks :)	First up, under legal precedent going back a long way, a fetus is not a person. It has no rights. It is seen as part of the mother’s body. Long before the modern abortion debate this was often an issue in probate court, like when a man left his estate to his children and another was born after he died. Therefore, you can’t take away rights as they never existed. I feel that there’s an idea amongst certain pro-life groups that when an abortion happens, what is effectively an about-to-be-born baby is being killed. That’s simply untrue. Most abortions happen by about 9 weeks, when the fetus is under an inch long and very obviously not in any way a conscious human. Nobody is advocating for abortion at 9 months, and late term abortions are only allowed when there is a pressing medical reason, normally that the survival of the mother is highly unlikely if the pregnancy continues. That way the baby is not going to make it, either way. --- Thanks for your response! I'm aware of the legal precedent, and I'd really like for it to "do it" for me, but a lot of it just feels arbitrary. What makes a fetus less human than an infant? Are humans endowed with their rights upon birth? I really do wish that these arguments could push through to me, but it just feels like there isn't a good rationale for a fetus not being a person. Why is it okay to abort when the fetus is slightly smaller? --- I think the point is that it isn't a one-inch tall person, or even humanoid. It's a collection of cells. If you'll forgive the slightly crass analogy, like in a Petri dish. --- I mean I get that. But it seems like everyone agrees they aren't people until they are, and that just seems unreasonable to me. When would you argue that this collection of cells deserves rights? And why can you not work backwards and give them earlier? --- In a free society, in general, you need to have a reason to make things illegal, not a reason to make them legal. Therefore, the default position is there has to be a compelling reason - that cannot be predicated on someone's religion - why abortion is illegal. Everyone agrees that aborting a fetus 1 day before birth is wrong. Most people agree that aborting an embryo 1 day after conception is fine. Those that do not agree, disagree generally for religious reasons. So if day 1 is good but day 9m - 1day is bad, where do we draw the line? That's a complicated question, and it will be inherently arbitrary. Pro-choice people do not say "All abortions at any time are fine." Pro Life people tend to make that straw man argument against Pro Choice in the same way that the NRA makes the argument that gun control supporters want to ban all guns regardless of situation. The truth is there has to be a line somewhere, and no one is going to be completely satisfied with how it's drawn, so you make the best compromise you can. We generally start with the idea of "when can a fetus survive without being inside the mother" and work from there. Less than a quarter of babies born at 23 weeks will survive. That's just statistical reality. So we start from there. Being pro-choice, unlike being pro-life or pro-gun, is a very nuanced position. If you are feeling uncertain, that means you're on the right side of things. If you look at a position and are convinced that you are 100% right without exception, then you are probably allowing your bias to blind you.	There is a difference between a clump of cells and a marginalized group of people. one of those groups clearly has human rights that can be violated. The other group isn't a person. --- I mean, I understand. I'm just struggling with the rationale behind a fetus not being a person. At what point does it become one? At one point, every person, marginalized or not, was a fetus. At some point, they all seemingly received human rights. --- > At what point does it become one? Birth. --- That's a fairly narrow view. Even as a pro-choice person I recognise that things are fairly dark grey. If you were to abort thing child 1 day before they're due, I'd be really uncomfortable and hard pressed to justify that as anything but murder unless there were some freak medical necessity with no other option.... but if you were to abort the pregnancy 1 day after having sex, that's a totally different matter. A premature birth can still survive and grow to be a perfectly functional person, so clearly there's a non-trivial point in the development of the pregnancy where human life should be considered to really begin... generally that's the end of the first trimester, at which point the embryo has finished development of its nervous system and the beginnings of the brain and can react to external stimulus such as pain. It has a brain, it is then capable of the beginnings of sentient thought. Which is why 99% of abortions happen before the end of the first trimester (22-25 weeks), according to the CDC, 66% take place within the first 8 weeks, and 91.6% within the first 13 weeks- long long before the embryo will have a nervous system or brain. --- > That's a fairly narrow view. I would argue that it's a fairly wide view, widely held by most developed nations all over the world.	6wvohi	CMV: The pro-choice movement hasn't done enough to justify taking rights away from a fetus	I was originally raised as a conservative christian in a very politically active household. This led me to be pro-life, among other things. I came to view abortion as the taking of a life. Over time, I fell away from religion and became more and more liberal, but remained politically active. I personally am pro-choice but remain uncomfortable with abortion because I have never heard a pro-choice advocate reasonably defend the belief that the fetus has no rights compared to the woman. I've seen the issue presented and argued countless times by both sides and it seems like there has always been a disconnect between them. Pro-life advocates argue on behalf of the rights of the fetus and pro-choice advocates argue for the mother's rights. The arguments that pro-choice advocates seem to hold to in this particular debate are scientific. Basically, it seems like if the fetus is not viable, then an abortion is okay. However, given how those in the pro-choice camp tend to be the ones who push for equality and core rights for other marginalized groups, relying on an argument such as science seems out of character. It's tough for me to really prove a negative (i.e. that they haven't addressed something) with a whole lot of detail and support, but this is a conversation I've really been hoping to have, and have tried to have with some of my good friends. I would absolutely love to have my view changed, as I am pro-choice (I don't see someone else's choice as any of my business) and I just have this one issue with that position. I would love to hear the philosophical, legal, or even a convincing scientific argument for why a fetus should have no rights until viability (or otherwise). Thanks :)	SeesEverythingTwice	5	5	[ { "author": "FatherBrownstone", "id": "dmb49q6", "score": 23, "text": "First up, under legal precedent going back a long way, a fetus is not a person. It has no rights. It is seen as part of the mother’s body. Long before the modern abortion debate this was often an issue in probate court, like when...	[ { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "dmb4i3f", "score": 2, "text": "There is a difference between a clump of cells and a marginalized group of people. \n\none of those groups clearly has human rights that can be violated. The other group isn't a person. ", "timestamp": 1504055358 }, { "a...	[ "dmb49q6", "dmb4l4x", "dmb4ri3", "dmb6mu4", "dmb8qlt" ]	[ "dmb4i3f", "dmb4rnf", "dmbkbzx", "dmbkglz", "dmbkhnn" ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.