Datasets:

Siddish
/

change-my-view-subreddit-cleaned

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 1.92k rows

train stringlengths 219 46.1k
### Human: CMV: We should not ban high capacity magazines.### Assistant: >Last week a mother in Loganville, Ga. hid in an attic with her children to escape a home invader. Undaunted, the criminal came after them. She emptied all six rounds of her revolver, hitting him five times. He ran out of the house, drove a distance, crashed, and finally collapsed in a nearby driveway; police then transported him to a hospital for recovery. In the real world, one handgun round does not stop people like it does in the movies. This mother is very lucky she only faced one bad guy, and that being shot five times was enough for him to decide to leave her alone while he was still a threat to her and her children. Can you link to this story? Google news isn't showing me anything like that in the past week for Loganville, GA, either searching just the town name, or the town and self defense. The only thing I found was [this about a fight with 2 men that ended with one of them shooting the other.](http://www.examiner.com/article/cops-man-who-gunned-down-brother-law-before-witnesses-acted-self-defense)### Human: Apparently my friend took the story from a post in January of 2013. Song this aside, there is always a special case that might justify a law, so I'm okay setting it aside if the other, more significant points are touched upon. Would banning these actually have an affect on anything? If it wouldn't prevent a mass killing, or something else impactful, why ban it?### Assistant: The purpose of these laws is generally to make it onerously difficult to lawfully own all but a small class of firearms such as revolvers, bolt action rifles, or pump action shotguns. It's not about magazine size per se, it's about making semi-automatic weapons unappealing and difficult to own. More than that even, it's part of an effort to put as onerous a regulatory burden on guns as possible in an effort to stop there being as many guns out there. If you think guns should be severely curtailed or banned, this strategy could make some sense, especially in the context where the US 2nd amendment prohibits more direct gun control such as is used in Canada. If you don't want to curtail or ban most guns, then this policy probably isn't for you. The point of it though is to make it so fewer people carry guns. If that were the case, then the fight I linked above might just be a punching match, instead of ending up with a corpse.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I understand that, and alone this law doesn't make much sense. The point is that when a state like New York puts this sort of law on the books, it combines with 30 other laws on the books to make having a gun in NY more or less impossible. You need specialized clips, specialized storage, special permits, the permits don't cover some areas (NYC has its own permits), etc. It's part of a patchwork of laws that make lawful gun ownership as difficult as constitutionally possible. It's like conservative states restricting access to abortion as much as is constitutionally possible. Any one restriction doesn't do too much, but the aggregate can do a lot.### Human: ...but that doesn't mean we should pass such legislation...
### Human: CMV:Having to be sober to give consent is bogus### Assistant: No one is taking advantage of you when you drive drunk. However, in the case of sex, someone saw that you were vulnerable and exploited that opportunity, kind of making them a jerk. Think of it this way. If I leave my windows down in my car and it rains, then it's my fault. However, leaving my windows down isn't a reasonable defense for stealing my car.### Human: But when people get drunk they like to "leave their windows down" both men and women. So does that mean if someone is actually consenting while drunk it should be completely dismissed? I understand there is a line, but you can't just say no drunk people can ever give consent.### Assistant: > I understand there is a line, but you can't just say no drunk people can ever give consent. Why not?### Human: Because of the reason before that.... Sometimes drunk people want to give consent### Assistant: And sometimes 12 year olds want to have sex, that doesn't mean they can consent.
### Human: CMV: I cannot find any reason to vote for any particular US presidential candidate.### Assistant: Choosing not to vote is, effectively, the same as voting for the frontrunner. You might not love Bernie, but by not voting for him you help Hillary, who you say you also don't love. Ditto for Trump and Cruz/Rubio/Kasich on the Republican side.### Human: Yeah, as far as the primary goes, I'm probably gonna vote for Cruz, given that he and I at least side on how to cook bacon on the barrel of an AR-15, if nothing else.### Assistant: Ah yes, the logic-averse theocrat. I applaud your decision.### Human: Thanks! I don't like him either. It was a joke. people don't like jokes here it would seem :)### Assistant: I mean, you don't like him but you've made the point you don't like anyone here. Which is the situation that a lot of people are in right now. Your question seems to be about the general election, rather than the primary, so let's skip over the primary. All the following approval ratings in this paragraph are from [the HuffPoll aggregator](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster#favorability-ratings). President Obama's ratings are currently: 46% Favorable, 48% Unfavorable, so he has a net favorability rating of -2. That's amazingly probably enough to get an incumbent reelected (if he were able to stand for a third term) and reflects how polarized this country--about half the country (40-50%) will always hate you if they know anything about you. Now, let's compare that sickly number to the two leading candidates: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Hillary is at 40% Favorable, 54% Unfavorable, or -14%. That's not good. But somehow, Donald Trump's numbers are somehow even worse! He's got 35% Favorable, 59% Unfavorable, or an astonishing -24% unfavorable rating. Now, likely, both candidates favorability will improve somewhat should they be selected their parties candidate, as people rally behind them, but these are just monster deficits. These candidates have strong bases of support, but are also hugely unpopular. Just as a comparison, in mid-May 2012 (we're not quite there yet, but let's say), [Obama was at 52% Favorable, 43% Unfavorable, or +9%. Romney was at 40% Favorable, 41% Unfavorable, or -1%](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_romney_favorable_unfavorable.html). So not only were Romney and Obama doing better than both candidates, there were far more people who hadn't made up their minds about Romney than Trump--Romney peaked at about 50% Favorable, 44% Unfavorable in the that November. In early March, when the contest was still going on Santorum and Gingrich still presented quasi-viable "true Conservative" alternatives to moderate Romney, Romney's Favorable numbers were lower and Unfavorable numbers were higher, but everyone knew that the party and the voters would rally behind Romney. There was no #NeverRomney hashtag, the National Review wasn't writing cover stories about "Against Romney". Hilary doesn't quite have as negatives as Trump, but it's not exaggeration that she's more hated among Republican voter before taking office than any other Democrat in the past thirty years. So, in short, no one thinks Trump or Cruz or Hilary is going to grow like Romney did. Now, Rubio could follow a similar path--he's about neutral right now, with a lot of people not expressing a favorable or unfavorable opinion on him (unlike Trump and Hilary, who everyone has an opinion on). And likewise, Sanders actually has a positive net favorability right now. But neither of those candidates are particularly likely to be their party's nominee. Sanders is all but mathematically eliminated, and Rubio is a distant third in the Republican delegate count, with his "most likely" path to nomination being a contested convention--something that hasn't happened really since the modern primary era. Which is to say, it seems like it's going to come down to two unpopular candidates. Political scientists are actually sort of excited about this--if it's Trump and Hilary, this will be the first time two deeply unpopular candidates have faced off against each other. Political scientists want to see how hate-voting mobilizes constituencies to the poll--they actually expect a very strong turnout this year. So if you're asking yourself "Which one do I like more?", you're asking yourself the wrong question--sadly, in this cycle, the question you should be asking yourself is, "Which one do I hate more?" You say, "I want to make an informed decision and waste my useless vote on someone who will at least not destroy the things I hold dear." So--assuming you choose not to vote third party--inform your decision by asking yourself, "Which candidate is likely to destroy more things I hold dear?" and then vote against that person. I honestly think that will make you decision easier.### Human: So I have a question: Since Hilary and Trump are both very unpopular in the eyes of most Americans, how is it that they are both winning in the primaries? Is it just because they get the most press or what? Please excuse my ignorance if this is a dumb question.### Assistant: Both Hillary and Bernie are broadly popular with Democrats, meaning that it's pretty clear the typical democratic voter might prefer one or the other, but thinks both are fine candidates. Trump is more complicated and no one fully understands his success. He has a very high floor (meaning that everywhere he goes he can expect a certain level of support) whether [that's from "authoritarians"](http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism) or just people who like that he "tells it like it is" and think Muslims and illegal immigrants are two of the biggest problems facing the country today. There are also theories that Trump has managed to use the media to his advantage and the few times he's lost traction in the polls are the few times he received less media coverage. So the media plays into it, but he's genuinely popular. This was supposed to be the strongest GOP slate in years and Trump has really sucked up a lot of the air--Bush III, Rand Paul, and Scott Walker all "should have" done much better, according to every prediction. The thing is most of the unpopularity comes from the other party. We're in a very partisan environment and in a very basic sense Hilary and Trump are seen by the other side as everything wrong with the bad guys, boiled down into one person. Trump also had a high degree of unpopularity within his own party, as much of the Republican Party has been pushing for increased ideological purity ("I am the real Consevative in this race") and Trump flouts that. He is far to the right on many things (Muslims and Mexicans in particular), but also way more centrist views (he's not an abortion warrior, he has the most positive views on universal healthcare among the Republicans, etc). In the main media you mainly hear about his unpopular with Democrats far right ideas, but you rarely hear about his unpopular with movement conservatives moderate ideas. [heres a good story on that](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/12/16/donald-trump-is-a-textbook-example-of-an-ideological-moderate/).
### Human: CMV: Burritos are better than sandwiches### Assistant: A major advantage of sandwiches in my mind is what the bread brings to the table, flavor wise, that tortillas don't. Yeah, there are spinach and tomato wraps, but the flavor profile doesn't touch what you can get with choices like rye, sourdough, pumpernickle, etc. Additionally, bread is a much more scalable option (both in length and height) than tortillas, which really have an upper structural limit to ingredients. The only advantage, like you pointed out, is the ability to incorporate things like rice and beans.### Human: I wanted to make the same point. OP is probably American/British and probably not used good bread. I agree that burritos/warps are better than sandwiches/burgers if they are made with this fluffy, cheap, white bread but good bread can really make a big difference.### Assistant: You're showing your ignorance. We have all kinds of amazing bread in the US.### Human: I'm sure you do somewhere, but normal bread it terrible.### Assistant: "Somewhere" is basically every grocery I go in, and every bakery. So :P on you.### Human: Sorry, but no way. Bread in normal UK grocery stores is absolutely terrible. Sainsbury's and Tesco has terrible bread, I don't even bother buying it anymore.### Assistant: The topic was the quality of bread in the US. I'm surprised that bread is terrible in the UK. I was in England a few summers ago, and the excellent selection in cheese just overwhelmed everything else; I didn't buy any bread.
### Human: CMV: The NBA shouldn't have done what it did to Donald Sterling, the punishment really doesn't fit the crime.### Assistant: The NBA didn't punish Sterling for being racist or making racist comments. The NBA punished him for damaging the brand. Failing to punish him would have damaged the brand even more, so they acted quickly. It was no secret that he was a racist, stories are coming out all over the place about comments he made and attitudes he held. The other owners and the commissioner knew him, they had to know what he was like. But no action was taken. Now that a very poor recording of a couple of comments he made, comments which seem relatively mild to me, they swoop into action. This is about money, and the cash generation potential of the NBA. Sterling threatened that, and that can't be tolerated.### Human: > This is about money, and the cash generation potential of the NBA. Sterling threatened that, and that can't be tolerated. No, he didn't. Whoever made and released the recording, is who threatened that and thus who should be liable for this loss of value to the league/team. Sterling simply expressed his opinion in private, under the reasonable expectation of privacy. If you expressed a view that your boss was an idiot in your own home to people who don't work with you, that doesn't mean you should be able to be fired for insubordination, even if it was recorded and sent to your boss.### Assistant: What the hell are you smoking? If you express the "opinion" that your boss is a monkey, and your boss is black, then he would fire you.### Human: > If you express the "opinion" that your boss is a monkey, and your boss is black, then he would fire you. And then he would almost certainly forcibly be made to reinstate me by law, since I had violated no terms in my employment contract, unless of course my employment contract specifies what I can say outside of work. But if he was smart he wouldn't fire me at all, because that very well might cost him his job.### Assistant: Actually, he'd probably have HR fire you for creating a hostile work environment.### Human: [deleted]
### Human: I'm not really all that sympathetic when college athletes complain about not getting paid, and think a free ride through college is more than adequate enough, CMV### Assistant: I agree that they shouldn't be paid (on the up and up, at least), only because I don't see how a system like that could function. You should definitely sympathize with the athletes as individuals though. Free meals and a full scholarship is a pretty great deal for the vast majority of athletes, but not every one. If you're a top athlete at a top school in football or basketball, you're a celebrity. You make a ton of money for your school (directly or indirectly), you make a ton of money for the NCAA, you're appearing on national TV and being marketed in a way that is not dissimilar from an NFL or NBA player. Your value is dramatically higher than the cost of your tuition, room and board. Not only is that all you get, but you're not allowed to take advantage of your fame for financial gain in any way. It's a highly exploitative system. If you put yourself in their shoes, you'll understand the discontent.### Human: So what? I don't think Athletes should get scholarships for sports in the first place. Why are we glorifying sport in a setting for education? I know there are smart athletes who do well in school but I feel like the majority are screw-arounds who don't care and cheat on HW/tests etc.### Assistant: See, that's what I thought too, but then I realized it was only because I don't like athletes all that much. If it helps, try to think of it from another angle: You bust your ass writing computer code in exchange for tuition, room, and board. You're happy for the chance to earn a degree, but the software you write makes your bosses millions. They're out there drinking champagne, driving fast cars, living the life, but you can't partake in any of that. You're just the talent. In a couple of years you'll be cast adrift to sink or swim. There's a 1% chance you'll strike it rich, but most likely you'll just end up in a regular job like a real estate agent or something. We're in an alternate universe where the market for programmers isn't that great after age 22 -- there's only room for 1,700 of them in the entire country at any given time. Meanwhile your bosses will be making millions off the next poor sap. Obviously you're going to feel like you're not getting a fair slice of the pie.### Human: This is a very common situation for Master's and PHD students. They perform research, build prototypes, create programs, etc. etc. - in general, they generate income. This is a strong parallel to college athletes. The athletes are creating revenue for the school and the system supporting the program, much in the same way that the Master's and PHD students are producing revenue for the system surrounding them. Obviously this comparison breaks down with the after college market. Though in my opinion that is a similar risk for athletes as it is for, say, fine arts majors - the job market may not be able to support them in what they choose to do.### Assistant: >Though in my opinion that is a similar risk for athletes as it is for, say, fine arts majors - the job market may not be able to support them in what they choose to do. 99.9% of athletes have no real thoughts of playing professionally after college. There are something like 20,000 Division 1 football players. Of those 20,000 maybe 500 get even a tryout with an NFL team(the vast majority of those players from FBS and their 10,000 players.) That is only Division 1 there are many more players who play Division 2, Division 3, or NAIA(of which only a handful get a tryout with an NFL team.)### Human: Only divisions 1 and 2 are able to give scholarships however, and not every athlete that plays for a school in those divisions is on a scholarship in the first place. Edit: [Source](http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/nli/document+library/athletic+scholarship)### Assistant: I know all that--but those athletes are included in my point. For the vast majority of athletes, the sport they are playing is not their "job market."
### Human: CMV: I'd rather fight a 100 duck-sized horses### Assistant: Because of the [square-cube law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law), a horse-sized duck would be unable to support its own weight. It's legs would shatter; internal organs-and likely skin-would rupture; it would very quickly become a horse-sized pile of duck mush. Duck-sized horses, on the other hand would be fine, and they would have a great numbers advantage over you, so if you make one mistake, they'd knock you down and trample you. Edit: Grammer### Human: [Some Phorusrhacids were horse sized.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelenken) One could argue they were pretty successful for several dozen million years.### Assistant: Pretty sure that horse-sized duck would kill me without breaking a sweat. Assuming I have to fight barehanded and can't use a .30-06, I'm going with the duck-sized horses.### Human: Phorusrhacids (or Terror birds) were pretty much the apex predators of South America for 60 million years. Remember how raptors were portrayed in Jurassic Park? Imagine them with feathers. That's pretty much a terror bird. I'd be terrified.### Assistant: Horses it is.
### Human: CMV: I think I should not have any more philosophical debate with my YEC mother.### Assistant: There is something you can learn from your interactions with your mother: different perspectives in [epistemology](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/). How do we know what we know? How do we define knowledge? In what ways does science limit the bounds of its own applicability? What does that mean for how we come to know about experiences that are non-quantifiable? I think there may be more holes in your way of thinking than you realize. It may seem that your mother is purely dismissive of you, but to be honest, you seem a little dismissive as to what she has to say as well. You should look up some perspectives in epistemology to get a feel for why some of her concepts aren't as extreme as perhaps you think. EDIT: I think you should look at this stuff because your title mentions having "philosophical" debates with your mother. You don't seem to be having "philosophical" debates as much as you want to have a "scientific" debate (does your mother's ideas conform to science). Your mom seems dismissive because she's starting at a different baseline, and as a result you're totally talking past one another without first agreeing on what the topic really even is.### Human: I'm familiar with Epistemology, though not studied deeply as of yet. I refreshed myself with the concepts there-in, and I need to ask you to clarify your argument. I will say what I think your argument is, please correct me where I'm wrong. 1. Epistemology is the study of the theory of knowledge, or, how we know we know 2. It is evident that we cannot simply trust our sensory experience or what we are told 3. Your beliefs probably have holes in them 4. ...? 5. Therefore you should continue to debate your mother on the existence of demons. See why I'm struggling? My base argument is that she is not open to debate, and therefore it's a waste of my time and needlessly harmful to our relationship for me to debate her. I'm not sure how me understanding Epistemology will alter any of those. (Though I do appreciate the link, as I really enjoy studying this kind of stuff)### Assistant: other guy responded but i'll tack on this ist an adequite framing of his point. the holes refer to your assumptions you make while forming logical arguments not some sort of simulation argument (indeed premise 2 is problematic for your mom's argument). Essentially restart, and draw up your own view why scientific knowledge is the only valid knowledge, and we can poke a lot of holes in that. It's complicated so i'm not going to do it here but that's the route his argument hints at. as a side note, this move: > because I haven't experienced spiritual powers of good and evil. is really just what plato does in the republic when he argues the philosophic life is the best life. It's really a hard move to ultimately get rid of.### Human: Interesting, thank you for your post. It's helpful. I'm curious, can you explain the connection between what you quoted and why Plato thinks the philosophic life (what' that?) is the best life?### Assistant: The philosophic life is the best life. while you only know your lives i know the philosophic life and my experiences show the philosophic life's benefits to be better than the other lives. to escape this problem phenomenology came about phil life=life of contemplation, etc.
### Human: CMV: Overwatch does not deserve the acclaim it has received.### Assistant: Does a game really have to have a great deal of content in order to be good? Overwatch's spiritual predecessor, TF2, was similarly bare-bones and also received very high scores because it was incredibly fun to play and even many rematches on the same map didn't really get old. I've never played Battlefront but I imagine it lacks the same degree of replay value, which makes the actual amount of content a bit more of an issue.### Human: It doesn't have to have a great deal of content to be good, but if reviewers are warranting that I'm getting a 9 or 10/10 game for $60 (Xbox One), I wish there would be more content, or at least a better sketch of what is to come.### Assistant: Would you feel differently if you had bought it for $40 on PC?### Human: Likely, yes.### Assistant: Then, isn't your issue not that it doesn't deserve high ratings or such positive reviews, but that you feel the game is overpriced (on certain platforms) and this should be reflected in reviews?### Human: And also, that you should be angry that the console companies are charging some sort of fee which necessitates the higher cost on that platform? The problem isn't with the game or the development studio, but the platform and cost.
### Human: CMV : Freedom of speech includes freedom of "hate speech"### Assistant: Ok. Step One in any free speech discussion is noting that a) the First Amendment only shackles the government from infringing on your right to speech (in most, but not all, contexts) and b) Twitter has a right to free speech via who they allow on their platform. Therefore: >How is it that Twitter can tolerate death threats to Donald Trump, but will ban you if you do the same to Anita Sarkeesian? has little to do with Free Speech of users and more to do with Twitter's own freedom. For instance, maybe Twitter recognizes that death threats against a man running for president are more "political speech" than threats against a blogger. Maybe Twitter realizes that the practicality of carrying out that threat against a man protected by Secret Service is much less than carrying the same threat out against Sarkeesian. Maybe Twitter simply likes Sarkeesian more than Trump. Who cares. Get off Twitter if you don't agree with their policy. >As long as they don't physically assault you, it is not a crime. People who think "hate speech" should be banned are kidding themselves. Yes, that includes forms of cyberbullying, including rape and death threats. I think you should read up long and hard on the actual limitations of speech and what speech is protected and what isn't. [Here is a primer on exceptions to free speech from wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions) >The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action". ... >the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'". So, in summary: Twitter has rights to protect its platform, Twitter and the Courts are in the business of deciding when speech goes from "offensive" or hyperbolic to an actual threat or incitement. Notice, no one threatening Anita Sarkeesian has been charged with any crimes. Have they? If they have, the prosecutor will have to prove what they said was an actual threat or incitement to violence before a conviction is granted. To really take your CMV to the nth degree, am I guilty of murder if I ask a hitman to kill someone for me? Of course I am. Speech can be a crime when it is meant to direct, incite or threaten violence.### Human: I think you have misunderstood my question. It's not about Twitter, it was just an example of how they masquerade moderated speech as true free speech. But not that it matters. Like I commented elsewhere, direct involvement in a crime, such as persuasion, or blackmailing, or hiring a hitman, those are all chargeable crimes. But "hate speech", disagreeing with someone else's opinions, insulting someone, sending threats, those are not chargeable crimes. There are no laws thankfully, for that now. However, there are many people for it, and like I mentioned, soon enough internet may go from a free platform to being policed.### Assistant: > There are no laws thankfully, for that now. There are no laws because that's what the 1st Amendment is - there will be no laws limiting speech. What that doesn't mean is that any store, forum, social media, or other type of private area can't develop 'laws' to prevent hate speech. Which seems fine because hate speech is dangerous and creates hostile environments. > soon enough internet may go from a free platform to being policed No, the US government will never police the internet for opinions, however hateful they are. Reddit might, though. And certain subreddits already heavily moderate conversations to try to prevent hate speech.### Human: I share your opinions too. I think hate speech is dangerous and creates hostile environments too, but that's just me being civilized. Being civilized cannot be enforced, it should be taught at school. About Reddit, as far as I know, people on it have always been tolerable as long as someone seems to be trying to make a point, which is something I must commend. IIRC, the Reddit CEO said that he bans not because of ideas, but because of behaviour, which I think is great.### Assistant: To say being civilized cannot be enforced is inherently ridiculous. Civilization is the result of groups of people agreeing o rules and the enforcing them on themselves and other people. Civilization cannot exist without forcing people to either do or not do things against their will. However, Government != civilization. Government gives definitely ed structure and limitations to what a soviets can do to its members, like forbidding vigilante justice. It is well within the scope of government to restrict harmful speech, we have just decided that the risks of concentrating that power are too great. The idea that communities don't have the right to control their internal discourse is silly. If I have a weekly science discussion meetup with friends, and someone comes in and starts yelling at us about how the earth is flat, we can kick him out of a group. However, as groups expand and their management structures concentrate, the risk becomes letting a small group of people control the conversation. In Twitter's case, the problem I see is that what gets removed from the site is the decision of a company running the platform, not of the actual community. Enter Reddit. The idea of the moderation system pre FPH was that communities decide for themselves what content they think is acceptable. Reddit mirrors real life communities and clubs. However, Reddit as a whole is also a community, and that community has admins. Those admits gain implicit support through user's continued use of the site, and so they have power to control discourse as communities always have. The real issue comes down to the network effect. If, on Twitter for example, we people could easily move to a different network if they disagreed with the actions of the administration then this whole thing becomes a non issue, because the Twitter admins would have to be very responsive to the community. The extent to which a body of leadership is accountable for its actions is directly related to how closely its will will reflect that of the people it represents. Twitter is accountable, but has a certain degree of freedom because it knows people won't leave easily. The whole idea of free speech is a result of how much trust we put in those who decide what is good or bad speech. So yes Twitter restricts truly free speech, but whether or not that is good is based on how much you trust twitter to act I the best interests of its users.### Human: I largely agree with what you're saying. But being civilized should be a part of education, not law enforcement. Your parents and your teachers should teach you manners, not the government. You should learn to follow and appreciate the need for etiquette early on.### Assistant: > But being civilized should be a part of education, Yes, it should, but we live in the real world and that doesn't always happen. > not law enforcement. No one is arguing that being civilized (in terms of speech) should be enforced by the government. The first amendment ensures that this will not happen. They are just saying that private organizations have every right to regulate speech within their domains as they see fit. This is true of the science club, this is true of Twitter.
### Human: CMV: You shouldn't reddit at work.### Assistant: Banning reddit at work is a case of solving the wrong problem. If an individual is unproductive, handle the individual appropriately. If employees are categorically unproductive, it's likely due to poor motivation / lack of ownership / generally poor management. If the employees are productive, why block it? A 15 minute break for browsing the web, chatting with other employees, getting coffee, etc helps clear the mind and improves morale. Corporate nonsense and treating adults likes children makes them feel unimportant to the business and makes them not give a fuck about it other than collecting dem checks.### Human: What do you mean by "treating adults like children?"### Assistant: for example, in a number of call centers, employees have to raise their hand to get their managers' approval to go to the bathroom or do whatever they need to do.### Human: Just like in high school! So there is a magic difference between an 18 year old in high school and an 18 year old working in a call center? I think you mean that it is incredibly demeaning for anyone to do this, regardless of their age.### Assistant: > So there is a magic difference between an 18 year old in high school and an 18 year old working in a call center? The "magical" difference is the environment, if nothing else.### Human: So the environment matters? Well the environment in an office type setting should be professional right? kittens and funny videos doesnt sound super professional to me.### Assistant: You're taking this out of the original context. This was a tangent about treating adults like children, and yes, the environment is very important when you're discussing the differences between raising your hand in the classroom as to not interrupt a lecture versus raising your hand at work because you're not trusted to go to the bathroom when nature calls.
### Human: CMV: Companies manufacturing homeopathic remedies are criminal enterprises### Assistant: I don't think homeopathic companies are morally wrong because they can still manage to help people. I guess it is a matter of perspective, on one hand you can say that they are lying to people and therefore what they do is morally wrong. On the other hand, by using the placebo effect they actually help some people so what they do is morally right. I'll give you an example. My aunt has arthritis of the wrists and she wears one of those crappy bracelets made from some "special wood" that's supposed to relieve the pain. Of course the bracelet is not effective, it is just the placebo effect. But the fact is, she tells me that she feels relieved when she wears it and it seems she feels better. I could go to great lengths to explain her why it is scientifically unfounded but what good would this do? She is able to feel better by spending 10$ on a crappy bracelet instead of taking true medicine or undergoing surgery. In the end she feels better and that's all that matters. As long as we have well defined rules so homeopathic companies cannot discourage people from using real medicine, I think they can do something good. Plus, if some people can be cured this way they won't need to use the regular healthcare system. This means doctors can have more time to see other patients.### Human: The placebo effect works even when people know they are taking a placebo. There is no need to charge them medicine-like prices for stuff that is not medicine. In addition, whatever help homeopathic/other psuedoscience remedies give to people, it is far outweighed by the harm it does when people don't seek proper medical treatment for genuine conditions. It doesn't matter if the company advocates seeking medical treatment or not, if they sell a product that claims to help, people will take it instead of medical treatment.### Assistant: A teacher taught us that some factors can influence the efficiency of homeopathic remedies as placebo effects. From the top of my head I remember that the more money is spent on the homeopathic, the more you are likely to get the effect. Also, the more time you spend with the "specialist" to get your diagnostic the better and the more care you have when taking the medicine (precise timing, etc...) the better. People are willing to pay those prices because those prices are why they think it works. It's stupid yes, but that's how it is. As for your second point, this is why I said we need well defined rules so homeopathic companies cannot claim to be on the same ground as pharmaceutical companies. People selling homeopathic cannot refer to themselves as doctors and cannot refer to their products with specific names that are reserved for true medicine as far as I know. At some point you have to trust the judgement of people and hope they will realize that we invest so much money in healthcare for a reason, but you can't force them to.### Human: > the more you are likely to get the effect Correction, the more money you spend the more likely you are to report an effect. We can't think of any reason someone would say something worked after being duped into paying a lot of money for it can we?### Assistant: You can take a look a this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304173339.htm People didn't buy the pills, they were just told the "retail price" of the medicine and they felt more relieved with the more expensive ones even though all the pills were the same.
### Human: CMV: Playing video games for fun is the same as reading for fun.### Assistant: Not all video games, and not all books, are created equal. Yes, there are some video games that are better than some books, and there are some books that are better than some video games -- so generalizing across categories as you're doing here is not very helpful (and I'm assuming that the "obviously, video games are better for you than reading" is just trolling). The problem with video games in conversations about the cultural value of the art form is the overwhelming commercial influence of fairly unimpressive products. Nobody wants to stack Battlefield or Call of Duty up against Catch-22 in a conversation about representations of war. Why? Because those games look like shiny toys that you'll forget about in a year, and Catch-22 looks like something that helps define culture for decades. Video games have very, very few serious entries into the "I'm an important and lasting part of culture" conversation at this point, and books -- to use your example -- have a couple of thousand year head start on that front. Video games are absolutely art; it's just that most of them are bad art. Numerically, most books are also bad art -- there's just been so many hundreds of thousands of them at this point, that the good ones have been filtered to the top. So, no, absolute limits on video game time aren't useful -- but parents should definitely be involved in helping their children understand and play the right video games, just as they help them understand and read the right books.### Human: You definitely have a point. Playing COD all day certainly isn't helpful, given the simplicity of it and the people playing it. But what about Max Payne? Far Cry 3? Elder Scrolls? Those games are certainly art worth experiencing. Edit: >(and I'm assuming that the "obviously, video games are better for you than reading" is just trolling). Yes, that part was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it has a point.### Assistant: Being a parent and an avid gamer, I can at least give you a personal experience with how I approach gaming with my kids. Entertainment for my 3yr old and 5yr old is... tricky. I don't mind them watching movies with their free time (Frozen is all the rage currently), but we have to take care of our chores beforehand. That means cleaning up when we get home, then... WATCH AND GAME AWAY. As far as the types of games, at this point, a lot of it is about independence. They are too young to understand the technical games that daddy plays like Diablo and StarCraft. Still, letting them sit with daddy and click around is an important skill IMO. If for no other reason than letting them get more familiar with a computer, I think it is a worthwhile use of all our free time. They also play Skylanders which is much more mindless. To try and extract value from this, they are responsible for setting the game up and can only come to daddy for troubleshooting after things aren't working right. I will rarely help them through a tough part in the game as I value the exploration of playing a platformer. When my kids get older, I will definitely introduce them to a lot of my favorite types of games (whatever is popular at the time) with character development, online competitive play, and strategic evolution, but video games are only really good at exploring some very specific aspects of art and culture. There are things that books are just plain better at. Sitting and reading Green Eggs and Ham has a very different feel to it. It is slower, ritualistic for us even. The kids know what comes next, we engage in the same conversation over and over. We practice different skills like reading and imagination that don't get explored the same way while playing a game. They tell me all about the pictures. They're static, they're not going anywhere, my kid has all the time in the world to explain his thought to me. This is very different from the fast pace of gaming. I think trying to argue that video games are just as good reading is really just going in the wrong direction. The statement you should be making is: "We can extract value from anything we do, as long as we start with quality products and approach things with goals, nothing is a waste of time." Traditionally, we see this with Books, Music, and Movies. Newer technology has offered us opportunities to expand our experience through video games and now internet technologies. If you are looking for the right things in the right places, even reddit can be a valuable endeavor.### Human: > Sitting and reading Green Eggs and Ham has a very different feel to it. It is slower, ritualistic for us even. Well put! There's definitely a different type of value here. As a Dad who loves reading time but is a couple years behind you, how do you choose books that are good for both the 3 and 5 y/o?### Assistant: Not to say I am even qualified to give advice on this, but really, I just try whatever and see how engaged they are. If they like it, I try again. The 5 year old has books from school that he has to read nightly as well, so he gets his reading in then he gets to listen to me read as well. Engaged doesn't necessarily mean sitting there staring at me either. Both my kids will routinely get up and wander around the room grabbing whatever toy peaks their interest etc. As long as they're coming back every once in a while, that's good enough for me. It's just part of our nightly ritual. The big point is that they get to see someone read proficiently, they understand the rhythm of reading a story vs other forms of media, and that they spend time with me doing something other than chores and yelling. tldr: No clue, I am just one dad in the world trying to do a decent job raising his kids.### Human: Fair Enough :) Largely I ask not because I expect you to be an expert (though we're all experts in our own tiny area of expertise), but because you seem to be willing to put thought into your methodologies. That's not an overly common quality in these days. I'm currently battling natural selection with a 4 y/o boy and a 1 y/o girl. I'm fortunate enough that the 4 y/o has a great attention span and has always loved books. He'll sit with me for an hour listening to me read. I can't blame him for not being as thrilled about level of books appropriate for his little sister. Likewise, she loses interest if I try to read stuff for him (though her attention span for books is shorter than his was at that age). Unfortunately, I don't see this battle getting much easier as they get older. In any case, keep up the good fight!### Assistant: Yeah, it gets really hard to fully engage them both, the best I have found is to just keep books fresh. Library visits and buying new books often will keep them coming back just because they're new. Neither one of our kids really cared much for books when they were 1, so like I said, we just kind of read and as long as the kid is in the room and not yelling, we call it a win. Good luck yourself there ;)
### Human: CMV:I think some paparazzi are glorified stalkers and should be held accountable.### Assistant: The difference between the paparazzi and stalking, as in the difference between murder and self-defense, is motive. A stalker's intention is to possess, harass, control, and intimidate an individual with the belief that said individual is their property; be they a spouse, love interest, child, or enemy (those who defied an individual who believes themselves omnipotent). The paparazzi has no such motive and so doesn't inflict physical or psychological harm in the same manner as a stalker would. So while there probably should be laws to better regulate the paparazzi in regards to harassment and privacy, it isn't the same as stalking.### Human: What you're saying is half-true I think. Only because I believe that just because there isn't intent to harm, does not mean no harm will be dealt. If anything, I'd be warranted feelings of agitation, stress, and paranoia if we are talking about the level of paparazzi at Kanye/Kim Kardashian status. Although paparazzi tend to swarm around politicians and celebrities, I don't believe it makes them any less of just a regular person wanting regular rights to their own privacy even in public areas and especially in private areas. (I believe I once saw a video of Yeezus punching out a photographer on his own driveway but maybe I'm mistaken). Taking it one step further, let's say it isn't considered stalking, then maybe we should fabricate a new term and method for dealing with exactly how far reaching paparazzi can take their antics. It's such a human construct to be able to pin a definition to something when I really think what's at the core of my problem with this, is all about when an individual feels that their privacy has been shattered. (One more example, people taking pictures of people at nude beaches). Although it is a public place, and a photographer probably isn't taking a picture of someone's titties because they want to harm them let alone alarm them they are taking a photo, still not cool homie. What do you think? edit: Just a few after thoughts; What do you think about stalking due to die-hard/crazed fans? crazed S.O.'s. In situations like those, the party doing the stalking has no intent to harm but an intent to be with or be noticed. They might even leave unwanted items or unwanted messages. It's still considered stalking without the intent to cause physical or mental harm. Idk though. Holla back at yaboi #ripharambe### Assistant: >What you're saying is half-true I think. Only because I believe that just because there isn't intent to harm, does not mean no harm will be dealt. Now remember, I didn't say there'd be no harm, I said there was no intent to harm, which means that how the affected views the paparazzi is more subjective. If they intended to harm and control, then the paparazzi would be tailoring its methods to terrorize and escalate like criminal stalkers do. No matter what the affected did short of accepting the stalker's always unreasonable terms, they'd be increasingly terrorized. The paparazzi is not like this. Therefore reasonable standards and laws that diffuse the objective universal annoyance and invasiveness that the paparazzi does perpetrate is reasonable. Drawing the line of harassment a little bolder for those who're targeted is also reasonable. Yet the paparazzi are not stalkers, and shouldn't be held accountable as stalkers.### Human: ∆ After taking some time and revisiting this thread, I can see your points. I may not necessarily like the state of what paparazzi tend to do, but it's not practical to judge them as an institution of stalkers and such. Very circumstantial.### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to WhenSnowDies ([9∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/WhenSnowDies)). ^[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": "WhenSnowDies" } DB3PARAMSEND)
### Human: CMV: All law should be publicly available for free.### Assistant: Can you please provide a specific real life example of what you're talking about? I mean a literal one. Like, "here is a statute that says I have to do what Document X says, and Document X is not publicly available." Because I can't think of anything that actually fits your description. For example, you mention building codes. My state wide building code is publicly available. This doesn't mean that every states code is the same, but it certainly raises the question of exactly what you're seeing as a problem.### Human: Jury instructions are an example. In criminal law, for example, statutes can be somewhat complicated. You can't just read the statute to a jury and expect that they'll have any idea what the statute means, because most lawyers have to read the thing several times to understand it. So some organization, consisting of judges and law professors, mostly, produces pattern jury instructions. The instructions basically take the statutory language and translates it into what are called elements, the individual facts that the state has to prove before a person can be convicted. So, if the statute says that you can't possess THC (marijuana), then the jury instruction says, "The state has to prove 1. that the defendant possessed a substance, 2. that the substance was THC, and 3. that the defendant knew the substance was THC." There are much more complicated instructions, obviously. Those instructions are absolutely necessary if you're going to go through a trial, but they are copyrighted and cost a significant amount of money.### Assistant: 1. I am familiar with jury instructions. 2. Your description of them is poor, particularly the idea that jury instructions "translate" statutory language "into... elements" that then have a specific legal function that in your description derives from the jury instruction itself. 3. Jury instructions do not exist as some sort of form document that judges have to use. If I wrote up some jury instructions tomorrow, they would have exactly as much formal legal import as anything in a codified book written by people who write these for a living.### Human: >I am familiar with jury instructions. Cool. >Your description of them is poor, particularly the idea that jury instructions "translate" statutory language "into... elements" that then have a specific legal function that in your description derives from the jury instruction itself. Perhaps this is specific to jurisdictions, but you're simply incorrect about jury instructions in the state I practice in, Wisconsin. The elements contained in the jury instructions are "official"--they are cited by appellate courts, a case can be overturned if the judge didn't read the jury instructions correctly and verbatim, and they define the scope of the trial. Maybe you don't like my use of the word "translate"? Fair. I only meant that the jury instructions clarify the elements of the crime, which aren't always clear from the statutory language itself. >Jury instructions do not exist as some sort of form document that judges have to use. Again, I grant the possibility of jurisdictional differences, but in Wisconsin, they absolutely do. Do judges have to use them? Only if they don't want the case overturned on appeal. >If I wrote up some jury instructions tomorrow, they would have exactly as much formal legal import as anything in a codified book written by people who write these for a living. Sorry, but this simply isn't true, again speaking only for my jurisdiction. The THC instruction that I quoted is what the judge is going to read in a possession of THC trial. If you draft up some instructions that don't have those elements, have additional elements, or otherwise significantly differ from the form ones I quoted, they won't be read. The form ones are used automatically. There are some instances where lawyers need to litigate about the jury instructions because the form ones are inaccurate or unconstitutional or have some other defect, but for the most part, the form ones are the ones that will be read. And if they're not read, it's because there's been significant litigation as to why the form ones are wrong. The form ones are the default. Lawyers often draft special instructions to address specific issues in particular cases, but those are always submitted as proposed jury instructions subject to objection and review by the judge.### Assistant: I strongly suspect that you are wrong even in your jurisdiction, but I cannot say that as fact as I do not practice in Wisconsin. As such nothing I write here can or should be thought of as legal advice. In every jurisdiction with which I have familiarity, form or pattern instructions are "default" only in the sense that it is customary and safest for a judge to use jury instructions which have been tested in and accepted by appellate courts. Jury instructions of any sort have no independent content or authority separate from the law (including the published common law inasmuch as it might tell you that a particular jury instruction has previously been upheld as adequate) or separate from a judge's judicial discretion (which by nature cannot be published in advance).### Human: It seems to me that we're saying the same thing. Are jury instructions law? No. Not in the same way that statutes are, for example. The body that creates them does not have any legislative authority, and are only able to give an interpretation of the law. To the extent that a jury instruction represents a statute incorrectly, it is void. Having said that, it would border on malpractice to go into a trial without having reviewed the applicable jury instructions. Regardless of whatever special instructions you plan to ask for, you have to be prepared to argue that your instructions are in some way better or more accurate than the pattern instruction. Our jury instructions also contain numerous footnotes and annotations which can be helpful in litigation. Even if jury instructions are only customary and safest for a judge, the fact is that, in Wisconsin, you can't practice law effectively without them. You can't represent yourself effectively without them. My reading of the OP suggests that jury instructions would therefore fall into the category of law that is not free to access. Edit: I did some googling, and came across an [FAQ about jury instructions in California](http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/315.htm#2). In response to the question of whether they're mandatory, it says this: >The Judicial Council has not mandated use of CACI to the exclusion of other jury instructions. However, under rule (2.1050) of the California Rules of Court, the CACI instructions are designated as the “official instructions for use in the state of California.” The rule further states that use of the new instructions is “strongly encouraged” and they are recommended for use unless a judge “finds that a different instruction would more accurately state the law and be understood by jurors.” Rule (2.1050(a)(e).) So CACI instructions are clearly preferred, and there is an affirmative burden to make a legal case for using a non-CACI instruction if there is a CACI instruction on the subject. I think that backs up what I've been saying.### Assistant: http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/caci-2016-complete-edition.pdf### Human: OK? I'm not sure what that has to do with the conversation we're having. You said: >Jury instructions do not exist as some sort of form document that judges have to use. And >If I wrote up some jury instructions tomorrow, they would have exactly as much formal legal import as anything in a codified book written by people who write these for a living. In California, which appears to be analogous to Wisconsin, you're wrong. Judges there are strongly encouraged to use the pattern instructions, and a judge unless a judge specifically finds that a different instruction is better, and there is an "affirmative burden" on the party that wants to use the non-pattern instruction. In other words, your drafted JIs wouldn't have the same "legal import" as the pattern instructions. So, to put it bluntly, you were wrong in your claims. I linked the FAQ to demonstrate that point. The fact that the CA JIs are available for free has nothing to do with that, and doesn't change the fact that [they're not free in Wisconsin](https://law.wisc.edu/clew/publications/jury_instructions.html).
### Human: CMV: Ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft should be allowed to operate unfettered as they solve many of the problems people face with city-sanctioned taxi services.### Assistant: I'm going to challenge your view in a different way. Uber and UberX are not perfect and put nearly all of the pressure on the driver in unfair ways. They tote they are excellent for making $60k+ a year with little to no start-up costs which is great. They also label you as an independent contractor and the primary thing at risk is your main asset which is your vehicle. You file a 1099 form (not a W-2) and pay taxes as such. Because of this, drivers have seen their vehicle's status plummet due to heavy driving and their wages decrease to none or even owing money once they hit tax season (after gas and other maintenance fees just to keep their car running). There's also huge lawsuit liability placed on the driver specifically and with thousands of people being allowed to sign up with bare minimum insurance and background checks, Uber is creating a terribly toxic environment for their drivers while reaping benefits, avoiding taxes and dodging major liability. It's a perfect business model on their part but they need far more oversight and regulation in order to benefit their drivers who do not know what they're getting into. Uber is beyond good if you're a customer but it's hard defending this business. I was going to be a driver for them until I saw the devil in the details. If something so accessible seems to be too good to be true, it usually is. EDIT: a word### Human: the biggest problem i have with this is that you assume the uber drivers are locked into some dickensian contract where they can't leave. you can quit whenever you'd like### Assistant: The biggest problem I have with your response is if this is a more or less accurate description of the state of affairs regarding uber drivers and income, then what you're proposing isn't viable... Not that it's a pyramid scheme, but it's a scheme of some sort, relying on a never-ending stream of novice drivers to sign up, do their dirty work for awhile until the promised income doesn't show, and then drop out. wash, rinse, repeat. Gotta be sustainable for the drivers... And it sounds like it isn't, or isn't as often, as Uber claims.### Human: If it isn't sustainable for the drivers, Uber, Lyft, et al will go out of business. The market works and will take care of this.### Assistant: It's sustainable for Uber and Lyft because they are hiring as many vehicles they can to create the perception that you can get one of their cars in a 5 minute window once you request a car. What is becoming unsustainable is being a driver for them as there have been many accounts from drivers that it is now sometimes sometimes hours, not minutes in between picking up fares. The result is in some places a pretty big turnover in drivers for Uber/Lyft. The reason for keeping a cap on the number of taxis that can operate in a certain area is in part so that you keep drivers happy by being able to earn enough money per driver, thus reducing driver turnover. Of course, the side effect in this is that there may be a longer wait for a taxi.
### Human: CMV: I think it's cruel and selfish to bring children into the world that you know will be severely disabled. (Mentally and/or) physically.### Assistant: I'm not going to argue about disabilities that are 100% fatal early in life or babies/fetuses that clearly don't have brains or that are other wise 100% non functional. I concede those in agreement that they would be better off not being born. I'm only going to argue physical, intellectual, and developmental disability. Here is the really unfortunate thing about prenatal testing in its current format: you still just don't really know. The tests, first of all have a failure rate. Not just a failure to detect, but they also have false positives. Setting false positives entirely aside. Even with a true positive, it does not give an indication of severity of the disability. For example genetic testing gives a yes no answer for downs. However downs is a spectrum disorder and many people with downs have a normal IQ and a normal capacity to learn. That said, it's morally wrong to abort a fetus when you don't know what the outcome really is especially if you are going to base the decision to abort on a fuzzy idea like "suffering". Had there been a test for autism, I 100% would have aborted my baby. What I would never have known had I done that is that my kid is 100% awesome with an IQ of 150+. It's she autistic? Yes. It's that all she is? Nope. I literally might have aborted the person who sine day might cure cancer. Likewise there are a lot of blind, deaf and other disabled people who have achieved huge accomplishments in various fields ranging from music to science. You are saying their lives aren't worth while and weren't worth living due to... Suffering? Life is suffering. Every one suffers at some point. In order to argue that having a disabled child is cruel, you would have to argue that having any child, "healthy", "typical" or otherwise is also cruel because you simply don't know what the outcome will really be. Maybe the kid will get cancer. Maybe they will run in front of a car. Maybe their genetics cause then to be bipolar. Maybe they have autism. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. You don't know. My autistic child is happy and not suffering a bit. She's also a good person who contributes to humanity in a positive way. Meanwhile I know a few kids who were born completely healthy who have suffered horribly due to things like cancer or the death of a parent. Saying that we should abort a disabled fetus because the child might suffer in life is ridiculous because anyone who is born may very well have a shit life full of suffering. If you argue to abort based on the fact someone might suffer, then you need to argue that all babies should be aborted, not just the disabled, because there is a possibility that they might suffer as children.### Human: Autism is a spectrum disorder too and it is not genetic (is it even a mental disorder? I know people with Asperger's who are very bright although socially not as attuned) You lucked out, your child has a genius level IQ, and I hope she goes on to achieve good things. That being said, you can't apply this exception as the rule. The person who could discover the cure to cancer right now could be in a slum in Delhi or starving in the Congo, that rationale isn't very sound. I understand you have been in that situation and you were lucky and you have the means to give your daughter a great life, but not everyone has that means nor the outlook that you do, and definitely not every mentally disabled child is in the same situation.### Assistant: You missed the point of my argument entirely. Many disabled people live good lives with a relatively normal amount of suffering. Meanwhile some typical people have an abnormal amount of suffering. If "suffering" is the subjective metric by which we determine which fetuses to abort, then only aborting "disabled" fetuses makes no sense as ALL fetuses might suffer as people regardless of "disability". Unless op has some metric or stats quantifying what "too much suffering" is AND has some kind of numbers to support his claim that most or all disabled people are suffering and that disproportionally more disabled people suffer compared to typical people then he really even fails to distinguish "healthy" from "disabled" people as discrete populations in terms of quantifiable "suffering". Personally I think the premise that these people are suffering horribly compared to other people is false. That's what ops arguement is based on so op needs to provide additional data.### Human: Perhaps OP means pre-determined suffering. Pre-birth, we can control our diet, our lifestyle, and bringing to term a healthy fetus. We can't fully control what life we will give them. We can't determine if we will go bankrupt, or lose our investments, or die prematurely. But we should control things that we can. We could bring a disabled child or a healthy child into a stable or unstable future environment, we don't know entirely what their future environment will be like, but if we knowingly bring a mentally disabled person into the world, we are condemning them to suffer. No matter how wealthy or privileged one is.### Assistant: I don't see what's wrong with his argument. Autism is a mental disability, sometimes it's ok sometimes it's really bad. The point is we can't predetermine anyone's future as a fetus.
### Human: CMV: I know I am wrong, but I feel robbed when I have to pay taxes. I don't feel evasion as a crime and I hate the Government. Please, change my view.### Assistant: I agree with you that the Romanian govt. should spend its money more wisely. The strongest justification for taxation is that it is supposed to provide for things that the free market cannot (basic welfare, roads, street signs etc.) and that one would be paying to live on the land owned by the state (as one would a landlord), for the state has the power to prosecute you for otherwise disobeying and can basically kick you out if it so desires.### Human: The free market can provide basic welfare, roads and street signs.### Assistant: For everyone?### Human: More effectively than any government, historically speaking.### Assistant: Source?### Human: [Turns out private vs. public as the way we define it, cannot be compared as rigid things that don't depend on the circumstance](http://www.eldis.org/fulltext/publicvsprivatesector.pdf), but the question you CAN ask is, [what has historically, and globally been showing more statistically significant results](http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/10.1.1.175.6495.pdf)
### Human: CMV: Killing and eating and cow is no different than killing and eating a dog, cat, or any other animal besides human beings.### Assistant: Dogs and cats are carnivores and thus their meat carries more toxins, in general, than herbivores do. When you move up past the primary consumers/herbivores in the food chain you start getting into accumulation of bio-toxins in the meat (stuff like too much concentrated vitamin a and base metals.)### Human: This is not quite so simple. Dogs are carnivores OR omnivores (the scientific community is divided), and can actually live on a purely vegetarian diet (if it is carefully managed)... basically the same as pigs.### Assistant: They can...but most don't. All cows are herbivores, so no matter how many dogs may be, they don't outnumber the cows in real or proportionate terms.### Human: Which is why I said pigs, and not cows. Pigs are also generally considered to be more intelligent than dogs.### Assistant: But the CMV isn't only about dogs/cats be pigs. Cows still prove my point.### Human: I was responding to this: "Dogs and cats are carnivores and thus their meat carries more toxins, in general, than herbivores do."
### Human: I believe racism towards white people does exist, not as "reverse racism" but simply as racism. Please, CMV.### Assistant: >instead is just 'discrimination' or another term along those lines that supposedly doesn't go as far as 'racism' There are certain people who use the word 'racism' to mean 'institutional racism'. If you accept that alternate definition, then the rest makes sense: it's race-based discrimination (what you or I might call 'racism') but is not institutional racism.### Human: The thing to understand is that no matter what, discrimination towards heterosexual whites is never seen as wrong, no matter what. If a homosexual, black, female, or Islamic person gets bashed, it's a "hate crime," and everyone is expected to crowd around and show "solidarity," and express "zero tolerance." If a white and/or heterosexual person gets bashed, it's background noise. It's barely even deserving of mention. The privelege fallacy is used to justify this, as well. So no matter how much reverse racism in various forms might happen, it will always be seen as progressive and enlightened, and we will always be accused of neocolonialism and white supremacy if we object to it. One of the other things that I really need to learn, is to stop getting so angry when I simply get downvoted en masse for expressing opinions like this, as well. I've realised that what really enrages me, however, is not the fact, in and of itself, that I'm punished for deviating from the Leftist groupthink. It's actually the degree of cowardice and lack of integrity on the part of the people doing it. Nobody ever tries to logically *refute* me for expressing the above; they just silently downvote me for daring to have the wrong thoughts.### Assistant: Being downvoted because people disagree with you is a disease run rampant on reddit. I've been downvoted in threads for expressing the opposite opinion, that racism is not a serious problem for white people in this country. It really just depends on who is in the thread. With that said, I feel like the argument was never that white people can't possibly be discriminated against, or that to do so wouldn't be wrong. At least for me the argument is that discrimination against black people is effectively normal in our society, while discrimination against white people by contrast is a minor problem that is dwarfed by the benefits that white people receive for being white in America. When you are white, you are much less likely to experience a situation where you are forbidden from dating someone by their parents solely on the basis of your skin color. Or being told that you probably only got into college because of affirmative action, even when you were admitted to state schools where that is literally illegal. Or being expected to be an exemplar and a spokesperson for your entire race all the time, because you know that people judge you by the actions of countless others who share your skin tone and will judge others by your behavior. Or being told you are the token black person in the group when you are hanging out with large numbers of whites. Or having people look at you with fear and start walking faster / cross the street to avoid you when you are walking because they assume you are going to mug them. All of these things are things that I've personally experienced by the way. And you're not allowed to be upset about them in public, or you're an "angry black person" who is unreasonable and possibly just about to break out into violence. And when you are white, you aren't taught by our culture to have an inferiority complex because of the color of your skin, as the family of one of my non-white girlfriends had internalized to the point that they advised her to marry a white person because it would be "moving up in the world." Politicians don't go on TV and talk about how "the whites" would be just fine if they would only stop using drugs, get off welfare and make something of themselves. Hillbillies, meth heads and the Mafia are not identified as the prototypical white people in movies and TV shows, and white people aren't constantly expected to apologize and prove they are different from them. But these are all arguments from my personal experience which you will maybe consider anecdotes. If you care more about institutional racism, there's a whole field of research which you might be familiar with establishing just how bad it still is in this country. If you haven't read it already, I would point you towards "The New Jim Crow" in particular for a discussion of some of the most grievous of these issues. The book "Dog Whistle Politics" also has a section on the more subtle ways that racism continues to manifest itself in US politics today, and a section on the different conceptions of racism that motivate some white people to feel that they are discriminated against while they actually enjoy substantial advantages over every other race. This is a long and circuitous way of saying that while white people may experience discrimination, complaining about discrimination against white people in our society is like complaining about how you accidentally brushed up against poison ivy to someone who just took a shotgun blast to the chest... over and over again, for ~300 years.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I'm sorry you've had to deal with that. It sounds really rough. My mom is bipolar, and I was once misdiagnosed in my childhood with bipolar disorder as well. I was medicated for it all throughout elementary and middle school before they decided they had misdiagnosed me in high school, so I know that there is a lot of discrimination against the mentally ill out there too. I was ostracized by my peers throughout school for a long time even without the added handicaps you will have had to deal with, and it left a deep impact on my personality to this day. I know it's hard for white people to be identified with the crimes of their ancestors as well. My mother is white, and she constantly experiences guilt about it. Nevertheless there are a number of white people who actively seek to perpetuate and deepen the racial discrimination that has always affected blacks, and it's hard to blame people who grow up in poor black communities for demonizing whites as a group as the source of their misfortunes, given that in some real sense they were, and a large plurality still are. The real problem though is the continued segregation of American life. I think that most black people that I have met who interact with whites realize though that a person is not their race, and vice versa. The most racist people are the people who interact with the fewest people who are not from their race or culture. If American neighborhoods could be somehow successfully integrated without prompting massive white flight or gentrification that pushes blacks out, I think the problem would be lessened pretty quickly over the course of a generation or two.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Agreed, it's not the right thing to do, it's just understandable why people do it. The real cure is an end to the de facto segregation, discriminatory criminal justice practices, and economic inequality between races that characterize the society we've inherited.
### Human: CMV: I don’t see anything wrong with the legalisation of polygamous marriage### Assistant: "Wrong" is a word that pertains to morality. So it's odd that you don't want a moral argument. But anyway: * Is everybody equal in such a marriage? Does it vary depending on the time they've been married? * Can new people be added? * How is it structured? Is it 3 women married to a man, do they form a ring, or a mesh? * Related to the above, how does divorce work? Can it fail due to disagreement? * Is there a size limit? What if a whole town decides to get married, imagine the work untangling that will be. * What if one person is in the hospital and there are two others that can make a life or death decision, and disagree? * There are practical social issues. Eg, rich man gets himself 20 wives. Enough of that will skew the ratio in the community, resulting in some really pissed off people. * Who do the children belong to? * The court system will probably need an upgrade. We're talking about dramatically increasing complexity and opportunity for conflict. I don't oppose the idea in principle, but the practical issues seem to be tough to solve, and I doubt they're about to get worked out tomorrow. Maybe as a society in a decade or two we'll reach some sort of general agreement about what such a thing is supposed to look and work like, but today it doesn't seem like we're there.### Human: I suppose I used the word wrong because I think a lot of the major arguments against it are about morality. > •Is everybody equal in such a marriage? Does it vary depending on the time they've been married? I feel like this is an argument against polygamous relationships in general. I think all spouses would be equal (in the eyes of the law) unless something had been agreed in the form of a prenuptial agreement. > •How is it structured? Is it 3 women married to a man, do they form a ring, or a mesh? Again, this also relates to polygamous relationships in general rather than marriages. It would be up to the people in the relationship. > •Related to the above, how does divorce work? Can it fail due to disagreement? Divorce works as it always has. Marriages would still be between 2 people. You would just be able to be married to more than 1 person at a time. As with the current system, you can take your spouse to court to sort out disagreements. > •Is there a size limit? What if a whole town decides to get married, imagine the work untangling that will be. If prenuptial agreements had been made it wouldn't necessarily be that difficult. It would be more complex sure, but I don't think it's that great an argument against it. > •What if one person is in the hospital and there are two others that can make a life or death decision, and disagree? As currently, medical staff have the power to make decisions for a person who lacks capacity. They could take over the decision making for the short-term (acting in the best medical interests of the patient) and the spouses can go to court to challenge any longer term decisions they make e.g. turning off life support machine. This would be the type of issue that people would be encouraged to address in pre-nuptial agreements. > •There are practical social issues. Eg, rich man gets himself 20 wives. Enough of that will skew the ratio in the community, resulting in some really pissed off people. The wives are also free to marry other people. As it stands currently rich men could have lots of girlfriends currently, why would this be more of a problem if polygamous marriage was allowed? > •Who do the children belong to? I've already addressed this. Their parents. > •The court system will probably need an upgrade. We're talking about dramatically increasing complexity and opportunity for conflict. Well yes, but I'm not arguing that it should be done tomorrow. There are loads of issues that would need to be figured out but I think that they can be figured out.### Assistant: > I feel like this is an argument against polygamous relationships in general. I think all spouses would be equal (in the eyes of the law) unless something had been agreed in the form of a prenuptial agreement. No, a relationship can be any form people want it to be. But a formal contract offered by the government has to have some structure or sanity to it, otherwise the mess will be incredible. > Again, this also relates to polygamous relationships in general rather than marriages. It would be up to the people in the relationship. So Alice claims we're all married to each other (and as a result of a divorce is divorcing from all the participants, with the resulting property distribution). Bob says that no, all his wives are married to him, and that's it. Alice should only get a chunk of his stuff. His other two wives agree. Who's right? > Divorce works as it always has. Marriages would still be between 2 people. You would just be able to be married to more than 1 person at a time. As with the current system, you can take your spouse to court to sort out disagreements. Which two people? Your system allows forming meshes. You can end up with a group of 20 people all connected in various ways. So Alice wants to divorce from Bob, but Bob married Carol, who married Alice. Logically Alice would move out upon divorce, but she's still married to Carol, who lives in Bob's house. > If prenuptial agreements had been made it wouldn't necessarily be that difficult. It would be more complex sure, but I don't think it's that great an argument against it. Who's the agreement between? How do you sort out conflicting agreements? If Alice marries Bob, can she then marry his other wise Carol and have a prenup with her? > As currently, medical staff have the power to make decisions for a person who lacks capacity. They could take over the decision making for the short-term (acting in the best medical interests of the patient) and the spouses can go to court to challenge any longer term decisions they make e.g. turning off life support machine. This would be the type of issue that people would be encouraged to address in pre-nuptial agreements. Right, that's what hospitals need, a group of people in tangled relationships and contracts screaming at each other trying to figure out whether to turn the ventilator off. > The wives are also free to marry other people. As it stands currently rich men could have lots of girlfriends currently, why would this be more of a problem if polygamous marriage was allowed? How does that work? Bob is rich and marries Alice. Alice then marries Eve. Is Bob's consent needed? Does she get to live at Bob's house? > I've already addressed this. Their parents. If one biological parent dies, and the other tries to leave the group, what happens with the custody? Plus an interesting complication in the form of some parts of the marriage opposing custody. > Well yes, but I'm not arguing that it should be done tomorrow. There are loads of issues that would need to be figured out but I think that they can be figured out. Maybe, but it seems to me that the mess isn't really worth it.### Human: > No, a relationship can be any form people want it to be. But a formal contract offered by the government has to have some structure or sanity to it, otherwise the mess will be incredible. I think I have put forward a structure to how this could work. Effectively it would be the same as a 2 person marriage currently, you'd just be allowed to have more of them. > So Alice claims we're all married to each other (and as a result of a divorce is divorcing from all the participants, with the resulting property distribution). Bob says that no, all his wives are married to him, and that's it. Alice should only get a chunk of his stuff. His other two wives agree. Who's right? Everyone gets 1/4 of the property. The other two wives are staying with Bob so 3/4 of the estate will stay together, while 1/4 will leave with Alice. > Which two people? Your system allows forming meshes. You can end up with a group of 20 people all connected in various ways. So Alice wants to divorce from Bob, but Bob married Carol, who married Alice. Logically Alice would move out upon divorce, but she's still married to Carol, who lives in Bob's house. Actually at the moment some people don't move away from their ex-spouses after divorce because of financial reasons. > Who's the agreement between? How do you sort out conflicting agreements? If Alice marries Bob, can she then marry his other wise Carol and have a prenup with her? Ideally I would suggest that pre-nuptial agreements would be signed by your to-be spouses spouse as well. There are already contracts out there which are binding to multiple people. > Right, that's what hospitals need, a group of people in tangled relationships and contracts screaming at each other trying to figure out whether to turn the ventilator off. This already happens! There is already a legal precedent in place for situations like this. > How does that work? Bob is rich and marries Alice. Alice then marries Eve. Is Bob's consent needed? Does she get to live at Bob's house? Bob might divorce Alice if she does, that's his right. But otherwise no. Unless a pre-nup says otherwise, it's also Alice's house. > If one biological parent dies, and the other tries to leave the group, what happens with the custody? Plus an interesting complication in the form of some parts of the marriage opposing custody. As I said before, biological parents have priority. The complication of opposing custody wouldn't be any different to as it is currently when people argue that parent x isn't able to look after the child.### Assistant: > Everyone gets 1/4 of the property. The other two wives are staying with Bob so 3/4 of the estate will stay together, while 1/4 will leave with Alice. This has complications. For instance suppose a household of 6 people barely breaking even. One divorces and as a result gets 1/6th of the house. They don't have the money, so they have to sell the house to pay for that. Since you say that marriages and divorces are between two people, this means that we have two involved people, and four people suddenly out of a home that had nothing to do with it. That's supposing a simple arrangement. What happens when people are intermarried within the group? Eg: * Alice marries Bob * Bob marries Carol * Carol marries Alice * Alice divorces Bob. Does Alice get anything? Does she keep living in the house because she's still married to Carol? Other fun arrangements include situations where a formerly united household gets split in two groups, still connected by a person married to both sides. > Actually at the moment some people don't move away from their ex-spouses after divorce because of financial reasons. And this only adds to that mess > Ideally I would suggest that pre-nuptial agreements would be signed by your to-be spouses spouse as well. There are already contracts out there which are binding to multiple people. But you're insisting that marriages are between two people. Yet clearly there are things that can affect the entire household at once. > This already happens! There is already a legal precedent in place for situations like this. It happens with families. I don't think we have a precedent for 100% equal rights people in conflict. > As I said before, biological parents have priority. The complication of opposing custody wouldn't be any different to as it is currently when people argue that parent x isn't able to look after the child. I mean: * Alice marries Bob * Bob marries Carol * Carol marries Dave They all live in the same house. Alice and Bob have children. Alice dies. Bob wants the children. Carol doesn't want them. Dave wants to divorce from the group and have the children.### Human: I can see problems, but what you're essentially asking is whether courts are able to handle novel problems. And, they are. Commerce did not stay away from the internet despite law for cyber transactions being nonexistent or poorly written. Each one of your problems is one of technicalities and questions of balancing competing interests. State/federal courts already do this. You have yet to state any particular problems that couldn't be considered by an impartial party or later written laws.
### Human: I believe that a joke is only offensive if it is unfunny. As long as it makes people laugh, I believe the subject matter is irrelevant CMV### Assistant: >And if people laugh, on some level, what you're saying is being validated. People agree with it, or are okay with it, enough to laugh. [Most of us laugh when we see others being harmed.](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201101/why-we-laugh) It's a response to emotional stress, and in no way validates harming another person.### Human: But there is a difference between physical harm and a joke. Maybe I am sheltered (or maybe desensitized) , but I've yet to hear a really bad offensive joke in which a laugh was not warranted. Example: Why is there no black character in the game "Clue"? Because then it would be called "Solved" While this carries no emotional stress it is obviously not meant for a black audience. But the joke is pretty funny in my opinion. I guess my point is so long is the joke is not crude or tasteless, there is no subject off limits.### Assistant: Why do you find it funny? Simply because it references a negative black stereotype? And you think people aren't hurt by this? I mean, I think you realize this could be very hurtful by indicating that you wouldn't tell it in front of an audience of people of color. Honestly, your only argument was that "I find it funny" even though you obviously aren't the butt of the joke, but then just say that anyone who is hurt should just get over it. I don't see how this is a meaningful answer to anything the previous posters said other than "I find racist jokes funny that make fun of people who aren't me." >I guess my point is so long is the joke is not crude or tasteless How is this joke not crude and tasteless?### Human: That joke specifically could be making a joke of the racism, and not reinforcing it.### Assistant: Nothing indicates that it's a meta-joke; it's just a straightforward black-people-are-criminals joke, with no subtlety or nuance. You'd have to reach to make any other interpretation, at which point why not just say you could apply an alternate and inoffensive interpretation to any offensive joke?### Human: there is nothing saying it ISN'T a meta-joke, either.### Assistant: If there's nothing to indicate that it's a metajoke, then it isn't. a meta joke would point at the assumed answer. Instead of solved a meta joke would be "Probably not the black guy you racist." That's a meta joke. You're referring to jokes and their racist nature and how easy it is to assume racist answers.### Human: duly noted.
### Human: CMV:People who make social media posts about tragedies like the recent police shootings or terrorist attacks, without doing anything else for their cause, aren't adding any real contribution to the cause.### Assistant: No, it doesn't provide direct support, but it does help sway public opinion. Let's consider someone who is undecided on an issue such as gun control. If you see a ton of posts with clever memes on just one side of the issue, it's going to plant some ideas in your head ("wow, more guns would have prevented the holocaust", "the founding fathers thought that way", "it is the only way to stop bad people with guns") that will impact your view. If you only see the other side, you'll be similarly swayed. Now, obviously, if you see both sides it's less clear- but even then, if you see a post from someone whose opinion you really respect, chances are you are going to weigh that more than someone you think is an idiot (in fact, that could turn you in the other direction). Now, if everyone were well informed and did independent research on topics, this wouldn't be the case - but they aren't and they don't. Consequently, social media is one of the best ways to influence a lot of views at once.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: But what do you think pre-internet society was? People were influenced in part by the jokes their friends repeated from Johnny Carson's monologue or George Carlin. Or by the discussions you have over dinner or the water cooler at work. The mechanism has changed but not the fundamental reality that we are influenced by the opinions of those around us.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Facebook is just like Reddit: it is a platform. The content you see on it strickly depends on you. If you feel that you only see garbage on Facebook, it's because you filled it with people or pages speaking only garbage. But get yourself surrounded by interesting Facebook friends that share your love of a meaningful conversation, and you'll see many of it. Truly similar to Reddit: you are the one choosing which subs you're subscribed in. A frontpage filled by CMV, AskHistorians and DepthHub will be very different than a frontpage with the_donald, funny and aww. It's all about content curation.### Human: I mean to be fair, it's not like everyone got a facebook and curated their friends to be people who share their interests and such. The vast majority of people get a Facebook and... add their friends. That's what it's for after all. If anyone were to go in now and completely curate their Facebook feed to what they want to see, it would take a lot of effort and a lot of friend deleting that no ones realistically gonna do. It's not really like Reddit where you can just unsub from an entire group you follow and find other ones easily. Not saying that what you're suggesting isn't possible or true, just that it's not realistic to facebook's platform in my opinion
### Human: CMV; The painting, Black fire i, by Barnett Newman, bought for over $80m+, is not a "masterpiece", as discribed by Christies. It is a crap painting. A kid, with little effort, really could do better. This painting is only appreciated because of association, not by its own merits.### Assistant: > It is a crap painting. A kid, with little effort, really could do better. “Better” in what sense? That's a genuine open question—what would make a kid's painting more meritorious than this? Is it the technical execution that you object to? The restricted palette? What? That said, what wouldn't happen is for “a kid” to come up with the idea of making such a painting. > I bet most would walk by it if it was in a gallery. No, I don't think they would. For one thing, it's rare to see a painting in a gallery with large areas of bare canvas, so that would attract the attention. There's some questions to ponder here about positive and negative space, and ground vs figure. And this painting is enormous, almost three metres high and more than two wide. I've never seen it but I can imagine that it is a very imposing piece, it will dominate even quite a large exhibition space. > Certainly, you wouldn't stop to analyse the loss of Barnett's younger brother in the single mono colour on white. The kind of people who go to galleries to see abstract art probably would. Now, they might have to be told that this life event is what the piece refers to, sure, but once you do know that, it begins to make sense. The piece very clearly has something to say about separation, about transition, about presence and absence, about sadness…can you really not see that? > is it a terrible piece of art, or am I an ignoramus? Those are not the only two options. >Christies explaining the piece […] use a thesaurus to help bring it to life, reading it is like reading a child filling up his 1000 word project Yes, that sales blather is pretty terrible. Is this painting “worth” eighty-five million dollars? In one sense, yes—that is its clearly established market value. Does a great deal of that value arise from the history and web of associations that the painting fits into? Certainly. Is that wrong or bad? I don't think so. If you do: why do you?### Human: >“Better” in what sense? A child can convey just as much feeling in a picture of her daddy, as that black paint, but without the prior knowledge of loss. You don't need the sob story to "get it". The kids pic will stand alone. It will have an arrangement of idols, a set of skill involved. It will have layers. This painting has none of these things. >That said, what wouldn't happen is for “a kid” to come up with the idea of making such a painting. I disagree, my kids regularly do "design" pages, a pattern. Just something to look nice. >rare to see a painting in a gallery with large areas of bare canvas, so that would attract the attention. It's still only promoting thought, not admiration of a painting. Public will be asking: "why is that here, wtf? Is this wallpaper?" They will not be saying, "hmm, nice painting" >There's some questions to ponder here about positive and negative space, and ground vs figure. You can apply that thought to any piece of art ever. That doesn't make this piece special. >And this painting is enormous, almost three metres high and more than two wide. I've never seen it but I can imagine that it is a very imposing piece, it will dominate even quite a large exhibition space. It's big. Ok, but again, the piece of art is not selling itself. You need prior knowledge or you need to ask universal, open ended questions to even begin appreciating it. >, they might have to be told that this life event is what the piece refers to, sure, but once you do know that, it begins to make sense, can you really not see that? I can see where the artist was coming from, kind of, it's very subjective. But again, i could give a sob story before any picture, ever, and we could all say, "you don't see it"? "And everyone will say , "Yeah, kind of...." But nobody will actually see the same thing. And we'll all be none the wiser. It's in the beholder, again the art piece has done nothing, the provoking idea is the story. It's black paint. And all that means this piece of art is useless in this context. To appreciate it you need a back story, well then, why doesnt every single art piece ever, get a back story? But why do we only need the back story for this piece? Why is this exceptional? It only shows the artists inept attempt to convey anything at all. >Is this painting “worth” eighty-five million dollars? I'm not worried about its value, my daughters pictures are priceless to me, the value is what you pay, but I'm not going to impress my kids pictures on the public by exhibiting them, and give my back story, so the public will understand, Increasing the knowledge about the pictures won't add artistic value to the stand alone piece. >Is that wrong or bad? If you like it, good for you, but as a whole, it's bad, people will look at this example of a great 20th century art movement and think, was he a lazy artist?### Assistant: >A child can convey just as much feeling in a picture of her daddy, as that black paint Maybe. A given child can convey a lot of feeling about her specific daddy, and especially to her specific daddy. A big part of art being “art” (and not just paintings) is that it strongly conveys a universal feeling to all, but through the particular. A child's picture of daddy has this quality only weakly, if at all. It's all about the particular. > why doesnt[sic] every single art piece ever, get a back story? Many do. Many don't need it. A representational painting depicting a scene from a well known (well know at the time, anyway) myth or legend or play doesn't need a backstory, it shows you what it is about. Many portraits don't need a backstory, they do stand by themselves, but our enjoyment of them is enhanced if we do know the story. As we look more towards abstract art then the backstory becomes more important in understanding a piece satisfactorily. Where I, personally think things fall apart is with “conceptual” art, where the actual piece might as well not exist and the backstory and the explanation are almost all there is. Black Fire I isn't that. > the piece of art is not selling itself. Why does it need to? > You need prior knowledge or you need to ask universal, open ended questions to even begin appreciating it. OK. Why are either of those bad? > If you like it, good for you, I don't. But I think I understand it, to a degree, and I think it is valid as art and I strongly suspect that being in the same room as this piece (rather than seeing a small image of it on a monitor) is very moving—other “colour field” paintings have this quality, too. > people will look at this example of a great 20th century art movement and think, was he a lazy artist? Another serious, open question: what do you think would be a good example of abstract expressionism, or of colour field painting? And how does that differ from Black Fire I?### Human: >Maybe. A given child can convey a lot of feeling about her specific daddy, and especially to her specific daddy. A big part of art being “art” (and not just paintings) is that it strongly conveys a universal feeling to all, but through the particular. A child's picture of daddy has this quality only weakly, if at all. It's all about the particular. Then this isn't art. I have no feeling when I look at the Black Fire I; it looks more like a book cover after you remove the sleeve, or a crappy wallpaper. There's no communication to me from it, I have no understanding of what I'm supposed to see in it, besides someone thought they could make a half-finished painting and sell it. >Where I, personally think things fall apart is with “conceptual” art, where the actual piece might as well not exist and the backstory and the explanation are almost all there is. Black Fire I isn't that. I'd argue it is. I see no value in anything other than the backstory; this canvas adds nothing that a black and white piece of paper pushed up against each other wouldn't. >Another serious, open question: what do you think would be a good example of abstract expressionism, or of colour field painting? And how does that differ from Black Fire I? I think the term is an oxymoron. Abstract paintings don't express much. At least a lot of them look decent put up on a wall, though: Black Fire I doesn't even have that.### Assistant: > I have no feeling when I look at the Black Fire I But have you looked at it—I mean, have you stood in the same room as it? Because, as /r/gavriloe says, that makes a big difference with these sorts of works. What do you make of Mondiraan's neo-plasticist paintings? I used to think that they were ok, nothing very special, until I went to see one for real. The thing is, in reproductions they look like designs but in reality they are paintings. They are three dimensional objects: those white fields aren't flat, they have brush-strokes in them, the thickness of the paint varies, there is crackling in the surface—that changed my perception of those works dramatically. Now I love them as paintings in a way that I didn't before. I haven't seen Black Fire I but I strongly suspect that much the same sort of thing might happen if I did. On the screen it doesn't do much for me, but I can start to imagine what it might do in person. In particular: > …this canvas adds nothing that a black and white piece of paper pushed up against each other wouldn't. Except that the lighter-valued parts of this painting aren't white. They are the raw canvas. That's a remarkable choice for an artist, for a painter to make. In person, those higher valued areas of the work are going to have a lot of character and texture—which is why I said in an earlier comment that this work does some interesting things with figure and ground. And, two pieces of paper pushed up against each other would have sharp, straight edges. And paintings can too, but again the artist has chosen not to do that here. So, y'know, no work of art works equally well for everyone and if Black Fire I really doesn't work for you (and, once again, it doesn't do a great deal for me) fair enough. But to dismiss it and its idiom as somehow just invalid seems…shallow and thoughtless. And also means that you're missing out on some really quite special artistic experiences.### Human: Don't have but a minute to comment here but I just wanted to emphasize how important it is to see art in person, standing in front of it in its ideal setting. I have stood in front of a different Newman piece, Voice of Fire, and it blew me away. There was much controversy when it was purchased by Canada's National Gallery for many of the same reasons OP has mentioned. But let me tell you it demanded my attention. I was able to see depth in the strokes, the lines, the choices. It's not all about what he did, it's also about what he didn't do. The space is transformed by it. It is essential to see in person if you are going to judge it. And then, maybe it's not for you. Not everyone likes or gets every piece of art. You're not expected to, that would be craziness. So, maybe this piece isn't for you or maybe your a philistine. Either way, just because you haven't seen the value doesn't mean it doesn't exist. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
### Human: CMV: Donald Trump is not really a conservative and would be a disaster for the conservative movement, the GOP, and the United States.### Assistant: None of these points (except maybe number 5) have anything to do with being liberal or conservative, they are just things you don't like about him. On the other hand: 1. He has been pretty loud and consistent on cutting taxes and spending (i.e., smaller government), which is pretty much at the core of fiscal conservatism. 2. He supports a "state's rights" approach to topics like gay marriage, abortion, education, and marijuana use. Those two things are at the heart of conservatism in the US, and he is pretty much in line with that. Additionally, he strongly supports gun rights, is anti-regulation (especially environmental), and is for school vouchers. Now this isn't to say he is a good person or should be president, just that saying he isn't really a conservative is incorrect.### Human: I don't think he's said anything about drastically cutting spending. He thinks he can solve Social Security be eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, which is delusional. As for #2, I'd like to see proof of that. (I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see what your sources are.) You can say that he supports things like gun rights but I think it's more pandering to his base than anything else. Another problem I have with him is that you don't actually know what he'll do if he gets elected. That's my problem with Clinton too.### Assistant: > I don't think he's said anything about drastically cutting spending. Trump has stated he wants to significantly cut the defense budget and completely cut the entire EPA and Department of Education. Source: [Meet the Press 2015 interview moderated by Chuck Todd, Oct 4, 2015](http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Budget_+_Economy.htm) > He thinks he can solve Social Security be eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, which is delusional. Privatizing Social Security is a totally different issue that cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. It basically means going from a universal retirement system to allow people to store and invest their social security money if they choose. President Bush pushed for a plan like this in 2005 but was defeated. > As for #2, I'd like to see proof of that. (I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see what your sources are.) In a Bloomberg interview in January, the businessman asserted that he personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman. While he sees it as a state issue, Trump indicated that the Supreme Court could issue a ruling to determine the law. Source: [PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Jun 16, 2015](http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Civil_Rights.htm#4) "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state. Marijuana is such a big thing. I think medical should. And then I really believe we should leave it up to the states." Source: [Washington Post 2015 coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Oct 29, 2015](http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Drugs.htm#8) > You can say that he supports things like gun rights but I think it's more pandering to his base than anything else. Another problem I have with him is that you don't actually know what he'll do if he gets elected. That's my problem with Clinton too. At the end of the day, this argument could be used for any politician running for any office. Nobody can know what is really going on in their heads, so the best we can do is listen to what they have consistently said over the past few years. For certain, Trumps statements and actions over the past 5-10 years have been pretty consistent with moderate conservative thought. There is also a pretty strong internal consistency between his ideas. He supports smaller government in nearly all of his positions, so if he is really faking, he at least understands the fundamental concepts and concerns of conservatism.### Human: > Trump has stated he wants to significantly cut the defense budget and completely cut the entire EPA and Department of Education. Yes, but he's also a proponent for single-payer health care and doesn't want to do anything that will fix Social Security, which are the big parts of our budget. Defense spending is quite large, but not compared to spending on entitlements. > Privatizing Social Security The other GOP candidates are simply advocating for a raise in the retirement age, because people are living longer. Trump claims that eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse will reduce entitlement spending to a fraction of what it is. This is simply not true, and is more evidence for the idea that he isn't actually a conservative, he's just telling conservatives what he thinks they want to hear. >the best we can do is listen to what they have consistently said over the past few years. I totally agree with you, but these are all statements that he made in the year since he announced he was running for office. Whenever anyone challenges him on changing his views so often, he says something along the lines of "when you change your mind on something, it's better to do that than to continue to be wrong." This is a good value to live by, but if you're POTUS you can't change your mind on fundamental policy issues every month. You have to do things right the first time, and you can't make it up as you go along.### Assistant: Ok are you here to have your view changed or just be difficult? Your not even addressing all of his/her counter points now and seem to be side stepping the main issues### Human: I would like to be convinced that Trump is actually being honest in saying that he is a conservative, but from what I can tell he's just telling his base what they want to hear, and changing his position on issues when it's no longer convenient for him to hold that position. Just because he says he supports certain conservative stances on issues doesn't mean that he will actually follow up on them while in office. Furthermore, the OP also said that he "would be a disaster" for everyone involved if he was given the GOP nomination, and possibly elected president. No one has argued against that yet, either.### Assistant: I don't really have a dog in this fight but I think it would help if you told us what you consider proof of his actual views. I'm not sure it's possible to know what he actually would do if elected. All we can really go on is what he says he believes, and what his previous actions have shown, which is a bit difficult when he isn't a career politician - so even something like him having changed parties doesn't mean much as he doesn't have, say, a Congressional voting record. So: what would it take to change your view?### Human: For me to change my view, I'd need a rationale as to why he's been so obscure in his positions on issues. I'd also need to be convinced that he could get the country on his side and win the general election. I'd also need to be convinced that he's a good person. Also, I've already awarded a delta for point 1 that I made in the OP. He's actually given more money to Republicans, so it doesn't make sense to criticize him for giving money to Democrats.### Assistant: > I'd need a rationale as to why he's been so obscure in his positions on issues The way I see it, he's a politically inexperienced populist... he doesn't have the tact or the experience that accomplished politicians have, but he knows that neither are necessary to run for President. And he's doing very well on that platform. I don't think most voters care about real solutions anyway, and my view is supported by Trump's success. People want soundbites and rhetoric, and Trump has a bottomless reserve of that. > I'd also need to be convinced that he could get the country on his side and win the general election I don't think this is relevant to whether he's a conservative or not, but here's my view on it: I don't think it's possible to know whether he could win the general or not, but he certainly has solid conservative support, while Hillary (whom I'm assuming is going to be the D contender) is facing a lot of resistance from moderates for various reasons. Of course, Trump will also have problems with moderates, due to his incendiary rhetoric, but he is upending the establishment and that could help him a lot. >I'd also need to be convinced that he's a good person Again, I don't think this is relevant to whether he's a conservative or not. And I personally don't think he is a good person. People who have worked with him have said that he is a petty megalomaniac, and he isn't making any effort to disprove that. In any case, it's hard to say that any politician is a good person... and it depends on what you consider a good person to be anyway. Trump's intentions seem to be all about himself.
### Human: CMV: Animated child pornography should be legal.### Assistant: This is like saying that standard pornography makes people want to have less real sex with other adults. Clearly, this isn't the case since porn has not curbed sexual desire, but only introduced more hardcore sex acts into the mainstream. It would only serve to legitimize an unwanted act instead of discouraging it.### Human: There is actually no evidence to support this contention. In every attempt to study the relationship between pornography and illegal sexual acts, the availability of pornography decreases incidences of rape and other sexual violence. You can argue that virtual child pornography is different, but if your argument is that it would function the same way that other pornography does, there is no evidence that pornography leads to "unwanted acts." And, at least to the extent you're in the U.S, the Supreme Court believes your argument to be entirely untenable.### Assistant: >There is actually no evidence to support this contention. In every attempt to study the relationship between pornography and illegal sexual acts, the availability of pornography decreases incidences of rape and other sexual violence. Source please?### Human: Seriously, I'd like to know how this could even be recorded legitimately.### Assistant: From what I know, there isn't a "source" in terms of as study pointing in either direction, but there is comparative analysis that anyone can do between various countries, their freedom of pornographic access, and the rate of sex crimes. Though you'd only get correlation, not causation. And from that, I believe that the freer the country's access and less conservative minded about porn their culture is the fewer sex crimes you get. Why that particular result tends to pop up though is in question. Some even going so far as to hypothesize that the more liberal a country is about pornographic access the country is or its people are more likely to under-report sex crimes for whatever reason.
### Human: CMV:Government officials cannot refuse marriage licenses to gay couples based on personal religious beliefs. Officials are acting as agents of the State and either must uphold the laws or resign from their position.### Assistant: From a moral standpoint, I would absolutely agree with you, and with the caveat that IANAL... there are laws that to some extent protect their ability to do that. Remember that whole controversy earlier this year with Indiana's religious freedom act? The issue there was that it could potentially allow business owners to discriminate against especially the LGBT community for 'religious reasons'. In many states there are similar laws,[ including Michigan's](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-would-let-michigan-doctors-emts-refuse-to-treat-gay-patients/) which passed and provides exceptions where doctors can technically refuse to treat patients on religious grounds. So as far as it being illegal for civil servants... I think that's actually something you'll find varies wildly state by state and then comes down to an issue of federalism, because SCOTUS made its ruling, but that now has to be enforced by the states and the federal government, and you're going to see a lot of litigation to actually start setting a precedent, which has already begun. Again, though, agree entirely with the intention of your OP.### Human: These are two different issues. One being a private individual or company refusing to do work that they have personal religious objection to. I am inclined to provide a slim provision for refusal in this case. The other being a government official refusing to obey laws because of personal religious objections. I don't believe there is a case for refusal in this case.### Assistant: At most, the official could decline to do it himself and find another official in the same office to do it. Same as disabilities. If an official had a disability that from, say, picking up a big box, he would get someone else to cover that part of his job he was unable to do. But refusing to do the service he is employed to do and denying the citizen that office is serving the service is simply unacceptable.### Human: Could you really give disability protection for being religious? Does that mean you need one able-bodied person (an atheist, in this case) to be around at all times in case moral heavy boxes need to be lifted? I think treating religious civil servants in this way could be a bigger can of worms than simply making them do their job to keep their job.### Assistant: > Could you really give disability protection for being religious? No. I'm comparing accommodations vs. job requirements to point out that even in the case of an actual physical disability preventing them from performing their job, a government worker can't just refuse service. I think religious accommodations should be done reasonably. For instance, I wouldn't make a muslim employee serve pork at a fundraiser when there are plenty of other people who could do that or you could just not serve pork if all your employees are muslim/jewish/bhuddist. I would make a muslim/jewish/bhuddist employee hand out food relief packages that contained pork after a natural disaster.### Human: Religious accommodations should be done if they can but only to a certain extent. If you have five employees, ten tasks for them to do and one of those employees has a problem with one of the tasks you could just arrange it so they don't have to. But if doing so unfairly places extra burden on other staff or is an important/large part of the job then there cannot be any accommodation.
### Human: CMV: Uther was in the wrong when he left Arthas before the culling of Stratholme.### Assistant: I think you're missing the point. The purpose of this was to demonstrate to us Arthas slipping further into darkness. While logically it made sense, where would it stop? Would Arthas have marched through the country side slaughtering every town he came across if Mal'ganis made him believe there was infected grain? Uther left because he saw that Arthas was out of control and beyond help, no longer a Paladin.### Human: The point about Mal'ganis making it seem like there was infected grain and using Arthas to slaughter people is a good point, but Uther was his mentor, he should have stayed by Arthas and, if he wanted to do the right thing, quarantine the city and kill people after they turn. After the events of Stratholme he could have talked Arthas out of going to Northrend.### Assistant: Slaughtering the village goes against everything Uther as a Paladin stands for. Even though he was Arthas' mentor, and even though he loved him, he couldn't very well take up arms against his prince to stop him, and as a Paladin he could not participate in the slaughter. The only reasonable thing for him to do was remove himself from the situation.### Human: After reconsidering the circumstances I have come to the conclusion that Uther may not have been able to lead Arthas from the path before him, even if he had stayed, there is no guarantee Arthas wouldn't have gone to Northrend anyway for various reasons, and Uther, as a paladin was not capable of standing by Arthas as he did this. I'm blaming Uther for something outside his control, and Arthas would not have been willing to back down in any way. For example, even if he did quarantine the city Muradin may have returned with news of Frostmorne and Arthas would have gone anyway. ∆### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Hobosock. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Hobosock)] [[The Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem)] [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {} } DB3PARAMSEND)
### Human: I believe that the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe is that it is a simulation, CMV.### Assistant: >All of those questions for which we don't have answers are explained. The origin of the universe, why there is something rather than nothing, why life exists, why we experience consciousness, why certain things in the universe seem almost guided, while others seem completely random None of these things are explained. They're just shifted up one level. Or five levels. Or two hundred levels. At some point, the simulations would have to end, and a 'real' universe would have to exist. In that universe, every single one of those questions would still need to be answered. That's the biggest weakness that I see here: At some level, things would need to be 'real,' and at that level, they would have as much reason as we have to see themselves as being part of a simulation. Because of that, the 'simulation' explanation of the universe doesn't really explain anything. The other big weakness that I see is that we have no real support for the potential existence of artificial intelligence yet. Not only can we not create a true AI, we do not have enough evidence to say that a true AI could be created. Programs follow their programmers, and can only do what they are instructed to do. Until we are able to demonstrate a real potential for artificial intelligence--whether by more fully understanding the processes of the mind or by creating an AI with potential for creative thought--the 'artificial universe' theory doesn't have enough supporting evidence to consider it as a serious possibility.### Human: >and at that level, they would have as much reason as we have to see themselves as being part of a simulation OP and Bostrom aren't suggesting that the universe is definitely, without a doubt going to be a simulation if the simulation argument is true. They're saying that the probability is that our universe is a simulation, because the simulated universes would outnumber the real ones. >The other big weakness that I see is that we have no real support for the potential existence of artificial intelligence yet. I wouldn't agree with that. [We can accurately simulate neurons](http://www.caam.rice.edu/~cox/neuro/SWIM.pdf) and their activity using computers on a small scale right now, and the computing power available to us is increasing constantly, so eventually it stands to reason that we will have enough computing power to simulate a human brain. It's also possible to map the exact location and state of individual neurons in a brain- not without killing it first, mind, but it's possible. If humans banded together to build the most powerful computer possible at this point in time, and posessed the technology to map every neuron in a brain, we could create an artificial intelligence today. It stands to reason that even if the creatures that created us aren't able to invent new forms of AI, they could simulate themselves and create AI that way. I also personally disagree with the idea you should have to prove true AIs are possible, and think quite the opposite should need to be proven, but that's another argument :D### Assistant: > OP and Bostrom aren't suggesting that the universe is definitely, without a doubt going to be a simulation if the simulation argument is true. Similarly, I'm not suggesting that the universe is definitely, without a doubt not going to be a simulation. I'm just raising doubts that prevent it (in my mind, at least) from being the most likely explanation, as OP suggested. > I wouldn't agree with that. We can accurately simulate neurons and their activity using computers on a small scale right now, and the computing power available to us is increasing constantly, so eventually it stands to reason that we will have enough computing power to simulate a human brain. Right now, neuroscience is unable to explain the nature and cause of [subjective, conscious experience](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia). This is something that needs to be explained before an AI can be created--even if we were to simulate something that could respond to commands, carry on conversations, and so forth, we would not be able to tell if it was conscious. I'll let John Searle [explain this concept](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room). >> suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human being. >> The question Searle wants to answer is this: does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese?[7][b] Searle calls the first position "strong AI" and the latter "weak AI" There is no proof yet for the potential to create a strong AI, even though we can easily imagine weak AI.### Human: >I'm just raising doubts that prevent it (in my mind, at least) from being the most likely explanation, as OP suggested. but you aren't really explaining why it's not the most likely, you're only saying that there's a possibility it's not true. If there are 99simulated universes and one real, and it's not possible to distinguish between real and simulated, there's a 99% chance you're still in a simulation even if it's possible you aren't. >>Right now, neuroscience is unable to explain the nature and cause of subjective, conscious experience[1] . This is something that needs to be explained before an AI can be created What are you suggesting here, that we need to establish that consciousness is a result of the brain? that even if a computer was made that exactly mirrored a human we knew to be conscious, we wouldn't know the computer was conscious? The chinese room argument is a complete non-point-, and the idea that a human can come from 2 unconscious cells and somehow develop a magical special ability that a computer can't be programmed to have at some point along the way is laughable. Please don't take this personally, but of every argument I've ever seen from anyone in academia it's probably the least persuasive.### Assistant: > Please don't take this personally, but of every argument I've ever seen from anyone in academia it's probably the least persuasive. I understand that it sounds absurd on the surface, but dualism has proven to be startlingly persistent. Responses to Chalmers's points about the hard problems of consciousness [haven't really managed to be very convincing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness#Responses). That said, I should have done a bit more homework before including this objection here, as Nick Bostrom is evidently aware of the hard problem of consciousness and sees his simulation hypothesis as a solution to it. I retract my statements about artificial intelligence being an obstacle, although my first objection remains pertinent.### Human: >but dualism has proven to be startlingly persistent. So has my 3 year old niece's belief that there's a unicorn behind her that turns invisible when she looks. It's not possible to disprove dualism because although there's literally no evidence supporting it, to disprove it we'd need to find all the evidence to support something else much more likely. The current physical model of the universe doesn't support the idea of dualism in any way, modern neuroscience just isn't advanced enough to demonstrate that.### Assistant: We have made effectively no progress on the hard problems of consciousness, though. That is a massive, massive problem with materialism as it stands. Until the hard problems of consciousness show signs of being solvable, dualism remains a significant possibility.### Human: >We have made effectively no progress on the hard problems of consciousness, though. We don't have any evidence that consciousness is a discinct trait and not a name given to an emergent characteristic of the brain- why should we even need to look?### Assistant: ...to better understand the universe. Is that a serious question?### Human: But you don't know if consciousness is even a thing that needs investigating. Ask a geologist whether they can predict exactly when and where earthquakes happen and they'll tell you no, but that doesn't mean there's any reason to believe earthquakes must be operating outside the known laws of physics, it just means we haven't built an advanced enough model of the earth to be able to know. Ask a meterologist if they can tell you how many liters of rain are going to fall on kentucky next week and they'll laugh. I don't see any reason to believe "consciousness" is anything more than a word used to describe a process in the brain that neuroscience has yet to be able to investigate- there's nothing about it that defies logic, nothing that even suggests to me that it's anything other than an evolved trait. What grounds are there for thinking it's anything other than a product of the brain?### Assistant: Before I answer, how familiar are you with philosophy in general?### Human: I know the basics. If you can't put forward a logical argument then I can't pretend I'm going to be persuaded by it though. What I know about philosophy shouldn't affect your explanation of why there's merit to the question of whether consciousness is a property of the brain or not.### Assistant: Well, at a very basic level, that question determines which questions to ask and which areas to focus on in neuroscience. Currently, the field operates (as it should) under the assumption that the brain can be reduced to purely material phenomena. If the mind was found to be in some way distinct from the physical processes that make up a body, it would necessitate a change in that--if dualism turns out to have more validity than you assume, then neuroscience will hit a wall at some point. We will be unable to fully explain the universe. We don't have enough science to tackle the question yet, so it's comfortably within the realm of philosophy. And... well, the jury's still out. There are several persuasive arguments in favor of one form of dualism or another, and it's a fascinating problem as a whole. Essays like "What is it like to be a bat?" have generated a lot of interesting discussion. Does this answer your question?### Human: >We don't have enough science to tackle the question yet Every piece of scientific evidence relating to the universe is either neutral, or supports the idea that there are no hidden external factors. No reliable study in the history of research has shown that there is any reason to believe that duality has any merit at all. Neuroscience is a field examining something within the universe, so regardless of how advanced it is, the framework it's examining brains in doesn't support anything other than looking at the brain as a purely physical object. Just because something hasn't been properly examined doesn't make philosophical opinions any more valid. Before we knew the makeup of martian soil there wasn't a reasonable chance it was transcendental unicorn shit that would blow apart everything we know about the physical world, so why do you think the brain is any different?### Assistant: Again, [this essay](http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf) explains things much better than I could. If you want your question answered, I recommend reading it. Otherwise, there's little point to continuing this discussion.### Human: It starts by talking about the fact that consciousness is a distinct thing that needs some kind of special explanation, which is what I've been disagreeing with this entire time. It goes on to continue to assume that consciousness is some separate trait. At no point does it answer the question I asked you. > It is not captured by any of the familiar, re cently devised reductive analyses of the mental, for all o f them are logically compatible with its absence. That's wrong >It is not analyzable in terms of any explanatory system of fu nctional states, or intentional states, since these could be ascribed to robots or automata that behaved like people though they experienced nothing I can't believe this is serious. I don't understand how you guys have pulled this idea of consciousness being special and magical out of nowhere, given it a bunch of arbitrary and completely unproven characteristics, and now believe you've done anything other than prove it's possible to delude yourself by making shit up to fit your view, adding things onto it and begging the question a bit. Consciousness is a property of the brain. What basis do you have, I'm asking again, for thinking it's not? Do you think that genetic makeup is mysteriously hovering around in this same place as consciousness because we can't prove every trait is a result of codons? Are tornados spawned by gods because weather systems are chaotic?### Assistant: This is why I asked if you had any grounding in philosophy, and this is why I see no point to continuing this conversation.### Human: You can't answer a simple question so you're going to tell me you're too smart to bother with such trivialities as not making massive assumptions when you think. You're the kind of person who gives philosophy a bad name.### Assistant: No, it's more "you tell me I'm a lunatic, compare my views to saying that Martian soil is unicorn dung, and don't acknowledge any of the points made by one of the most influential recent papers. I'm not "too smart to bother with such trivialties," I'm too impatient to give you a thorough grounding in the basics of philosophy and the study of the mind, which you seem to need to understand any of the points here at all.### Human: of course, it's my fault that you're continuing to lack the ability to explain why you think consciousness exists. Clearly, it just is and I'm offending you by daring to question that. It's not ridiculous at all to propose something and then when asked what your basis is, shout "philosophy, you uneducated pleb". I don't think you understand the scientific method. I don't think you understand the importance occam's razor, I don't think you have the basic common sense necessary to have this discussion. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you managed to prove me right.
### Human: CMV: The criteria for being a vegetarian isnt not eating meat, its not buying meat.### Assistant: Basically what you are talking about is scale. If you as a vegetarian think supporting the killing of animals for food is wrong then eating any meat would be a violation of that. If in your scenario you had eaten their entire sandwich instead of a bite, they might need to make another and at some point require more meat purchases. Any meat you consume reduces the quantity supplied of consumable meat in the world, driving up the price and increasing production. It happens on the macro scale, but no raindrop thinks they are part of the flood.### Human: What if I order vegetarian dandan noodles and the Chinese place gave me chicken in it by accident?### Assistant: People will approach it differently. For example some vegans throw away all leather/wool/animal products and start afresh and maintain a zero tolerance policy. Other vegans might still eat a milk chocolate or accept some animal products as part of a gift to be respectful and that 'the damage has been done. Just today i was to taste test the orange sauce in our kitchen and i had no idea there was meat in it, but could taste it afterwards. For me, there's no point making a big deal of it at that point. To answer your exact question, in a place where they are intended to follow your order the way you request it, it's better to send it back politely and ask for a veg version. Eating some meats after a long enough veg period can cause sickness anyway.### Human: Thus extending the chance of sickness by your logic.### Assistant: I'm not talking about small amounts of meat in my noodles, I mean people who eat a steak after years of vegetarianism. I have no intention of eating meat again, therefore why should I be worried about food poisoning from meat?
### Human: For rational thinkers, its a waste of time to talk to irrational thinkers. CMV### Assistant: The problem here is that you're using "rational" and "irrational" as categorizations of people, and not categorizations of thought. People are complicated, and they can adopt both rational and irrational thought patterns. Justice Scalia of SCOTUS has written some insightful, ground-breaking opinions, and if you listen to him talk, you can't help but realize that he's truly an intelligent person. Yet in Lawrence v. TX, he warned against a parade of horribles that would result from adopting the "homosexual agenda" by decriminalizing sodomy.### Human: Actually, if you believe in states rights Scalia's opinions on Lawrence v TX make a lot of sense about the role we want the government to play. Regardless of whether you agree with him, Scalia is definitely one of the most rational people on the court and almost all of his decisions are based off his main philosophy of what role he thinks the government should play. I do agree with him that the supreme court on both sides has become very political.### Assistant: That issue aside, his claim that there's no principled distinction between anti-sodomy laws and anti-incest, prostitution, and bestiality laws from the perspective of the Supreme Court is silly. I think his stances on Originalism are a better example of what I'm talking about, but I couldn't explain that in a pithy paragraph.### Human: I mean idk is it really that silly? Societies views change, although it might seam silly now it definitely didn't 30 years ago. If you believe that the role of the supreme court should not simply act on the will of the people but has go back to our founding principles. Can what rights are fundamental really change?? If you say no (like scalia does), there is no difference. If the people wanted to allow sodomy they could pass a law to do so. It is not the role of the supreme court to protect these people, when the rights of people that want to have sex with their horse are not protected. The only real difference between these two is that sodomy is more accepted with the general public now then it was 30 years ago, and if it is more accepted with the general public then the general public can make laws to change it.### Assistant: No, the difference is that your horse cannot consent to have sex with you. This is a real, important, and legally significant difference.### Human: Animals can not also consent to being used for food. Look at the chicken industry and it is pretty clear animals do not have rights. Also all of the rights for animals were voted in place, they were not rights the supreme court decided. Also incest is most likely a better example if you care about animal rights.### Assistant: I have no idea what you're going on about. The law is not some inhuman robot; it is obvious why bestiality is not the same as homosexuality, and it does not need to be justified from first principles or whatever.### Human: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism I was just saying if you subscribe to Scalia's opinion of the role of the supreme court, then his decision is the logical one.### Assistant: Basically Originalism is that the supreme court should only protect universal rights if the original founders meant for those things to be fundamental rights. You never answered if it wasn't a fundamental right 30 years ago, what has changes?### Human: If I could butt in here, my point wasn't whether or not Lawrence was correctly decided, or whether bestiality laws are ultimately sustainable. The point is that the mere fact that you got into an argument about consent in the context of bestiality shows that it's distinguishable from sodomy. Consent is a non-issue in sodomy; if there wasn't consent, it would be rape. The same goes for a possibility of harm in incest, and bureaucratic convenience in bigamy. We don't have to claim those laws are legally unassailable to recognize a distinction in issues from sodomy laws. The slope isn't as slippery as he claims it is.
### Human: CMV: It's perfectly acceptable to talk at full volume in a movie theatre when the lights are down but ads (not trailers) are playing### Assistant: >Trailers are generally enjoyed by everyone and it's respectful to be quiet for them but the middle ads are the same as the earlier ones, the only difference is better production and no lighting in the theatre (and the fact that these ads seem to always be for cars). Maybe these "better production" ads are also "generally enjoyed by everyone"### Human: I disagree with that premise. First, we'd have to define 'better production' (I know I suggested this but I'm going to attack it anyways), this is as assumption about the lights-down ads but not always true. Secondly, trailers and ads have a key differences--trailers are always about movies and ads are not. It's fair to assume that all movie goers are interested in movies, it's unfair to assume they're all interested in products in general.### Assistant: >I disagree with that premise. First, we'd have to define 'better production' (I know I suggested this but I'm going to attack it anyways) Okay that's hilarious. But thank you >It's fair to assume that all movie goers are interested in movies, it's unfair to assume they're all interested in products in general. While that is true, the opposite is also true. It is not fair to assume that the majority is uninterested as well. People who enjoy films for the camera technique, for example, might also enjoy those ads.### Human: >While that is true, the opposite is also true I don't agree here. If we didn't know anything about people at the movies, we could at least infer that they like to see movies. Their presence infers their collective interest in movies and, hence the trailers. We can't make this assumption about anything else really, liking movies is a common quality among people who see movies. >People who enjoy films for the camera technique, for example, might also enjoy those ads. It's a fair point but it this doesn't go far enough to justify why people would want to see ads. I feel that most people do not watch ads to appreciate the filmwork and I would expect the same of movie goers.### Assistant: >We can't make this assumption about anything else really, liking movies is a common quality among people who see movies. Exactly, that's my point. You cannot assume that they don't enjoy ads well. And without that assumption, it is rude to talk.### Human: That's a fair point but it applies to anyone in any situation. I think we'd agree with this statement: "all movie goers probably like trailers, some movie goers probably like ads too." But based on my experience with people, we might also assume that movie goers don't like ads. I still see a challenge here: I was allowed to talk through the ads when the lights were on, now presumably the same ad runs but the lights are down and it suddenly becomes rude to continue speaking. I don't disagree that talking during a show is rude, I guess I disagree that the preshow, lights-down ads constitute part of the show.
### Human: I believe that an equality movement (I use feminism as an example) focusing on the "privilege" of the "other" group has some big downsides. CMV### Assistant: The biggest problem I see with all of the arguments on /r/changemyview and elsewhere that condemn the majority of feminists or feminists as a whole for certain, specific views is that they never have any unbiased, hard data that supports their claims that "most (or all) feminists do X." In this case, focusing overly much on privilege. Yes, overly focusing on privilege of another group to the extent that it becomes harmful is bad. Attacking feminism as a whole for the actions of a subset of the movement and assuming that most or all feminists overly focus on privilege is unsubstantiated and attacking a view that is not held in the widely accepted definitions of feminism among experts/scholars. Privilege is not the main focus of the feminist movement; yes maybe the people you've encountered overly focus on it, but this is still anecdotal evidence. By definition, feminism focuses on equality between genders, especially fixing the vast inequality suffered by women for literally hundreds if not thousands of years. Anecdotal evidence should not be generalized to an entire movement of millions of people. Pretty much no one has possibly met even a small fraction of the millions of people who are feminists, and no evidence exists based on a reasonable sample size that feminists overly focus on privilege or anything else to the extent that "feminism" as a movement must be redefined because it has deviated from its original goals. Privilege is merely a way to remind the privileged group that their perspective is skewed in a way that they must consciously account for when dealing with difficult issues. It is not meant to be a target for aggressive attack or shaming. It is essentially telling someone that all of their life experiences are only from the skewed perspective of a single individual. It is just a reminder to consider the perspectives of others. It is unfortunate that this is a problem, but it is definitely true that people do not easily challenge their own personal assumptions and perspectives without some external reminder that is outside of their worldview. Yes, overcompensating or over-focusing on privilege is bad, but the fact is that the vast majority of men (or whatever privileged group) have not taken gender studies and do not consciously or regularly examine their skewed assumptions, preconceptions, perspectives, and privilege that they have accumulated through their entire life experience.### Human: I've always been curious as to why feminists claim that everyone in a privileged group has a skewed view? seems like a gross over generalization to assume that half the population is a certain way. all women are always stereotyping men, just like the blacks do to whites and straights and gays do to us bi's. I want a parade, so as to spread the message, a young-white-bi-male pride parade, where anyone who doesn't directly and loudly support me is a racist bigot. Yes, and at this parade we will yell at all the other "people" and educate them on the struggles of our people and how hard we have it(not us in particular, but people who sorta look like us). It's an annoying thought isn't it. sorta what it feels like to be constantly berated for not being like someone else. people won't change by being lectured, or by a parade. gender inequality will be better solved if both women and men stop using an "us and them" attitude and started using the "me against the world" attitude. because guess what, even if gender inequality disappears, someone is still gonna be doing the shit jobs. edit: very tired while writing this, don't feel like proof reading### Assistant: > I've always been curious as to why feminists claim that everyone in a privileged group has a skewed view? "Skewed view" sounds worse than it is. An extreme example of such a skewed view is saying "[Let them eat cake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake)". A while ago, my bank card broke, rendering me unable to pay for anything in real life, except with the money in my pocket. I now had to plan out every expense I made if I still wanted to have food at the end of the week. In the end, the experience made me understand the direct practical implications of poverty more. My middle class privilege meant I never had to experience poverty as a child or student, for which I'm grateful. It also meant that I had a skewed view of what poverty was and how it affects people. I think I still do, but less than before my brush with poverty. (Because my poverty was self-imposed (I could easily have lent from friends, for example), because it was short-lived, and because it wasn't complete (I could still order stuff off the internet, which I did).)### Human: > An extreme example of such a skewed view is saying "Let them eat cake[1] ". Which by the way was never uttered by Marie Antoinette and was precisely used as a way to shame a person who allegedly had a skewed perspective on her husband's subjects.### Assistant: And I'm well aware of that. I _have_ actually read the Wikipedia article I linked to. ;) I didn't say anything about Marie Antoinette because "Let them eat cake" as a concept hasn't anything to do with her, as it has to do with the gap between the French upper and lower classes which caused the rising tensions that kicked off the French revolution.### Human: > it has to do with the gap between the French upper and lower classes which caused the rising tensions that kicked off the French revolution. I see your point. Fun, not so related, fact: many of my fellow countrymen are under the impression that their forefathers woke up one day and overthrew the Regime for the sake of it once they got fed up of having a King. The truth would be that the whole system was thoroughly corrupted, with stakeholders so well entrenched that it was impossible to reform even as economic and social conditions became dire. The King himself and his ministers were actually decent folks caught up in an impossible situation by lower classes and an upper nobility that wouldn't give away any privileges and wouldn't pay taxes.
### Human: I don't believe a transgendered athlete should be allowed to compete in their chosen gender, CMV.### Assistant: i can only speak from experience regarding taking the mtf version of hrt, but, on estrogen and antiadrogens i: >have had body fat redistributed in a "feminine" pattern >lost muscle >gained a little weight (not sure if this was unavoidable or just due to having a larger appetite) >have lower blood pressure >can focus better >have been told this will effect bone density and the structure of some of my bones >etc. some of the changes would be helpful in certain sports, some would be the opposite. the "testosterone levels" i see people mentioning in the comments are irrelevant as the point of the antiadrogen side of hrt is to make that testosterone leave the body before making any changes. even if youre concerned about people with testosterone competing against cis women in sports, then segregating them by the gender someone is assigned at birth is probably the dumbest way to address that, seeing as youd be putting them up against all transgender men athletes, who are, you know, actively putting testosterone in their body. a better idea, i think, would be to not segregate sports by gender in the first place### Human: ...but then women wouldn't have any visibility in all but an extremely select few sports. I'm pretty sure transgender men would also be disqualified, since testosterone does basically the same thing as anabolic steroids. It's a shitty situation, but I think both would have to be in the men's competition. I think for trans women, there is still a potent effect due to testosterone during the developmental years. Wasn't there a tennis player who was kicked out for being trans?### Assistant: >...but then women wouldn't have any visibility in all but an extremely select few sports. Agreed. And not just women. Transgendered folks (both directions) would also be almost totally excluded from upper level competition as well. Could we expect either m2f taking hrt or f2m to make it to the NFL? The 100m dash? NHL? Crossfit Champs? Physiology says no. If you want to preserve a meaningful place for women and transgendered people in elite sports, you need segregation.### Human: >Could we expect either m2f taking hrt or f2m to make it to the NFL? The 100m dash? NHL? Crossfit Champs? wtf why not, this is the most unbelievably sexist thing ive heard in a while### Assistant: Only in the sense that biology/evolution are sexist.### Human: Thank you. Remarking on the existence of sexual dimorphism and the consequences thereof isn't "sexist"&mdash;it's just science.
### Human: Reddit's voting system discourages dissent CMV### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I honestly can't claim to know a better alternative. However, perhaps on sub reddits where discussion is encouraged, comments being sorted by replies would be preferable. Then, a quick checkbox next to the downvote button could be "moused over" and you could click the reason why (ex: irrelevant, does not contribute to discussion, spam, asks for upvotes). But on sub reddits like r funny, I think that the upvote and downvote system is best. I guess I am saying that moderators should have the choice to pick which style of comments they think is appropriate.### Assistant: Dissent would still be marked as irrelevant; people dislike dissent and its fairly easy to silence### Human: ..I disagree with you. I love dissent. Now have a down vote.### Assistant: .. This sub might not be the best place to demonstrate that
### Human: CMV: I'm not worried about the US government spying on citizens.### Assistant: Guys, please stop downvoting on the basis of disagreement. Two people have gone through and downvoted every post on this thread. This puts a time limit on my comments and makes you less likely to change my view. Please stop.### Human: Even your post is being heavily downvoted which is odd because you came here to have your view changed, not force people to accept it. I really hate how most controversial views are immediately shot down here as they tend to bring very interesting discussions to the table. Remember fellow CMV'ers: downvotes don't change views!### Assistant: Is he right about the waiting though? I never thought karma counted for anything on reddit... Also what does he mean by low? He has a lot more karma than me### Human: Each sub tracks your karma on that sub, once in negative karma there is a massive time between posts. Your overall karma score means nothing.### Assistant: Ah ty! That helps clear things up for me.
### Human: CMV: Screenings of The Interview should not have been cancelled, despite the threats.### Assistant: >Worse, I am dismayed that Kim Jong Un will be able use this "success" to appear to his own people to be a stronger international force than he is. No need to worry about that. He controls the media so tightly in North Korea he could claim it a success no matter what we do. Kim Jong Il [convinced North Korea he invented the hamburger](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2611998/Bizarre-lifestyle-North-Korean-women-convinced-burgers-local-treat-Lady-Gaga-MAN.html). As for showing it. If you were a theater manager how could you justify showing it? Most likely everything is fine but what if something does happen? How much of a risk are you willing to take? It would be a gutsy call to show it. It's one thing if this becomes a common thing but for now it's a one time issue and we can cancel them this time because it's a unique case. If it becomes a regular tactic then yeah it changes into a we need to stop cancelling.### Human: > Most likely everything is fine but what if something does happen? How much of a risk are you willing to take? It would be a gutsy call to show it. I'd have a hard time keeping a straight face even calling it a risk.### Assistant: Do you think theater owners just like giving up revenue? They know more than we do about the risk. Why are you laughing at it?### Human: I'm not convinced that any real risk exists.### Assistant: Yeah no ones ever shot up a movie theater /s### Human: Completely different. That was one mentally ill man acting on his own. To coordinate a massive attack on most major cinemas in the US would be a huge undertaking and an act of war.### Assistant: Who said it was going to be a massive attack? A dozen theaters across the country would be enough to be considered a tragedy.### Human: That would still be incredibly difficult. And why would North Korea do that? In the 60+ years after the Korean War they have done nothing to the US because they know we're much bigger and have much, much more firepower than them. Even if they did carry it out we would know who did it and it would absolutely lead to a war that North Korea would have a very hard time fighting.
### Human: CMV: "If you wouldn't drink it you shouldn't cook with it" is a misleading axiom.### Assistant: This axiom is typically used in reference to cooking sherry. Cooking sherry that you can pick up at the grocery store is absolutely loaded with salt to prevent people from drinking it. It's also typically very low quality wine. Just don't use cooking sherry. It's bad. As for other types of wine, no it doesn't usually matter. But the time the wine is added, and its prevalence in the overall dish can change that. So you're best off not grabbing the Boone's Farm if the wine is added at the end, but if you're just using it to deglaze the pan while making a sauce, you'll probably fine with most anything. I'd suggest the $10 bottle over the $10 jug though, especially if the recipe calls for a sweeter wine. In my experience, cheap wines are almost always overly sweet. That can really change the flavor profile of dish, sometimes in a bad way. The most important thing is to know the wine before you use it. Anytime you get a new bottle for cooking, pour a small glass and taste it. You don't want to be disappointed with your meal because you didn't notice the bottle you grabbed tastes overly sweet or that you just hate the taste.### Human: This is the first time I hear about salty wine and yes, I sometimes cook with wine. Is that some American invention or what?### Assistant: If enough salt is added, they are convinced that people won't get drunk off it, so it technically doesn't count as alcohol. That way it can be sold in grocery stores in states that don't allow grocery stores to sell alcohol. It can be sold on Sundays in states that don't allow alcohol to be sold on Sundays. Etc.### Human: Interesting, I've never seen that in the US. Seems like it wouldn't be terribly difficult to extract the salt from and get drinkable alcohol if you were a teenager trying to get drunk.### Assistant: How? (short of distillation or something)### Human: Distillation, mainly. Osmosis, potentially, although I'm not sure how easy it would be to find a membrane that would let ethanol pass but not Na^+ and Cl^- ions. You wouldn't be able to use freeze distillation though, which is the easiest process. Fortunately a makeshift still is pretty simple to make with household materials. Also a federal felony, so please don't try this at home.### Assistant: Honestly though, most people willing to do that are probably equally willing to brew and distill their own alcohol.### Human: I'm still talking about teenagers. Who can't necessarily hide all the equipment and everything needed to make their own alcohol. I was under the impression that it was legal to buy this supersalty sherry while under 21, so there'd be incentive for a teen looking to get drunk to figure out how to make it drinkable.### Assistant: any teenager that can use osmosis to make cooking sherry drinkable deserves a glass of wine
### Human: CMV: There is no good reason for a no tolerance policy.### Assistant: > Equity is better than equality, anyway This is a really controversial idea that I feel I'm going to run up against. If you will not accept that policy that is 'non-ideal' could be valid in a non-ideal world, then these arguments probably won't work for you. That said, I would urge you to reconsider that position, but unless you specifically say so, I'll take that as a given and consider it outside of the CMV. Regardless, I can see two reasons for a no-tolerance policy. Although I don't think that they alone will justify one in every circumstance, they are at least good reasons, which you are arguing don't exist. Firstly, a no-tolerance policy is a more effective deterrent if you accept that you will only catch a small minority of offenders. If it's a given that you only have a, say, 5% chance of catching someone offending, a harsh punishment with no exceptions is going to be a much more effective deterrent than a punishment with many caveats and exceptions. Secondly, a no-tolerance policy ensures that all people are treated equally for the same offence. In many systems, you can almost guarantee that prejudices and biases will find their way into the system. People of certain races, genders, social classes and other identities will find themselves unfairly benefited or harmed by the system, as the system will show more or less lenience towards those groups. A no-tolerance policy greatly reduces opportunities for this to happen.### Human: I'm not really going to argue about the first part. It depends, I'd hope that a large percentage of offenders get caught. It is more than five percent though. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/2004_UCR_crime_clearance.jpg You can see the numbers dipping near the crimes that are less severe and easier to get away with, but still not up to your standard. While it's true that no tolerance will avoid bias, it's very rough and unfair. It's like cleanly cutting off an infected appendage. The fact that courts of law actually investigate the circumstances and hold long sessions of discussion is proof enough that the no tolerance policy doesn't work well enough.### Assistant: I agree completely that a zero tolerance policy is completely unfair. However, we live in a fucked up world, and there are instances where it can be more fair that letting a biased party decide someone's fate. What's better-- "All shoplifters receive 60 days probation" Or a racist judge who decides "All white shoplifters receive two weeks probation and all black people get six months in jail." That's obviously not a perfect real-worlds example, though it does speak to mandatory minimums and maximums to help prevent extreme bias. It's a kind of zero tolerance policy.### Human: I agree with this. However extreme bias is usually picked up on. Bias is risky for the judge. This type of no tolerance policy is good in this specific context. ∆### Assistant: > Bias is risky for the judge. Only if the majority of the people who elected him are unbiased. The thing is, there are some communities that are still overwhelming racist, or biased against minorities. A judge in a very racist community could absolutely go his whole career being racist without much punishment, because most of the citizens wouldn't care. Go for an appeal, that judge is racist too. It's not frequent, but it exists, and that's why we have mandatory minimums and maximums. Like I said, it's not often necessary, but sometimes it's necessary. edit: saw you added "in this context," so yeah, this comment is irrelevant.
### Human: CMV: Judas is the greatest tragic hero of human history### Assistant: >And for that act, Judas both saved the entirety of humanity and doomed himself to eternal damnation. I don't see where you've even argued that Judas saved anyone, much less proved the assertion. In the strictest sense, the blood of Jesus is what saves, not the man who caused it to be shed. >1.) That God grants human beings free will, which they may use to either do good or evil >2.) That God sometimes intervenes with free will in order to enact his own will (a specific example being the hardening of Pharaoh's heart) >3.) That God knows what everyone is going to do before they do it The dissonance between these three ideas confounds the conclusion you draw. Was Judas moved by God (I don't see why you would cite that if not to suggest that he was)? If he was, why isn't this alluded to...anywhere? Is an irresistibly coerced act a product of free will? Can I actually choose if what I was going to choose was determined before time began? Free will means we don't have a predetermined path. Our choices matter. We aren't playing a game on rails, we make moral choices that affect and change the future. We think of Judas' choice as inevitable, but it wasn't. Jesus could have died any number of ways and still fulfilled his purpose, Judas made his choice and betrayed Jesus. >(or Satan, who Job shows us more-or-less works according to God I think that's an expansive claim based on scant evidence. >He is either disillusioned, or fearful even, with the social change (or lack-thereof) Jesus seeks. There is no evidence to support this, and it's what historically-minded folks call 'presentism'. You're projecting your own ideas of class conflict and social dynamics on someone from thousands of years ago who wouldn't have shared your perspective. >Oftentimes personal greed is posited as his main motivation, I don't think that's the case. Even in the Bible text, it isn't said the Judas was offered silver then betrayed Jesus. Rather, it is his self-interest, selfishness, and doubt that motivate him to betray Jesus. >He attempts to make right his misdeed, When? How? How does suicide right his wrong? IMHO, Judas could easily have been forgiven if he'd confessed and spent the rest of his life spreading the Word as the other apostles did. Hell, the pre-Pope denied he knew Jesus three times to save his own skin. >Jesus ascends to his position as the right hand of God, and becomes the most lauded and most influential man in human history. Christian theology (irrespective of denomination) says more than that. It says that Jesus was both God and atoning sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Jesus was God experiencing the punishment we deserve for sin in our place. >I think this is unfair. I think Judas, being an imperfect man, stumbled through a predetermined path that used him as little more than a pawn. If he had free will, this isn't the case. What evidence suggests he didn't? >Without his betrayal, the all-important prophecy where God literally saves all of humankind would have been kaput. ...or the man challenging the hegemony of Rome and the legitimacy of the Sanhedrin could have been killed in some other way.### Human: Suuuuuuper minor point, but Peter wasn't really "saving his own skin" in my opinion, although that could very easily be wrong. Remember that while he was denying Jesus, the Pharisees were searching for two witnesses to convict Jesus, as they were required to do by the law, and couldn't get two witnesses to agree on anything he did wrong. Furthermore, Peter was in the courtyard, which as per roman architecture would be in a position where he could hear everything going on. Sooooo it's very possible that he didn't want to be responsible for Jesus's death, rather than being a selfish coward. Just food for thought, I could very easily be completely wrong.### Assistant: >33 Peter answered and said unto Him, “Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet I will never be offended.” 34 Jesus said unto him, “Verily I say unto thee, that this night before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice.” 35 Peter said unto Him, “Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee.” Likewise also said all the disciples. -Matthew 26:33-35 >60 And Peter said, “Man, I know not what thou sayest!” And immediately, while he yet spoke, the cock crowed. 61 And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, “Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice.” 62 And Peter went out and wept bitterly. -Luke 22:60-62### Human: Yep, them be the relevant verses. Heck, the second passage even proves that peter is in earshot of Jesus. Is there some particular point you're trying to make?### Assistant: ...I'm not sure what significance you think Jesus' potentially hearing him imparts In the first verse, Peter claims he will never deny his discipleship, even on pain of death. Jesus begs to differ - and not in a way that absolves Peter. Jesus, Peter, and all the other disciples take for granted that denying Jesus is an act of faithlessness. Peter then denies Jesus three times, not to Romans or Pharisees, but to regular people who ask if he's a disciple. When Peter realizes what he's done, he expresses remorse. He doesn't have any other apparent reason for weeping when he fulfills the prediction. So it seems fairly obvious (and has seemed obvious to every commentator I'm aware of throughout history) that Peter has done something self-serving, cowardly, faithless and wrong. That's why he later repents for what he's done and why Jesus addresses his denial after the Resurrection. He asks Peter three times whether he loves Jesus before he gives Peter authority. There is no suggestion in the text that he was trying to protect Jesus, and quite a few direct textual evidence and thematic evidence to suggest that Peter denied because he was afraid.### Human: You mean regular people who were the servants of the Pharisees that were currently in the midst of questioning Jesus who had sent out servants looking for people who would bear witness? Yeah, there's definitely no relevance to who those people are, they're definitely just random people. If he admits he's a disciple, he then has to bear witness against Jesus, as he would be able to provide incriminating evidence -- that Jesus had professed to be the son of god. And yes, It's perfectly possible that Peter was remorseful because he realized that his faith was not as strong as it could have been -- because he prioritized the life of his friend and mentor over the duty which he knew Jesus had to do. Remember "get thee behind me, Satan"? Peter was making it harder for Jesus, telling him that he would surely not die. And Jesus was tempted by this -- what man, after all, desires to die? Peter knew this, and yet fell prey to his love and support for Jesus once again. And when he saw Jesus and heard the cock crow, he knew that once again, he had failed. But this point is far more speculative than the fact that those weren't "regular people", Peter was in the courtyard of the High Priest, and those were his servants he was being questioned by -- the same people responsible for finding the witnesses for the trial. Just sayin'.### Assistant: ...mkay. In Luke at least, the gap between Jesus' arrest and Peter's denial is very small. So small that there is very little reason to think that this "witnesses" issue you're referring to had ever been articulated or mentioned, and the particulars of the trial hadn't even started to flesh out until the following morning, after Peter had denied three times. Granted, he might've been compelled to testify, but you're citing that as a motive when it isn't articulated anywhere. And of course, if Peter really didn't want to be forced to testify, leaving along with the other disciples was always an option. was always an option. >And yes, It's perfectly possible that Peter was remorseful because he realized that his faith was not as strong as it could have been -- because he prioritized the life of his friend and mentor over the duty which he knew Jesus had to do. What evidence do you have that supports the second part? Because the traditional interpretation is that Peter was afraid for himself, and if the motive you're describing was the correct one, it seems like leaving would've been a much better option. >But this point is far more speculative than the fact that those weren't "regular people", Peter was in the courtyard of the High Priest, and those were his servants he was being questioned by -- the same people responsible for finding the witnesses for the trial. And this point is far weaker than you seem to think. There is no record of an exhortation to go find witnesses, no expressed concern from Peter about being forced to testify, but there are numerous warnings that disciples will be persecuted, mocked and shamed for the witness they are commanded to bear and that Peter fails to bear.
### Human: CMV:Online interactions, relationships and obligations aren't inherently inferior to "real life" ones.### Assistant: Rather than more/less important, online interactions are distinctly more casual than equivalent in-person interactions, and if you remove that sense of casualness then online interactions really do become inferior to "real life"### Human: I fail to see how, although perhaps I didn't fully understand what you mean. But, even if I accept that certain interactions have different implications and weight, that isn't exactly my point here. For example, I'll agree that generally, having your friends together in a bar is completely different feeling and tone than talking with your friends online. I'll agree it's not the same thing, which is why in the group I mentioned, we often arrange meet ups. I'm not disputing that. My main point is that people should not treat online interactions with less importance just because they're online, and that it's okay to prioritize one over the other given certain circunstances and not take the instance that online interactions doesn't matter and are always of the least importance.### Assistant: There's just a completely different feeling to online interactions compared to real life ones. It's hard to express in words but talking to someone over skype is far easier than talking to someone face to face. 1. When you talk to someone over skype there's just a big pressure taken off of it. You aren't stuck with them, you can just leave the call or whatever if anything goes wrong and at the end of the day, you can just never deal with them again if it goes horribly wrong. Many times when playing games with buddies they'll add friends of theirs and I'll get along with them right off the bat because it's pretty much zero risk in meeting people over skype. 2. In "real life" interactions there's a pressure there that you can't just brush off. If I'm taking a girl on a date, I can't just say that offensive joke that I find funny because if she gets offended, I'm going to have to sit there awkwardly through the rest of the dinner with her. In a skype call I can just say it and who cares if they don't find it funny. So you have to understand that actually going and seeing someone isn't as easy to back out of as it would be with an online interaction. As a result, this tends to carry over into how you rank the importance of these interactions. The people I play games with online are all awesome dudes, but if I say I'm gonna play games later tonight and then a girl invites me out on a date, I'm going to pick the girl because they can deal with not playing games with me for a night. I'm not saying these guys aren't important, but at the end of the day, online friends take my least priority because I don't have to actually physically see them in real life or deal with any consequences. I don't play games for a night, they maybe give me shit for it, and that's the end of it. Hardly any repercussions. And I understand that they probably feel the same way about me. Again, not that they're not important, it's just there's obviously a higher level of closeness when it comes to real face to face interactions that can't be matched with online friends. I probably talk to my online friends as much if not more than the ones in real life, but if they decided to stop being my friend it would hurt me less than the same situation with one of my "real life" friends. I'm sure all these guys I play games with would be some of my best friends if I knew them in person, but with only knowing them online there's just something lost in that. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it just doesn't strike me as important as anything in real life.### Human: I did mention on the OP (and in other replies) that I simply believe internet relationships should not default to least importance every time, and that's not the same as it being max either. I'd put going on a date, or going out with my SO significantly high on any comparison of the kind to any event, online or not. I don't, however, feel comfortable in just thinking about relationships as a if -> then sequence of actions and consequences, much less cutting off relations abruptly just because they're online. I know the consequences are minimal, but I, personally, just don't feel good doing that. That's not to say I'm not aware that refusing to socialize with my co-workers could have a much higher negative impact on my life than not attending raids, but I always try to reach a balance, specially when the people involved are important to me. And if say, I really must stop attending a gaming event, I'd inform them beforehand. That's part of my point of "understanding there are people on the other side". "I can't game with you at that time anymore". "I can't make it day X because of Y", are good compromises. If they think of me the same I think of them, things will likely work out. If my raids are always at the same time as happy hours, we can probably discuss raid times, or just mutually agree to leave the guild. Or maybe I can convince my co-workers to meet some other day. This is what I would do if there was an overlap between two real life obligations as well, instead of automatically cutting one off my life. And, surely. I would rather go for a date than playing with the dudes, they would give me shit for it initially but also possible congratulate me after the fact for going on a date. Or call me a liar, most likely. Ultimately, I cannot say I'm comfortable with the concept of relationships as merely causes and consequences, and aiming to achieve certain gains / avoiding losses. But when you take that into account, yes, online relationships do end up having lower value in many situations. You're not the first to mention that, and while I can't say it changed how I personally feel about it, but I cannot say the argument itself is wrong in the general sense. I do still believe that a level of civility, politeness and respect must always be kept, and you should always consider you're dealing with other people when doing anything online, and always try to avoid negatively affecting someone (your guild, friend, etc) just like you would try to in real life, but that's beside the point here. Here's a ∆.### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/pwntpants. [^pwntpants's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/pwntpants) ^\| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)
### Human: I don't think humanity will ever leave the solar system or colonize another planet. I don't believe aliens have or ever will visit us either. CMV.### Assistant: Even though it would take thousands of years from the perspective of everyone on Earth, the faster a ship can travel the shorter the trip would seem to be for its crew. So speculate something like a [Bussard ramjet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet) approaching--but never reaching c--and a trip to our sun's neighbors could occur before food and oxygen runs out. If the top speed of any spacecraft was still so low that relative on-board time is still too long, colonization isn't out of the question yet, but it may depend on what you imagine colonization to be. We've discovered ancient seeds, up to 2,000 years old, recovered from archeological sites that still [germinated and grew into viable trees](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1122_051122_old_seed.html) when planted, which means we could send seed ships that keep going until they find a candidate planet and colonize it in stages: moss and lichen to break up the rocks and make rudimentary soil, then grasses, shrubs, and finally trees. That's a process that would take tens of thousands of years after seeding begins, but yield a planet with a biosphere suitable for animal life. If we can figure out how to preserve animal eggs for that kind of journey, an automated colony ship might simply grow the fauna in incubators and release them on the new planet. If some of those animals include humans, then you've got yourself a bona-fide colony on another planet. All you give up is the luxury of colonists who remember anything about Earth.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: The thing is, as rocket technology advances, so will knowledge of human physiology - trillions of dollars worldwide are being poured into medicine each year. So it's not unrealistic at all, in fact I'd say likely, to think that sometime a thousand years from now, we'll have ship hulls made out of carbon nanotubes with particle deflectors in front of them. It's not unrealistic to think that we'll be able to recreate a small ecosystem within a spaceship that can sustain human life - [We're not close yet, but we've already began working on things similar to this](http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/casestudies/biosphere2.mhtml) It's all possible, in theory. Nothing about this kind of thing breaks the laws of physics as we know them. We even have theoretical technologies that are being worked on. It may have taken humanity thousands of years to invent practical flight, and it make take thousands more to invent more practical space travel - but so far as we know, it's possible, and if we keep plugging towards it, I'd think it's quite likely that we'll make it.### Human: Just because trillions of dollars is being poured into research does NOT equal bounds and leaps in progress!!!### Assistant: Well, no. But over the past 100 years, we've revolutionized medicine. Over the past 50, we've improved it far more. [Over the past 10, we've improved it even more](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_medicine_and_medical_technology#2000_.E2.80.93_present) The money in and of itself does not mean medicine is improving - but the raw data does. The same goes for rocket technlogy - 50 years ago we didn't have rockets, 10 years ago we just landed on an asteroid for the first time, and now we're in the planning phase for a trip to Mars. Raw data here too, shows improvement.### Human: May i challenge your view. Last 50 years we have improved the COST of medicine, yes, but not the efficiency. We may have cures for isolated cases we didnt have 50 years ago, but also we did manage to nullify the effect of most antibiotics. Antibiotics and vaccines are the only effevtive cures, and we fucked that up, and we increased cost for basic cures 1600%. No, medicine hasnt advanced at all.### Assistant: I'd beg to differ. From the linked source: >26 June 2000 - Human Genome draft completed 2001 Telesurgery - Jacques Marescaux 2001 Artificial liver - Kenneth Matsumura 2003 – Carlo Urbani, of Doctors without Borders alerted the World Health Organization to the threat of the SARS virus, triggering the most effective response to an epidemic in history. Urbani succumbs to the disease himself in less than a month. 2005 – Jean-Michel Dubernard performs the first partial face transplant 2006 – First HPV vaccine approved 2006 – Second rotavirus vaccine approved (first was withdrawn) 2007 - Visual prosthetic (bionic eye) Argus II 2008 – Laurent Lantieri performs the first full face transplant 2013 - First kidney grown in vitro in the U.S. 2013 - First human liver grown from stem cells in Japan These are huge advancements - and only in the past 10 years. While the medicine we currently have is dying out, that does not mean that medical technology is not advancing - it most certainly is, quicker than any other time in history, to my knowledge. With the dawn of new biological concepts and germ theory, and so many other biological and technological innovations, we're learning things about the human body at an increasingly rapid rate.
### Human: CMV: Developers of games that require their servers to play should be (morally) obligated to compensate players when they eventually shut down servers### Assistant: The biggest problem is the idea that a company "is done with their code" simply because they discontinue hosting their servers for a single game. Chances are that it's full of proprietary code that they will repurpose (or probably already have repurposed) for another game. It also may contain code licensed from third parties, who certainly wouldn't consent to violating the license in the way you describe. Technology goes obsolete. Particularly in a case like this, no consumer should have an expectation of an limitless utility for a game with online functionality.### Human: But games are not just technology. They are culture. They are items of popular culture that are becoming impossible to preseve. With all our technological capabilities, how is it that we still have access to books written 1000 years ago but I cannot play a 10 year old game like Battlefield 2:MC online any longer? I am hoping we see some form of legislation on this matter. Content creators must be compelled to open source the server software to enable a game to live on past it's supported lifespan.### Assistant: And we should have passed laws allowing the publication of any stories written by J.D. Salinger while in seclusion, even if he didn't want to. Why would a creator get to have any control over their work if the public wants it? And why isn't anyone forced to manufacture 8-track and reel-to-reel tapes? It's just not fair. Black and white TVs were part of culture. So were newsreels. There are many discontinued foods, TV shows. Hell, the Beatles were bigger than Jesus and a huge part of culture - why didn't someone pass a law compelling them to stay together? But the real answer as to "why can't you still play Battlefield 2:MC online any longer" is simple: because no one can make money doing it. There aren't enough other people who want to play ancient games, and most of those that do probably pirated it in the first place. If there WAS a demand, and a company could make enough money re-releasing it, they would. Look at all of the Atari emulators out there. (Which, I'll add, were re-released at the creator's discretion, not because of some law).### Human: We don't need 8 tracks and reel to reel because the content was content shifted to newer storage mediums. With most games, they can be emulated or reverse engineered. Network enabled games are different though. The server side software is never puiblically available. It is never in the hands of the user. It can never be reverse engineered or emulated. Consider this. The National Archive can collect and store copies of all known video games from the 70s to the mid 00's. The collection will be almost complete. A complete, 30 year playable history of the birth of a new entertainment and artisitc medium. Then suddenly about 10 years ago, that collection is broken. Games can still be collected and the client emualted on virtual machines but the games can never be played. I just feel that we should not allow a huge hole to appear in our national archives when we have the ability to prevent it. I don't even care if the public are not allowed to have access to it. I would be happy with private companies simply being made to hand their serverside code over to public archivists. I just hate the thought of this content becoming lost forever. Look at the effort the BBC makes these days trying to find missing episodes from their archives. We don't want to be in the same place in 100 years with video games when we can already identity the problem and have at our disposal almost unlimited storage. We should at least work to explore sollutions.### Assistant: Except for the fact that the "product" that they make is code. Having all that lovely code sitting on a government server seems like a dare to a hacker. That said, I think you raise a good point about having it saved for posterity, so that researchers can track the course of both the code from a "history of CS" and the games from a sociological point of view. It would be great if there were an industry group (or even the Smithsonian, etc) that collected this and stored it securely. I apologize for not getting the gist of your argument originally - I've been responding to a lot of "but companies should do what's best for me, not for them, otherwise they are evil" comments. The history of gaming is a very different purpose than "my right to play any game forever on the company's dime.### Human: >It would be great if there were an industry group (or even the Smithsonian, etc) that collected this and stored it securely. For the record, there are a handful of video games museums out there that collect and preserve video game stuff (games, systems, and other related works)
### Human: CMV: Reddit's "hive mind" is creating a cycle that encourages unoriginal content rather than thoughtful comments### Assistant: There will be things that people get into. The Shanghai air pollution for instance is a good example. There might be a lot of misinformation about topic, but that doesn't mean you can't speak your mind or make your point. Just because you think you swim in a sea of misinformed people doesn't mean you can't say what you want to say.### Human: But it's almost being like not being able to. If your comment receives a certain amount of downvotes, it defaults to being collapsed, making it even harder for the commenter to be heard/seen.### Assistant: Yeah, but fight the good right when you have to. I mean I've spoken against the Fappening. I've commented on a lot of things that the "ive mind" didn't agree with. Its okay.### Human: I agree with you. I'm not afraid to voice my opinion, even if it's an opposing view. However, my main issue is that the hive mind creates a continuing circle that encourages comments/thoughts that follow what the "majority" believes (although with vote manipulation this may not even be true).### Assistant: But, every place does that. You go to a random bar and start talking to people and you will find that some opinions are great to share and some aren't. Reddit isn't alone in this regard.### Human: It seems that Reddit almost prides itself on being a place of good discussion. And regardless, just because other places may do the same thing or the fact that Reddit is not alone doesn't mean what I'm saying isn't correct.### Assistant: Due to the demographics of this site, Reddit is just as biased as the rest of the world. That being said you can still speak your mind. you might not find all the support you crave, but you can still speak you mind. No one will stop you.### Human: I think we're going in a circle. Like I said, I have no problem speaking my mind. It's not the lack of support either. It's the downvotes that collapse comments, making them hard to find or see for other redditors. This has never personally happened to me but I see it frequently. The whole point of posting a comment is to share your personal thoughts. Downvoting something simply because you don't agree or don't want hear about it defeats that purpose.### Assistant: >The whole point of posting a comment is to share your personal thoughts But not every sub is about sharing differentiating opinions, some sub's are dedicated to the proliferation of an idea, and so comments against that idea will be down voted to oblivion, where some sub's (such as this one) are about sharing and discussing ideas, and generally only badly argued comments are down voted away. Reddit isn't just about one thing, every sub is different, so you cannot really say reddit on a whole is being hive Mindy when talking about only the most popular sub's, as those sub's are generally just trying to be popular, not foster good discussion, so from their view they are succeeding.
### Human: I believe prostitution is both a societally valuable service as well as a morally virtuous choice, and I have never found a compelling reason for why it should be criminalized. CMV.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: The Netherlands tried to legalize it and human trafficking, false imprisonment, sexual abuse of children, torture, confinement, forced use of drugs, mental anguish, spreading of sexually transmitted diseases, etc. was still a problem### Human: > was still a problem A LOT less though. Source: I'm a Red Light District resident### Assistant: That's a good argument that it should be decriminalized, but not that it's a valuable service or virtuous choice. But it does seem pretty similar to drinking and gambling. Generally acknowledged as probably not a great thing, but they become far worse for society when made illegal.### Human: Not sure the need for intoxication is as compelling and inbuilt as the need for sexual release and intimacy. You have literally failed as a human being if you can't have sex. Your body will give you a very bad time if you don't have any, ever. As such, I see offering it as rather more virtuous than offering something that's actually just plain bad for you.### Assistant: I hear what you're saying, but "You have literally failed as a human being if you can't have sex" isn't quite right. Procreation's cool and all, but it's not necessary that we all do it-- just that some do. Even if it were, having sex (particularly with a prostitute) does not equal procreation. But yeah, we've got these base needs, and a society that denies them entirely is probably not all that healthy.### Human: There's something to be said about the fact that humans who don't have regularly sex are statistically likely to live a reduced lifespan.### Assistant: I'd like to see some causation to back up that correlation, though. I would expect, for example, that our proclivity to be more attracted to members of our target gender that look healthy may lead to a large population of unattractive sufferers of terminal conditions to skew the lifespan-scale downwards for whatever segment of the population gets laid less frequently.
### Human: CMV: If you're ok with how athletes are paid, you should be ok with how CEOs are paid### Assistant: I think the big difference is that to some extent, the board of directors for many large companies is not independent of the CEO of the company. Since the board chooses the CEO and his/her salary, if they are not acting independently and unbiased, then the compensation may be set too high. Here's [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/18/business/deciding-on-executive-pay-lack-of-independence-seen.html) article that lays out the problem pretty clearly. Here's [a separate one from the WJS](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB105882543396281900) to stay politically neutral. Athletes on the other hand typically do not have ties to management. Furthermore, in most American leagues the total percent of revenue paid to players vs owners is set through labor negotiations, and this is often bitterly disputed. In short, I believe there is a difference. I'm not upset that CEO's are paid a lot, I'm upset because in some cases they get to pick the people who choose their salary, or they get to award contracts that influence the people who are picking their salary, and that this conflict of interest can lead to CEO's making more money than they should at the expense of investors.### Human: >this conflict of interest can lead to CEO's making more money than they should at the expense of investors. This is just a part of the game. Investors have to accept that moral hazards may arise and that management may not share their same interests. A team owner has to accept that they risk injured players and that they may lose a significant portion of their investment as well. The remedy of a dissatisfied investor is to sell off their ownership. An underperforming director can last only as long as the company stays afloat, or until voted out.### Assistant: I agree it's part of the game. I think we should be doing more to ensure that board of directors are independent. But for now, I think it's a BIG difference between athletes pay and CEO's pay. If Kobe Bryant's agent or father got to set his salary, I'd have an issue with that, and I assume he'd be getting paid more money than he is now. If CEO's salaries were fairly set by market forces, I wouldn't have a problem with them. When they're set by the CEO's friends and partners who rely on his/her continued business, I don't think this is a fair system. I don't see the parallel with the risk of injured players - this risk is built into contracts. Sports teams look at a player's injury history and if there's a bigger risk, they might pay him less.### Human: Market forces are like chaos theory. You don't know when it'll rain, but it'll eventually rain. When it rains, you won't know exactly how much, but you can be reasonably assured that if you don't normally get 20 feet of rain, you probably won't get 20 feet next time. While shareholders may sometimes pay someone too much, there are many companies which should probably pay their CEO more for the value they bring. I've seen many CEO's being paid modestly below the 200K mark. Guys like Tim Cook with ~70 million are the rock stars and not the majority. But either way, this type of compensation shows up in the financial statements and lowers the return for investors. As long as the investors are receiving an acceptable rate of return, no one will push for change. I think when you look across the board for all companies as a whole, market forces are indeed in play and working properly. The injured player stuff, I was just addressing as a different type of risk. No investments are riskless aside from treasuries (we hope).### Assistant: I think we're not quite on the same page. Of course some CEO's are overpaid and some are underpaid. This is true for every job. I'm arguing that the most prevalent system for deciding the pay of a CEO inherently gives CEO's too much power over their pay, and unfairly means that on average CEO's make more than they should. Also, it's not "shareholders" that are paying the CEO too much. It's a board of directors or compensation committee. You're correct in saying that the salary is disclosed and that this can affect the return on investment, but you're not connecting the dots that a corrupt system that overpays a CEO is different than a traditional salary negotiation between a basketball player and the general manager.### Human: >not "shareholders" that are paying the CEO too much. It's a board of directors or compensation committee. Yes, I understand shareholders don't set the specific number. But they do get a voice when they vote against compensation packages. Voting against a compensation package would be done before voting out your board members. >most prevalent system for deciding the pay of a CEO inherently gives CEO's too much power over their pay >means that on average CEO's make more than they should. If the system is prevalent, and there are still investors, would it not not mean that the investors are ok with it? I think the beauty of a public corporation is that if you don't like how the company is run, you simply don't buy into it.
### Human: CMV: The college football industry is many times worse than the porn industry.### Assistant: Am I missing something - you've described how both industries are objectively similar, not how football is "worse"### Human: I think I have. 1) Getting repeatedly hit in the head hundreds if not thousands of times is certainly worse for your health than having sex. 2) It's much easier to fit into one of the many fetish categories of porn, than to be able to run a 4.4, bench 400lbs, have 5% body fat, etc. 3) Selling your body is better than giving away your body for free.### Assistant: Thanks for clarifying. Here's a major difference - as far as I know, no college football player has gotten another player pregnant during a game. Regardless of your views on when life begins and abortion rights, accidental pregnancy is a serious risk that can happen to adult film performers.### Human: As far as I know, no porn star developed CTE(the equivalent of having Alzeimers disease when you're 20. I think having an accidental pregnancy which you can fix for 700 bucks is better than having a permanent, irreversible brain disorder that no amount of money can fix. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5569329### Assistant: And no football player ever got HIV from playing?### Human: Nor any STD from playing. I could not find and references to a NFL player even contracting due to transfusion. I think the argument seems to be is risk of pregnancy + STDs of higher risk than traumatic brain injury and other physical ailments.### Assistant: Apples to oranges. I think a more appropriate comparison would be something like STD's/pregnancy for porn, Staph infections (and other common athlete illnesses)/muscle and joint damage/brain damage for athletes.
### Human: I don't think Snowden's revelations will change anything. CMV### Assistant: Reddit hates obama now. That alone is pretty amazing.### Human: I was disappointed. Now I am disgusted. He speaks well but he is I'm not of age to vote, nor a US citizen or resident. But Obama redeemed the US in the world's eyes after the clusterfuck Bush years. Now he is hunting down the poor bastard who felt obliged to reveal who was being spied on, to the people being spied on. I guess US foreign and spy policy will always be fucked, only the frontmen will change.### Assistant: But Snowden did break the law.### Human: I don't think anyone is questioning that, and some people give him extra credit for that specifically. The problem is that the program was legal to start with! Snowden throwing himself into the meat grinder of US anti-terrorism "justice", which personally I have practically no faith in, martyrs him and is a big part of why so many are supporting him.### Assistant: The program he revealed is arguably to be technically legal. What he did was reveal classified documents, which regardless of the reason, is illegal for obvious reasons. I do not like that he revealed a lot of foreign intel gathering programs. Its sort of an unwritten rule, a gentleman's agreement of sorts, that governments spy on other governments. I do not find that to be wrong, and he undermined a lot of the advantages that the US has. Intel gathering is very important to making the best decisions possible. There is a reason it is given such high importance. I should do my own CMV, because I think a lot of people don't really know what was revealed and instead they think that what was revealed was just confirmation on their fears and conspiracy theory of what the US Gov is doing. What came out what that, yes, the government gathers intel domestically. And with that single piece of confirmation, everyone goes into their imagination and pulls out what they think that means.
### Human: CMV:As human beings we have a bias towards racism, regardless of environmental factors, and the only way humans can 'overcome' racial biases is to acknowledge them.### Assistant: There's no question that humans are tribal, and think in terms of "us" and "them". But your conclusion that color is a necessary differentiator simply isn't true. This can be disproved a number of ways, but the easiest to see is in the case of mixed families or transracial adoption. Children of difference races raised together simply don't differentiate - if they are raised as a family, they think as a family. Another way to look at it is by your logic, in an all-blonde Swedish community, a brunette should be shunned because of visual differences. It doesn't work that way. Finally, consider the Middle East or Ireland. Some of the greatest biases are Sunni vs. Shiite or Protestant vs. Catholic despite being physically indistinguishable. Biases are taught based on social mores, not genetics.### Human: This I complete understand. Most racial biases are completely learned from a lack of understanding and empathy of people that are different, but I feel like there is something else driving it that goes deeper then just that because of how many different societies have prevalent racism. I guess you could argue that societies grow out of other, older, already established societies, and if racism is in one it will inevitable move on to societies that stem from it.### Assistant: But where have you seen "different societies have prevalent racism" without socio-economic and cultural differences? Children are aware of race, just as they are aware of who is tall or short, or who is in a wheelchair. But they aren't inherently racist for the reasons I outline above. Can you cite a single study where, outside of taught behaviors, children are biased toward those of different races?### Human: http://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/racist-babies-nine-month-olds-bias-faces_n_1477937.html### Assistant: This interpretation of the study in the Huffington Post was wrong, according to the researcher: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/08/babies-not-racist-insists-learning-study-author- As for the Time article, yes, white children raised by white parents tend to view blacks as "other" and vice versa. But for racism to be truly inherent, you'd need to study biracial parents or transracial adoptees. I'd fully expect that Asian (or black, or Hispanic) children raised by white parents without contact with Asians would view those of their race as "other". Yes, color CAN be a differentiator, but it is not inherently so.
### Human: CMV: Citing "white privilege" for your circumstance is just a way to bypass personal responsibility, and a way to blame society for where you're at.### Assistant: > In North America it has now been at least one generation since institutional racism has been all but abolished. Is 1965 really so long ago? Check out [this photo](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg/800px-Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg) of an open protest in 1959. Or [these folks](http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/09/15/least-one-anti-civil-rights-confession-offered/15690163/) openly displaying "white power" signs in Chicago in response to MLK's 1966 Chicago campaign (yep, there was plenty of racism in the north, too). Only 50 years ago, this openly racist sentiment was common. Many of those younger men and women in these pictures are probably still alive today. The teenagers in these photos could still be working, still making hiring decisions and the like at their jobs. These openly racist folk are the baby boomers and the people who raised them. Do you think this violent, nasty racism really disappears in less than a generation? Check out the [approval of inter-racial marriage](http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx) in the US. It wasn't until after 1995 over half of American approved of inter-racial marriage. 1995! Only 20 years ago! And prejudice certainly goes on today. Even now, [25% of white Americans believe it is okay not to sell a home to someone because of their race](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/attitudes-toward-racism-and-inequality-are-shifting/). [Black people have a hard time hailing cabs](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/attitudes-toward-racism-and-inequality-are-shifting/). [Job applications with black-sounding names get fewer callbacks](http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html). [Black people more commonly go to jail for the same minor drug offenses](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/).### Human: I don't think OP is claiming there isn't racism around. He's saying its possible to overcome. Every group has some sort of privilege. Even if you start off disadvantaged, that doesn't mean you can completely disregard all personal responsibility.### Assistant: >I don't think OP is claiming there isn't racism around. He's saying its possible to overcome. >Every group has some sort of privilege. Even if you start off disadvantaged, that doesn't mean you can completely disregard all personal responsibility. its true that it may be overcome, however right now the people overcoming it are outliers, not because they are lazy, not because they are shirking responsibility, but because white people did everything they could to hinder any chance black people had at becoming independent for like 200 years. 200 years of damage doesn't go away overnight, we've got a lot of healing to do.### Human: Except black people from Africa don't have the problem that black people from America do. So it's a cultural thing.### Assistant: right, we seriously fucked up their culture.
### Human: CMV: The Republican position of being pro-life AND opposing birth control and sex ed is absolutely indefensible and ridiculous### Assistant: There is a lot of stuff wrong with your post that isn't central to your point, but I'm gonna point them out anyway: >Republicans are infamously pro-life as the GOP's own website openly admits. I'm not sure if you don't know what "infamous" means, but to suggest the GOP is "infamously pro-life" is about as ridiculous as it gets. Being pro-life is a perfectly sound, moral position. In fact I think it's far more defensible than being pro-choice, and is certainly more principled. >they are hyper opposed to Planned Parenthood despite the fact that abortions make up less than 5% of PP services and PP's other services actually prevent abortions with birth control. if you are pro-life then it is incomprehensibly insane and ridiculous to be against birth control. It is dishonest to say abortions make up <5% of PP services, because that is only looking at the absolute number of services being provided, with no regard to the significance of service. So for instance if you go in for an abortion and an aspirin, abortions made up 50% of the services provided to you. Unfortunately, PP doesn't explicitly say how much of their budget goes to abortions specifically, but IIRC the category that abortions are under (medical services or something like that), make up ~60% of their budget. They're an abortion mill. >This last point is somewhat of a tangent, but the fact that it's old white men making decisions about women's health only further exemplifies the evidence that these people are clueless and absurd. I'm sorry but THIS is what is absurd. First of all, what the fuck does being white have to do with anything? Second, to suggest somebody can't have a political opinion because they're male is sexist, plain and simple. If I think abortion is killing an innocent human (IT IS), the fact that I have a penis doesn't change anything. ...... Now, as for your actual point, which is that being pro-life and anti-BC is indefensible and ridiculous, you're saying that because the two opinions appear to be at odds with each other, but that doesn't make holding both of them indefensible. It would be like wanting to mitigate the number of combat deaths while also being in favor of a particular war. I'm not against BC, and not many people are, but just because not using BC would lead to more of something else you don't want doesn't mean it's indefensible. In their perfect world, people wouldn't use BC and also wouldn't get abortions when they got pregnant, so that's what they're fighting for on two separate fronts. Your opinion relies on the assumption that reducing the number of abortions by any means possible is the ONLY thing that matters, and anything that gets in the way of that is ridiculous, but that's a false premise.### Human: For the first one I guess we are playing semantics. I was using the word infamous to refer to how PP is viewed by the majority of people (which is negatively). > what the fuck does being white have to do with anything? Gah, sorry, I regret putting that in here; I was thinking of some video that described the legislators as a group of old white men and that's why I typed in white when I made that description. My bad! I rescind the white part that was subconscious and a mistake. Anyway, that aside, the gender you are is relevant. Only women can possibly be affected (directly) by these laws. How would you feel if a group of uncircumcised men, or a group of women, were the only people doing circumcision regulations? While I do disagree with that part, the rest of your view is sound. I suppose if you are anti-abortions then being anti-BC (even though BC is great at reducing abortions) isn't necessarily key. I mean I question the reasons they oppose BC and I think they're ridiculous, but if you are a person who is already opposed to BC inherently (as some of the religious right is), than I can concede that this position makes sense to hold. (Even if I don't think it makes sense if you judge the standpoint, but judged from the standpoint, it is tenable.) !delta### Assistant: >Anyway, that aside, the gender you are is relevant. Only women can possibly be affected (directly) by these laws. How would you feel if a group of uncircumcised men, or a group of women, were the only people doing circumcision regulations? I don't get how that's a problem. Take slavery as an example, should only slave holders be the ones to vote on whether or not slavery is allowed? Should only rich people be the ones to vote on how progressive the income tax is? I can't fathom how anybody can think being a man means you're not allowed to weigh in on abortion. If a man thinks children are being murdered, how can you possibly say it's not ok for that man to step in and make an argument for why that's not ok?### Human: Slavery and rich people are even worse examples because those people, unlike men in the case of abortion, have an obvious vested interest in the particular way the law goes. And I am most certainly not saying that men are not a part of this conversation -- not at all. I'm just saying that given who this issue is affecting (men are only indirectly affected), there should be women involved in this discussion.### Assistant: >Slavery and rich people are even worse examples because those people, unlike men in the case of abortion, have an obvious vested interest in the particular way the law goes. And women don't??? It's exactly the same. Forgetting the morality of it since we disagree on that, but the structure is the same. Slave owner gets to do whatever he wants to his slave and claims the slave is less than a human. Mother gets to abort the fetus and claims the fetus is less than a human. It's literally the exact same thing. >And I am most certainly not saying that men are not a part of this conversation -- not at all. I'm just saying that given who this issue is affecting (men are only indirectly affected), there should be women involved in this discussion. Fetuses can be male, you know that right? And nobody is saying women shouldn't be involved in the discussion. But you said the fact that old men are making decisions about women's health is "clueless and absurd." No, it isn't. Everybody participates in democracy, whether the issue directly affects them or not.### Human: > It's literally the exact same thing. Oh really? So are slaves literally parasites attached to their slave owners that they are forced to sacrifice their bodily autonomy and nutrients to keep alive? It's literally not the same thing... at all. When I refer to the vested interest of slave owners, it's for their own greedy, immoral and selfish benefit. With mothers, the vested interest comes from the pro-choice position (which is a lot more morally grey than a slave owner). Yes, fetuses can be male by all means. And I'm not saying there's a quota on how many should be there; but there is a large amount of ignorance in having literally zero. If this issue affected men and women equally, then it might, but it affects females disproportionately.### Assistant: >Oh really? So are slaves literally parasites attached to their slave owners that they are forced to sacrifice their bodily autonomy and nutrients to keep alive? It's literally not the same thing... at all. I said the structure of it is exactly the same, because it is. There is no reason to give all of the say to women just because they are more directly involved. The only reason you're saying that is because you AGREE with them, so you don't see the inherent problem in what you're saying. From my point of view they're doing something immoral to an innocent human, so why on earth would I let them have all the say in doing so? Again, it is no different from the slavery example. >When I refer to the vested interest of slave owners, it's for their own greedy, immoral and selfish benefit. With mothers, the vested interest comes from the pro-choice position (which is a lot more morally grey than a slave owner). I specifically said to leave the morality out of it since we disagree on it, and only look at the structure. You can't argue that only women should have a say because you don't think it's wrong, that's fallacious. >Yes, fetuses can be male by all means. And I'm not saying there's a quota on how many should be there; but there is a large amount of ignorance in having literally zero. If this issue affected men and women equally, then it might, but it affects females disproportionately. I'm sorry but there is no logic in this position. Again, laws against slavery affect slave owners disproportionately, laws about progressive taxation affect the rich disproportionately, but you're not ok with leaving it up to them to decide, why? The only reason is you agree with pro-choice women, but you don't agree with slavery and you probably wouldn't agree with the rich person who votes on his own tax rate.
### Human: I believe the solution to solving our "economic crisis" is simply to tax the wealthy much more than we do now, CMV.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Implying they wouldn't just find different loopholes### Assistant: That's like saying, don't plug up the bigger holes on this sinking ship because there's probably smaller holes and we'll sink anyways. Not to say the US is a sinking ship, I think not doing something just because something else could happen isn't a good reason for inaction.### Human: I don't know what it's actually called, but I call that the "Garden of Eden" fallacy, and see it a lot. "If something would only partially fix the problem, why even bother?"### Assistant: Nirvana fallacy or perfect solution fallacy.
### Human: CMV: States like Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't have their caucuses/primaries earlier than the rest of the country.### Assistant: I'd point out that it makes things easier for less popular candidates, which is precisely what reddit seems to think is a great idea. It's difficult enough for say, Bernie Sanders to build up an infrastructure to get people to support him in just New Hampshire or Iowa. If he had to do it in all 50 states, he's completely screwed. In short, this would give more power to establishment candidates.### Human: that's a fair point, so I guess a better compromise would be a rotation of different states getting different priority at different times. I still don't think Iowa and New Hampshire should specifically get special treatment. EDIT: While I'm still not convinced that NH and IA deserve inherent special treatment, the idea that a staggered primary can help smaller candidates is something I hadn't considered. Have a delta. &#8710;### Assistant: The problem with a rotation is that interest, and activity, in the political sphere takes a lot of time and effort. People in New Hampshire and Iowa know their responsibility and most of them take it quite seriously. That is an institutional style knowledge and level of effort that would take generations to reproduce elsewhere. If the first primary and first caucus keeps moving around you will never get that institutional knowledge built up.### Human: As a nation, we could do with having a lot more of that interest throughout the country. Maybe the right way to go is to have a rotation among smaller states. You clearly can't accomplish the same thing with a first in the nation CA primary.### Assistant: That may work, but again without the culture of political involvement that NH and Iowa have you would lose all of the benefits and keep all of the negatives of the current system. At that point you may as well move to a voting system that doesn't require primaries.### Human: In the short term you're right, but I'm hoping longer term we could improve political involvement elsewhere and in the process diversify the political power held by those early states. Is this our biggest problem as a nation? No, but I think it could help.
### Human: CMV: I think women who care about how wealthy their romantic partners are irrationally and unfairly vilified.### Assistant: Having a preference of looks - blonde, tall, blah - is different than having a preference of wealth. If I like you cause you're tall, you're always going to be tall barring weird stuff. If I like you cause you're rich, what happens if you are not rich in the future? Your wealth could easily continue to rise or plummet, much more likely than someone becoming short all of a sudden... It's the equivalent of being shallow - I like you for one and only one feature. It just so happens to be that feature can easily change.### Human: I don't agree that's true. A blond person could dye or lose their hair. A tall person could be put in a wheelchair. And, it didn't really answer my question. Just because something's potentially fleeting, why is a preference for that bad? Also- I don't think most people would just up and leave the minute financial trouble sets in. Someone who's wealthy is much less likely to be poor in five years than someone who's poor right now. edit I just wanted to add, if someone is rich and has well diversified assets, etc. It seems to me they're just not very likely to suddenly lose all their money and be indigent. That's just not how it works.### Assistant: Being a gold digger though, that is when you are just in it for the money. If the minute financial trouble sets you bounce - that is the definition of gold digger...### Human: Right and I said in my post that I don't think those people exist, or they at least don't exist on a scale that upper middle class and upper class people need to constantly be terrified that they're being tricked. People are people, we get attached to each other.### Assistant: If those people didn't exist, the stereotype wouldn't exist either... I'm not disputing that wealth can be one of many preferences, but if that is all you look for it a partner, that is no different than a man just looking for a girl with huge knockers. You would consider the guy shallow, and a gold digger would also be considered shallow. If you've got a laundry list of preferences in a partner, yes I am completely on the same page as you.### Human: I would say that's a slightly shallow preference, yes. But I have lots of shallow preferences. I only like dudes with some chest hair, for example. I don't think huge knocker guy is, only because of that, a bad dude. And I'd assume that, from the pool of large breasted women, he's looking for one who he also loves and who is also a good match. :)### Assistant: That's the part we disagree with - that he wants big cans and someone who is a match. There are plenty of guys who will date anyone that puts out without caring about anything else. That is shallow. Just like if a girl wants to date a rich guy and doesn't care about anything else.### Human: I wasn't really talking about people who don't care about any other traits in their partners, I don't really believe those people exist. Even in an explicit "sugar baby" arrangement I think compatibility likely comes into play.### Assistant: I suppose, but that's what the term is referring to, at least in my mind.
### Human: CMV: We should start domesticating primates such as chimps and monkeys through selective breeding and genetic manipulation.### Assistant: [We already do selectively breed monkeys.](http://www.brainandspinalcord.org/blog/2012/03/29/non-profit-provides-monkey-helpers-disabled-individuals) They are selected and trained for helping quadriplegic and other disabled people with things. That said, not every species has a use. Domestication is expensive. And domestication is not always possible. [Animals must have 6 traits to be viable for domestication.](http://m.livescience.com/33870-domesticated-animals-criteria.html) Horses were domesticated. Yet attempts to domesticate zebras have failed because they are mean bastards. As cool as it would be to ride around on a stripey horse, it isn't financially or even biologically possible.### Human: Aren't the six traits more like predictors for which types of species have historically tended to be domesticated, rather than absolute rules for which species could be domesticated in the future? Like they note in that article, aggressiveness has been bred out of wolves. It seems plausible that some of those other obstacles could be bred out as well with sufficient time and effort.### Assistant: This is true. I guess my wording was bad. Not all animals can be domesticated. And of those that can, it isn't always easy.### Human: Artificial selection + time can theoretically domesticate anything. The question is whether or not it's worth investing the time.### Assistant: Maybe with advances in genetic engineering. But you cannot selectively breed for traits that do not already exist within a population. The desired gene variant(s) must be there already or you must rely on chance to present a random gene mutation and hope that you can catch it.### Human: You can, that's how evolution works. If you've got a spare thousand years or so you could domesticate any animal.### Assistant: That isn't how evolution works though... or domestication. Domestication means that a dominant species has taken control of the reproduction of another species to select for traits that benefit the dominant species as part of a mutualistic relationship. You may be able to grab random species and select for a random set of traits. But unless the resulting species has enough value that we are actually motivated to maintain that relationship, it isn't domestication. Just selective breeding. Evolution also does not cause genetic mutations that are desired. It just rewards ones that provide a fitness advantage. We can selectively breed dogs with the intention of getting dogs with wings. But that doesn't mean you'll ever get dogs with wings. Similarly, you can try to selectively breed cockroaches to be able to play fetch, but that doesn't mean you'll ever actually get a cockroach that can do that. You can selectively breed just about any animal you can keep in captivity. But that doesn't mean that any animal you can keep in captivity can be bred to be beneficial to humans to do so.### Human: First of all dogs with wings is a ridiculous example, we're talking about behaviour not physically changing the animals. Really stupid point to make. Secondly a cockroach is also a ridiculous example, mostly because they are not an animal they are an insect. However I'm convinced if you had a thousand years you could breed cockroaches that fetched things for food, they've learned all their other behaviour somehow it makes absolute sense they could adapt to learn a new behaviour if their species survival depended on it.### Assistant: >Secondly a cockroach is also a ridiculous example, mostly because they are not an animal they are an insect. Wow, words cannot express how much this peeves me. What do you think insects are? Fungi? Protozoa? I think it's safe to say you have no expertise on evolution or domestication if you don't even understand what an animal is!
### Human: I think the popular show The Big Bang Theory is the pinnacle of stupidity. CMV.### Assistant: The no laugh track videos are really stupid argument. If the show didn't have a laugh track they wouldn't have the long pauses. The actors purposely don't talk so that the lines are stepped on by laughing. A show like Seinfeld seems awkward when you remove the laugh track and it's considered one of the best comedies of all time. Also worst show of all time? Have you seen the shows that cancelled after 2 weeks? http://youtu.be/PHaGUq8LUbM### Human: I disagree when you compare Seinfeld as also being awkward without a laugh track. It might catch you off guard at first, since you are expecting it, but many of the jokes and slapstick humor, albeit a different, would (IMO) be [just as funny](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDYck1aEkxI). The issue with the Big Bang Theory laugh track is that it happens way too often, particularly for jokes that aren't remotely funny or witty. I get the feeling that the producers are trying to add filler since the writing doesn't add for a half-hour time slot. Not to mention, most of the humor in the show is referential. When someone on the show says "the cake is a lie", they rely too heavily on the viewer to go "Hey! I know that reference! I can't believe they mentioned that on TV!". People who don't like the show either don't get the references or expect the writing to be more creative and unexpected. People who DO like the show, enjoy the references and the show being structured around these references. If a show can somehow capture both audiences, then I would definitely be interested.### Assistant: The thing I hated about BBT is that the show seems to want nerds as its audience (thus all the references) but then spends half its time mocking the main characters for being nerds. Half the jokes seem to be along the lines of, "Nerd reference! You should laugh because I mentioned something you think not everyone is going to get!" while the other half seem to be, "Look how pathetic and socially awkward these fuckin' nerds are!"### Human: > while the other half seem to be, "Look how pathetic and socially awkward these fuckin' nerds are!" [Here's a decent essay on that very topic](http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-problem-with-the-big-bang-theory)### Assistant: Thanks for the link! That essay put my feelings about TBBT into much more eloquent terms. It took me most of the first season to figure out how I felt about that show, but since then, I've never watched it again.### Human: I always thought the first seasons was decent enough. The self deprecating humor, as mentioned above, was just fine; I don't have a problem with that. However, after its popularity skyrocketed with the non-nerd crowd, it started pandering to them instead of its initial base, and the show went downhill quickly.
### Human: CMV: I'm seriously considering leaving the Sci-Fi/Fantasy Con Community.### Assistant: Have you considered that these night be problems inherent with large conventions of most recreational varieties, and not problems specific to this subculture?### Human: There aren't a lot of cons outside of the sci-fi/fantasy/gaming fanbase so it's admittedly hard to compare. (I think Anime and Comics as being part of that.) CostumeCon, GlamorCon and the historic societies have events that might be considered small cons. I've never heard of issues in those venues, ever. I've also never heard of a straight steampunk con having an issue either. But of course, that's comparing seven or eight events to a couple hundred, so the sample size is notably off.### Assistant: Additionally, how often do you find yourself going to con's for things that don't interest you? Because there is probably some confirmation bias going on. You are far more likely to notice the negative aspects of a con you attended than one you didn't.### Human: I was actually really interested in CostumeCon for several years and hung onto reports and blog posts, etc. So I agree I haven't gone to the other event. But I did notice some seriously negative aspects of CostumeCon that have nothing to do with the issues in SciFi/Fantasy cons and decided ultimately not to spend my money on that con.### Assistant: What negative issues have you heard about CostumeCon? Every time I've gone it's been a fabulous experience.### Human: Sorry, I meant "Costume College." Typoed there. Not costume con. Sorry about that.### Assistant: Well consider checking out CostumeCon if you're into the costume side of things. It's a small mobile con, out on by the International Costuming Guild every year. 2015 is in South Carolina. http://cc33charleston.org/wp/
### Human: CMV: I see no reason why men's and women's chess are separate events.### Assistant: I think the motivation for women only events is to encourage women to see chess as a game they can play. If you have a sport dominated by men it can be difficult to get women interested in it early on. It's not sexism or anything, it's just a sort of marketing technique for the sport. You mentioned that women do compete successfully in top flight tournaments with men. I assume all the top flight tournaments are open to both men and women? If so, this would be consistent with the marketing idea. Is there any 'men only' events in chess? I would guess it's not that there's a men's chess event and a women's chess event, rather there's a tournament event open to everyone and a marketing event for women.### Human: That betrays a very low view of women.### Assistant: How so?### Human: The idea that women should be catered to in this way is to hold women to a very low standard.### Assistant: That's a weird way to look at it. I would say the fact that tournament organisers are willing to run an entirely separate tournament just to try and attract women to the sport shows they value women very highly.### Human: I didn't say that it didn't indicate that they valued the presence of women. Consider the Rwandan genocide. Would it be reasonable to blame the genocide solely on the U.S. or France for lack of intervention? No; because that would inherently suppose that the Hutu murderers were not responsible for their actions. It would be to hold them to a lesser standard of ethical reasoning. Implying that women need to be hemmed in solely with other women in order to feel comfortable is to hold women to a low standard of integrity; it is to treat them as though they were babyish and incapable of dealing with reality.### Assistant: >Implying that women need to be hemmed in solely with other women in order to feel comfortable is to hold women to a low standard of integrity; it is to treat them as though they were babyish and incapable of dealing with reality. Well I don't think I've made that argument or implied it. The argument I've made is that it functions as a marketing technique to raise awareness and attract women to chess by providing examples of women playing chess. It's not about catering to women already playing chess, it's about making the women not playing chess play it.### Human: >it's about making the women not playing chess play it. Do you know how terrible that sounds? You want to make women do something that they don't want to do?### Assistant: What!? How did you get that impression... that's really twisting my words. Marketing doesn't force people to do anything they don't want to; it raises awareness and attempts to attract people.### Human: >Marketing doesn't force people to do anything they don't want to That's debatable.
### Human: CMV: The protesters in Oregon are what the Second Amendment looks like when it's used to protect the populace from tyranny.### Assistant: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3zjiom/the_armed_oregon_ranchers_who_want_free_land_are/cymmuwh This is comment from a news article posted on Reddit. It basically points out these guys just want more money and for the rules not to apply to them. This isn't stopping tyranny, its about trying to strong arm people to get what you want. Often called extortion.### Human: isnt that what the king of England wanted from the colonies when we rebelled? We had a problem with the taxes...### Assistant: Only taxation without representation. The Colonies did not have representation in Parliament and did not have the same voice to redress grievances as someone from an English county did. The American Revolution tells the tale of scrappy colonists rebelling against an unjust king, but it was Parliament that set the taxation, not George III. However, the Founding Fathers wanted to establish a parliament of their own and so focused their propaganda against the king and not the democratic aspect of the English government, even though that was the source of their anger. These current patriots have a vote and therefore can exercise that vote. They can also petition the government as full citizens (something the colonials could not do), assemble peacefully without the treat of violence, publish statements publicly about their perceived mistreatment... basically exercise their FIRST amendment rights like the rest of us. The fact that they have lasted more than an hour in a federal building actually proves that the government is not tyrannical. It demonstrates that the government has no motivation to slaughter its own citizens in order to control resources. If the government were in a tyrannical mode against this group, a single drone strike would probably finish their little armed protest. There are plenty of uncooperative, antisocial, selfish people out there that think being treated equally under the law is the same as being oppressed. Honestly, if the Bundys had the legal proof that the government illegally seized land from them, why not go through the courts and settle it? So I can only assume that they do not have proof and that this is little more than economically motivated bullying.### Human: The average citizen today has about as much representation as those from 1776. Effectively none.### Assistant: There should be more representatives in the house. The last time there was a significant change in the number of representatives was 1913. It was about 1 rep / 225,000 citizens. Now it's about three times that. It would be much easier to lobby your rep if they represented fewer people.
### Human: CMV: The republicans have no good ideas for this country.### Assistant: There are plenty of things you would agree with Republicans on. The ideas you listed are common in this sort of debate because they are the most egregious differences in position. [GOP Bills](http://www.gop.gov/bills-by-congress/)### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: We probably aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this one and really it's a whole other ball of wax, but the only issue I generally agree with Republicans and disagree with Democrats on is gun control. In most cases I don't see the benefit of further gun control in the US short of eradicating firearms en masse (which I don't think is beneficial overall even if it would reduce gun crime and is impractical anyway). It seems to be the only right where the Republicans take the most open interpretation of the constitution and the only one where Democrats insist on taking the most limiting interpretation. However I think that in both cases each party is mostly just pandering to their base on this particular issue so I'm not sure it even makes sense to put much thought or discussion into it: by and large Democrats are going to be in trouble at the polls if they ever give up on stronger gun controls and Republicans are going to be in trouble if they ever accept stronger gun controls. In all other cases that I disagree with Democrats I also disagree as much or more with the Republican position on the subject.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: > the gun deaths we are seeing are not worth the cost of following the second amendment, which is no longer applicable This is actually the crux of my problem with Democrats on the issue. There seems to be no attempt to actually change the constitution. If, in fact, the second amendment really is obsolete then there should be a new constitutional amendment to repeal it. You can't just decide that part of the constitution is not relevant anymore and start passing laws ignoring it.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: But there are things that Republicans disagree with in the constitution too. Are you saying you're ok with Republicans making voting laws that are counter to the 15th amendment because it's hard to change the constitution?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: But you're not exclusively saying sane laws should be added, you just said the 2nd amendment is obsolete and that gun rights aren't worth the deaths we have. If all you were proposing were sane laws the 2nd amendment wouldn't even be a factor here. Republicans would also call voting rights limitations such as requiring certain types of IDs sane laws too, by the way. > They even recognized this by even making it changeable. Yes! Exactly! So change it, don't try to circumvent it! If you can't change it then you should accept that the populace has failed to reach the same conclusion as you on the matter of whether or not the 2nd amendment really is obsolete and stop trying to stepping-stone your way to violating it via small changes to gun laws that aren't very effective anyway.
### Human: CMV:Anything short of full compliance with the Brexit referendum would end the legitimacy of British democracy### Assistant: There's been a lot of people suggesting that such an important vote should probably go to a super majority in order to pass. 2/3's or at least a 60% vote. The vote came in at around 51-52%. This means that the difference between staying and leaving came within 2-4%. Such a close tie is fairly indecisive, particularly when it comes to a decision that has already tanked the current value of the pound, and will likely result in a difficult decade of having to re-establish trade deals that Britain already had as a part of the EU. The politicians who argued to leave have already admitted they had no real plans for what to do if the vote passed... as it stands the best thing the UK could do would be to delay this decision until the next election cycle and see how the people vote for their MP's. I get the feeling that once the gravity of the situation sets in, a lot of that 2-4% will have changed their mind. The other thing to consider is... England basically fucked up on the behalf of the entire UK. Scotland almost unanimously voted to remain in the EU, and so did much of Wales. If anything, pushing forward with the referendum would probably do more damage to British democracy, as I think you'd see and are already likely to see strong pushes from the other nations of the UK to finally gain full independence from England.### Human: Wales and England had [similar percentages](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results) (BBC source) for remain/leave, so it's more that England and Wales screwed over NI and Scotland.### Assistant: You could also say it's the old screwing the young who were 75% Remain. http://bgr.com/2016/06/24/brexit-vote-results-age-generation-uk/### Human: It looks like the 18-25 turnout was about 33%. They've only got themselves to blame.### Assistant: Judging statistics like you would judge an individual is irrational. You must look at why a certain demographic acted in a particular way. Did they lack faith in the process? If yes why? Were they disinterested by the issue? If yes why? And so on. Social dynamics aren't a group of people throwing a tantrum.### Human: But it's ok to judge the pensioners all together, right?### Assistant: I am talking about all demographics. You judge a demographic with different standards than those you would use for judging an individual, that's all.
### Human: CMV: Flying any form of Confederate Battle Flag or remembering the CSA in any positive light is an incredibly seditious and unpatriotic gesture. It is glorifying the single greatest existential threat to the -United- States of America and its ideals.### Assistant: A quick question. Bill Clinton's campaign for president touted a button with a Confederate battle flag for the "sons of the new south." Would you be willing to call this action by Bill Clinton seditious and unpatriotic? From a completely abstract viewpoint, do you believe that all good and evil in the world is absolute? If you do not, you must understand that there is something to be learned from why a movement occurred. There is a reason to study and understand the viewpoints of both sides and understand on a deeper level what drove people to do certain things. Were they completely insane and murderous? Or were they just trying to feed their family? Or maybe a mix of both? The Confederacy was, by majority, a group of people who were not slave owners but had a bunch of people who lived 1000 miles away trying to tell them how they should be governed. The federal government wasn't what it is today. It was smaller and had much less power. You had a federal government that was trying to dictate what seemed to many to be issues granted to states in the 10th amendment. The south favored a structure more closely linked to the original articles of confederation than a strong autonomous federal government. Did this make them morally or economically right? No. Does it mean you should label everything Confederate seditious and unpatriotic? No.### Human: > A quick question. Bill Clinton's campaign for president touted a button with a Confederate battle flag for the "sons of the new south." Would you be willing to call this action by Bill Clinton seditious and unpatriotic? Oh hell yes. That's disgusting. I would never vote for a Clinton. > The Confederacy was, by majority, a group of people who were not slave owners but had a bunch of people who lived 1000 miles away trying to tell them how they should be governed Sure this is true. But the war was ultimately about slavery. And what's more, even if it weren't, they engaged in sedition.### Assistant: > And what's more, even if it weren't, they engaged in sedition. Which wasn't illegal until 1869 via Texas v White. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White### Human: Yeah but like, putting your hand in the garbage disposal and turning it on is legal too. That doesn't mean its not idiotic and besides its a vile act against the dignity of a country. The south lost its faith in America, the North protected it.### Assistant: This is all just hyperbole and isn't an argument for why they are traitors. The southern states democratically voted to leave the union. There was no legal framework at the time that said they couldn't leave.### Human: This is fine if you're willing to concede that the South lost faith in America. If you can reconcile that with patriotism, then maybe my view is changed.### Assistant: > This is fine if you're willing to concede that the South lost faith in America. Clearly they did. That's why they seceded and at the time it was not considered illegal. >If you can reconcile that with patriotism, then maybe my view is changed. Good then you owe me a delta.### Human: Wait wait wait. How does this reconcile with American patriotism? That's the missing step. If you lay this out, I will 100% give you deltas for days. I've yet to see a convincing argument for this.### Assistant: Because to many who fly the Confederate Flag they see the CSA as an institution that put the states before the Fed. They have a patriotic sense of respect for their state that comes before their support of the country as a whole. They did it for a stupid reason but their reasoning still stands.### Human: Hrmmmmm, this is fairrrrly close to a complete argument. It's definitely true, and its technically correct. But I'm not really sure if this is what I meant with my original question. What you're saying: It's patriotic to them because they associate it with these positive aspects of American Identity. (positive thing to me) But its still objectively unpatriotic because its supporting a treasonous and seditious effort. I think I technically have to give you the !Delta, but its annoying to me because other people tried way harder than you to convince me and you're only technically correct I feel.### Assistant: First I owe you an apology. I accused you of not not being open to changing your view in a previous comment and I was wrong. > But its still objectively unpatriotic because its supporting a treasonous and seditious effort. See my earlier comment about Texas v White. To the south they had legally and democratically left the Union. To the north they had never left but had no legal backing to support their claim till after the war. Calling them traitors doesn't hold up.### Human: Fine, take the delta lol. You're right but I still hate them. Maybe I'll work on that too, but maybe its not worth working on since they also abused people so thoroughly. This is complicated and makes me unhappy.
### Human: CMV: Political party leaders resigning after a 'failure' in a national election is ultimate proof that they were only interested in power the whole time.### Assistant: Don't you think its more bowing down and accepting the public (the people who didn't vote for you) has little confidence in you as a leader, so time to pave the way for someone new and hopefully more successful? A political parties aim, as a whole, is more power to do that which they think is right. If, at the top, you are a hindrance rather than a help, moving back into a backseat permission and bringing in a new leader can be more helpful to your party in the long run. On top of that, if it was really just a power play, then surely they'd remain at the head of their respective party? Where else are they going to have as much or more power than they already do? Stepping down from the top spot is a relinquishing of power, which would run counter to your idea that all they desire is more power.### Human: This makes sense at face value. But the leadership of a party, especially an opposition party, is supposed to be determined within the party not the by the entire nation (who absolutely should have say in the leader of the government party). By losing the election a leader of an opposition party should be glad that the nation still got what the nation wanted even if it wasn't what the party wanted or what the party leader wanted.### Assistant: If you fall short of your aims as heavily as ukip (Farage failing to take South Thanet), the lib dems (down to 8 seats) and labour (believing they were on course to come out ahead of the tories while actually coming ~100 seats behind), your only real recourse is to quit now or face no confidence from your party (this may not be the case in Farage's cases, i'm sure he'll be back). >But the leadership of a party, especially an opposition party, is supposed to be determined within the party not the by the entire nation Yes, absolutely, and the party will invariably choose the person they think will appeal to the public the most, so in essence they are absolutely chosen with respect to the nation (apart from the greens, weird choice in Natalie bennet, when Lucas is so prominent). >By losing the election a leader of an opposition party should be glad that the nation still got what the nation wanted even if it wasn't what the party wanted or what the party leader wanted. I don't agree with this. Yes, they should be happy that they live in a democracy, but happy that the nation chose something against their political beliefs (that i'll give politicians the benefit of the doubt on and say that they probably do personally believe are the best course for the country)? Should a Green politician be happy that the nation is predominantly right-wing? This doesn't make sense. And as i said before, On top of that, if it was really just a power play, then surely they'd remain at the head of their respective party? Where else are they going to have as much or more power than they already do? Stepping down from the top spot is a relinquishing of power, which would run counter to your idea that all they desire is more power. I, however, am not incredibly knowledgeable on this whole shebang, so if anyone wants to CMV and earn themselves a shiny delta please do!### Human: &#8710; /u/BroLific_Broster You have understood my thoughts better than a lot of this topic's responders who have commented saying that resigning after a failure is simply 'the done thing' in many different (and sometimes flowery) ways. So I firstly appreciate that you read my post. > > By losing the election a leader of an opposition party should be glad that the nation still got what the nation wanted even if it wasn't what the party wanted or what the party leader wanted. > I don't agree with this. Yes, they should be happy that they live in a democracy, but happy that the nation chose something against their political beliefs ^ this is where I saw that you understood my view. > Should a Green politician be happy that the nation is predominantly right-wing? This doesn't make sense. ^ this where you changed my view. I am the kind of voter who chooses to vote based on my representative in the House of Commons regardless of which party they are attached to and weather I think that they will be opposition or government - As long as my voice as a citizen will be heard then I am content. What you have made me realise better is that the 'personality' of a political party (which I largely choose to be ignorant of when voting, another topic for another time I guess) is important to the party and the party leader. They have to enforce the values which are unique to the party and failing to win the position of government affects that mission greatly--I know this is clearly obvious for many, but this was a personal discussion for me and some other people who are open to voting differently at each election. I would still hold that a 'failing' party leader should wait long enough to find a new nominee to their position before resigning and to give their opinions on why the next guy or gal will be different and better than themselves, there is no excuse to prevent or discourage clear constant improvement when dealing with the welfare of an entire nation, even if it is from beyond the spotlight. It was judgemental of me to assume that immediate resignation meant insecure leadership or vision on the part of the leader. Every action has a context, and while it was painfully obvious what a lot of it was, I happen to be the kind of voter who doesn't pay attention to that sort of thing.### Assistant: Hey, thanks a lot man, I appreciate it. I'm really glad I helped! >I am the kind of voter who chooses to vote based on my representative in the House of Commons regardless of which party they are attached to and weather I think that they will be opposition or government - As long as my voice as a citizen will be heard then I am content. Ideally, everyone in the country should vote this way, but it's a sad reality that many people ignore their local contenders altogether and just vote along party lines. I would still hold that a 'failing' party leader should wait long enough to find a new nominee to their position before resigning and to give their opinions on why the next guy or gal will be different and better than themselves, there is no excuse to prevent or discourage clear constant improvement when dealing with the welfare of an entire nation, even if it is from beyond the spotlight. I don't know for sure, but do you think that (in the case where the failure was as abysmal as Labour's and Lib Dem's was this time around) any vote of confidence or implicit favour by the previous head of the party towards a possible candidate could 'taint' that candidates image, in the eyes of the public, if it were in the spotlight, or in the eyes of the party if it were a completely private affair? Maybe the immediate step down is a sort of "I'm out, any future leader has their own path to follow which my reputation will not affect?" Although, for what it's worth, I don't think immediate resignation is a good thing, but recusing oneself from the selection process altogether I do agree with. >for me ... who [is] open to voting differently at each election. This is a very good thing. I think it's way too common for people to fall into a cycle of voting for one party, regardless of how poor their personal representative may be or the national leadership of the party, simply because "the opposition is surely worse," when, if they had simply tried to understand the other parties, they may well find themselves agreeing with the philosophy or local manifesto of another parties candidate/s. All in all a very interesting CMV, so thank you for giving me the catalyst to really think about this topic myself.
### Human: CMV: An NFL player is better off in the long term health wise and money wise if they tear their ACL and miss a season instead of playing every game.### Assistant: It doesn't matter if you get the money from your team for your existing contract, if you are injured permanently you are not going to get another contract or endorsement deal.### Human: Yep so would you rather just get the money from your first contract but with a torn ACL Or Get 3 contracts worth 10 million more than your first one but you get CTE?### Assistant: I'm confused this is about your view not mine, what does this would you rather have to do with your view?### Human: Career ending knee injury after 3 seasons is better than a 15 year career 3 yr career is less money but still a lot compared to average American, plenty to have a good life if invested properly. 15 yr career may lead to more fame, money and professional success but you pay for it with CTE### Assistant: It's important to recognize that the value of a career may extend beyond money, depending on perspective. For you, as a non-professional athlete, it makes more sense to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible and get out while preserving health. However, you have to consider that these are competitors of the highest level, people who have committed their lives to the practice and pursuit of top tier skill. For some people, the money might be enough. But for a lot of them, the ability to compete and beat other people not to mention setting records or whatever else is their primary concern. Imagine spending your whole like training to be a surgeon, then breaking your fingers and being told you can never work again. Yeah, your life gets a lot more relaxed without the surgeon's schedule, but now you have years and years of training and skill that's wasted. That kind of dissatisfaction can seriously affect your life from that point forward.### Human: !delta you are correct in mentioning the love of the game aspect, it's just like you said hard for me to grasp doing something that is going to make the last two thirds of my life suck, there are other ways to compete and also other ways to find self worth and satisfaction. !delta### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/YoungSerious ([8∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/YoungSerious)). ^[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": "YoungSerious" } DB3PARAMSEND)
### Human: CMV: Hillary is going to have a hard time generating support among minority males.### Assistant: > In short, I think minority (Black and Hispanic) males are going to be a much weaker voting base for Clinton than they were for Obama because these cultures are still relatively more sexist. Sexism tends to be more prevalent in poorer communities with less access to education. I see two issues with this: 1) Do you have any study showing that minority males are far more likely to be sexist than white males? Even if there is a small disparity, is it large enough to make a difference when it comes to elections? 2) There are other issues that people consider when casting a vote. If a person is poor and reliant on food stamps and welfare, are they going to avoid voting against a candidate that promises to cut those benefits just because the other candidate is a woman? Would minorities vote for a candidate that pledges to stop affirmative action just because he is a man? Even if they avoid voting altogether, it still helps the other candidate by denying votes to their opponent. It seems like even if a person is sexist, not many are so extreme that they would vote against their own best interests because of it.### Human: 1) No study - I can't find research on this through Google either way, which is part of why I asked to have my view changed. But even if everyone is equally sexist, the issue for Clinton is still largely going to be about minority males, since white males aren't really hers to lose. 2) I think people, especially poor people, are often not informed well enough to vote in their best economic interest. Why poor people ever vote Republican has been one of the enduring mysteries of American politics - but they do. So I think issues of candidate image tend to be very important and can often matter more than the issues.### Assistant: [Here is a recent poll by Gallup](http://www.gallup.com/poll/182081/hillary-clinton-retains-strong-appeal-american-women.aspx?utm_source=ELECTION_2016&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles) showing that even though men across all demographics have a lower opinion of Hillary compared to women, 59% of nonwhite men find her favorable compared to 37% of non-Hispanic white men.### Human: &#8710; That's compelling and shifts the burden of proof for me and changes my view in part. Thanks. However, there are two things here that aren't totally clear. 1) how would non-Hispanic white men rate the favorability of male Democratic candidates (i.e., do they dislike Clinton for being a woman or do they dislike all Democrats?) and 2) how would nonwhite men rate a male Democratic alternative? For example, [Obama won 93% of Blacks and 73% Hispanics in 2012](http://www.businessinsider.com/voting-by-sex-age-race-money-and-education-2012-11). So if Clinton is down at 59% in this demo, that represents a significant decline, which is arguably due to gender/sexism. [And Obama won 37.5% of white men in 2012.](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2012/1107/Election-results-2012-Who-won-it-for-Obama-video) So, there's really been no change in white male support when you switch from Obama to Clinton. So sexism does seem to still play a bigger role in minority male voting patterns - but you are correct that I am underestimating the power of party lines here. If you asked me when I wrote this, I would not have guessed Clinton had even 59% among minority males. So I still think my main concern with Clinton is valid, and still potentially election-deciding, but not to the same degree I thought a couple hours ago.### Assistant: > So I still think my main concern with Clinton is valid, and still potentially election-deciding, but not to the same degree I thought a couple hours ago. First, you are making an inference from a poll on favorability to predicting voting behavior. This is not necessarily a valid inference to make. Second, you are completely discounting people who had a neutral opinion of Hillary, which I'll get to in a moment. Third, comparing Obama's race totals to Hillary's race+gender totals is not an apples-to-apples comparison. In 2012, Obama had a +7 advantage among white women vs. men, +9 among black women vs. men, and +11 among hispanic women versus men. Let's assume that everyone who is favorable to Hillary will vote for Hillary, and everyone unfavorable will vote Republican. Obama, with his particular mix of support, won 51-47. If I plug in Hillary's numbers, assuming the same voter distribution that was present in the 2012 election, the vote distribution ends up being Hillary 50.72% and Republican 39.47%. So even if we assume that 0 people vote third party/other, and that 100% of everyone who is neutral about Hillary vote for the Republican, she ends up winning 51% to 49%. Those aren't particularly realistic assumptions; for example, 18% of nonwhite men had no opinion on Hillary....but so did 19% of nonwhite women (compare to ~7% for whites). It isn't realistic to assume that 100% of those two groups will break Republican. If we divide out the neutrals based on the distribution of favorable to unfavorable, Hillary ends up winning 56% to 44%. Importantly, she would do so with 72% of the nonwhite male vote. While that would be down from 76% of Obama's share of the nonwhite male vote, it's not practically a large difference, and certainly isn't "election-deciding". From the data you've presented, there's no reason to believe that your view is correct in any meaningful way. (Obama's exit polling data source: http://www2.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls)### Human: I agree comparing favorability with results isn't perfect, but [that is how this issue is discussed](http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2015/04/will_african_american_voters_show_up_for_hillary_clinton.html) because we can't really do better at this juncture. You're right I used the wrong data on Obama. Thanks for noticing that. The best I could find when looking again was [this](http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.VSrlVtzF98E), which would work out to about 76% support among Blacks and Hispanics when weighted for group size, so I agree with you there. That's still a fair bit more than Clinton's 59%. And I think I had the Kerry comparison correct, compared to whom she is still behind. I don't think you can assume that the Republicans only get the unfavorable on Clinton people to vote for them. Also, the total population vote doesn't matter in the electoral college system. Only how this will shake out in certain key states. I don't see where you get 72% nonwhite men voting for Clinton.### Assistant: > That's still a fair bit more than Clinton's 59%. Again, your assumption that only those who have a favorable, as opposed to neutral, view will vote for Hillary is not realistic. We have no reason to assume Hillary neutrals will all be Republicans, and there's certainly no evidence that they'd vote for a third party. >I don't think you can assume that the Republicans only get the unfavorable on Clinton people to vote for them. You are the one who is attempting to use favorability to gauge electoral support. That's the only proxy that we have for people actively supporting the Republican candidate. It isn't reasonable, in this discussion, to assume that people with a favorable opinion of Hillary are disproportionately likely to defect than those who have an unfavorable opinion. Thus, if we are going to use favorability polls as a way of gauging support, we have to lay down some ground rules, and "favorable = votes, unfavorable = anti-votes" seems reasonable. But if you want, propose some different rules and we can do the math. >Also, the total population vote doesn't matter in the electoral college system. Only how this will shake out in certain key states. But do you see how you keep tacking on assumptions to save your position? At this point, you are assuming that a significant percentage of Hillary favorables vote Republican, that ALL Hillary neutrals vote Republican, that there are no people who view her unfavorably that vote for her, and that her eroded support concentrates in as-yet unidentified battleground states. Essentially, we're just assuming you are correct to prove you are correct. That's not compelling. >I don't see where you get 72% nonwhite men voting for Clinton. The Gallup poll linked suggests 59% of nonwhite men have a favorable view of Clinton, while 23% do not. .59+.23 = 0.82 have an opinion, 1-0.82=0.18 do not have an opinion (they are neutral). We have to do something with these neutrals in this analysis. It isn't perfect, but we can distribute them proportionately according to what we already know about the distribution of favorable versus unfavorable (or, put another way, "what is the distribution of favorability among people who have an opinion?"). That distribution for nonwhite men is 72% favorable, 28% unfavorable. (.59+(.72*.18=0.1296)=0.7196=~72%, if we want to be redundant). Again, this isn't a perfect way to model support, but our alternate is to simply ignore neutrals altogether. If we do that, then we still come to the same result: 72% of nonwhite men who have an opinion of Hillary have a favorable opinion, versus 23% who do not. The problem that this illustrates is the difficulty comparing favorability ratings to votes. In a general election, the closest analog of a "neutral" is someone who doesn't vote. But we discount those people when talking about electoral support, for obvious reasons, so there isn't a clean way to compare Hillary's neutrals with data on how people actually voted. What you are doing, which is completely unreasonable, is to say that 100% of neutrals will ultimately vote against Hillary. 18% of the nonwhite men, who have no opinion on her, will vote Republican. 19% of the nonwhite women, who have no opinion of her, will vote Republican. All of them. This is not a reasonable way to model the behavior of neutrals. Then you say "Ah, see, then her 51% popular vote leads her to lose because we're also assuming she is less popular in battleground states!". That is also not reasonable, especially since the last Presidential election for which we have data had 51% translating into a significant electoral vote margin.### Human: &#8710; Ok I understand your point better now and worth a delta for making me understand the poll better, which further reduces how significant this effect will be. The more I consider this, I think I was never terribly concerned about the minorities who do vote swinging right. My main concern is really about turnout. Will non-passionate minority men feel connected enough to a white female candidate to actually get to the polling station? I'm still very uncertain about that.### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/435354. [^435354's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/435354) ^\| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)
### Human: I think the idea of: "males with long hair appear unprofessional or 'dirty'" is outdated and holds prejudice. CMV### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Haha, yes. Im not a smelly overweight guy with an over grown mullet. I do a lot of skateboarding, and am also very particular about my appearance. I just happen to like my hair long. I am fully aware of the image people get of long hair guys.### Assistant: How often do you get it trimmed?### Human: I added to the self text, images of guys with similar "man buns." Well, I recently started this, maybe in May. I plan to get my hair like [Avan Jogia's](http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/30500000/Avan-avan-jogia-30510111-457-594.jpg). We have extremely similar hair. In the meantime, it is tied back neatly. Once it starts getting past mid-neck, ill snip it up a bit.### Assistant: You don't get it trimmed? You probably have tons of split ends. Trims are vital to the health of your hair and it'll look bad if you don't get them taken care of. Get it trimmed about every 3 months. You don't need to get any length off, just cut off the ends. It will look much better. There's a reason why women with long hair still go to a stylist every few months.### Human: I have coarse, wavy hair. It's very healthy, I don't really have any split ends.### Assistant: If your last trim was in May, you have split ends. Doesn't really matter how healthy your hair is. Healthy hair still gets split ends. Even if you think it looks great now, it'll look a bit better after a trim.### Human: You sound experienced. Haha, I guess I'm not. So, a trim?### Assistant: Ask for a trim. Make sure the hairdresser knows you are trying to grow out your hair. They will know what to do.
### Human: CMV: Even if he wanted to, I don't think Kim Jong-Un could simply release prisoners from NK concentration camps.### Assistant: The prisons are designed to be a tool for thought control. So arguing that removing a tool for that control would weaken it is like setting up a CMV for, if you removed all hammers nails would be harder to use. This isn't really a view to be changed, its simply a statement of fact.### Human: You're missing the point, and not directly contradicting his argument. Op is saying "actions of dear leader are infallible, but talking back those actions would be admitting the fallibility." You're missing the point being distracted by the specifics. Op is obviously wrong, because it happens all the time in cults and religions. Look at slavery/rape/murder and morality of Christians throughout time. Morals and beliefs change as the cultural landscape of the people in the culture change, not the cult or religion themselves (although some teachings may be more antagonistic, but this is off topic). If the current leader announced, "we don't need these anymore." Then it is so. It wasn't that the previous leaders were wrong, it is that they were needed then, but not now. The infallibility sticks to the decision by definition. Similar to cognitive dissonance with the infallibility of God.### Assistant: Yes you make a good point. I can see how it would be possible to change face with a regime such as NK. But to continue on that thought, if Kim Jong-Un could pardon all prisoners, why doesn't he? What is Kim Jong-Un's personal gain from torturing innocents? One argument may be that he continues the camps in order to maintain the cult of personality, but you have suggested that this isn't the case, and I can accept that. So we may disregard that motive for keeping the camps open. Another argument may be he keeps the camps open for free labor, but it seems as though the regime can easily get labor elsewhere, so I don't think that is a motive for keeping the camps. I think maybe the biggest motive for keeping the camps open would be to instill a sense of fear to the NK people. Is there a scenario where Kim Jong-Un could grant a godly pardon to everyone currently in the camps, but still make others fear the camps? Additionally, should Kim shoulder all of the ethical responsibility? I think you are giving a good argument, but it would be interesting to expand upon why Kim Jong-Un keeps the camps open if he can simply give a godly pardon to all prisoners.### Human: Asking "why doesn't he close them?" Is different than your original argument. I'm only arguing "could they be simply closed?" If he keeps them locked up, it shows how little he values human life, so it would seem that he could kill them quite easily. But that isn't to say that he could send them to a different country too. Regular life in NK seems quite unlikely to me. So with the release or deaths of the victims, this would negate assassination attempts by those members but probably not family members. So, because of how information is controlled, he would have to mitigate family from knowing of their loved ones deaths or disappearances, maybe by coming up with another excuse, like they died in battle against American scum. It would absolutely be easy to do because of how little their public is informed, and how uneducated and malnourished they are.### Assistant: > Asking "why doesn't he close them?" Is different than your original argument. I'm only arguing "could they be simply closed?" I mean, yes of course they could be closed. If he wanted to, Kim could just nuke his own country and the camps would technically become closed. But that's not really an interesting question. I'm trying to explore the morality of the situation. Are the atrocities at the camps Kim's burden to bear alone? There is no question that the camps could, technically speaking, be closed.### Human: I was editing when you posted. I'll repost so you see it: So finally to answer your other question, I think the dear leader thinks that he is probably doing the right thing, because his parents and grandparents were infallible after all. I assume he is as much indoctrinated as his father was, and his grandfather crazy. I mean, I'd probably believe I were their leader too if people were showering me with things and trusting me to make big decisions while calling me their leader. And if you're raised to think that those camps are perfectly moral, then why would you care when someone says they aren't? Especially if that's the last thing you want to deal with. Plenty more fun things to do and think about when you're rich. So in summary, I think it's indoctrination and distraction which makes the camps a non-issue for him and allows them to continue. And I appreciate the conversation you're trying to have, but I'm not sure you've structured your original post to reflect it. I've lost the premise of your argument now. Are you saying "the camps should be closed, CMV?" As a side note, one of the subreddit rules says that posts shouldn't be neutral...### Assistant: I'm just trying to have an interesting conversation. I'm not looking to win an argument are strictly follow every rule down to a tee.### Human: Oh ok. You might repost to /r/casualconversation then. It would probably cause less confusion.
### Human: CMV: Whether attraction, gender, or sexuality is a choice or not doesn't matter. It is every person's prerogative to make life decisions for themselves.### Assistant: If those things are really a choice, it weakens the case for protecting it. Gender identity and sexual orientation should be protected because they are intrinsic traits that you can't control. We shouldn't punish people for who they are. If you merely chose to do something, why should you be protected when you can just choose to do something more acceptable? The only reason you are lacking rights and protections would be by choice. Saying it's a choice can be used to make the case that it is some form of mental illness. It used to be that way until we got more evidence that it's part of one's nature.### Human: But that's just it- people shouldn't have to justify (or 'protect') themselves for doing something that harms nobody else. It's implicitly saying 'homosexuality is disgusting but these people are born that way, they can't help it, can't you find the magnamity in yourselves to let these people be?' rather than 'other people's sexuality and gender is none of your business, now go away' I'm not sure on the science of whether homosexuality is a choice (though I suspect it's not) but really arguing about whether it is distracts from the fact that even if it weren't, it'd still be acceptable.### Assistant: > But that's just it- people shouldn't have to justify (or 'protect') themselves for doing something that harms nobody else. By "protect", I mean a legally protected class. Choices have consequences. If you make the choice to get a face tattoo, an employer can discriminate against you even if it harms nobody. If you choose to wear an inflammatory shirt, a business can refuse to serve you. If you are choosing to do something people don't like, then people should have the right to not interact with you. The only exception to this is religion.### Human: why is religion an exception?### Assistant: Because of the constitution (at least in the US). I'm not saying it should be an exception, it just is.### Human: oh, well, that's ok then since i'm not American...
### Human: CMV: A country the size of the USA adding a universal healthcare is a financial decision not socialism### Assistant: Yeah I don't think you quite understand how health care policy works. The United States is not different in terms of whether or not it would cost more in taxes in the way you say. In small countries too "healthcare costs are unavoidable and will fall onto taxpayers". A socialized policy is one in which the government has control over paying for it - it is paid for by the government (edit: in the "socialized" sense). In that sense, if universal health care was paid for only by taxes, it would be a socialist policy, anywhere, including the United States. That being said, we have a lot of other socialist industries (education, police, fire, etc.) Also I think you're confusing what people would pay in taxes and what people in general will have to pay for health care. Right now in the US we pay more for health care in general than any other country, but a big chunk of that is through health care premiums, which is from private insurance plans. The single payer idea would be to increase taxes to pay for health care, but in the long run it would decrease the cost of health care per person in total. Edit: I should add the term used on health care for this is "socialized medicine". It's true typically socialism is used for whole regimes/economies, but it has since been used to talk about particular industries (started as a tactic by the right in the US, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine). Edit2: As others are saying, what socialized medicine really refers to isn't the government takeover of health care, but take over of the means of paying for it (so like the insurance industry), which actually isn't even "socialized" in an important sense.. Private health care providers would still exist. Plus, we should all probably get out of the business of calling universal coverage "socialized". As other people in this thread have repeatedly said, it's not socialism and creates stigma for universal coverage from government.### Human: How do you know that it would decrease costs per person? This is a serious question that you can't wave away by saying "oh, every other country have cheaper costs". To a first approximation, every dollar in healthcare costs in someone's paycheck. The only way to get healthcare costs down is to pay people less. A lot less. A junior doctor in Britain makes £22636, and his counterpart in the US would make several times there. Without massively cutting the pay of everyone in the system, you will never get costs down.### Assistant: You would at least save money on administrative costs. Only about 85% of the money that people pay for private insurance plans goes towards paying for health care. The rest goes towards costs for employees, offices, etc, as well as profits for shareholders. Most single payer plans in America would be an expansion of Medicare, in which about 95% of the money paid in goes towards healthcare. That is a clear and direct saving. Many studies confirm that--in addition to many other things--the US has a much higher average administrative cost than other countries. Our fragmented system and for-profit insurance companies surely contribute to this, and implementing a single payer system would likely reduce the per-person cost of care by creating a less fractured system and reducing the incentive for profits and thus investing in the infrastructure to perform profit-making tasks like denying individual claims. There are of course many other ways to reduce the cost of care. We could pay physicians less, and I think that has some merit. But there are many other sources of the increased cost in America. Company lobbying, increased drug prices, increased amount of care (potentially overtreatment), not enough smart preventative spending, the fractured nature of the system, the for-profit nature of insurers and some hospitals. The list goes on and on. Neither paying physicians less nor implementing a single-payer system will solve all of our cost problems by itself.### Human: How would you fight over treatment without an army of people at what amounts to an insurance company fighting with doctors to try to deny reimbursement?### Assistant: You set clear guidelines for what Medicare will and will not pay for, like it has now, and just enforce those, instead of fighting a case-for-case basis. Unfortunately, health care will always have to be rationed in some way. Right now the US rations quite a bit based on ability to pay. Some people think it makes more sense to ration based on guidelines set by experts. Personally, I saw a lady last week who may die in the next year from CHF unless she gets a valve transplant, but she can't come close to affording it and falls within the coverage gap in my state. She's relatively young but may die soon just because she doesn't have enough money. I'd like to see a system where that doesn't happen.### Human: >You set clear guidelines for what Medicare will and will not pay for, like it has now, and just enforce those, instead of fighting a case-for-case basis Well, the problem is, the doctors gets to say exactly what the patient needs, and and a lot of things is situational. Some people need more expensive care, and others less expensive care. You can't just pay to put everyone in ICU, because you will run out money in a hurry (and the patients probably won't benefit from extreme overtreatment). If you want to fight overtreatment, you have to fight on a case-by-case basis. > She's relatively young but may die soon just because she doesn't have enough money. I'd like to see a system where that doesn't happen. I don't particularly disagree with the moral argument, but any plans need to be realistic about costs.### Assistant: Look a little more into what goes into filing a Medicare insurance claim vs a private insurance claim. Of course you have to control costs, that's precisely what I'm saying. The fact remains that for-profit insurers spend a lot of money the take in on things unrelated to care because they have a financial incentive to do so. It's cheaper to pay for someone to review every minuscule detail of a case to find a reason to deny coverage than to pay for that coverage. It's important to spend money on personnel to figure out more ways to increase profit. Medicare, or non-profit insurers like some countries have, don't have that incentive and it's widely accepted that this leads to a larger portion of money paid toward those plans to go towards care. I'd encourage you to look at how other systems ration care and control administrative costs and compare them to the US. It's very interesting. This website is a good start: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
### Human: CMV. I believe “fat pride” is absolutely disgusting, offensive to everyone at a healthy weight, and deserves to be shamed at will.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: what is the general opinion on people who are fat due to sports (i powerlift and find it hard to maintain a low fat/bodyweight without seriously reducing my strength, which i need to compete next year in powerlifting, mma , and wrestling)### Assistant: Do you compete as a SHW in all of these sports, and are you actually competitive?### Human: plan to compete in college (school doesnt have teams for any of these and parents dont approve of mma). i do judo however, and lift heavily on my own (i could compete now/am competition ready if i was in a team.)### Assistant: What I asked was though: Do you plan to compete in the super heavy weight classes for any of these? Because if you don't, being leaner is going to benefit you in every single sports with a restricted weight class. Top ranked powerlifters, mixed martial artists, and wrestlers are all pretty lean except in the unrestricted weight classes (and even then, honestly).### Human: im goona stick to around 220 lbs. BW### Assistant: http://www.mattkroc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/kroc11.jpg He holds the world record for the total in the 220 pound weight class. Not exactly fat.### Human: He also happens to be a bodybuilder, but regardless it is hard to maintain low bodyfat percentages, extremely heavy weights such as him, etc.. without both being extremely gentically superior AND using gear (AAS etc..). He is a world record holder for a reason, maintaining my weight is what i need to do to continue to progress.
### Human: CMV: I find it hard to take MRA seriously### Assistant: I don't think there's much of an argument comparing feminism's accomplishments to MRA's. You are comparing an organization that has had 90 year's worth of time to an organization that has only been culturally relevant in the last 5. Also, arguing that the fact that they haven't accomplished much isn't relevant. It's a group of people who are (supposedly) fighting against an oppressive society and the fact that you don't see any headway from them could just as easily be attributed to the oppressive society. I think most people would agree that both camps are a pretty nebulous organization as far as ideologies are concerned. There are crazy militant people on both sides and both sides do a fair bit of complaining about the other. However, both movements have their benefits and creating feuding mentality doesn't help anyone.### Human: Feminism isn't an organization, it is a movement. That is like calling civil rights an organization. Apples to oranges.### Assistant: However you prefer to conceptualize them I think comparing the two is far from apples and oranges. They are both ideologies being furthered by a semi organized group of people looking to enact social, political, and legislative change.### Human: Are there currently multiple fractures of MRA's? Trans-radical MRA's? 2nd Wave? 3rd wave? Etc. Feminists are not a "semi organized group of people." A feminist is simply anyone who believes men and women should be equal; they are no monolith and are not at all organized as a whole (the author of Twilight claims to be a feminist, and many feminists hate Twilight). Calling feminists a semi-organized group of people is like calling Christians of all denominations a semi-organized group of people, simply because they all believe in Jesus. But Catholics get a lot of flack, and mormons get even more. There ARE feminists who are pro-life, you know...I thought that MRAs are actually pretty much a single organization with multiple chapter and a truly shared ideology, but maybe I don't understand MRAs enough?### Assistant: >I thought that MRAs are actually pretty much a single organization with multiple chapter and a truly shared ideology, but maybe I don't understand MRAs enough? I'm no expert either, but from what I understand there is a pretty sizeable contingent of MRAs who believe different thing. I think the same way you can make an overarching statement that "anyone who thinks men and women should be equal are feminists" and then break that entire group of people into subsections who focus on separate things you can say "anyone who wants to address social and legal inequalities faced by men are MRAs" and break that down into subsets as well. I think, in general, there may not be as many subsets in the MRA movement because it is in its infancy. Not to mention the fact that there is so much vitriol surrounding "feminist" and "MRA" that the wells are kind of poisoned and lots of people wouldn't want the stigma of either label attached to them### Human: Makes sense. I wouldn't call myself a feminist because I don't actually believe in equality at the most basic level (I believe men and women are too different to be equivalent) but even more so, I probably don't identify as one because of the stigma. On the other hand, I doubt I have a real idea what MRA's really stand for because of the vocal minority (at least I hope it is the minority), and they seem to overlap with feminists even while insulting them, but for all I know, I might totally agree with MRAs...But I think will never technically be an MRA because being an MRA seems to imply you have to be an Activist, and I am no activist.
### Human: CMV:I think professional soccer players who over exaggerate injuries should receive a yellow card.### Assistant: This is already a rule. You are to receive a yellow card for "embellishing". The only problem is, referees are rarely in a situation to give it. You have to be 100% sure someone blatantly took the dive if you're going to call them out. For us as viewers, it's easy. But in real time on the pitch, it's usually just the norm to play on unless it's really obvious. Edit: To touch on /u/ryan924's point, in most non-top level matches, when a player is hurt and must receive some medical attention, they are often carried off on a body stretcher to the sideline, and play resumes 11 v 10. At the next stoppage that the injured player is ready to come back in, he may, although many people don't sell an injury for this long after it's happened. Only person I recall being taken to the sideline on a stretcher when he was faking was some guy on Mexico in the last Confederations Cup. Source: Soccer referee here. Last thing. [Here's a video of C. Ronaldo being booked for taking a dive in a game against Fulham.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9hKYELu57w) Edit: clarification. Just in case it wasn't totally clear, [here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfqSHeac4js) another video of a yellow card for diving in a premier league match. Quality is better than the ronaldo one. Follow up today: This discussion blew up. I love it. I wanted to tack on something else real fast and just point out for those who don't know: FIFA is the world's most corrupt sports organization. It's very unlikely any rules will be changed to alleviate the problems with the game for a long long time. The fact that the World Cup just now is able to use goal line technology shows how far behind they are. Also, did OP ever come back in here, or did we just take this over?### Human: You know what would help? Option 1.) Referee could look at a review of the play instantly for a minute or so, then make judgement. Option 2.) Review matches afterwards and penalize teams with cards/fees if acting is found. Option 3.) TV channels and fans start ridiculing players for acting. Like a "collection of the most pathetic fakers this week!" type of thing. I am REALLY tired of watching players fake so much, I want to watch them play skillfully, not pretend they're on their deathbed because of a bump.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Fair enough, but it makes people like me who don't have overwhelming pride in a specific country for a specific sport they enjoy see the entire sport as really shitty. I want to watch people compete. I want to watch the best teams vie for the ultimate title. It reminds me of watching College Basketball with my roommate's family. They root for UK (Uni. of KY) and his gf's family are die hard Louisville fans. Really both families are die hard fans. Anyway, I watch quite a bit of professional NBA and this was my first time watching college ball apparently down to the final games so I expected to see some pretty good ball being played. It was a freaking sh-t show. It was unbelievable. Tons of fouls called when players weren't even moving. Both teams being favored by different refs. It was god awful to watch. The people I was watching with were venomous towards Louisville every time a foul was called on UK, and granted a lot of the penalties were complete BS, some of them were legit. My roommate pointed that out to his mother on facebook the next day and she didn't talk to him for a week after that, even though her initial post on facebook was along the lines of complaining about how many bs calls were made on UK (which my roommate countered with "Yeah there were a lot of bad calls, but there were some real calls too"). Anyway, my point is that I've experienced this undying and delusional pride firsthand, and I just don't get why pride comes first even before betraying your integrity? It's just downright degenerate behavior, and entire countries or even states or communities condone it down to rioting in the streets (or in some cases orgies I suppose, neither of which I am joking about). I just don't get how winning can be worth EVERYTHING, ESPECIALLY when you aren't fairly winning, which means you didn't deserve to win in the first place. The rules are there to protect the good players, not to be abused by bad players. I know I'm getting off topic, and I know your point was far away from mine (in that you were saying it's the player's job to 'win', not to question his integrity or morals), but it's something I really really just don't understand. I follow pro basketball quite a bit. I enjoy it. I see significantly less "faking" and way more kick-ass skill and teams that just outright destroy one another. Although it could be argued that 'fouling out' is a centers job and isn't exactly a part of the game, but an abuse of the rules, it could be argued against that to say that because there are multiple chances without penalty on foul outs it was meant to be part of the game (but that would be a very subjective argument without any source I suppose, it just COULD be argued that it's a type of faking out). I also follow a lot of eSports, where I do actually have a bias for my teams so I can sort of understand how players want their team to win no matter what, but because it is typically very hard to cheat in most eSports, I have never had to arrive at that fork in the road where I have to choose how much pride I have in my favorite eSports team in the face of potential degenerate behavior, or how much I value winning with skill over cheating your opponents down (although I'm inclined to think I would go with the latter and drop my favorite team if they were ever convicted of cheating). It's just something that's really hard for me to grasp the concept of it being okay in other communities that this is acceptable action to take because 'winning is everything'. Do people not realize how deluded that is? Do people not realize that it doesn't really count as winning if you abuse the rules in your favor? It's pretty much the same as saying it's okay to get away with murder as long as it's on a technicality (and in soccer a superficial and arbitrary one most of the time, lol). Maybe enough people are just sitting on the moral low-ground and I'm just overthinking it? I sure hope it's a bunch of ignorance and one of the first two, because the third option is just too pathetic to be true of such large communities.### Assistant: I'm not being insulting but the fact you can't understand how winning is worth everything is the reason why you're presumably not a professional sportsman. Having said that, equating diving with murder is ridiculous.
### Human: CMV: College Tuition should not be completely government subsidized### Assistant: You think it is a bad idea because people will go to college and fail. I think it is a good idea because there are a ton of smart people who cannot get a degree and are stuck in low-end jobs because they cannot afford university. Don't you think that the benefit to the poor is greater than the embarrassment to the stupid?### Human: But these people already have incentives. Scholarships, financial aid, etc. all target intelligent lower income people.### Assistant: Scholarships are hard to find and only handed out to a select few or individuals who are in VERY low income. There are plenty of individuals who are in middle-low income and college would put their family in poverty. There are also individuals who are smart enough for college and a good job, but not smart enough to stand out for a scholarship, what about those individuals?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: > There are thousands of scholarships you can apply for. So instead of paying for everyone's tuition we as a society have instead agreed that forcing them through a second, arbitrary loophole in order to simply qualify for college is appropriate? We already tie future college prospects to past high school performance, a rubric that is already directly correlated with one's financial situation. But sure, let's make them spend absurd amounts of time scrounging for money, never knowing whether or not the fruits of their labor will pay off or if they would just be better off finding a second job (assuming that that job would then pay for college, which it of course won't even come close to doing). Rich kids arbitrarily have their future paid for them. But for some reason, poor kids who are just as smart as rich kids (since they are still applying to the same schools) even despite their upbringing are forced to spend a huge amount of time playing the scholarship lottery just hoping for the off chance that someone better qualified didn't apply to the same one. And of course the more money offered, the more applicants apply and the lower any one person's chances are of earning that scholarship. It's a perverse cross between a job search and a lottery but this is, for some ridiculous reason, a required process for most people in the U.S. It would make sense to send people through these hoops if they were simply looking for a job but people are paying to go to college in order to get better jobs. The absurd thing about this whole process is that just because someone didn't qualify for any scholarships, therefore rendering them unable to attend college, that doesn't necessarily mean they should be disqualified from attending college at all just because no banker is willing to bankroll them. I could go on as this is just the tip of the iceberg of the corrupted state of higher education in this country and you are somehow oblivious as to why people are downvoting you.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Sorry DickStrong, your comment has been removed: > Comment Rule 2\. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2) If you would like to appeal, please [message the moderators by clicking this link.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Removed+Comment+Rule+2+Post+Appeal&message=DickStrong+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3gq2wl/cmv_college_tuition_should_not_be_completely/cu11srg\))
### Human: US congressional district gerrymandering is tantamount to corruption, and undermines our democracy. CMV.### Assistant: There's a lot of research looking at the effects of gerrymandering and the broad conclusion is that concerns about it are way overblown. [This post](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/1noe6r/it_seems_many_people_are_agreeing_that_some/cckgzny) does an excellent job of discussing the literature: >gerrymandering isnt exactly a magic button that political parties can press to never face an electoral challenge ever again. in order to create districts where they think they have a better chance, parties also wind up creating districts where they dont, combining districts where their own incumbents are already elected, or maybe even making districts where high party affiliation leaves them facing challengers in their own party primaries - as was the case for some tea party representatives. Furthermore, under your proposal ("Congressional seats should not be districted"), how would someone know who their representative was?### Human: My state (Georgia) is a prime example of what is wrong with the current system. Although the [map](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_congressional_districts) doesn't look bad (except 8 and some of the suburban Atlanta ones), check out these numbers: In 2012, Romney won Georgia with 53.30% of the vote, and Obama got 45.48%. However, GA has 14 representatives - 9 Republicans (64.28%) and 5 Democrats (35.71%). Even if it were 8 R's and 6 D's, that would still be more skewed towards Republicans that the Presidential election predicted (57.14%) vs. (42.86%). You may say "well, that is really only a 1 seat difference compared to what the people want," but remember that we are just one state. Compound this problem across 50 states and you get a House of Representatives that, despite one party earning 1,000,000 total votes more than the other, somehow has control. This is not what the people want.### Assistant: You're making the assumption that those who voted for obama in Georgia also voted democrat for house seats. I'm curious to see if the real numbers support that claim.### Human: This is a good point, and the data shows that the problem is even worse. MORE people voted for Democrats that Republicans in the House elections. Of GA's 5 Democrats, only 1 is white (due to "packing" of minority districts). His name is John Barrow, and he barely won his very district by swearing that he would not be Obama's flunkie. He was one of the few D's that voted against most of the shutdown bills (although I think he voted 'Yes' on the most recent one).### Assistant: > MORE people voted for Democrats that Republicans in the House elections. That's not in line with the Georgia Secretary of State: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/42277/113204/en/summary.html. I ran the individual district numbers through Excel and found that 3,897,839 people voted for the Presidential election compared to 3,552,967 who voted for U.S. Representatives. Of those 3,552,967 who voted for U.S. Representative, 2,104,098 voted Republican and 1,448,869 voted Democrat. That's about 60% R and 40 % D. This is smack in the middle of the 9-5 and 8-6 ratios you mentioned earlier. Also consider that three of the Republican House candidates ran unopposed. I think it's interesting that the number of people who voted for republican representatives increased by about 25,000 over the number of people who voted for Romney. Likewise, there were 300,000 fewer democrat votes for representatives than there were for Obama. I'm sure there are varying reasons as to WHY (Democrats in the unopposed Republican areas not wanting to vote, for instance).
### Human: There is nothing wrong with lab-grown, human-meat cannibalism. CMV### Assistant: Eating human meat is dangerous, which might be partly why it became taboo in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) http://www.utexas.edu/know/2011/07/14/cannibalism/### Human: I know nothing about prions, but is it theoretically be possible to create lab-grown meat without them?### Assistant: Yes, it's theoretically possible to grow lab meat without prions. Prions are essentially misshapen proteins that cause almost identical proteins to become misshapen in the same way and thereby become the same type of prion. This makes prions somewhat similar to viruses, in that they're able to spread and cause disease even though they're not alive. If you avoid introducing any prions into your lab-grown meat batch, you'll most likely end up without any prions in the finished product.### Human: Is there a way to check a sample for prions before eating it?### Assistant: In theory, yes, but presently, not really. We're able to [diagnose BSE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy#Diagnosis) in a post-mortem if the disease has progressed enough to cause clear signs of brain damage. However, there's currently no test available to detect PrP^Sc (the prion that causes BSE) and distinguish it from PrP (the original, normal protein). There will probably be a test eventually, but it's hard to say when.
### Human: You shouldn't use social media buttons in your site. CMV### Assistant: You can read the code used by those buttons, and see for yourself that they don't steal passwords and whatnot. Its quite easy to see what they do do, which is tracking pageviews vs. clickthroughs, and sometimes other things, but these aren't gigantic javascript files that are trying to steal your website. As for your second point, which is totally unrelated to your first, there's a difference: I am aware of, to a great degree, the information google has about me, it has information about my emails, my contacts, my job, my browser history (I use chrome), some anonymous information about my cellphone usage (android, CM actually), and probably a few things I'm forgetting. It doesn't have information on my Skype calls, or my finances, or my college transcript, or what I have in my dropbox or my Social Security number. I can also stop using google's services at any time and use firefox, yahoo mail, an iPhone, etc. It will quite quickly stop getting the same volume of information about me, it will still get some, but that will be semi anonymous. I have absolutely no clue what data the NSA has on me, and I'm not getting anything for it. Essentially, I'm selling my data to google for their services. That isn't happening with the NSA, I'm selling my data to the NSA so that the NSA can better control me later.### Human: No you can't. Dude. think XSS. 1) you can't read the code 2) the code could change tomorrow, to scan whatever information. It's an AJAX pull of random data from a server. Who knows what it will be in a year from now. It is pretty sketchy: Specifically, in the case of facebook, this: > js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";### Assistant: >http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js Open that link. That's the code. I can write a tool that wget's and diffs the code every 50ms and alerts me if something changes in that file. I'l know if it changes.### Human: You still have absolutely no idea what the code _does_. It's minified, and unless you're keeping tabs on exactly what is executing (you're not) even a minor change would leave you back to square one. And even more so, they could easily do some fingerprinting to see if you're doing it from a browser or curl. justinzoinks has a valid point. Sure you can see (if you really try) that they're not stealing ___ data. By embedding remote javascript, you are basically committing to not caring what it does.### Assistant: I think you underestimate the ability of programmers. I was talking to someone earlier who reverse engineered what the fb/twitter/google js code did in a few days, because he was implementing one for his own company. It isn't actually that hard, and most of the code is straightforward, just minified. Its relatively simple to see what is happening once you do a few finds and replaces. >And even more so, they could easily do some fingerprinting to see if you're doing it from a browser or curl. You can trick basically any fingerprinting method out there. >By embedding remote javascript, you are basically committing to not caring what it does. So then use an iframe, facebook up and provides one, and I'll point out that if a piece of code is trusted by facebook, twitter, wordpress, and who knows how many other thousands of sites, with millions and billions of pageviews, I feel like I can trust it too.### Human: No, I'm not. As I mentioned, "Sure you can see (if you really try) that they're not stealing ___ data". You definitely _can_ work to reverse engineer the minified code, but good luck trying to figure out what changed with a diff. Same thing for fingerprinting. Yes, you can fool them, but they can fool you as well by returning normal code. All I'm trying to say is you're drastically oversimplifying the problem, and trying to throw off browser fingerprinting or something isn't a secure solution.### Assistant: So then use an iframe, that solves the problem. Facebook provides one. Also, if they return normal code, then the code is normal. That's the point. You can spoof headers and browsers and other such things and then if the code returned is normal, its the same code that is being used in the site.
### Human: I believe the popular vote is better to the electoral college CMV### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: The president represents the people of the US, not the states### Assistant: Considering the framers did not grant representation to the District of Columbia, it is doubtful that they intended the president to be a representative of the general public, as opposed to individual states.### Human: You're explaining why things are as they are. A proper rebuttal to the OP should argue why the president representing states is better than a president representing the people.### Assistant: Wrong. OP explicitly says, he or she represents, not should represent. I don't disagree that he or she should or even that he or she doesn't now de facto represent the general populous. I simply argued that, de jure, the President represents states, not people.### Human: Not according to the title and description.
### Human: CMV: Bigotry towards bigots is not "just as bad."### Assistant: I think it's more that when Person A says something that Person B believes to be bigoted, B calling A a bigot destroys productive conversations. When an argument or belief is ignored and we proceed to shame someone until they either leave or are coerced into a superficial change, we have fundamentally failed to address whatever produced the bigoted behavior. Do that with enough of them for long enough, and they'll find each other and start having conversations among themselves with little or no moderating influence. So they're not around you, but what they believe and do gets progressively worse. Take CMV: I have never, ever seen a racist person change their view in response to righteous indignation and shame. More often than not, they don't think their view is racist and they view being called a bigot for what it is: a signal that the substantive discussion is over and the tarring and feathering has begun. The heels dig in, and the rest is a shitshow. The only things that have a chance of working are tolerance and patience. So while it might not be equally bad, it is making the problem worse.### Human: ∆ I like this argument. But to continue the discussion a bit further - if their belief is not founded on rational thoughts, what makes you think a rational discussion would be persuasive either?### Assistant: I don't know if you're a fan of Scott Adams' writing, but he's been beating this drum for the last year or so: What makes you think that rational discussion is persuasive to you?### Human: Would you agree that there exists a spectrum of rationality among humans? Wouldn't this mean there exists the "most rational" human, and wouldn't this person likely be rather rational?### Assistant: Of course there's a spectrum. But how likely is the most rational person to be the one I asked my question? Everyone thinks rational discussion is persuasive to them. Nobody thinks that emotion is what actually drives their beliefs. What I was hoping to get at in /u/BigBadBundy's question: >if their belief is not founded on rational thoughts, what makes you think a rational discussion would be persuasive either? is this: that everyone's beliefs are "not founded on rational thoughts". Persuasion is hard. Even rational discussion (I think this might be code for "civil, respectful discussion") struggles to persuade people. It might not be good, but it's the best we have. "Irrational discussion" certainly isn't going to persuade someone whose "belief is not founded on rational thoughts".### Human: > Everyone thinks rational discussion is persuasive to them. Nobody thinks that emotion is what actually drives their beliefs. Sure, and not everybody is totally wrong though. > that everyone's beliefs are "not founded on rational thoughts". I don't believe this to be true. Mature adults who've dedicated themselves to truth over preference would be bound to have a rational thought or two based on sound logic. > "Irrational discussion" certainly isn't going to persuade someone whose "belief is not founded on rational thoughts". There is a complimentary or contrary quote that is something to the effect "you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into".### Assistant: >>that everyone's beliefs are "not founded on rational thoughts". >I don't believe this to be true. Mature adults who've dedicated themselves to truth over preference would be bound to have a rational thought or two based on sound logic. If there were more than vanishingly few such people who do that effectively, then I would think that there would be no irreconcileable disagreements among people. They'd all hold a single view: the objectively correct one. Yes, people will occasionally have a purely rational thought or two. But the gist of Adams' "moist robot hypothesis" (which I don't fully buy into, mind you) is that this only happens for views where we have no emotional skin in the game. If there were many such homo rationalicus specimens around, then ask yourself this: when last did they change their view on something? If they really were so rational, they'd be constantly changing their views on things as new material information comes to light.### Human: > They'd all hold a single view: the objectively correct one. Not true at all. Simply lacking pertinent information can give two totally logical people different conclusions. Given enough time and the same info I'd agree though. > If there were many such homo rationalicus specimens around, then ask yourself this: when last did they change their view on something? If they really were so rational, they'd be constantly changing their views on things as new material information comes to light. I've changed my views, substantially, at a consistent pace since I became an adult. Younger me wouldn't prefer the conclusions I've reached. I know quite a few people who try to change their mind when presented with new evidence. You have to seek them out though. Being aware of the limitations of the human mind is obviously a requirement to beating them, at whatever degree that is possible. I don't anyone can change their mind substantially without some time for introspection.
### Human: I believe that the idea that US soldiers have fought for freedom in the United States in modern times is for the most part false. CMV### Assistant: > The European front was fought for our allies, with Hitler having no plans to attack America directly due to the large ocean in the middle. That's not really true-- apparently Hitler had [at least some designs on attacking the US](http://hnn.us/article/32084). This is anecdotal, but a WW2 vet in Ken Burns' The War recalls a Nazi POW being very interested in where he was from. "I'm from the United States" he told him. "Where?" "Connecticut." "Where in Connecticut?" This seemed strange to him but he told him he was from Waterbury, Connecticut. "Yes, Waterbury... near the X and Y," but in place of X and Y he named two rivers. One was a pretty major waterway but the other one was a creek "you could jump across," known mostly to locals. So the American asks him how he knew that, and the POW said "I'm in studying for the administration." "What administration?" "The administration of the colonies." Chilling!### Human: ∆, I had read some other sources on Hitler's world views, but this one paints a much darker picture. With Russia eating at him, I do wonder if he would have been able to win, even without theoretical USA involvement.### Assistant: I know this doesn't challenge your original view, but I just want to comment on the idea of a German invasion of the U.S. and German feelings toward the West: Firstly, Hitler, with his policy of lebensraum, was totally concerned with the East over anything else. He at one point offered to end the occupation of all Western countries (France, Norway, the Low Countries, etc.) if hostilities with the British Empire were to cease. His world view was not one of conquering the world. Second, check out [Operation Sea Lion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion). It was an idea to invade Britain that was always considered impossible by the generals. Modern tacticians and military historians almost unanimously agree that it could only have been possible with Air and Sea superiority. The first the Germans couldn't get in the battle of Britain of Britain, the second they were so far behind in it was laughable. They didn't even have ships to land with, so they were going to use rafts. Now, apply this to America. How the hell do the Germans get there? How will they do it secretly? How will they get enough soldiers there? Do they even have the soldiers, considering they'd have to be occupying basically all of Europe to even give them the opportunity to attempt the invasion. Do you know how long their supply lines would have had to be? The Soviet Union proved too big too, and it was much closer. TL;DR I agree that there is historical evidence for the invasion of the U.S., but Hitler not only did not want to attack the West but it was more than impossible. Just so you know, doesn't have to do with your view.### Human: Right, because appeasement worked so well with Hitler before. I don't doubt that he tried to get hostilities to cease, but a) that'd still leave Germany with huge parts of illegitimately conquered Europe, b) it was obvious once the Russian front started going the other way that Hitler was in a very unenviable position, and c) Hitler had demonstrated repeatedly that his promises to stop after only going so far were bold-faced lies, every time. Don't pretend that Hitler had any plans to stop conquering Europe, as late as 1943 the Nazis were talking about controlling Europe being only the first step in world domination.### Assistant: Isn't it well established that world domination was not what Germany wanted? Hitler wrote frequently about his vision and he saw the British Empire as been intact. Obviously a one world Nazi government would have been preferential, but all of the maps for the desired Greater German Reich (can't link, on mobile) had the country drawing nearly all of it's land from the USSR and Eastern Europe. Even the Balkans were relatively untouched.### Human: Imagine though if that happened. Hitler is leading the Greater German Reich that controls pretty much all of Eastern Europe. If he was able to get that far, Russia would most likely no longer be a significant threat, if even a single country anymore, and Hitler's Reich would be able to safely and comfortably recover from the war. Do you think Hitler was the kind of guy to dismantle his military in time of peace? In all likely hood, it would have been hard for him to hold power outside of wartime. He would have had plenty of time to develop his long range ballistic missiles and jet engines and half the Mediterranean to build a navy. He'd then likely have the air and naval superiority for Operation Sea Lion and more.
### Human: CMV: If your college fraternity admits women, it's not a fraternity.### Assistant: I would like to point out that sorority is an invented word used to describe all women fraternities. For example Chi omega is chartered as a "fraternity" If chi omega can be a fraternity, why can't a co-Ed group be called a fraternity as well?### Human: Aren't all words invented words?### Assistant: Yep. Hence the unreasonable demand this post makes of 'fraternity'### Human: All words are invented, but they still have meanings.### Assistant: Yep, meanings given by their usage, and, in this case, there's a long history of the usage allowing fraternity to describe groups not strictly all male.
### Human: CMV: I don't think soldiers deserve so much respect and praise for what is, essentially, mercenary work with an added nationalistic motivation.### Assistant: I think the problem is that you are viewing the role of soldiers (and the military in general) in a fairly archaic way. It seems that you see them as conquerors or invaders, sent out by heads of state to kill enemy forces, presumably with a view to taking things (land, resources, etc) This isn't the case any more. They provide many varied roles, most without the need for arms; humanitarian aid, disaster relief, civil engineering projects. Even in situations where they are required to engage in combat, it is usually for the purposes of maintaining stability or providing protection (either the indigenous population or foreign visitors) or for crime prevention (particularly with regards to the drug trade - think RN catching smugglers) There's an argument to be made about whether military intervention was right or praiseworthy in Iraq and Syria. It becomes slightly less contentious with respect to Afghanistan or the Kosovo intervention. What about the Falklands? Anyway, I don't think that's what is being discussed here. The thing we need to tackle is 'what is the main purpose of the military?' In my view, it's to provide safety and security; be that from natural disaster, criminals, enemy combatants, etc. With that as the end goal, I think putting yourself in danger to achieve it is very commendable.### Human: yes i agree. the invasions in iraq were likely just for oil extraction purposes. 9/11 was a great excuse to go there also; what i don't understand is why in the usa for example, these so called 'veterans' and even normal soldiers go around commanding respect. you see it in videos all the time.### Assistant: The world isnt really that simple anymore. So while oil may have been an aspect to it, it doesnt need to be the sole aspect to it. And the fact that oil production still remains mostly to wholly nationally owned and operated, seems to go against the idea that it was just for the oil. And after the invasion whom iraq export oil too, hasnt changed really. The most massive impact on iraq has been the removal of a despot, arguably.### Human: When the USA took Iraq it cancelled all previous oil contracts as null and void. I dont think the oil is distributed as it was previously.### Assistant: over half of all Iraqi oil is exported to [China](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?_r=0)### Human: To add on to that point, the US only gets 12.5% of its oil from the ME.
### Human: CMV: I believe that private school success is over-hyped### Assistant: Are you sure that your complaints about "private schools" are really complaints about "Christian schools"? Because statistically the outcomes at genuine private schools at least appear to be better. Mind you, I think this has more to do with the socioeconomic status of the parents than the school itself, but a rich environment full of students that are there because their parents care about their education seems highly likely to result in better outcomes.### Human: The only reason private schools are better is because they can choose their clients. If this Christian school could promote an agenda, who's to say someone will open a liberal or conservative institute with a K-12 curriculum? Heck, Ron Paul made his own home school curriculum. Where does the line end? At what point does it just become propaganda, disguised as education?### Assistant: As a jewish kid who spent 13 years in one form of the Christian education system or another, your examples are like a trip back in time. I agree that it is frustrating having a school promote an agenda that seems to fly in the face of education itself, but you haven't really made an arguement against a PRIVATE school in general. Your title pertained to perceived success in private schools, but the body of your post is a retelling of how your overly religious school sucked and the faculty was tragically inept. Again, I feel for your difficulties in a Christian school. I really do. But the body of your post doesn't really relate to your title.### Human: I went on a rambling, unrelated point: my fault entirely. However, this was a private school. It received no taxpayer money. Yet, it somehow managed to have just as many egotistical and incompetent teachers as in public schools. This place has no unions or tenure. Yet, they had policies that were an insult to education. For instance my math teacher only got the job because, her husband got the job; and she was given priority over a much more qualified candidate. A public school couldn't consider that type of policy. Also if a public school suspended a depressed kid, the media would be all over it. However, this private institution suspended a depressed kid, and it is hailed as one the best.### Assistant: One very real trend that certainly skews perception of private schools (religious and secular alike): the parental demographic. Rich(er) parents wanting more control regarding what kind of kids their own kids are spending time around. If you're in a religious school, it's possibly because your parents would rather you be around the "good influence" that comes from being surrounded by other kids who come from a "good catholic/christian/jewish/muslim family". Economics plays a factor. We are all aware of the correlation between lower income and higher crime rate. If your classmates come from better off families/neighborhoods, they're less likely to be a risk to you and yours (according to that logic). Personally, I think it's all crap untill you get to college. College is all about building contacts. If you go to a school full of bright kids and you learn a lot and have an amazing and enriching experience (like I did), that is awesome. If you go to a school where you spend four years rubbing elbows with the sons and daughters of the Fortune 500 on the other hand, your post-graduation options can be very different, and this can determine your career. For life. Pardon the rant. You're right about earlier education: there's no real difference/benefit that I am aware of to go to private school. IMHO.
### Human: Modern society and laws exist without consent because of a lack of alternative scenarios in which one can live self-sufficiently without assimilating, this makes us all at least temporary and limited slaves at one point in our lives, thereby making modern society unjust CMV.### Assistant: It seems like most of your points don't really apply specifically to modern society, things like being born or having to exist in a society until you are old enough to be able to function on your own would be true of any human child from any society, from a single baby and its mother to a full modern republic. > A child lacks all capabilities of re-establishing themselves (which means whatever resources they use from the system should not be held against them as a debt) I'm not sure which Modern Western societies hold children in debt for the cost of raising them, but I'm not familiar with it. >Upon reaching maturity, there exists no legitimate (or legal) scenarios in which someone is allowed to live with self-sufficiently without assimilating. (They must become part of the system to amass enough resources to reestablish themselves) Anyone can run off into the wilderness at any time and live a prehistoric existence. There are huge stretches of wild land still on the planet, and you can just go and live in most of them as best as you can, just as our ancestors did many thousands of years ago. There may be places you cannot live as you see fit, but that is always true. Either environment or other creatures will limit where you can live to a degree, but there are still plenty of places to go completely off the grid. > Since someone has not explicitly consented to be part of this system, and no way exists to opt out of the system, it exists without consent. Why do you say no way exists to opt out of the system? I am free to leave the country and to go wherever I can, by whatever means I have. The fact that I can't obtain money without being a part of the system so I can buy a plane ticket is irrelevant, as I can still walk/swim just as far as any human ever could (generally speaking). > We are all at least temporarily and to a limited degree then slaves. This seems like an overstatement at the very least. If you have the freedom to walk into the woods and disappear, and no one will hunt you down and force you to come back, or even try to stop you leaving in the first place, then I don't see how you can be considered a slave. Slaves lack freedom, it's the defining characteristic of being a slave. Without anyone forcing you to live a certain way, without anyone preventing you from changing your society or the way you exist, calling yourself a slave seems like an exaggeration.### Human: > The fact that I can't obtain money without being a part of the system so I can buy a plane ticket is irrelevant, as I can still walk/swim just as far as any human ever could (generally speaking). ok, try that, with the current defense and surveillance system! It is illegal to do it. Modern system does make it hard to get away from it, if you want to! :) (Not that, i agree with OP, i think you are just hyperbolizing things here..)### Assistant: I think that one can depend on y our country. I know that where I live (Canada) if I didnt mind living a life off the land, I could walk away from my home and never been seen again without ever hitting a camera or a checkpoint.### Human: It still doesn't make it legal or legitimate.### Assistant: I'm just saying its possible. You don't want to be part of a society... go live on a boat or something. End of the day... I kind of agree with you but I don't care. I want to be part of a society. I like having neighbours that pitch in and a government that cares. I also recognize that all societies are in conflict with each other to some degree or other, and I want mine to be strong enough to stay itself and not be trod on by another. To that end I have to give up some money every year, and potentially my body in its defence. I get that you disagree and you can cry "slavery" all you want... but I tell you this. "Go try your libertarian communist bullshit somewhere and see how long it takes before you see what slavery is actually like. See what it really means after someone less concerned with human rights than the people who make you pay taxes show you what the cost of having no security is."### Human: > I'm just saying its possible. You don't want to be part of a society... go live on a boat or something. Sure, but not addressing the post because of #3. >End of the day... I kind of agree with you but I don't care. I want to be part of a society. I like having neighbours that pitch in and a government that cares. I'm not arguing against society. >"Go try your libertarian communist bullshit somewhere and see how long it takes before you see what slavery is actually like. See what it really means after someone less concerned with human rights than the people who make you pay taxes show you what the cost of having no security is." I understand this, which is why I do not want to live outside of society. But the ability to choose such an existence I believe is crucial to consent and therefor the JUSTNESS of the social contract. In Brave New World, hyper capitalism is just because one can choose to reject it. Do you choose to live in the brave new world, or choose to be a "savage?" This is the basis of what makes the social contract just in Brave New World but is lacking in the real world.### Assistant: You may not be against society, but you seem to be against society expecting anything from you. The social contract of my state, and the US, for that matter, is just. You are free to opt out. If you are saying that life is unfair because there is a state everywhere, well that's not the fault of any one state. edit: just realized that I may have been unclear... by "my state" I mean the federal gov't of Canada### Human: >You may not be against society, but you seem to be against society expecting anything from you. The social contract of my state, and the US, for that matter, is just. You are free to opt out. No you're not. And that is the point of this post. Describe the process of "opting out" that allows someone to do so legally and legitimately without assimilating.### Assistant: I would do it like this... 1. Leave Canada 2. There is no 2. ninja edit: Once I leave Canada, I would fedex (not evil state sponsered mail) my passport back to the passport office.### Human: How would you do such a thing without money?### Assistant: Presumably you are still going to use money and societies rules until you are outside of it. You cannot reasonably claim that you are trapped within our society because you wouldn't be able to leave if your burned all of your money. Spend some money to buy a few goats and some seeds and go hang out in the middle of nowhere. Then burn your money. Problem solved.### Human: The point of this post is that for at least some point you must assimilate and that combined with the lack of choice for a legal alternative makes the system unjust. You've had to assimilate to get the money to buy the goats, and even in the middle of nowhere you're subject to the threat of violence from the state if you're found.### Assistant: Well, of course you need some money to buy the goats. Where were you going to get the goats without society? If you were just born in the fucking woods you wouldn't start out with goats. All of the things you would need to have or do before you could go live off the grid aren't things that the universe owes you, those are things that you can get by participating in society. Society does not cater to your very specific wants. It doesn't cater to mine either! There are plenty of things that I do not approve of in our society but I do not think that "there isn't a specific law allowing me to become a sovereign citizen even though the practical effect of me going to live in the woods is basically the same" is anywhere close to being able to say that society is slavery. That is just massively hyperbolic.### Human: >Well, of course you need some money to buy the goats. Where were you going to get the goats without society? If you were just born in the fucking woods you wouldn't start out with goats. All of the things you would need to have or do before you could go live off the grid aren't things that the universe owes you, those are things that you can get by participating in society. What if you don't want to participate, why are you punished for such a thing? >Society does not cater to your very specific wants. It doesn't cater to mine either! There are plenty of things that I do not approve of in our society but I do not think that "there isn't a specific law allowing me to become a sovereign citizen even though the practical effect of me going to live in the woods is basically the same" is anywhere close to being able to say that society is slavery. That is just massively hyperbolic. It's not the "effort" but the fact you are not allowed to. The use of force and the fact you would need to work or face being imprisoned that makes it a form of limited slavery.### Assistant: How are you being punished for not participating? The default state of being is having nothing. The only punishment you have is not being born out in the woods to begin with. I don't think we can say that society isn't just because you weren't born in the circumstances that you wanted. I think you are making far too big of a deal of the fact that it is not technically legal to become and sovereign citizen and just go live on some publicly owned land by yourself. What practical difference would there be in your life if there was suddenly a law saying that you could go live in the wilderness and not be bothered as long as you didn't bother us?### Human: >I don't think we can say that society isn't just because you weren't born in the circumstances that you wanted. That's the veil of ignorance. Not this post. The problem is the lack of choice to reject the system. >I think you are making far too big of a deal of the fact that it is not technically legal to become and sovereign citizen and just go live on some publicly owned land by yourself. Why not legalize such a thing thing if it's no big deal? It would make a large ethical deal to legitimize the social contract. >What practical difference would there be in your life if there was suddenly a law saying that you could go live in the wilderness and not be bothered as long as you didn't bother us? The practical difference would be that it would not be legal to take possession of my home, prosecute me for personal drug use, prostitution etc### Assistant: I don't understand anything that you're saying here about "legal and legitimate". Legality only matters when you participate in the system, yet your entire goal is not participating in the system. What gives? How can there be a law regarding avoiding the law? You leave all contact with people, and then you are gone. So long as you maintain no contact with the state they cannot prosecute or persecute you, however the instant you do make contact with them you are breaking the law because you initiated contact without treaty. Probably because you are consuming resources which belong to somebody else and they finally noticed, for example. I'm going to need you to explain to me "legal extralegality".### Human: >How can there be a law regarding avoiding the law? It's actually laws against living off the land that I'm addressing. This ultimately is an argument about land ownership and naturalized rights and whether or not people should be able to "exist" with assimilation. >So long as you maintain no contact with the state they cannot prosecute or persecute you, however the instant you do make contact with them you are breaking the law because you initiated contact without treaty. Not sure what country you're from, but in the US if you're squatting your home can be demolished an you can be imprisoned. You don't have to contact the state, someone just needs to find you and realize you're on land that you "don't own."
### Human: CMV: Copyright protection should last 15 to 20 years at most.### Assistant: I would actually say a flat 50 years from the date of first publication. 15 years is a bit stingy if you are the guy who comes up with batman, or windows, or the hunger games (first published 2008 and under your scheme entering public domain in 7 years), harry potter (first published in 1997 and copyright expired the same year the last film in the series came out on dvd), and want to milk that for a while. But at the same time it would let things invented in the 1970's start to enter the public domain now and us to all mess around with them and see what we can do.### Human: Inventions and technology are covered by patents, not copyright. So Windows doesn't apply. Batman should definitely be in the public domain by now. But remember that each new Batman creation would get a new copyright protection. Dark Knight (the movie) would still be covered. But the comics upon which they are based would be public domain. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the book, (I think that's the first one) would expire around the time the last movie came out, but the last movie would then also have 15 years. And during that time, ridiculous amounts of money have been made for their creator. I think she's been more than amply rewarded.### Assistant: The problem with your argument (of justifying a 15 year cap) is that it only works for spectacular commercial successes which are only a small fraction of creative works. The reality is that most people who create art and literature for a living are very poor, and the money they make from their creative works barely lets them live a comfortable life. Say, you spend 5 years writing a book and publish it as an e-book (and this was your best book). Your book had an initial spike of popularity, but after that, it fell off the radar, and sales (and your royalty) went down to a trickle (but not zero). This would especially be true if you wrote a niche book, and your target audience is limited to begin with. You entire commercial success (and ability to earn decent money) would be dependent on these books you publish every 2-3 years or so - that each make a few hundred dollars a month on average. If the copyright expires in 15 years, and people start downloading the book for free, it would have a serious adverse impact on your financial situation. In fact, for most niche authors and artists, this would be a deal breaker - they will not be able to make a living from their art. I strongly agree with /u/natha105 that the copyright limit should be 50 years, which would be enough to cover the artist's lifetime.### Human: >The problem with your argument (of justifying a 15 year cap) is that it only works for spectacular commercial successes which are only a small fraction of creative works. The reality is that most people who create art and literature for a living are very poor, and the money they make from their creative works barely lets them live a comfortable life. I disagree. If these writers were allowed to employ an additional 145 years worth of public domain material, they could have far more creations on their hands. Think of all the fan-fics that can't legally profit from their works now. On top of that, if you can't produce something that earns you an income, perhaps that isn't the job for you? There's no guarantee to profitability written in to copyright, only the guarantee to a chance at it. To take your example, if I write a book and publish it, and it makes some money but then fades in popularity to the point that it's no longer profitable, what's the value to you in protecting it for another century and a half? Instead, if it enters the public domain, and other people take up the mantle, it can rekindle interest in your creation and you can produce more along those lines to an expanded audience. >I strongly agree with /u/natha105 that the copyright limit should be 50 years, which would be enough to cover the artist's lifetime. 50 years is still too long as it still means too many works will disappear without being preserved or added to our culture.### Assistant: > If these writers were allowed to employ an additional 145 years worth of public domain material, they could have far more creations on their hands. That is an over-generalization. There are many many artists who would not benefit at all from other public domain material. Someone writing a book would do it based on an interesting premise or idea. How are they benefiting from other copyright books going out of copyright? The example you gave of fan-fiction actually only applies to the few blockbuster works that become cult classics or massively popular. You're again using the same example of the "big guns". My argument is centered around protecting the interests and financial viability of the small struggling artists. > On top of that, if you can't produce something that earns you an income, perhaps that isn't the job for you? There's no guarantee to profitability written in to copyright, only the guarantee to a chance at it. Hold on! Most artists are not in it for the money. They do it because they are genuinely passionate about what they do, and want to express themselves. Note that almost all the big painters and artists and poets of old, died of utter penury. Their art was mostly not even discovered or acknowledged in their lifetimes. Are you saying they "should not have bothered"? Sure, there is not guarantee written into copyright. I'm only talking about letting them make whatever money they make from their art during their lifetimes. How is that unreasonable? > if I write a book and publish it, and it makes some money but then fades in popularity to the point that it's no longer profitable, what's the value to you in protecting it for another century and a half? I did not say that at all! I said that the revenues slowed down to a trickle. The trickle is still vitally important. If someone is making a couple of hundred every month from a book due to e-book sales, it is a vital source of income for them. Taking the book out of copyright would wipe out that income stream. If you also read "The Long Tail", the main argument of the book is that because there are no "storage costs" for e-books and other internet material, it can exist forever. Sales for many many such creative works never dies down to zero - just goes down to a trickle. In a large enough internet marketplace, there are always some people who want to buy these books, no matter how niche or obscure they are. I also said 50 years, not a century and a half, so not sure why you are saying that. Yes, there is indeed value. If I write 20 books in my lifetime, and each earns me 200-300 dollars a month, this is very real livable income for me. Especially when I become old and can no longer continue producing creative works. There's no pension or company sponsored 401k for an independent artist.### Human: >My argument is centered around protecting the interests and financial viability of the small struggling artists. Ok, what is the value of propping up failed creators? If I'm a terrible architect, should I be guaranteed work? If I am a policeman who has never caught a criminal or solved a crime, should I be kept on the force for 70 years? While I am a bleeding-heart liberal, and a lover of art in general, I also feel that it's not for everyone as a profession and no industry should be propped up artificially when it can't profit naturally on its own over time. >Hold on! Most artists are not in it for the money. They do it because they are genuinely passionate about what they do, and want to express themselves. Note that almost all the big painters and artists and poets of old, died of utter penury. Their art was mostly not even discovered or acknowledged in their lifetimes. Are you saying they "should not have bothered"? Most people in those times died in utter penury. It's only recently that we've invented a middle class. And I agree that there's value in helping artists, that's why I think copyright for 15-20 years is important. I just think that 170 years is far far far too long. If you can't turn another profit after 15 to 20 years, I'd suggest another line of work. >Sales for many many such creative works never dies down to zero - just goes down to a trickle That's great! I just don't see a need for the public to provide you with that exclusivity for more than 20 years. Keep working like everyone else. >I also said 50 years, not a century and a half, so not sure why you are saying that I'm still talking about what exists now, not your suggestion. Life + 70 years or +/- a century and a half. >There's no pension or company sponsored 401k for an independent artist. Ah, but there's savings accounts, and investments. Why should we provide you with artificial exclusivity for so long?### Assistant: > I also said 50 years, not a century and a half, so not sure why you are saying that > I'm still talking about what exists now, not your suggestion. Life + 70 years or +/- a century and a half. In that case, you are going outside the framework of this CMV thread and how it is conducted. The point of CMV is that you post your view and you were very specific about a 15 year cap. I am arguing that it should be 50, and not 15, because 50 years would cover the lifetime of an artist, which would allow the artist to sustain on trickle sales. If you think this is a valid counter argument and that I or OP have been able to change your view from 15 to 50, you should award a delta. Otherwise, you should argue why it should be 15 and not 50. Talking about what currently exists is irrelevant and off-topic. > Ah, but there's savings accounts, and investments. Why should we provide you with artificial exclusivity for so long? The whole premise of an artist is that they pursue art for the sake of art, and not money or commercial success. It is like a scientist who is doing fundamental research. We have well established mechanisms to fund exploratory research for scientists in the form of university jobs, research grants, etc. Note that out of the thousands of scientists who are doing fundamental or exploratory research, only a select few actually achieve significant break-throughs. However, with artists, the only source of revenue is the money they make from their art-work. An artist may very well be ahead of the curve in terms of popularity and social acceptance. Say, an artist who is trying to redefine a certain genre or style of art. It may not even be in vogue right now. And this is actually typical with artists - the thrill they get from their art is in literally pushing the boundaries of acceptability and what is considered art. That is how they innovate. So it could very well be that the genre of art gains social popularity only 30 years from now. At least in that artist's lifetime, she or he would benefit from the later commercial success. There is nothing liberal or conservative about this. This is about society protecting individual property, and balancing it with the greater needs of others. My counter argument is that because of the way art works, there are many many valid reasons why copyright protection should at least extend to the lifetime of the artist. In many cases, such as a fictional work by an author, removing copyright only means that people will be able to download the book for free without paying any royalty to the author. What is really the purpose of that, besides denying the author the revenues from something they legitimately created?### Human: >In that case, you are going outside the framework of this CMV thread and how it is conducted. The point of CMV is that you post your view and you were very specific about a 15 year cap. I am arguing that it should be 50, and not 15, because 50 years would cover the lifetime of an artist, which would allow the artist to sustain on trickle sales. If you think this is a valid counter argument and that I or OP have been able to change your view from 15 to 50, you should award a delta. Otherwise, you should argue why it should be 15 and not 50. Talking about what currently exists is irrelevant and off-topic. Sorry, I'm replying to people in my notifcation window, and I lose some of the context. As people keep bringing up 50 years as a compromise, I'll respond to you as I do to them. 50 years is better than 170, sure, but it still means too much work is dying on the grapevine. I don't think that artists need 50 years for a chance to make a profit with a given work. And I think 50 years is much too long to wait for the public domain to be given its share of the agreement. >The whole premise of an artist is that they pursue art for the sake of art, and not money or commercial success. Sez who? > It is like a scientist who is doing fundamental research. Also sez who? That may be a romanticized version of it, but I know scientists who want very much to make money and who are or have chosen their path based on that desire. > And this is actually typical with artists - the thrill they get from their art is in literally pushing the boundaries of acceptability and what is considered art. That is how they innovate. Interesting view, but doesn't seem to me to be relevant to how long copyright protection should last, unless you can expand on it. >So it could very well be that the genre of art gains social popularity only 30 years from now. At least in that artist's lifetime, she or he would benefit from the later commercial success. It absolutely could be. Tho' that is very unlikely. And nobody says that an artist cannot benefit from later fame or popularity. They just no longer have an enforced protection of exclusivity. >In many cases, such as a fictional work by an author, removing copyright only means that people will be able to download the book for free without paying any royalty to the author. What is really the purpose of that, besides denying the author the revenues from something they legitimately created? As per the OP, the purpose of that is to expand the public domain, grow culture, and benefit society. That's the arrangement between society and creator when dealing with copyright law. Both have to benefit.### Assistant: > The whole premise of an artist is that they pursue art for the sake of art, and not money or commercial success. > > > > Sez who? I personally know several such artists. My point was - there might be several artists who are doing it with an eye towards commercial success, but there are many other artists who don't. Check out Louis CK's [Oscar speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zddUk6naR24) on documentary short film makers for example.### Human: >I personally know several such artists. My point was - there might be several artists who are doing it with an eye towards commercial success, but there are many other artists who don't. And maybe some are pressured into it by their uncle. But I don't see how it is relevant to copyright duration.### Assistant: > And maybe some are pressured into it by their uncle. But I don't see how it is relevant to copyright duration. Sorry, I am not able to understand your first sentence. The people I know are much older than the average redditor, many are married, and they do documentary short film making full-time. They supplement this by doing other part time or temporary work. It is relevant to copyright duration because as I have been saying, not every artist rakes in millions. In fact most don't. Trickle income from royalties are very important for them. And 15 years is too short. A big reason for this to be 50 and not 15 years is that traditionally, the problem with art has been discoverability (lack of it). Which is why media companies and record labels and big name publishers exist. But the internet has upended this notion. Or even something like Netflix. It is no longer unreasonable to expect that an obscure documentary or e-book that no one knew about gets "discovered" after a couple of decades by a blogger and then suddenly gains a modicum of popularity with a niche audience. Why not let the artist benefit from this? Why make it free after a mere 15 years? If anything, this would promote and encourage artists to take even more chances with their art, and ultimately this would be for the greater good. It would push art in newer and more unexpected directions. But artists would be less incentivized to take these big risks if they knew their experimental art was under the gun and a 15 year ticking countdown clock.### Human: >Sorry, I am not able to understand your first sentence. The people I know are much older than the average redditor, many are married, and they do documentary short film making full-time. They supplement this by doing other part time or temporary work. My point was that their personal motivation is not relevant to the duration of copyright. >It is relevant to copyright duration because as I have been saying, not every artist rakes in millions. In fact most don't. Trickle income from royalties are very important for them. And 15 years is too short. Yes, the "it's not enough time to make money off it" argument. My take is still that copyright is not designed to set you up for life. It's designed to give you a chance to profit off of each individual work, and then give the public domain the work while it still has value. >It is no longer unreasonable to expect that an obscure documentary or e-book that no one knew about gets "discovered" after a couple of decades by a blogger and then suddenly gains a modicum of popularity with a niche audience I think that's an extreme exception to the rule. Few works become popular only after 15 years have passed. >Why not let the artist benefit from this? Why make it free after a mere 15 years? Who said they can't? They just wouldn't have exclusive rights to it anymore. >If anything, this would promote and encourage artists to take even more chances with their art, and ultimately this would be for the greater good. It would push art in newer and more unexpected directions. It is currently at life plus 70 years. I don't see that it is encouraging artists to go in wild and crazy directions now that 15 years couldn't accomplish. >But artists would be less incentivized to take these big risks if they knew their experimental art was under the gun and a 15 year ticking countdown clock Again, the idea isn't that copyright sets you up for life. It's a balance between your needs and the public interest. Tell me how you would serve the public interest.### Assistant: I feel that your responses to /u/nomnommish indicate you may not fully understand the ecosystem of art. The whole concept of a "starving artist" exists because of the difficulties in creating art and monetizing it. BUT art doesn't exist for monetization. It exists for it's own reasons. The lucky few artists who do manage to make a living from it are indeed lucky, but while death+70 may be too much, 15 years is silly. Imagine a painter who goes to college, and in their 20s works their ASS off hustling their way into galleries, begging friends to promote their work, etc etc. Classic starving artist. Now, one day when they're 35 they've finally built enough of a reputation in the art world to be noticed, to have developed a style that's unique and interesting. You really think that OTHER people should be able to freely reproduce the art this person made in college (at 18, 19, 20) without compensating them? Those early works could be literally priceless In this situation, those people are piggybacking off the hard work and reputation built up over the artist's early adulthood, and is not in the interests of anyone but vultures to have an artist's right to their work expire so soon.### Human: Just FYI, I went to college for art. >You really think that OTHER people should be able to freely reproduce the art this person made in college (at 18, 19, 20) without compensating them? Yes. >Those early works could be literally priceless And still would be. A print of my work (assuming i was famous) would be worth about $20. The original work that I painted would be worth a lot more. Meanwhile, all of those people hanging posters of /u/limbodog's college work in their dorms are spreading my name. And by doing so increasing my marketability for new works. As long as I'm not incredibly bad at business, I can turn this into a major gain for myself.### Assistant: Aaanndd... Why should some shitbag with access to kinkos be able to sell those posters? Why should a 35 year old not be able to sell their art they made in college now that it's popular? And re "all of those people hanging posters of /u/limbodog's college work in their dorms are spreading my name" is literally the thought process every artist, photographer, editor, musician is fighting against right now... that "exposure" is worth anything http://www.salon.com/2015/10/28/wil_wheaton_is_right_stop_expecting_artists_to_work_for_free_or_worse_exposure/ You don't seem to understand the disaster your idea would wreck on the art world, possibly willfully.### Human: Why not? They're not taking anything from me. Why should they be prevented from taking an action that doesn't involve me in any way, or deprive me of my property? And at this point, I'm not talking exposure, I'm talking fame. If my poster is already being put up in dorms, then I'm not looking to be discovered, I'm looking to expand my base.
### Human: CMV: Instead of people in /r/badeconomics linking to people's economic misunderstandings, they should be out in the broader Reddit community helping people learn good economic principles.### Assistant: For the record, I hate most smug reddits. I agree they're mostly a circlejerk. However, I will say that it's not uncommon for people linked to those threads via "Bad[discipline]" often go to those threads to dispel erroneous arguments. Sometimes they come in hot-headed, but other times they do reach out. I can say through experience that the frustrating end of this is, when you specialize in an area, even when you're reasonable about correcting people, they latch onto their own beliefs or orthodoxy, and smug reddits are a good place to let off steam. Many of these people are out there trying to explain concepts even if they're not part of a devoted subreddit to do so, and smug reddits came into being as a smaller, more "private" response to those who are seemingly impervious to alternative arguments. Understanding is a two way street; smug reddits are like the local pub where regulars go precisely because it's one place to be insular and among like-minded people when the other side of that conversation won't meet you halfway.### Human: I'd would be on board with you if that was how /r/badeconomics an other subs were being used. I think we've all met the online physicist who thinks he's the intellectual successor to Einstein, and if the smaller subs were a way to blow off steam about that, that would make sense. That is not how I've seen them be used typically. I pulled [this one](http://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/36wj3b/fiat_currency_slavery/) from the /r/badeconomics front page, posted by u/kindspoke. u/Brother_tempus made a comment in /r/economics that gold is the people's money. I kind of feel bad for him that he hasn't been able to have the education he'd need to learn about how currency works. Where in that sub did u/kindspoken try to point him towards places where he could learn why the US moved away from the gold standard? Nowhere. Instead it was posted to r/badeconomics, where a slew of people who know better had a field day with the comment. You know who wasn't invited? u/Brother_tempus. He's still out there, feeling disenfranchised and wondering why he has to work for paper. The subreddits might say they are a pub where people can blow off steam, but they are really a pub where people can looks out the windows and laugh at the passersby while those people scramble to figure out what's going on in the world.### Assistant: There are millions of people posting and commenting all the time on reddit. Woodworking is a hobby of mine and if you go to the woodworking sub you'll probably see at least 1 post a day asking "What tools do I need?" Sometimes, people just get tired of providing the same responses to the same questions/positions over, and over, and over again. So some posts become a CJ about it. There are also a lot of posts that are a CJ about the erroneous information itself. They aren't asking questions and they aren't looking for answers. I know the search function is fairly shitty, but there has seldom been a time that I couldn't at least get pointed in the right direction when using it. There is a sidebar with info, links, and FAQ's in nearly every sub. How much obligation does one have to correct someone who has made little to no effort? It gets tedious.### Human: ∆ Alright. I'll award you that. That answers most of what I came here for, and I don't want to get too pedantic about this today. I just see a lot of willingness to learn on Reddit, and people who could, with a few key strokes, teach people so easily. I was just wondering why they waste that talent making fun of us.### Assistant: The real problem is that the willingness to learn you are taking about apparently stops well short of doing any actual research. It's really tiring to explain over and over again why something is true or false. Particularly when a quick search reveals literally thousands of pages doing the same. Why should anyone spend more effort on educating you than you are willing to spend on yourself? What's in it for us?### Human: They do spend time educating themselves. YouTube videos about the gold standard. Blogs about how immigration, or automation, will make it so there is no more labor for them to undertake. There's a whole host of teachers out there who are telling them what they should think the truth is, and the best acedemia can muster to counter this is essentially "we're right, and if you want to know why, come to us." It makes it so people have to put up with the Peter Schiffs, and the Ron Pauls. Those people are teachers with students, and no one is spending the time to sit down and tell those students why, exactly, their beloved professor is a crackpot. What's in it for you is these are real people, and bad ideas go away over time if there is a truely convincing counter argument. No one outside of the most cracked of the crackpots argues for geocentrism anymore. I'm thoroughly convinced, maybe drawing a bit on my own naivete, that these bad ideas can be eventually eliminated also. You'd be better of because you wouldn't have to put up with the impact of these bad ideas on real life anymore. Each person you educate in here is a voter, a bar room discusser, and a megaphone. People like to be popular, but they also like to be right. If you give them real education, you give them power over whatever dummy is trying to convince them of a bad idea. We'd be a better community for it.### Assistant: Telling people that they are wrong almost never works. Ever. In any context. Paradoxically, having real data and expert commentary only strengthens people's grip on what they currently believe. Parading around reddit, trying to valiantly correct people that are spewing nonsense is a hopeless endeavor. Education does not come in the form of a reddit argument and almost never comes for people who aren't looking for it actively. You're asking people to invest huge amounts of time and effort into trying to educate people that not only don't want to hear it, but argue with you and then ignore everything when you try to show them the data. I don't want to sound like an asshole, but I'll sit it out. When I'm motivated to talk about something I will, but I certainly don't feel obligated. I applaud you if you want to go try. I'll be waiting for you in the circlejerk subs after you burn out.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I don't care if you two have been fighting since you were both born, this is the only discussion in which I've seen either of you. And what I saw was him making a reasonable point and you insulting him and claiming anyone who believes him only does so because they're uneducated, without refuting his point in any way. Quite frankly, someone would have to be insane to read that and believe your side of the story. Also, >Tell me again, why will people want to invest in capital goods that are near the break-even profitability point if they have to give some of their profits away to people who are blowing it on consumables? Taxes have been a thing for a long time, and they don't seem to have ground the world economy to a screeching halt yet.### Human: Taxes, at least nominally, go toward improving public goods. UBI goes toward sustaining a class of non-working people, incentivizing those who choose not to contribute meaningfully to society. I don't feel like debating that guy here. I'm not looking to have my side of the story confirmed. Maybe I'll contribute more to the UBI sub to stop the spread of misinformation. For some reason I doubt having a correct view of economics is in the moderators best interest, however.### Assistant: My taxes go to things I oppose far more than poor people being able to buy food (or, more cynically, people not contributing to society). And yet I still pay them. Taxes are a cost on business, regardless of what that tax goes to. They don't suddenly become a different thing if some of that money goes towards a basic income. If you want to change the mind of basic income supporters, you're going to have to present better arguments than that.
### Human: CMV: The famous punk rock acts (Sex Pistols, Ramones, etc.) from the 70s sound horrible.### Assistant: That's the whole point of being punk. You had the perfumed, choreographed, clean melodies full of twinkling disco glitter everywhere... And then you had punk.### Human: So I guess it was a more "real" sounding music?### Assistant: Not real, but raw. Without affectation.### Human: Yeah, but the Sex Pistols are not really a good example: Never Mind the Bollocks is actually a very well produced album, with lots of overdubs and excellent sound quality, very far from other punk recordings from that era; in fact, the producer was Chris Thomas, of Beatles & Pink Floyd fame!### Assistant: Of course. The Sex Pistols were a manufactured boy–band, created out of thin air by a marketing man who knew a profitable band–wagon when he saw one.
### Human: I believe that by moving to the US, I am giving up most of my freedoms enjoyed in the UK, and significantly lowering my standard of living, CMV!### Assistant: The US is known for a lot of things, many of which are not good, but a low standard of living and a lack of freedoms really are not among them. The US has a relatively high standard of living. It generally ranks higher than or roughly equal to the UK on most [standard of living indices](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States). For example, on the [UN Human Development Index](http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/), the US ranks 3rd and the UK ranks 26th. There are of course many people in the US who live in poverty, but the average standard of living here is uncontroversially among the very highest in the world. The US has a strong system of individual rights. On most [freedom indices](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices#List_by_country), the US and the UK get the same high marks. Our constitutional protections for free speech, due process, and, yes, gun rights are among the strongest in the world. Of course, the US has nowhere close to a spotless record on these issues. Guantanamo Bay stands out as a prime example. But that doesn't change the fact that, on average, individual rights in the US are among the strongest in the world. Your concern about "mass spying techniques" is interesting. It's curious coming from a citizen of a [country monitored by more than four million government surveillance cameras](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/london-is-the-surveillance-societys-biggest-test-yet/243445/), one for every 14 people. In any event, the NSA spying programs you are referencing are concerning. But they're certain to be overblown by domestic conspiracy theorists and American antagonists abroad. All countries, including the UK, engage in spying. It's a tradeoff between safety and freedom. Good luck with your decision. Edit: The video surveillance program maybe was not the fairest comparison (hat tip: /u/Zagorath). Further, there is [cause to question](http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/10/14/cctv-prevalence-in-britain/) that estimate of the number of cameras and how many of them are government operated (hat tip: /u/redem). A better argument would have been that [the UK itself engages in NSA-type spying](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora) (hat tip: /u/koreth).### Human: > In any event, the NSA spying programs you are referencing are concerning. But they're certain to be overblown by domestic conspiracy theorists and American antagonists abroad. All countries, including the UK, engage in spying. It's a tradeoff between safety and freedom. Are you saying the NSA scandal is only "concerning"?### Assistant: I do find it concerning, yes. But a debate as to how strenuous my objection should be isn't really germane to the OP. The issue is the relative intrusiveness of the spy agencies in the US and the UK. As we've already established, the UK [does the same thing the NSA does](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora).### Human: Thanks for clearing that up, but I asked if you only found it concerning.### Assistant: Like I said, my thoughts on the NSA program aren't relevant to the OP. There seems to be no shortage of threads debating the merits of the program.### Human: I'm not concerned with the OP. I'm concerned with the fact that you don't view the NSA as grimly as you should. I think you're letting your love for your country get in the way of rational thinking.
### Human: CMV: I do not believe in any absolute morality.### Assistant: Not to be rude, but I don't think you've defined your terms very well, so it's hard for me to change your view. Please define "objective morality" and "absolute morality."### Human: Objective or absolute morality, in this discussion, is a motive or guide for all action that is not subject to change between circumstance and actor doing the action. Subjective or relative morality is a motive or guide for action that can be different between individuals and beliefs. My idea is that all "morality" is subjective. And actions that are considered self-less or morally based are done for a relief of suffering or gain of positive emotions. Edit: to clarify: these actions are self-centered and in my opinion amoral irrelevant of consequence. Edit 2: I guess I was oversimplifying when I claimed that subject morality was not morality, as I saw one type of absolute morality. I didn't really see the point in morality that is relative, but have changed my view to see that morality can mean a code of action that is totally personal.### Assistant: The key problem here is that you are arguing two totally separate points, but you have combined them into a single claim. Let me try to pull them apart. Firstly, you are advocating moral anti-realism against moral realism. Moral realism is the claim that moral facts can be true or false based on objective features of the world. Moral anti-realism claims that moral facts are mind dependent. Thus, the truth of moral facts depends on the individual. The second claim you are making is one of consequentialism against some form of moral absolutism. You claim that the rightness or wrongness of an act is totally dependent on its consequences. However, this contradicts your previous point. If moral facts are true or false based on objective features of the world (measurable suffering), then morality doesn't differ from individual to individual. Right? Because of this confusion, you are oversimplifying a complex issue. Because you see the contrast as Christian moral absolutism vs. consequentialist morality (with no room for, say, a secular ethic based on duty rather than consequences), you are making the mistake of asserting an overly consequences-obsessed moral system.### Human: I'm not exactly sure where I brought up consequence based morality. Yes I do advocate moral anti-realism. But, no I do not ignore secular, duty morality. I believe (have articulated else where in the thread) that duty morality is a strategy of how to gain the most material and emotional benefits from society and my biology.### Assistant: > that duty morality is a strategy of how to gain the most material and emotional benefits from society and my biology. One problem here is the idea that morality always garners you the most benefits. Sometimes, if you take consequentialism seriously, it means that you lose, but other people win. Actually, you aren't going to find any moral system that always benefits you materially and emotionally in a maximal way. Second of all, I'm going to turn your own argument back on you. Your moral system seems pretty absolute to me. There is always an action that increases benefits the most, and thus that action is always right, regardless of context. I might deeply value freedom beyond it giving any emotional or moral benefits, but still choose it over some form of totalitarianism that somehow maximizes happiness. Your system has not room for any values except for material gains, which hardly makes sense in, say, a society without private property.### Human: To clarify: by emotional gain, I am thinking that fighting for freedom will satisfy my suffering and make me happier than under a totalitarian society, because I value freedom over what ever pleasure they give me. I also don't believe that people should act selfishly, instead that they do act selfishly. So I believe that the consequences determine what I should do, instead that I don't have an absolute purpose and I will act regardless due to the laws of physics.### Assistant: >To clarify: by emotional gain, I am thinking that fighting for freedom will satisfy my suffering and make me happier than under a totalitarian society, because I value freedom over what ever pleasure they give me. So then I think you need to reframe your ethical system. You aren't really trying reduce suffering in some utilitarian way. You accept that what you are really trying to do is embody your values. I think, however, hat the key is that not all of those values are quantifiable in the way that suffering might be. So I don't think it's a tradeoff in terms of emotional gain vs. emotional gain, but instead of competing values. I think this might be what you are saying, I just find the utilitarian language to be weird. So thus, there are certain values that you hold so dearly, that it would take some pretty bad consequences to give up on them. How is this different from what you are terming religious moral absolutism? It never really ignores consequences entirely, it just puts far more weight on certain moral rules. Both involve competing systems of values. What is the real difference?### Human: Ok. I would like to think that those values affect me emotionally. I guess the decision to fight would still have a negative net effect on my feelings but be weighted beneficial on a moral scale. The difference to absolutism that I weigh my individual values, while absolutism weighs universal values. Thanks for your input. You have been very clear and intelligent. I will be calling it a night, as it is 1:00 a.m. for me.
### Human: I don't think it's immoral to have racial preferences in one's sex life. CMV### Assistant: To clarify, you mean on aesthetics only, right? If your reasoning was "I don't want to date a black girl because blacks always steal from you", then yeah, that would be racist, but if you just mean you're not into a particular look, then of course that's fine.### Human: What if you made that decision because they were more likely to steal from you, based on supported statistics?### Assistant: Still racist. Don't you know judging inequality is about the ideal world you want to live in, not the one you actually live in.### Human: What about objectivity?### Assistant: What about sarcasm
### Human: CMV: This Washington Post Article is atrocious journalism### Assistant: The principal thing I see that contradicts you is that the piece has made the chart of the two patterns extremely prominent. You read the headline, then see the graphic, then read the article. The graphic makes the true trend abundantly clear. Additionally, in the second and third paragraphs the author makes the points you're making here: >The convergence of the trend lines above is driven primarily by a sharp drop in the rate of motor vehicle fatalities since 1950. In the late 1960s, for instance, there were well over 25 motor vehicle deaths for every 100,000 people in the United States. Since then, that rate has fallen by more than half. >Over the same period, gun deaths rose, but by a considerably smaller amount. Gun homicide rates have actually fallen in recent years, but those gains have been offset by rising gun suicide rates. Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths. So yes, the intro paragraph could be better, and the headline is a bit sensationalist, but the overall impression given to the reader, especially with the super prominent graphic, isn't that bad. Additionally, I'll point out with regard to the headline, that it is standard practice that journalists don't write their own headlines, and the headlines are chosen by editorial staff depending on typesetting and/or clickbait potential.### Human: Thanks for the response. I mentioned in my post that when I read the article republished in my local paper there was no graphic included. It's hard for me to know how it appeared in other print newspapers, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that many who read it did so without the graphic. As for the headlines I know you're correct but I don't feel it diminishes my point. I tried to not single out the writer, but no matter who contributed what component, the end result was, in my view, really bad.### Assistant: I feel like the omission of the graphic is a defect of the local paper, not the Washington Post, especially considering that the original content is a blog post, not a print article, which means the author may not have been preparing it with print production (and the constraints thereof) in mind. If they had been writing for a context where they couldn't necessarily have a graphic, they might have written differently.### Human: You certainly aren't wrong but I had to give the delta to the other guy because he gave a little more nuanced answer and pointed out the original article was not in the 'news' section of the Washington Post (even though it was presented as news in my paper), but rather a more blog-ish type setting.### Assistant: There's no limit on deltas. Don't be stingy! (One can even and should give deltas for comments unrelated to the OP, and even if you're not the submitter.)### Human: Thanks. I have plenty of deltas though, so I'm not too worried.
### Human: CMV: faith is a force for evil in the world### Assistant: Your entire argument seems stand on the fact that some acts that you deem bad or evil are based on a person's or peoples' faith. Do you deny that many good deeds are also done based on these same beliefs? Either you must prove that no good deed can ever stem from faith or accept that it is a tool that can be used either for good or bad, and has no inherent vice.### Human: That's a false dichotomy. It is sufficient to show that the bad deeds carried out in the name of 'faith' outweigh the good. Also, it's not possible to prove a negative.### Assistant: "In the name of" is an absolutely useless qualifier, one I think you apply deliberately to reach a predetermined conclusion, that religion is evil, because doing your evil in the name of Nazism/Communism/Fascism isn't doing it in the name of atheism itself. Rather, let's see if athiests are less violent than the religious. Such is not so: Atheist heads of state are responsible for more death in relative AND absolute terms.### Human: > Atheist heads of state are responsible for more death in relative AND absolute terms. I didn't know that heads of state were the only people we could judge morally.### Assistant: They have the biggest impact on the world. The question OP asked essentially was "Does faith make the world a worse place?" The answer is clearly no.### Human: I just disagree with you there. Murders on the hands of world leaders are not the only bad things that happen. I point to the people who allow themselves to be taken advantage of, and allow atrocities based on religion. If they were religious, would Stalin and Pol Pot have spared their people? No. And if they were not religious, would people allow rampant corruption in the Catholic Church, along with misinformation about AIDS and condoms and protection of child rapists. Or defense of baldfaced hatred and bigotry in the name of religious freedom? Also no.### Assistant: Would Stalin and Pol Pot have been what they were without Communism? No. Communism has proven more effective than religion in controlling modern man, and needs no appeal to a deity to do so. I challenge you to find one post-1900 atrocity on the scale of Stalin. Look into phrenology. 19th century science said Africans were inferior. More reading: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism### Human: Phrenology is discredited, and I'm not a communist.### Assistant: And I'm not a crusader or a terrorist. The question is a question of "was", not "is". The most eminent scientists of the 19th century, including no less than Charles Darwin, famed for counter religious theories were horrid racists. Earlier, Linnaeus, even Immanuel Kant. Slavery was justified likewise by science. The euphoric skeptics would like to think they would not be fooled, but even if an omnipotent being (the irony), wiped their brains of knowledge but left their skepticism fact when sending them back in time, the racist studies had scientific consensus and due to the fact that those of African heritage were brutalized and denied education, the racist conclusions would have been anecdotally supported. Would you condemn with equal vehemence say, a Northern pastor who believed in the equality of blacks, despite all the "science"? Yes, religion was used too, but suppose we take it away. ALL that would be left would be phrenology and craniology and physical anthropology. That leads to a WORSE conclusion. You can't find everything in the empirical. At best you can find imperfect but very accurate theories that predict physical results, but you'll never find morality or meaning.### Human: I'm not sure quite who you're arguing with--it certainly isn't me--but you seem to have mistaken me for a clumsy caricature of of an angst-ridden fourteen-year-old atheist. I'm really having trouble following your several squirrelly lines of questioning, and I don't think that's my fault. I will say that scientists have been wrong in the past, and if Darwin, Linnaeus, and Kant were racists, they were wrong. However the thing which has proven them wrong is better science; that is the only way to trump science: better science. > Yes, religion was used too, but suppose we take it away Suppose we just refrain from considering the facts which are inconvenient to you? Yes, suppose there is no gravity and, as we suppose, off we could fly. No, I don't think I will suppose that. And are you telling me that the only worldviews in existence are religious ones, and phrenology, craniology, and anthropology? > You can't find everything in the empirical Of course not. We mustn't forget rationalism.### Assistant: "Take away" as in remove from the equation on both sides, justificatory and condemnatory. A world without faith. Fortunately for us, I'm here to discuss religion's empirical effects. You've yet to show me how removing it would improve the world. The communists were athiests, as was Hitler, and even if you dispute that, the Nazis used a LOT of pseudoscience. It defies the imagination to suppose the common man has the necessary discernment to be able to recognize both pseudoscience and correct at every instance. People are taken in by diet fads a the time and much of OP's original examples are in fact, pseudosciences. Still, I come back to, if nobody had any faith (using OP's definition), everyone becomes nescient worriers because nobody accepts any axioms.### Human: Religion has access to very emotional parts of people, and it can bypass their reason, making good people do bad things. That's about the gist of it. A lot of otherwise decent people turned a blind eye to the child rape in the Catholic Church because they had that power. gender and sexual minorities are still fighting for equal rights because when religious people hate and oppress them, some people think that they have a right to because of religion. This is why I think religion is harmful. I don't see why you're mentioning pseudoscience, and I want you to tell me what you think that word means. > the Nazis used a LOT of pseudoscience. What does that have to do with this discussion? I am also opposed to pseudoscience, as I am to Nazis, and to see them in bed together is not surprising. You seem to think that I have to answer for all the wrong done based on pseudoscience, and I don't know where you may have gotten that idea. As I have said before, there is a difference between choosing to operate as though something were true, and believing that it is true. I have reasons to operate as though certain axioms are true, but I still recognize that I cannot prove it. For example, I choose to operate as though the laws of logic work, because if they don't it doesn't matter anyway. I choose to operate as though I have free will because if I don't it doesn't matter what I 'choose.' However I will and have admitted that I cannot prove those things. There is a fundamental difference between the examples of faith being harmful that I have presented, and the examples of atheism being harmful that your present. I have made specific connections between religion and faith to the problems they have caused. In my examples people do things because of faith and religion. In your examples there is no such bridge, only people who did bad things and were also, according to you atheists. Hitler was also a vegetarian, liked dogs, hated smoking, wore a mustache, ans came from Austria. Are all of those things, when seen in other people, to be warnings that they might decide to commit genocide?### Assistant: "Religion has access to very emotional parts of people, and it can bypass their reason, making good people do bad things. That's about the gist of it." So can many things, including soccer teams. So? "I don't see why you're mentioning pseudoscience, and I want you to tell me what you think that word means." I'll let my friends at Merriam Webster do that. "A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." "What does that have to do with this discussion? I am also opposed to pseudoscience, as I am to Nazis, and to see them in bed together is not surprising. You seem to think that I have to answer for all the wrong done based on pseudoscience, and I don't know where you may have gotten that idea." Because people will still do horrid things to each other, and the most recent, therefore most pertinent to the modern world, and also most horrid, have been done justified by not religion and in the communist states certainly, anti-religion. So who is more susceptible to pseudoscience? The religious, or the irreligious? [Looks like](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ztx77iknqkk8tksbouojiw.png) [The irreligious](http://m.motherjones.com/files/vaccine_rateBystate-UPD-01.png ) Also Vermont was the first to label totally harmless GMOs, as a bonus. "There is a fundamental difference between the examples of faith being harmful that I have presented, and the examples of atheism being harmful that your present. I have made specific connections between religion and faith to the problems they have caused. In my examples people do things because of faith and religion. In your examples there is no such bridge, only people who did bad things and were also, according to you atheists. Hitler was also a vegetarian, liked dogs, hated smoking, wore a mustache, ans came from Austria. Are all of those things, when seen in other people, to be warnings that they might decide to commit genocide?" Let's pretend for a moment that Communism, an atheist ideology, played no material role in the massacres of Mao and Pol Pot. Simple reductio shows why this line of reasoning is so inane. Society A is full of asectic, abnegating monks following Madeupism. Every year, one or two monks out of a million go insane and kill someone in the name of their God. Society B is full of robbers and thugs who reject gods and believe you can have whatever you can take. They kill 1000 of a million. Ah, but clearly society B's philosophy is superior, since nobody dies explicitly because of it, yes?### Human: > So can many things, including soccer teams. So? And people's devotion to soccer has allowed FIFA to do commit all sorts of evil corporation sorts of crimes. You still haven't explained why I have to account for pseudoscience. Sometimes religion and pseudoscience overlap with each other even. There are more ways to categorize people that whether or not they are religious. The fervently religious and those who buy into pseudoscience, for example, could be a category, and good decision-makers another. Do you think that no religious people fall for pseudoscience? That all irreligious people do? Communism is an atheist ideology, yes, but atheism is not inherently communist. To implicate all atheists and philosophies in the crimes of just a few is like implicating everyone who's ever had a drink in every DUI. Atheism and communism are compatible, yes, but every single atheist and irreligious person has personality traits other than their irreligion, and the same is true of ideologies. Atheism is compatible with communism, but it is also compatible with capitalism, and democracy, and oligarchy, and monarchy, and mercantilism, and republic, and confederacy. It's compatible with almost any economic or political system, theocracy aside. Atheism is so compatible with so many things because it doesn't really do anything. The only thing a system needs to accomplish in order to be atheistic is to not feature deities in any of its inherent policies, and almost any system has that potential. So to say that communism is an atheist ideology is technically true in a sense, but it is misleading unless we remember that almost anything can be considered an atheist ideology as long as we define atheist ideologies so loosely as to include any system with is compatible at all with atheism. We might even go so far as to say that atheism is inherent to communism (as practiced by the regimes we've mentioned, at least), but that simply doesn't make communism inherent to atheism. > Society A is full of asectic, abnegating monks following Madeupism. Every year, one or two monks out of a million go insane and kill someone in the name of their God. People don't have to go insane to commit atrocity in the name of things to which they fanatically devote themselves to; that's what makes it scary and dangerous. Religion has the potential, and has demonstrated the tendency, to cause sane people to do insane things. > Ah, but clearly society B's philosophy is superior, since nobody dies explicitly because of it, yes? That's not at all what I'm saying. Take care to understand that I haven't once defended communism, I have only said that the ills committed by it are not due to its compatibility with atheism.### Assistant: "Do you think that no religious people fall for pseudoscience? That all irreligious people do?" No, just as you don't think all religious people are murderers. Nevertheless, correlation. "Communism is an atheist ideology, yes, but atheism is not inherently communist. To implicate all atheists and philosophies in the crimes of just a few is like implicating everyone who's ever had a drink in every DUI. Atheism and communism are compatible, yes, but every single atheist and irreligious person has personality traits other than their irreligion, and the same is true of ideologies. Atheism is compatible with communism, but it is also compatible with capitalism, and democracy, and oligarchy, and monarchy, and mercantilism, and republic, and confederacy. It's compatible with almost any economic or political system, theocracy aside. Atheism is so compatible with so many things because it doesn't really do anything. The only thing a system needs to accomplish in order to be atheistic is to not feature deities in any of its inherent policies, and almost any system has that potential. So to say that communism is an atheist ideology is technically true in a sense, but it is misleading unless we remember that almost anything can be considered an atheist ideology as long as we define atheist ideologies so loosely as to include any system with is compatible at all with atheism. We might even go so far as to say that atheism is inherent to communism (as practiced by the regimes we've mentioned, at least), but that simply doesn't make communism inherent to atheism." I could substitute "Islam" for Communism and Atheism for Theism and it would work for essentially all your points barring obviously theocracy. What you fail to realize, however, about Communism is that it is not merely compatible with Communism, but required for it, much ad theism is for Islam. It was required by Marx and every Communist regime since. The USSR, CCP, and Khmer Rouge all oppressed and killed the religious.### Human: > No, just as you don't think all religious people are murderers. Nevertheless, correlation. So? As I said, the world is not made up of the religious and non-religious, and there are all sorts of non-religious people who are also wrong. Maybe religious people don't fall for pseudoscience because they've already fallen for something else. Unless you can show me a causal link between irreligion and pseudoscience, you've got nothing. And even if you could, you still wouldn't have anything pertaining to the original discussion that faith is a negative for society, because religion and faith are not the same thing. Okay, I'll concede that atheism is inherent to Communism. In fact, I already did in my previous comment. That does not mean that atheism has any inherent trait related to communism. Just as theism is required for Islam, but Islam is not required by theism. Thanks for the metaphor.### Assistant: But that last admission defangs your thesis that faith (I'm only defending religion, because all I've got to show that some beliefs which lack evidence have good effects, defeating OP's categorical claim) is bad, considering I can amputate any bad actors from theism by the same token. "Yes. That wasn't theism, that was Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/Hinduism"### Human: > I'm only defending religion, because all I've got to show that some beliefs which lack evidence have good effects, defeating OP's categorical claim Are you saying that faith only has to be good sometimes to be considered a force for good? It must have a net good effect, and the good must be greater than the bad. > But that last admission defangs your thesis Except when I point out something bad that religion or faith does, I make a specific connection between the faith and the bad thing, which you have been unable to do. You can show me something bad that communism does, but you can't show me how atheism is specifically involved in that thing. I don't say "Muslims blew up a thing and Muslims are theists, so theism blew a thing up." If I did, I would be wrong. The features of Islam which motivated that act are found in religion in general, not just Islam. Faith and devotion give religion access to people's actions and decisions with a bypass of their reason. This is not only a feature of Islam, it is a defining feature of religion.### Assistant: This goes back to societies A and B. Suppose I take an empiricist view on morality and reject it as a fabrication. After all, I can't prove it. Thus uninhibited I murder, loot and plunder whenever I am convinced I can get away with it, yet never specifically invoking my rejection of morality. After all, morality doesn't concern me, I want money/wealth, so that is my motivation. Meanwhile, a baker refuses to make a cake for a gay couple, citing his religious beliefs. According to your reasoning, the baker's religion is at fault, but my rejection of morality is unrelated and thus superior to his religion.### Human: First of all, you know that religion has motivated far worse things that selective cake baking, and presenting that as you did was disingenuous. > According to your reasoning, the baker's religion is at fault, but my rejection of morality is unrelated and thus superior to his religion. You continue to mistake the society for its parts. I have never defended communism, and I wouldn't defend that society. If indeed your disregard for morality is not the motivator for your actions, then I would not fault it for your actions. Your argument falls upon itself right there. But you said "Thus uninhibited." This leads me to believe that your rejection of morals has in fact something to do with you activity. It seems that in hypotheticals in which you create the scenario you are quite adept at making this connection between evil and the act the you would like to motivate it. Once you've become able to do this in the real world, you'll have a coherent point.### Assistant: Cake baking served the purposes of my reductio. But the thing is, regarding "thus uninhibited", you, the external observer, are not privy to that information. All you see is a man who rejects morality and robs and plunders. In any case my motivation is still money, so we must consider the rejection of morality as a causally significant facilitator. The facilitator is as important as the motivator, but facilitators (and indeed, motivators) are not always explicit. Therefore one ought look to see if any particular belief is an effective motivator or facilitator for wrongdoing through other means, such as trends and correlations. That no one says (although in many cases they did invoke anti-clericalism) they are killing for atheism is immaterial, much like my rejection of morality not being my prime motivator is immaterial to the causal relationship my crimes have with it.### Human: I'm just done. I've been trying to decide whether or not you were serious for the entirety of this conversation, and now I don't care.### Assistant: You ought be. You've specifically crafted your system of assigning blame around the predetermined conclusion that religion is evil and the cause of many atrocities but that although atheism should theoretically reduce the number of wars and atrocities, there is a strong correlation in the exact opposite direction, yet in your theory you can't make that association. The facts remain. While there have been very roughly over 100 atheist heads of state and government since 1900, they as a demographic are responsible for 150 million (85 million [Low estimate for communist killings according to wikipedia]+67 million [removed Second Sino Japanese war casualties from WW2, as it was already happening]). The fact is, the skeptics have won. You won't be able to start a major war or kill millions with religion anymore. Religion doesn't cause major wars anymore. Ideologies do.### Human: You've made that point several times, I've refuted it several times, and you have never addressed it, only reasserted it. That is why we are done.### Assistant: The causation is irrelevant, which is your pennyante defense. "Well, they didn't SAY they were killing for atheism". You claim Religion=deaths. Like any scientist, I took your theory's obvious prediction that less religion=less deaths and found it to be entirely contravened by evidence. Not only can I accept the null hypothesis, I must. At best, there is no conclusion that is supported by evidence to be reached other than "Religion and violence are unrelated".
### Human: I believe that OPs in this subreddit should be banned if they ignore serious top-level replies to their posts. CMV.### Assistant: >Lately (especially since the invasion from /r/adviceanimals), there have been a couple of threads here in which the OP has simply ignored all but the weakest counter-arguments to their stated view. This is not a new phenomenon. Even if it is, "a couple" threads is not worth warranting strict rules and restrictions on posting. >As such, I believe stronger moderation is required. For a small subreddit (even with the influx, we're still below 30k subscribers), we have over ten committed moderators from multiple timezones. As one of them, I even found your post within a minute of your posting. >The OP of a thread should face unappealable banning if they do not reply to a rule-abiding top-level comment with either a ∆ or a clear explanation of why their view has not (yet) been changed, within a certain timeframe. That's an extremely harsh punishment to put on a person for a rule that would be very easily overlooked - people already overlook rules III, IV, and V all the time. Plus, top-level replies (I assume you're talking about replies with the most upvotes?) are not always the best ones. Earlier posts often have more time to accumulate ratings, so a better-quality comment may come later, but not be rated as highly. All this said, [we discussed a better solution in this thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d49yq/mod_post_we_want_your_feedback_on_popular/).### Human: > Encouraging OPs to respond to comments in a timely manner > Suggestion: add link flair that shows whether or not an OP has responded to any comments in their thread yet and whether and how many deltas they have awarded to other users. If we use link flair for this purpose, we probably can't also use it to help us categorize topics or themes. Thank you for the response. As you can probably tell, I made this thread to mainly to get a response from the mods. Unfortunately, I can't give you a delta yet, because I think the solution quoted above is not going to help the problem at all. Lots of people browse reddit on phones and tablets, which often do not show flair, anyway. So it's invisible to a good chunk of your userbase. The rest of those who come here just to put their invincible views on display are not really going to care about the flair, anyway, because they don't really care about the mission of this subreddit. > we have over ten committed moderators from multiple timezones. As one of them, I even found your post within a minute of your posting. Just to clarify, I don't mean stronger in terms of moderator presence; I mean stronger in terms of action to keep the subreddit on track. Maybe I take reddit less seriously than others, but I don't think that being banned from a small, niche subreddit is actually a harsh punishment at all. It's like receiving a letter in the mail informing you that you may not go to Baffin Island. > I assume you're talking about replies with the most upvotes? No, by "top-level" I mean replies directly to the OP, rather than comments on comments. And I just mean the ones that actually address the OP's argument. The spirit of the subreddit is that a strong counter-argument really deserves a response. I envision the banhammer only being applied if OP ignores every top-level comment, with the possible exception of those with an obvious flaw. It's possible you can change my view on this issue with a solution that's stronger than awarding/denying user flair, but weaker than banning on first offense. It's hard to think of a way to automate such a solution, but maybe I or someone else will come up with a suggestion.### Assistant: What if a reply is made, the person's view is changed, and then a couple of days later, another post is voted to the top and OP doesn't notice?### Human: I think you didn't read the post before commenting. My point has nothing to do with how upvoted a comment is.### Assistant: I did read your post. I'm saying, what if OP DID reply to a THEN top comment, and ANOTHER comment becomes top after they changed their view and stopped viewing the thread? This happens a lot with bestof'd comments.### Human: I thought you didn't read my post, because I specifically defined "top-level comment" to mean any comment that is a reply to the post. It doesn't matter if it's "top" in terms of upvotes.### Assistant: That would be even harder. Imagine a front page bestof'd CMV. Better idea: OPs need to at least show participation.### Human: That's kind of what I'm getting at. I don't mean OP has to reply to all serious replies (though I think the fact that I'm doing it makes it seem like that's what I'm advocating), but just not completely ignore all of the strong replies.
### Human: CMV: "Political correctness" is a harmful and disingenuous term### Assistant: The term is massively overused in my opinion but it does have utility. There is a distinction between doing something because it is morally and ethically correct and doing something because you are institutionally expected to. Under ideal circumstances those two things overlap 100%, but circumstances are not always ideal. For example, when offensive and intimidating language is shut down in the work place, that's a good thing. However, when people or groups use political correctness as a tool to censor for example an academic who is trying to better understand an issue with research that necessitates a sterile examination of sensitive issues, that is a bad thing.### Human: The problem, I think, is that the term itself generally serves to obscure that distinction and allow one to object to both as if they were interchangeable.### Assistant: /u/MasterGrok hit the nail on the head though. There is not a perfect overlap between the morally and ethically correct thing and the institutionally expected thing. Even if the error is less than 1% you need a term to describe that error rate. And yes of course it will be used as a defense in wrong cases, but should we get rid of the right of self defense because it is often claimed, improperly, by the accused?### Human: I think you've made a case for a valid best case scenario intended usage even if it doesn't reflect the reality of how the term is normally used in real world politics. ∆### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/natha105. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/natha105)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]
### Human: CMV: If you believe that transgender deserves protected status and expanded civil rights, then logically, you must support the same rights for otherkin.### Assistant: Being transgender has a basis in biology. When the human brain is developing it develops differently based on the sex of the baby, and if it's hit with the wrong bath or hormones and chemicals or of there's some other anomaly occurs during development, you could end up with some mismatched wires that lead to your gender identity being flipped. There's no such biological mechanism to make a person feel like a wolf or a lizard.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: lol, yeah totally not sure here. Were also not sure if the core of the moon is made out of cheese, but I'm leaning towards not.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: No I am not. There is no cosmological or geological basis for the core of the moon to be made of cheese in the same way there is no biological or chemical basis for some tumblr kid to think he is gopher. They are equally absurd. It's a perfectly valid analogy.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Care to elaborate, or are you good with just making baseless statements?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: lol, good one. I'm guessing your only into armadillos or something though, right?
### Human: I think that "organic" foods are no better than regular foods, and that it's just a marketing scheme and an excuse for a price increase. CMV### Assistant: While I cannot say too much about the possible toxicity of some things or increased nutrient content I can address one thing. I grew up near a lot of farms, where I live in order to sell meat as organic, the land that the cows are raised on has to be free of chemicals and stuff for five years. Places that use all that stuff eventually have it runoff to somewhere else. I.E. Gulf of Mexico Deadzone. Petroleum based fertilizers also promote harmful algae blooms. [Algae blooms](http://environment.about.com/od/redtidesfaq/f/red_tide.htm) TLDR: Not all about the people eating the food.### Human: What does "free of chemicals" mean, and why is it important?### Assistant: Because many of the chemicals used in pesticides have not been tested to see if it safe for human consumption. It is essentially a lottery.### Human: That's just not true.### Assistant: Even the ones that are still have really bad effects on humans. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/27/pesticides-get-flawed-epa-approval/2024991/ http://discovermagazine.com/2003/dec/testing-pesticides-on-humans#.UXpO6LVqkrg http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/pesticides-block-male-hormones From Wikipedia > In the United States, levels of residues that remain on foods are limited to tolerance levels that are established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and are considered safe.[28] The EPA sets the tolerances based on the toxicity of the pesticide and its breakdown products, the amount and frequency of pesticide application, and how much of the pesticide (i.e., the residue) remains in or on food by the time it is marketed and prepared.[29] Tolerance levels are obtained using scientific risk assessments that pesticide manufacturers are required to produce by conducting toxicological studies, exposure modeling and residue studies before a particular pesticide can be registered, however, the effects are tested for single pesticides, and there is little information on possible synergistic effects of exposure to multiple pesticide traces in the air, food and water.[30]
### Human: Everybody is overly sensitive about the term "faggot" these days. CMV### Assistant: Because to some gay people, it is equally offensive. The word has historically been used to demean, threaten, and otherwise bring very real harm to gay people, and you can't erase that history just by joking.### Human: But in most cases (that I have seen it used) it isn't used to demean or threaten people. Most of the time its some kids who are just goofing around, using it in the same way that moron used to be used. Typically on reddit people are sensitive about people saying "op is a faggot", however context is everything, and rarely is it used to actually imply that anyone is gay in a derogatory way. Most of the time it could be used in the same way as "op is an idiot" Although the word can be offensive it entirely depends on context### Assistant: > rarely is it used to actually imply that anyone is gay in a derogatory way Not true. In fact, in that exact context people use "homosexual" and "faggot" pretty much interchangeably. The top posts in /r/OpIsAFag are a very effective demonstration of this. The following links are all from the 20 highest rated submissions in that subreddit: [1](http://i.imgur.com/It4M6.jpg) [2](http://i.imgur.com/R8D0l.png) [3](http://i.imgur.com/r9TgG.jpg) NSFW [4](http://i.imgur.com/DEO2B.jpg) [5](http://i.imgur.com/fHHbV0Z.gif) [6](http://i.imgur.com/RbuNO.jpg) [7](http://i.imgur.com/Gg4ms.gif) [8](http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/302/528/61e.jpg) [9](http://i.imgur.com/E0Emc.jpg) [10](http://i.imgur.com/M1PJZBZ.png) That's half of them, unambiguously equating "OP is a fag" with homosexuality. The use of that word as a casual insult is in no way separated from its bigoted meaning.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Are you suggesting that it only matters whether or not something offends you personally? Otherwise, I don't see the point of your comment.
### Human: CMV: Fat Feminism is a warped denial of medical studies### Assistant: Can you give examples of feminists encouraging people to be fat? I've never seen that. Refusing to shame people for being fat is not the same as encouraging them to be fat. In a lot of cases, encouraging people to lose weight is just concern trolling, pretending to care when it's really just fat shaming by another name.### Human: Okay, that's interesting. >encouraging people to lose weight is just concern trolling, pretending to care when it's really just fat shaming by another name. So is the point ultimately to remove societal pressure, or is it to make "fatness" acceptable on the whole? Like, the accounts of doctors and insurance companies shaming seems wrong to me, which is why I'm interested in understanding the movement, but I also completely understand why they are against obesity, it's costly and time consuming for their professions, and relatively easy to prevent/reverse with a lifestyle change.### Assistant: It's not easy, though. If it was easy to lose weight, no one would be fat. It's easy in theory, but in practice there's a massively long list of barriers.### Human: But it is easy to lose weight. It is just easier to continue being fat. Most people do not actually have a disorder that reduces the effectiveness of weight loss regiments and exercise has been proven to help mental well being. Eating well, if you budget, is also not that expensive. Something like 25% or more of middle class Americans are obese; those people could afford better food and a gym.### Assistant: Like most people who make this argument, you're using the wrong word. It's not "easy", it's "simple". For many people, it is physiologically painful to lose weight, and it doesn't do anyone any favors to call it "easy".### Human: Is many equal to most? Weight loss is both simple and easy, breaking old habits may not be.### Assistant: I really don't understand the logic here. Being fat is the result of those old habits, right? If it's hard to break those habits, then it's hard to stop being fat... pretty much by definition.### Human: I understand that losing a large amount of weight is difficult. The process of losing weight is simple, easy, whatever you want to call it. Most of the people I have interacted with who have "attempted" to lose weight say that it just doesn't work for the them because of X, Y or Z. Chances are they never tried and then actually stuck to a simple diet or exercise routine. They never get to the stage of breaking old habits because they have never challenged them. Dieting for a week or even a month isn't breaking a habit and ultimately if done correctly isn't that hard. It is at the point where people have their dedication and habits tested that the process becomes difficult.### Assistant: >Chances are they never tried and then actually stuck to a simple diet or exercise routine. [Citation Needed]
### Human: CMV: The general population is too stupid to be trusted for death penalty cases.### Assistant: [removed]### Human: [removed]### Assistant: [removed]### Human: [removed]### Assistant: [removed]### Human: [removed]### Assistant: [removed]
### Human: I believe there should be a rule change regarding "you can only challenge the OPs point" in terms of changing someone's view. CMV### Assistant: But this is an inherently selfish subreddit by design. It's "change my view," not "agree with me." If I make a CMV post, I'm not looking for other people to agree with me, I'm looking for things I may have missed in coming to the conclusion(s) that I have.### Human: The point is this subreddit is built on the idea of "truth". You want your opinion changed on the fact you may actually be wrong. If I comment "I believe creationism is false, prove me wrong" i'm asking to be made more ignorant.### Assistant: This subreddit is most definitely not about truth. Many of the discussion topics here are inherently subjective, and no objective "truth" can be reached. It's about advancing discussion in a civil manner, and the op will be able to gather more information and perspective to make a more informed decision.### Human: >This subreddit is most definitely not about truth. > It's about advancing discussion in a civil manner Pick one. Because both can't exist. Conversations are meant to lead to truth, otherwise its just a game of duck, duck, goose.### Assistant: Like I said before, for many of the topics on here, there is NO objective truth, and the decisions are entirely subjective based on what values the posters hold. The point is to gather more perspectives about the discussion topic so the poster can make more informed decisions based upon the values they hold.### Human: >Like I said before, for many of the topics on here, there is NO objective truth, and the decisions are entirely subjective based on what values the posters hold. and that's why I think the subreddit needs to adjust itself. The point should be the search for absolute truth rather than changing a view for the sake of it.### Assistant: So your view is that this subreddit should not be /r/changemyview but /r/findthetruth? Why not just make another subreddit if this one doesn't serve your purpose?### Human: Because "changemyview" doesn't have to end at OPs doorstep. It can also mean the views of those commenting.### Assistant: No actually, the express purpose of this sub is to attempt to change the views of the OP in each individual thread.### Human: Really? cite?### Assistant: From the sidebar: > For people who have an opinion on something but accept that they may be wrong or want help changing their view. > No neutral posts, no posts made on behalf of someone else, and no posting the opposite of what you actually believe. > Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question.### Human: >CMV Etiquette >The goal is to continue a conversation rather than win a debate.### Assistant: So? I said: > the express purpose of this sub is to attempt to change the views of the OP in each individual thread. Your quote does not contradict that. It is also unrelated to the point you were making which was: > "changemyview" doesn't have to end at OPs doorstep. It can also mean the views of those commenting.### Human: >Your quote does not contradict that. It does when you say the point is to change the OPs view. So are we trying to change a view or have a conversation. One does not automatically equal the other.### Assistant: They aren't mutually exclusive. Challenging OP's view is a rule, whereas continuing the conversation is etiquette.### Human: and continuing the conversation by building upon the OPs view is against the rules...which is a problem.### Assistant: >and continuing the conversation by building upon the OPs view... ...is circlejerking If you are allowed to agree with op in a top level post popular opinions will never be argued against.### Human: and when the commenters all do the same thing to each other....thats fine.### Assistant: That's kind of the point. The entire purpose of posting in this sub would be to see other viewpoints, not to reinforce your own. Anyway, the replies to these comments often agree with OP, so I don't see how the OP is being isolated.
### Human: CMV: People who say victims of suicide are selfish are the ones who are actually selfish### Assistant: >People who say victims of suicide are selfish are the ones who are actually selfish Your statement might be true sometimes or perhaps most of the time. I don't know. But it is not true all the time. I have an intelligent and caring friend who posted on Facebook that people who commit suicide are selfish. Many people responded by pointing out that suicide is a consequence of poor mental health. Based on the new information she changed her opinion. Her previous opinion was not based on being selfish, but ignorance. Therefore, at least some people who say victims of suicide are selfish are themselves ignorant rather than selfish.### Human: So she formed a viewpoint condemning others for being selfish without making an effort to show compassion or understand why they do what they do. That sounds pretty selfish to me to? I'm sure she's as intelligent and caring as you say but in that moment she was acting pretty badly.### Assistant: No, she made a judgment based on limited information. When she gained additional information she changed her judgment appropriately. We all make judgments based on limited information. After all, we are all limited in the amount of information we can acquire by time. Making judgments based on limited information is neither selfish nor unselfish in itself.### Human: She didn't just make a judgement, she made an extremely negative judgement of people and then expressed it. To do that without seeking any information is selfish. It's prioritizing to express your gut reaction over hurting people.### Assistant: >She didn't just make a judgement, she made an extremely negative judgement of people and then expressed it. To do that without seeking any information is selfish. No, that is what you are doing right now.### Human: According to the information you've given so far she made a negative snap judgement of people, did not choose to educate herself on it, and expressed, possibly to those very people. I do not understand why you're saying she didn't? I understand that I may come across as negative in this, and I apologize if that makes you feel bad for a friend. And I do hope you understand the difference between arguing the morality of a single, specific, act in a space designated for that purpose and to blast off a judgement of peoples entire character on your facebook.### Assistant: No, she did not make a snap judgment. Her judgment was not hurried or impetuous. She did make a judgment based on limited information. She did not realize at the time that she made the judgment that there was additional pertinent information. Notice, when she learned about the additional pertinent information she then changed her opinion. Again, the fact that she made a judgment based on limited information does not make the judgment selfish. You are not basing your attack solely on the information I have given. You did not ask additional questions to ascertain more details about the situation. Instead, you made up facts like she made a "snap judgment" and she "did not choose to educate herself". >And I do hope you understand the difference between arguing the morality of a single, specific, act in a space designated for that purpose and to blast off a judgement of peoples entire character on your Facebook. I don't understand. Are you saying that my friends cannot entertain a topic like this on Facebook? If so, can we discuss it in a public café? Do we need a designated space to discuss these topics? And if so, who gets to designate which space is appropriate?