Datasets:

Siddish

/

change-my-view-subreddit-cleaned

like 0

### Human: CMV: There's no reason for the United States to continue supporting Israel.### Assistant: The US needs to test our defense systems. That means going to war or supplying them to someone who is at war. For anti-rocket defense systems, there is no better ally than Israel. And such systems may save countless US lives one day (though of course we hope it never comes to that). Likewise, joint hacking exercises like Stuxnet have greatly improved both countries' capabilities without opening actual fronts against China or Russia. Turkey has been a very unreliable ally. It has been launching attacks on the Syrian Kurds and supporting ISIS. It has been hostile to US allies like Greece and Israel. And it kills far more civilians than Israel ever has.### Human: We can test our weapon systems else where, such as South Korea or the Philippines. Both are in states of conflict, where our technology can be used.### Assistant: Neither S Korea or the Philippines come under frequent rocket attacks the likes of which Israel see.### Human: Not as frequent, but still somewhat common enough to be a threat.### Assistant: Rocket attacks are entirely uncommon for both regions. There is not a single hit for rocket attack in the Philippines on the first two pages of google (baring one incident of a rocket grenade attack) and I can't find any rocket attacks perpetrated by the North since 2010. Furthermore in the case of Korea, rockets are not something to worry about. North Korea has mainly used artillery barages against the South such as in the case of Yeonpyeong Island . Why would the North Koreans even use rockets when they have had artillery batteries sighted on the Seoul since the cease fire?

### Human: CMV: If you don't opt-in for organ donating, organs shouldn't be given to you in a time of need### Assistant: I don't think it's fair to punish people for an opt-in system. First of all, it's an equity issue; many people literally cannot afford the time or fee to go to the DMV to get a driver's license (where most people register) or they are not aware that the organ donation program exists in the first place. Do these people, simply by failure of the system they live in, deserve to die if they need organs? This particular issue would be resolved in an opt-out system, but in the current opt-in system it is very much unfair to refuse organs to people because they might not know about a particular program. Also, what about people whose religion forbids them from donating their organs? This might be a less compelling argument for you, but it's still valid. Should they be forced to choose between their religion and their life?### Human: The first part was me until I was about 21 years old -- I just skimmed all the paperwork that they gave me at the DMV (yes, I realize how stupid this is) and signed at the bottom. I had never even noticed the little checkbox for organ donation, and as such, was unaware that being an organ donor was something that even needed to be opted in to. While I realize how stupid it was to sign something without giving it a better look over than I did, OP's logic would have me die for this mistake. In short, if one can accidentally fail to opt in to the program, it is grotesquely unfair to deny them organs due to this. Now if an *opt out* system were in place (default = everyone is an organ donor unless they take specific steps to opt out), this would be more fair, but there is still the possibility that mistakes can happen, particularly due to organ donation historically being opt in. Imagine a person that has diligently been opting in to organ donation for years. They go to the DMV to renew their license, and the "I would like to be an organ donor" box has changed to "I would not like to be an organ donor". Not being aware of the change, they see "organ donor" on the form and check the box. Maybe the person behind the counter is supposed to confirm this choice with the customer, but they are hungover and they forget to mention it. Now, due to a small mistake, this person is ineligible to receive organs should they need them.### Assistant: Of course. The opt-out system makes much more sense-- but that's not what the CMV is about!### Human: An opt-out system **does not** make sense! The government should not decree that people's organs will be harvested by default. That sounds absolutely dystopian. Also, opting in makes people feel like they're doing a public service -- a good deed. You take that satisfaction away when they're opted in by default. Also it makes people who actively have to opt out seem like scumbags. Some people just aren't cool with their organs being harvested. Maybe they'll see the light and change their mind in the future. But they shouldn't be made to feel like scum. You win people over with friendly discussion, not with judgement and hatred.### Assistant: Feelings vs lives.### Human: To be fair that only furthers /u/i_need_a_name2's point.### Assistant: how so?### Human: Dystopian isn't inherently bad in every facet of society. Many "dystopias" in works of art are constructed from governments taking utilitarianism too far. A dying man needs a liver, one needs a heart, and another needs a kidney. There are no spare organs to give. The utilitarian answer? Kill a civilian and distribute his organs to the three. 1 life vs. 3 lives. Of course, there are concerns regarding that, but those are mostly emotions. Thus, feelings vs. lives. Granted, I tend to think the utilitarian answer is the right one. I actually disagree with /u/i_need_a_name2 because it certainly doesn't go as far as to be dystopian. But you can see how someone saying "feelings vs. lives" could further his point.

### Human: CMV: I think it is wrong to use China or the USSR as citations of communism as a failed system### Assistant: Let's say you are an IT person- who has developed a brand new operating system. This operating system is just... it's the tits man. Once you get it fully functioning and onto everyone's PCs, it's going to be perfect. Now, there is one flaw- every time you try to load it up onto anyone's system, it doesn't work. It causes crashes, hardware failure, the like. Is the system not a failure? The road to implementing anything is often as important, if not more important, then maintaining said thing. If one can not get the system off the ground, then said system is clearly rife with problems.### Human: This is a poor analogy. We don't say that Linux sucks because I can't figure out how to install gentoo on a server. And we don't say it's Linux's fault that it can't run Netflix. You're misplacing blame here.### Assistant: If nobody in the history of the world has ever been able to figure out how to install it on anything big enough to be useful then yes you would say that.### Human: The history of the world has been very short and the world has been accelerating its change very quickly. It's nonsense to believe that because something hasn't worked in the past that it never will.### Assistant: Sure, but you can ask: "do I reasonably expect this to work reliably in the future?". If something has not worked in the past it suggests that it won't work in the future. If you had to bet money on a communist society being a possible outcome in the future what odds would you take?

### Human: CMV: Trump calling Hillary a "nasty woman" was not sexist, and not particularly offensive.### Assistant: I think the crux of it is that Hillary made a fairly run-of-the-mill attack on Trump in the range of the attacks we commonly see in Presidential campaigns, and was actually tame in the context of THIS election, yet Trump responded to it in a way that seemed very angry and used a gendered word. For people in Trump's generation, there used to be no positive connotations associated with the word nasty - none of the "that stiff-arm was nasty!" Or "Shit, that verse was nasty!". In the context of the conversation, in a debate where normally candidates are very careful about using gendered pronouns and responding calmly to attacks, the fact that he used both and has a history of word association "little Marco" "crooked Hillary" and a history of very ungracious descriptors leveled at women in exclusion, really pushed it over the edge for a lot of people. Given the fact that many people thought "You are likable enough, Hillary." from Obama was kind of sexist as well, Trump saying "She is such a nasty woman" conspiratorally to the audience with a past history of more than questionable conduct toward women really pushed it over the edge.### Human: I still don't see how that makes his remarks a sexist. If he had said "He is such a nasty man" that wouldn't be anywhere near sexist. Why is this different?### Assistant: I think if Trump had leveled a fairly tame remark on Hillary's past and had no clear history of unwarranted attacks, and Hillary had a history of making sexist remarks towards men, then a comment made by her saying, "He is such a nasty man" would also be seen as sexist, except we would probably interpret that statement as Hillary playing the victim to appeal to sexist ideas of decorum towards women. Context matters, a LOT. Edit: I also think a fairly good argument can be made that Trump's "She is a nasty woman" in response to Hillary's relatively tame attack (if Trump's genuine feeling) would represent a sexist idea that women should always be polite and not confrontational. These characteristics certainly are prized among Miss Universe contestants, which Trump owns.### Human: Even in context, let's revisit the sentence. "SHE is such a nasty woman". He's talking about her. He is saying she is a "nasty woman". He didn't generalize about other women, no derogatory remarks, nothing. He just called Hillary Clinton nasty. We may just have differing opinions on what's considered sexist, as I can't find a way to twist this against trump. As someone who plans to vote Hillary (God help us), I think this is just a card played to help her side.### Assistant: Again, this depends on context. Do you normally hear men call women nasty for average, expected attacks made in a political election? Or are these things suddenly nasty comments because they are said from a woman's mouth? You represent this very simply, and I think such a simple reading of this is wrong. I could go through scenarios of different circumstances if you would like, and the perception of the comment would radically change.

### Human: CMV: People who do not plan on having children should have the equivalent of a maternity leave if they want to embark on a major event in their life.### Assistant: Pa-/Ma- ternity leave is a benefit for children, not for parents. The point is to provide better care/more attention to newborns (or newly-adopted children), not- except as an incidental benefit- to make parents' lives easier.### Human: I agree, I hope we can change OP views > something life-enriching for my own personal growth The whole point is that our human civilization NEEDs babies, it's not for you, it's for everybody ! Edit : this is going toward another favorite subject of us, overpopulation and such. To stick to the babies issue, there are only 13 millions real orphans in this world. > Of the more than 132 million children classified as orphans, only 13 million have lost both parents. Evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of orphans are living with a surviving parent grandparent, or other family member. 95 per cent of all orphans are over the age of five. That means -contrary to straight cats/dogs ;) - if you want a baby, you better do it yourself ! There are little proof that people are much happier in developed countries once basic needs are satisfied. I swear the young I work for in Vietnam were happier than me at the time (although they were more single orphans or virtual orphans than double orphans). But the second orphanage I went to was in very bad state and children were clearly not that happy. Our societies are based on some economics balance with some population renewal required. But more fundamentally, I don't want human race to collapse now and thus we need some descendants. So I stick to it, we need babies, at mid term but more than all at long term. And yes you have to do your babies yourselves. The other issue someone points out is wealth distribution (and as i said before, what you really need to get happiness; do u even need happiness to live?)### Assistant: I'm not sure we really need babies. There are plenty in the world without any parents.### Human: That 2 sentences side by side are strange, no offence.### Assistant: I'm not sure we really need [more] babies. There are plenty in the world [already] without any parents. It did read a bit odd.

### Human: CMV: I believe books should not be banned from public libraries on the basis of content.### Assistant: 999/1000 I will always come down against restricting content, but there are dangerous and disgusting materiel about there, you know the ones with directions on how to rape little children, or how orchestrate a massacre. Yes, I know those things can still be found else where, but that doesn't mean you should condone it by *choosing* to put it in a public library.### Human: What can be dangerous about information itself? People are responsible for how to use it. Not libraries. And if you don't want to read certain things, just don't. Nobody is forcing you.### Assistant: >What can be dangerous about information itself? People are responsible for how to use it. Not libraries. What if we took that approach and the U.S. Government posted all of its security vulnerabilities at its nuclear storage facilities online, including security codes and network login information, launch codes, location of the launch key... Would you still say information is not dangerous? This is an extreme example, yes. But it illustrates the point that while you may be a decent person who does not actively seek out ways to harm others intentionally, there are plenty of people who are. Do we want to educate them on how to cause issues or spread suffering?### Human: >location of the launch key... In the launch bunker itself, with the members of the U.S. Missile Corps safeguarding it. Unlocking requires two people to turn the keys at the same time. 60 Minutes did a segment on them. There's a very intricate physical verification process; you can't just hack into it and launch.### Assistant: I think you're missing the point...### Human: I don't think he did. He illustrated that we have the information about the launch keys at our disposal. That knowledge in and of itself is not inherently bad.

### Human: CMV: Social pressures on men should be given equal coverage/concern as social pressures on women.### Assistant: Your view presupposes that male and female issues are the same and should be covered 50/50. However if we look at both the prevalence and the outcome of both types of issues you'll understand they are very different. Of course, males are held up to roles and this sucks, but if you were to choose the issues, I think most would choose male :-)### Human: As u/dilligaf4lyfe has pointed out, the prevalence and outcome of these issues are often difficult to quantify. Of course they are very different, but different as is "cannot be directly compared" not "one greatly outweighs the other". As far as which I'd pick? I don't know that that's a fair argument (like I said, tough to directly compare), but I disagree that most would pick male based solely on the social pressures they feel.### Assistant: I am not sure what point you were trying to make.### Human: That it is not so easy to say women have it worse.### Assistant: So why would you say they don't?### Human: I didn't. He did and I think he made his point on why pretty clear.### Assistant: I think he was far from it, just making the claim.

### Human: I do not believe college athletes should receive scholarships - CMV### Assistant: College athletics is a multi-billion dollar business that exploits its workers. In 2011, the average major-college head football coach made $1,500,000, and that figure has only increased. $1.5 million is also the average salary of head basketball coaches of programs that made last year's NCAA tournament. The two highest paid public employees in the state of Kentucky are Rick Pitino and John Calipari, the basketball coaches at Louisville and the University of Kentucky. Assuming a $30,000/year scholarship cost per full scholarship, Mr. Pitino and Mr. Calipari's entire basketball teams "made" less than 10% of their head coaches' salaries. Is the problem here really the expenses of the players? Scholarship athletes are almost universally very talented and very hard working individuals. They are in the top tiny fraction of 1% in their disciplines. Beyond the normal demands of classwork, they put 20 or 30 hours a week of hard work into a university activity that brings great publicity to the school and showcases their unique talents. They work much harder than the average frat boy, and they contribute more to the university. If their talent or discipline was academics, or music, or political activism, or ROTC, or journalism, or art, you would not think twice about whether they deserve a scholarship. Why are sports -- which showcase and glorify athleticism in an increasibly obese country -- the exception? Why make athletics a second- or third-tier discipline when it brings something of value to the community in terms of not just health but also entertainment? You're right that there are some dumb scholarship athletes, and there are some scholarship athletes in low revenue sports (probably fewer than you think, since very few of those athletes get FULL scholarships). But there are essentially no dumb scholarship athletes in low revenue sports. The athletes in sports whose revenue doesn't cover scholarships are almost universally using their talents to earn a free education which they are more than capable of taking advantage of. If you have a problem with universities' spending on athletic programs, then worry about the tens of millions spent on stadiums and practice facilities, or the millions spent on coaches who are often paid more than the governors of states or university presidents. Don't focus so much on the thousands spent to reward some of the hardest working people on your campus with a chance at an education that will change some of their lives.### Human: I agree with you coach and staff pay is out of hand, as is the pay for university presidents, professors and other faculty. Its not that they're dumb, its that they don't care about education and that education should go toward someone who will use it. It also makes a mockery of the whole system how these guys get passed through it and end up with a "college degree".### Assistant: Who the fuck said they don't care about their education? Only a tiny fraction of college athletes go pro. And those athletes probably work harder at their craft than you. The rest of them have to study AND practice. Walked onto your football team yeah ok. Your posts make it seem like you've never competed in your life. Crying about how some athlete got something you didn't get. Guess what, if you're just as phenomenal at writing or music, you can get a full ride as well.### Human: Good point### Assistant: Look at the Barber twins, both had very high GPA's in school, 4.0 I believe and successful backs in the NFL. The perception of the dumb athlete is there from the guys that just assume they won't need it because they think they will make it big so they don't care. Well, look at the guys who failed and now have zero knowledge to fall back on, plus, most people leave after 3 years so a lot of the guys never even got a degree in the first place.### Human: Not all are dumb as I said before

### Human: In a democracy all parties should have the same funds and prefab, standardized election campaigns, CMV### Assistant: Would you also ban PACs (political action corporations) from existing? Because PACs form a lot of political ads. PACs cannot be in any way connected to the candidates themselves, so the candidates have no control over them. Would you ban PACs? Or would you ban them from creating ads? Under your system, Candidate A can't make an attack ad about Candidate B, and vice versa. But what's to stop a PAC named something like "American Americans for America's American Americanness" from making an attack ad saying that Candidate A eats babies? Can "Making A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow" say that Candidate B slept with prostitutes? Until you force all bodies capable of making campaign ads to adhere to your standards, campaigns will remain pretty much the same.### Human: It seems to be difficult to find an appropriate definition to what exactly should be affected by the regulations. Of course, efforts should be made to fix loopholes.### Assistant: But this isn't a loophole. This is a big chunk of the election process. This isn't a candidate saying to his brother, "Hey Dave, I can't make an attack ad. Could you make it for me?" This is a legally allowed, and encouraged, process. If you want to hold candidates to the standards mentioned, you should hold PACs to these same standards, not allow them to make ads, or not allow them to exist. It's that simple, as those are your three options.### Human: I’m not familiar with the workings of PACs in the US. The use of the names or emblems of parties should be affected, then PACs should be too. What I mean with the difficulty of finding an appropriate defintion is for example this: I’m against the regulation of journalism, but that maybe yields a loophole.### Assistant: Basically, in the US, PACs raise money, and create political ads, always on one side of an issue or the other. Because they're private organizations in no way affiliated with candidates, PACs are held to lesser standards of what they can say than the candidate's own campaign is. There are still a great number of regulations, but PACs seem to be able to "get away with" more things than a candidate's campaign can. If the candidates are required to use the templates for ads, both print and television, then PACs should be held to the same standards. How would I play this loophole, if it indeed exists. What could count as journalism, and what would count as an ad?### Human: PACs are also protected under the concept of free speech as they are individuals and not people entering the public domain to represent us. The reason they are allowed to make attack ads is the same reason we are allowed to go to town hall and say "I hate Obama" or "I hate Bush".

### Human: CMV:It is more likely than not that Iran-US relations will calm down if Iran acquired nuclear weapons### Assistant: >Since we can live with a nuclear Pakistan or North-Korea That's an awfully large assumption. Neither has yet used their nuclear weapons, but there is little guarantee that they will not. Indeed, even the US and Russia have brought the world perilously close to annihilation on several occasions. There is a key reason to be even more afraid of Iran's potential nuclear weapons than Pakistan's or North Korea's: it plays poorly with Mutually Assured Destruction. We currently rely on this idea to protect us from offensive nuclear weapons, but this does run the terrible risk (increasing polynomially with the number of players) of leading to the extinction of the human race. While Pakistan and North Korea do contribute to the number of players (and particularly to the number of untrustworthy players), they do not inherently break MAD. Pakistan and India aim their nukes at one another; it is expected that they are the only realistic target of the other's nukes. North Korea is considered a Chinese satellite; if it uses nuclear weapons, Beijing can be expected to be obliterated. Just as DC would be reduced if London launched its nukes. Iran is a completely free agent, and is not realistically considered a pawn of any current nuclear nation. Iran furthermore has an option available to it that Pakistan and North Korea lack: the ability to use a nuclear weapon with what it believes to be plausible deniability. Should a Pakistani nuclear weapon detonate in Delhi, India will retaliate no matter what Pakistan says. But if Iran "loses" a nuke to Hezbollah, it may believe that it can protest and thereby avoid retaliation. Hezbollah can make all sorts of demands based on their possession of the nuke, which may happen to further Iranian aims, and yet it is not 100% obvious that the US can say "shut up, if you use the nuke Tehran will be destroyed" when Tehran is vehemently protesting the "stolen" nuke. Iran has a long history of using terrorist groups to advance its agenda while distancing itself from their actions; for it to use a nuke in this way would not be shocking. The result might be to trigger MAD and result in human extinction; it might not be. The fact that it's unclear leads credence to the possibility that Iran might try it.### Human: I believe Israel would clearly fulfill the role of countering Iranian nuclear aggression, and have repeatedly stated their willingness to defend themselves aggressively (ie nuclear response, though officially they have none) should Iran gain the capability. This would result in a balance of power...hopefully.### Assistant: Iran's ayatollah is on record saying it would be worth losing a few cities to see the Zionist entity obliterated. Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons...they have too long a record of using terrorists as a branch of their foreign policy, neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia would allow it.### Human: The point is that it would be a suicide mission to attack Israel, whose purported arsenal is decades ahead of anything Iran could produce. Iran knows this, and would not dare risk Tehran over some propaganda they can't back up### Assistant: Also, if Iran gets nukes, Saudi Arabia will not take that lying down. The two nations are mortal enemies. Do we really think it to be in the global interest to have those two nations with nuke capabilities?### Human: Saudi Arabia is an enemy, yes, but also vitally important to both Israel and the US. Also, it is my opinion that a nuclear Israel is more dangerous than either.### Assistant: Israel has been the target of several wars of extermination - had it lost, there would be no more israel. The neighboring states however are too big to ever be truly destroyed. Israel has a population of 8 million as compared to the middle east's 300+ million - this in a region of the world that generally hates minorities and has already conducted *dozens* of ethnic cleansings of minorities. Israel is the only functional democracy in the middle east, a reliable ally to Western values, and you say they're less trustworthy to have nukes than *Saudi Arabia* or *Iran?* I don't even care if this comment gets deleted as per the subreddit rules. You're a goddamned fool. It's no wonder Israel is becoming less and less tolerant of international opinion if this is the kind of ignorance it has to put up with.

### Human: CMV: The US should use ranked choice voting### Assistant: The problem with ranked choice (actually, specifically IRV; there are other, better, ranked systems) is that it's frankly not a very good system. It's probably better than plurality, because you would have to try hard to be worse than plurality. But it has a variety of flaws that make it clearly worse than something like approval: 1) It's non-monotonic. What that means is that voting for a candidate can hurt that candidate. While this is rare (it only shows up in close elections between three or more plausible candidates), not only are those the most important ones to get right, but also the fact that essentially only IRV out of all voting systems has this very serious problem is the one reason I would seriously consider plurality over it. 2) IRV is a pretty complex voting system, particularly if you're coming from plurality. Approval (vote for one or more) is a lot easier to explain. 3) IRV is pretty hard to tabulate. In particular, it can only be tabulated at a central location once all the votes are in. This is particularly bad because our current voting system is pretty decentralized.### Human: Difficulty to execute is certainly an important factor to consider, but I think it hopefully wouldn't be too much of an issue once people got used to it. As for the concern about decentralization, doing it for each individual state would hopefully mitigate some of that problem. I agree that doing it on the federal level would be difficult and would have a lot that could go wrong, but our system is currently set up for the state level, so I don't think the transition would be too bad. I'm curious as to what other ranked voting system you're thinking of. I know of the one I referred to and one which places a limit on the number of rankings, but I'm interested to hear about the system you're talking about and what makes it better than IRV.### Assistant: > I'm curious as to what other ranked voting system you're thinking of. I suspect he is speaking of [the Condorcet counting method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method). I ran some computer trials of various voting systems to see how often they would select an "ideal" candidate. You can see the results [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3rLij_0YHNZam8tdzM5WWc3dlU/view?usp=sharing). By that metric IRV is only half as good as a ranked pairs Condorcet method.### Human: That method looks quite complicated to execute from the inside, but I suppose there are experts and computers for that. It fixes many issues with IRV without generating additional problems, so it looks to be the best option. Also, u/BlackHumor I can give you a delta as well if that's what you were talking about in your post. ∆### Assistant: Thanks LickABoss1. My graph above uses a system similar to [Bayesian regret](http://rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html). It creates a space of issues, randomly assigns people to positions in that space, and then calculates a strength of preference for a candidate by distance. It is helpful but I don't think it is a full evaluation of a voting system. For example, someone mentioned that IRV is non-monotonic which my program doesn't capture. My hypothesis is that IRV will artificially maintain a two party system due to this quality and that's a significant problem. I'm in the planning stages of another program where some voters tactically place their votes. I think this would be a much stronger metric of a voting system.

### Human: CMV: The Han Solo movie is a bad idea [TFA Spoilers]### Assistant: >Han Solo is one of the most iconic roles of all time Star wars, being one of the most iconic movies of all time is going to suffer from this no matter what. The fans will be upset no matter what because the nostalgia is SO strong. >The Star Wars Saga should be exploring new ideas, not treading old ground You can explore new ground with old characters. Despite people being upset that episode 7 was basically ANH MKII, its nearly unanimously better than the prequels. In my opinion the prequels had some of the most imaginative worlds yet. It takes more than new ideas to make a great movie. >Han Solo's story is complete. He had a great arc in the original trilogy, and that arc was completed in The Force Awakens Thats a bit of revisionist thinking, The "completion" of his story arc didn't even exist until TFA came out. His arc could have easily been considered "complete" after ROTJ, TFA simply added new depth just as a spin-off film could. We still know little about his history. >If they do have a REALLY interesting story to tell set in this era, there are other ways to tell it. True, and these might be better, but at the end of the day, Han solo movie will sell tickets. Much more then a new character like Malak or Revan could Profits are all that matters, Thus its a fantastic choice, due to his popularity### Human: It's like in the Plinkett reviews. *Sees kids with Lukes helmet in Star Wars and little lightsabers in a crowded room* "Can't you come up with something new?" *Cut to Dexter Jettster* "I'LL TAKE IT ALL BACK; DON'T COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW!"### Assistant: That whole scene is actually pretty awesome, super memorable, and important characterization for Obi-Wan.### Human: Except it was mostly unnecessary, added very little to the plot and since we learn almost nothing of substance about Dex... it becomes a case of just telling us that Obi-Wan is friends with this guy.### Assistant: If it doesn't tell us much about the plot then it tells us about the characters. Dexter is a working-class dude that Obi-Wan knows from his past who runs a 50s diner on Coruscant. When Obi-Wan gets there, they have a brief discussion about cloning and then they casually engage in anti-droid racism. That last part in particular is pretty important characterization for the Jedi and the Republic at large.### Human: So... it tells us about Dexter, a character that had no reason to exist in the first place and basically nothing else of any relevance?### Assistant: It tells us about Obi-Wan as well. He's a racist elitist slumming it with Dexter in his 50s diner.

### Human: CMV:"Pumped"meat products are a consumer rip-off### Assistant: I brine my chicken with spiced salt water before roasting. By pumping it full of water you can achieve a tender and well seasoned roast. I do agree some producers use brine to increase profit, but if used properly it can dramatically improve a chicken.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Have you tried brining your own meats? It is also not necessary to trim the meat in to a pleasing shape or removing excess fat. You are paying for convenience.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Marinating is not really the same as brining. Unless you consider salt water a marinade. Most brined meat is injected as is gives a quicker and better result (the outside skin can still be crispy), It would be worth trying that before you pass judgement on its value. salt water is very cheap and brining is marked up. Most meat products are completely overpriced compared to straight from the abattoir. neither would be a rip off (a good brine can take days)### Human: The issue at hand really is that pre-brining something is fine, as long as the consumer is aware that is done, it is labeled properly and you're made aware that you're paying $5.69/lb and that includes the water pumped into the meat. Brining is a step in your preparation of the meat, not all recipes need or call for it. When I go shopping, I would prefer to buy 'just' meat. If I opt to brine it when I take it home, that's my choice of preparation. It's a bit like cutting cocaine with whatever you cut cocaine with. The stores are cutting meat with water and salt.

### Human: I think black people ruin every country they go to. CMV### Assistant: This post provoked several reports. I urge the CMV community to keep cool. Another mod may (or may not) choose to delete this thread. Till that happens, remember that crazy views should get the same cool rational treatment as all others. Let the ideas stand on their own.### Human: Controversial posts are one thing. Obvious troll posts are something else.### Assistant: What makes you think this is a troll and not his genuine view?### Human: The way it's stated seems designed to stir shit up and piss people off.### Assistant: It doesn't seem to me. I actually agree and would like to hear reasons why I may be wrong.### Human: Poor, disadvantaged, uneducated people tend to ruin countries. A lot of those people are black for historical reasons, but that doesn't mean black people are inherently less capable than other races. They're a product of their circumstances, just like everyone else.### Assistant: The Appalachian region is one of the poorest and uneducated regions in the United States yet crime rate is rather low. [Crime stats Page 83](https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/189559.pdf) [Poverty rate](http://www.arc.gov/research/MapsofAppalachia.asp?MAP_ID=60) There is more to the story of the problems in the black community then just being disadvantaged. Edit:formatting### Human: It's urban poverty. Rural poor areas don't have the same crime-poverty correlation that urban areas do.

### Human: I believe that a majority of "Obesity Rights" groups are perpetuating an unhealthy and dangerous mindset CMV### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I personally am opposed to groups responsible for such reprehensible rulings as those requiring airlines to give free seats to those who have let themselves go so far they no longer fit in one. What one does and how they look are their own business, but society in general, businesses, and tax payers should not have to foot the bill because someone can't impose a little discipline. And don't act as if it's not a choice. I know several people who decided they didn't like being fat anymore, and took up more active hobbies to successfully lose and keep off the weight. Obesity is a choice, and while I won't go out fat-shaming, if you get so big you can't use normal human conveyances or walk on your own, you should have to deal with that expense yourself, barring affirmative proof of some radical metabolic disorder.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Pretty much every airline has made a business decision one way or another on the topic. u/plasmacutter opposes any branch of the government making this mandatory (as do I, though I'm not sure it's happened in America yet).### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: >such reprehensible rulings as those requiring airlines to give free seats His comment clearly refers to the government forcing an action on a class of businesses.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I'm not aware of any basis in actual events. I prefer hypothetical, given the recent AMA classification.

### Human: I think circumcision should be a boys choice and not performed on infants. CMV### Assistant: I'm 17 and I opted for circumcision roughly a month ago. If anyone has any questions about the operation being done at a later age or anything like that, feel free to ask. I hope I can shed some light on things from a first person point of view.### Human: Is the sensation any different? Do you prefer it? Did you save your foreskin?### Assistant: Yes, it's different. Keyword and emphasis on *different*, though. It's not objectively better or worse. I personally prefer it. I wish I got to see my foreskin one last time, that would've been quite a sight to see.### Human: Hm, interesting. I appreciate the response!### Assistant: No problem.

### Human: CMV: Working long hard hours is a terrible way to live your life.### Assistant: What if you truly enjoy what you do for a living? One could make the argument that a person who loves their job would get more out of what they do for a living than what they could do if they had more free time.### Human: This. OP is assuming that work is inherently boring and soul sucking.### Assistant: You mean it doesn't have to be that way?### Human: It's not always about doing something fun. Progamers, porn stars, actors can hate what they do. As soon as you start doing something everyday in a possibly stressful environment, you can grow to hate it. When people say ,"chase your dreams", its not just about getting that dream job but finding yourself before you are anchored down. You may like art and sculpture but end up in a interior cabinets and doors company. It's not flashy but you may come to be really passionate about your work. If you are passionate and able to exercise it, you'll be happy.### Assistant: I think people interpret the word "passionate" wrong. Being passionate about something doesn't mean you enjoy every single thing about it or that it never feels like work to you. Being passionate means that you care so much about the outcome that you're willing to go through unpleasant experiences to bring it about. My sister is a teacher. If you ask her about her job, most of it sucks. Dealing with parents, administrators, stingy kids who don't want to learn. It's not easy and it feels like work a lot of the time (plus much longer hours than people think). But she still loves what she does. Not because it's always easy, but because she *actually cares* about whether or not the job is accomplished.### Human: So much of this applies to writing music for me. A lot of it is very difficult being a one man team making electronic music. But once in a while I make something and go "whoa, that was definitely worth it"

### Human: I find the constant updating on Nelson Mandela's condition to be ghoulish and distasteful CMV### Assistant: I find it a bit distasteful myself, but I somewhat take issue with: "It's like people are waiting with excitement for somebody to die as if it were a sporting occasion." First, I think news organizations are reporting this situation obsessively for probably two reasons. One is that they are a business, they need to pursue stories that will have a large readership. The news wasn't always conducted in this manner, but today that's what we have to deal with. Two is that people have an abiding love for Mandela. Doubtless some news editors knew him, some reporters were inspired by him, and they know their readers adore him so they feel it is their duty to keep everyone as informed as possible. Second, I think most people who read these stories are trying to come to grips with the fact that he will probably not make it through the day. He was a larger-than-life figure, and there will be billions of people mourning his passing. I've heard him described as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln combined to the South African people, and the national father. If your actual father were dying, you would certainly want to hear up-to-the-minute news on his condition. I think it is somewhat similar. Tl;dr: The news organizations know that their stories will be read, and people love Mandela.### Human: Not entirely relevant, but I think Mandela is a far greater man than either Washington or Lincoln were### Assistant: Perhaps not entirely relevant, but their is a saying in South Africa that may or may not be linked to a pretty concerning rumour/story that has circulated for as long as I can remember (I'm an expat). 'Just wait until Mandela dies' is tied to a potentially Zimbabwe-esque scenario, commonly called 'Operation White Clean-up'. Not saying the rumours are true, but they obviously do have South Africans all over the world pretty concerned!### Human: Coincidence, I'm a Zimbabwean. While I do agree that SA is slowly turning to shit but it's got abslutely nothing to do with Mandela. It's not going to be a singular lynching of white people as soon as Nelson is in the grave, and of course it's impossible to predict the future, but I think South African society is facing a slow corrosion and any great unrest that follows will be a result of that, not Mandela's passing.### Assistant: That's good to hear! :) I'm not so sure about "slowly"- I guess that sort of thing is fairly relative, though... in the several returns I've had (roughly 3-4 years apart) I've noticed a pretty marked difference. But I think (HOPE!) you're right... just thought I'd address something "the rest of the world" maight not have heard of/considered yet! :) Are you still in Zim?### Human: I suppose it is relative, deterioration here was very rapid, from one of Africa's most promising economies ~1997 to world record inflation etc in 2008. Yea I am still, about to go down to SA for uni

### Human: CMV: Taxation is NOT theft### Assistant: > Now my argument to that is this: If you voluntarily choose A, knowing 100% B follows, you are consenting to B. I have to disagree that this is automatically considered consent. Someone walks into a room I am in and points a gun at me. He says I can stay in this room and in 5 minutes he will shoot me. He also says that there is a man outside with a gun and if I walk out of the room, that man will shoot me. I voluntarily stay in the room or leave the room but how could you say I consented to be shot?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: > This doesn't work because you didn't voluntarily put yourself in that situation. What situation? That I am given two choices that both lead to me being shot? How did I voluntarily choose that my parents made certain decisions and that I live in a world that either I pay taxes for X years after I leave the US or I pay taxes in another country? > Your example goes as follows, "You either choose A or B both ending in something you didn't consent to." My logic is , if you choose A, knowing 100% that B comes with the choice of A, you are consenting to B by voluntarily choosing A. The example was given so that its the same thing. Its just a combination of two instances of your logic. * "If I choose to stay in the room, knowing 100% that I will get shot, I am consenting to being shot". * But it just happens to be true that "If I choose to leave the room, knowing 100% I will get shot, I am consenting to being shot" Most people would conclude in this situation I am not consenting to being shot.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: > No because you didn't know or consent to the robber giving you an ultimatum. But I never knew or consent to giving any government an ultimatum or parent making my decision for me. > To put simply, my example is "if you choose A, you get B." (Notice the "if you".) Your example is "you either choose A or B". You are just rewording it and ignoring that my choice is just your choice twice. Your example is "if you choose A, you get B" My example (using similar wording) is "If you choose A, you get B. (first instance of your example) If you choose C, you get B. (Second instance of your example)" This is clearly not what people would consider consent.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: But my parents did not have a choice to raise me in a world where I wouldn't have to pay taxes.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: > They had a choice in which country they live. No, they did not. Not to mention that choice is irrelevant if all other countries use tax systems as well.

### Human: I think Monsanto hate is unjustified. CMV### Assistant: Self-sterilizing 'Terminator' seeds were a horrifyingly unethical and irresponsible thing to try and unleash on the world. Granted, they never made it to market, *but not for Monsanto's lack of trying.* They would and still will market this technology if the world ever lets them, and the ecological implications could be catastrophic - one awful scenario involves cross-pollination between a plant with the 'terminator' gene and one without, which could create latent genetic traits which show up generations later - in everyone's seeds, not just those bought from Monsanto themselves. Entire lineages could be wiped out by 'accident.' 'accident' is a tricky word to use when talking about corporate institutions, because the failure to take precautions against predictable outcomes (think BP) isn't quite deliberately causing an accident, but it isn't *not* that, either.### Human: what is wrong with terminator seeds? if you sign a contract saying that you will not replant seeds then you are obliged to not replant. If the seeds are terminator seeds then they have no chance for their pollen to be carried in the wind and contaminated, and you are not losing anything by getting terminated seeds since you would be replanting with new seeds anyways. how can you argue that both terminator seeds and cross contamination is bad?### Assistant: The problem is that your neighbour growing regular crops didn‘t sign shit, *yet now half of the seeds he collects from his own plants will carry the gene too.* Worse still, the seeds will be the result of combining two strains, with unpredictable results. Perhaps the suicide function will skip generations, or otherwise misfire such that your neighbour may not even detect the problem until the gene has spread further.### Human: > yet now half of the seeds he collects from his own plants will carry the gene too Nope, more like a couple percent >Perhaps the suicide function will skip generations Perhaps it'll take up banjo and sing folk songs. Reference my response to you earlier (using your own source against you).### Assistant: So 50% is clearly too much, but it's ok to damage 2% of someone's crops who has not signed your contract? What's the exact magic fraction where it becomes not ok?### Human: Cross pollination is unstoppable, so should all farmers be forced to live as far as possible from each other? At the fraction where it becomes dangerous. My point is that your hypothetical and unsupported fear might possibly have a small effect on a tiny proportion of someone's crop. It's a risk I think that is fine. If you want the exact magic fraction ask an actuary. You're changing the issue, it's not whether or not someone might be hurt (there are courts for that) it's whether or no there is a significant threat. If you want to pretend that 0% is the only safe percent, then you should look around yourself and realize that everything you do has a chance of harming you, and we're all ok with it.### Assistant: Ok, so no magic number then. But is there a significant* threat, sure. You seem ready to dismiss the possibility that a gene might behave...err...genetically, and lay dormant for some generations. This isn't an outlandish hypothetical; recessive genes are a thing. *(ah...how significant? Is that off topic too?)### Human: >gene might behave...err...genetically Confirmed for not knowing anything. What the does that mean? The last time I heard people talking about genes laying dormant is my grandma talking about height in the family. This is an incredibly outlandish talk coming from someone who doesn't know a thing about genetics. I mean bring me a source, this sounds like climate changed denial or evolution. It's unsupported mumbo jumbo. BRING ME A SOURCE!!! And sure it's on topic but I have heard nothing about it being a significant threat from anyone who knows anything about genetics. THE ONLY SOURCE GIVEN DOES NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A THREAT. Quite the opposite it brings up the safety. Oh I remember, this sounds exactly like when people fear irradiated food despite having no idea how it works. Edit: To remove some bad words and anger, it's late### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: To oppose abortion access legality is to devalue women as lesser than fetuses which is insulting.### Assistant: I think there are two obvious faults with this. First, it ignores the possibility of placing EQUAL value on the lives of two people (assume, for the sake of discussion, that a pro-life person is pro-life because they believe a fetus is a person); you're saying that wanting to protect one life makes it MORE important than another, when it really could as easily mean you just consider it AS important. But second, and more importantly, the "rights" in question are not the same. It's not as if a pro-lifer (usually) wants to KILL the mother in order that the fetus might live. The right of one person to live overrides the right of another person to not be pregnant for nine months. It's like saying "People have the right to own their clothing. So if a man is bleeding to death on the street, and someone takes clothing from another person by force to stop the flow and save their life, they value the bleeding person more than the person that lost clothing". Not necessarily; they're just willing to violate one right to protect another, more important right.### Human: There can't be equal value when the woman wants to abort but isn't able. In that situation there is a contention and there is no win win solution, we have to pick a side. Your second point still views a developing fetus as having more rights than women in that they can force a woman's body to be used against her will. The need for a fetus to be alive causes women to lose their fundamental human right to control their body, that view devalues women as less than fetuses. That you compared the many extreme and some permanent physical, mental and hormonal changes that pregnancy does to a woman's body with stealing an item of clothing from someone further proves my point that the pro life view disvalues women. The two aren't even close to being comparable.### Assistant: In a situation where there is no win win, and you have to pick a side, you can still value both sides equally. You just pick the course of action that does the least total harm (i.e. one person is medically and personally inconvenienced for nine months versus another person dying). And again, yes, being pro-life does demand the removal of a certain amount of bodily autonomy; but it does so in the name of what is, presumably, a more important right; the right to life. If you have two humans that you value equally and you have to pick between one dying and the other being temporarily inconvenienced, the choice is obvious. Of course the changes to a woman from pregnancy are more extreme and long-lasting than losing an item of clothing. By the same token, I would say that dying is more extreme than the changes a woman undergoes after pregnancy. But the illustration is the same; violating one right for one person to protect a superior right for another person, even if you value them the same as the first person, is the obvious choice. The only reasons to be pro-choice are if A. You don't think the fetus is a human, B. You think the fetus is a human, but less important than the mother or C. You think the fetus is a human and as important as the mother but you don't care (for instance, in a medical situation where either the fetus dies or the fetus and the mother both die).### Human: > (i.e. one person is medically and personally inconvenienced for nine months versus another person dying). Valid, but you have to look at the bigger picture. Say, a person who may not be in a situation to raise a child ends up pregnant. The options are: 1. Be medically and personally inconvenienced for 9 months, then bring a child into an unfit life, now they are both personally inconvenienced. (Total inconvenience: 9 months + 1.5 lifetimes) 2. Have an abortion, mother no longer inconvenienced and child doesn't live a shitty life. (Total inconvenience: <3 months) I'm no statistician, but a win/draw is better than a lose/lose.### Assistant: This sort of assumes that the mother is saddled with the child after birth. There are plenty of other options for the child. i.e, adoption.

### Human: CMV: The American Dream is alive and well, there is no conspiracy where wealthy people try to keep poor people poor.### Assistant: > The American Dream is alive and well, there is no conspiracy where wealthy people try to keep poor people poor. To begin, citing the number of billionaires, their ethnic heritage & where they've *come from* socioeconomically speaking isn't a great measure how readily available the *American Dream* is to most. After all, these are just a few outliers you're basing your entire premise on, right? No one is supposing that *everyone* is going to become a billionaire one day; far from it. What most are concerned with though, are graph's like these which show decades of [productivity rising yet wages remaining stagnant](http://www.motherjones.com/files/Screen%20Shot%202013-03-08%20at%2011.36.19%20AM.png). Which, when we account for inflation means that those who earn a wage today have even less than they did 30yrs ago. So undoubtedly, our ability to achieve the *American Dream* is certainly more difficult to do today, because we literally have less to do it with. So to conclude: * The Billionaires example, is a poor measure of the *American Dream* being readily available * Wages have stagnated for decades & this means the *American Dream* is more difficult to realise for the average individual Note: I didn't touch the *conspiracy* side of things here. Surely, we don't need specific examples of how the *rich* have used their wealth & influence to benefit themselves, right? Open any history text & all we'll read about are rich people using their wealth & influence to maintain or gain even more economically, politically or socially.### Human: I had one small section on billionaires. The remaining portion of my arguement was based on the mobility experienced by the lowest quintile. I would appreciate it if you responded to the bulk of my argument instead of a single portion. Also, stagnant wages and the use of personal funds for self interested purposes doesn't change the fact that we see the amount of mobility we should expect from a mobile society. In short, I don't really feel as though you adressed my points, but rather made tangential arguments, so i'm not sure how to respond.### Assistant: > I had one small section on billionaires. > I would appreciate it if you responded to the bulk of my argument instead of a single portion. But, this is a pillar of your claim? You explicitly stated: > From a more official standpoint, The University of Chicago did a study of all US billionaires, and found that 69% of billionaired were self made, meaning that they obtained their wealth through their own means and did not inherit. > 20% of the billionaires actually came from below the poverty line. And this is clearly *not* a good indicator of our ability to climb or fall... I mean, how can examining a handful of billionaires tell us anything significant about a population of millions? (Or anything in statistics for that matter.) As a result, shouldn't this cause us to take pause & reexamine our or even change our view then?### Human: Is the rest of my argument concerning statistics based around how likely those born in poverty are to reach the top quintile not present on your screen? That part has at least twice the word count and many more citations. Typically the lengthy in depth part of an argument is the "pillar." That was one example with a sample size of about 400. The rest of my argument addresses a much larger group of people, that is why it is included as support. If the billionaires stay was the only thing there, you might have a point.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: No, I don't not want to talk about black people, I just don't want to turn this into a debate over black culture. I'm perfectly happy with talking about black people as they relate to this discussion, which is that they have a strongly negative impact on mobility statistics. My point is not that some people succeed, it is that a certain proportion of people should logically land in each quintile of a perfectly mobile society and that we do experience that. My point is that mobility problems in America only affect certain groups, and the way those groups are distributed currently in society skews statistics to indicate things other than what they should.### Assistant: If you don't want to talk about black people, should we ignore the multiple paragraphs about them in your OP? > My point is that mobility problems in America only affect certain groups, and the way those groups are distributed currently in society skews statistics to indicate things other than what they should. The American Dream is supposed to be something that *anyone* can achieve. If there is a group that is immobile, then we aren't achieving the dream. It is relevant to identify specific groups of people so we can figure out how to *fix* immobility, but if the dream isn't alive and well for a sizable percent of the country then the dream isn't alive and well.

### Human: CMV: A Massive Portion of reddit is Islamophobic### Assistant: A very sizable portion of reddit is opposed to *all* religions. You're seeing them mention Islam in particular because of the day's events. If terrorists motivated by Christianity do something similar in a Western country, then the day's screeds will be about Christianity. Surely that makes sense?### Human: I think reddit's anti-christian sentiment is a bit different than the anti-Islam circlejerk. The anti-christian segment isn't really fueled by racism or xenophobia or warped media narratives. It's a counter-jerk to Christianity's dominance in the west, particularly among conservatives. However, the large amount anti-Islam rhetoric has direct connections to race, and more importantly, are not counter to any dominant narrative, but in fact perpetuate the western political, media and social narrative of Islam being backwards and incompatible with western values. So anti-christian is counter-hegemony and has no connection to race, whereas anti-Islam is hegemonic, and can't be isolated from histories of western domination and otherization of the arab world.### Assistant: You mention race a lot here, and while I certainly won't deny that there are obviously racists in the mix (as there are with basically any mix), I don't know that you're justified in claiming that this is some dominant influence in the anti-islam sentiment you see here. Like if it comes out that the guys who shot up the paper were actually *white* islamic converts, do you think there will be some collective sigh of relief that they weren't middle eastern and then the people will no longer hold their anti-Islamic sentiments? I'm pretty sure all the "draw Muhammad" stuff and whatnot would be just as prevalent even if it was white muslims that did this. As for whether they think that Islam is counter to Western culture, well, the way it's practiced in much of the world *is*, so that hardly seems to be a damning critique. Islamic culture is not Western, and diverges sharply from it in *many* areas. Christianity, as it used to be practiced back in the crusades, would have also been incompatible with Western culture if it found itself here today. The reality is that the external influences of Western culture on christianity have kind of beat those more primitive approaches out of it for the most part, and so now the modern version in most of the world is compatible for the most part because it was *forced* to be. Islam has not been tempered like that yet, and is still in the "crusades" stage, so saying it is, by and large, at odds with modern western culture is not particularly out of place I don't think.### Human: As for the issue of race, the average person associates Islam with people of color considering Africans, Arabs, Desis, and Indonesians make up the majority of the population. This conception of brown people plays into an "us vs them" mindset.### Assistant: > the average person associates Islam with people of color considering Africans, Arabs, Desis, and Indonesians make up the majority of the population They definitely do. The question is whether the anti-Islam sentiment is somehow *motivated* by that association to a significant extent. That's why I said I doubt that the attackers at the paper being white would somehow alleviate the anti-Islam sentiments you see here today, which you would expect to see if their anticipated race were the major driving factor here.### Human: > That's why I said I doubt that the attackers at the paper being white would somehow alleviate the anti-Islam sentiments you see here today, which you would expect to see if their anticipated race were the major driving factor here. I agree that it probably wouldn't alleviate it. My guess that people would look at them as wayward kids that got caught up in something in which they don't belong. Look at what happened with the Boston bomber; his action was villified in the media immediately, yet when it turned out that he was caucasian, there was this odd scramble to [distinguish people of the Caucasus from "white" people](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/24/are-the-tsarnaevs-white.html). Clearly race plays some causal role in the average Westerner's understanding of terrorism and extremism. Furthermore, it's difficult to disentangle the a religion from its adherents. When you look at the difference between Judaism and Islam in terms of the content of their respective texts, it's hard to say that one is more extreme or out-of-step with secular humanist values than the other. Yet, most Westerners have a vastly different opinion of Judaism vs. Islam in terms of being a catalyst for extremism.

### Human: CMV: Israel don't want a two state solution because they want to have it all### Assistant: > They have been quite successful in demonizing their opponents. Most americans think palestinians have deserved their hell, that they are evil (despire Israel invading their land like cancer since 1948.). I would argue that a large number of Americans now have begun demonising Israel, rather than Palestine. > They have continually been attacking their neighbours for more land, Lebanon, Syria, Iran soon Iran. The Arab-Israeli war began because of Arab aggression. The Six Day War began because of Arab aggression. The Yom Kippur War was a surprise attack on Israel, begun due to Arab aggression. > They have been successful to make US (they dominate US media, finance, industrial-military aspects) fight their wars against their opponents, Iraq for example, despite this people in US thinks 9/11 was totally unfounded terrorist attack without any provocation by Israeli led US. I don't believe you have any evidence for this. The USA has supported Israel because they believe Israel is a stable democracy in an otherwise unstable authoritarian region, and by and large, it is. They have not fought Israel's wars for them, and Iraq was most certainly not Israel's war. > I think we in the west should not support Israels goals, but take control of the situation like a stern and firm father, slap both parties, make them make up and go for two state solution with clearly defined borders and rules to live like a good neighbours do. There are, first off, a number of issues with the 2-state solution. That was the aim of the peace conference at the Camp David Summit in 2000, and guess who declined it? Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Authority. If you claim a two-state system is a possibility, you need to level your blame equally, if not more so, on the refusal of Palestinians to accept a two-state solution. Beyond this, America is not the stern father in this circumstance, you are discussing sovereign nations.### Human: The Arab-Israeli war was started because an occupation began, not because of Arab aggression. America does not support countries because they are democracies, they support them because of mutual benefit. Why is Venezuela vindicated daily? and look at any u.s. military history to see democracies crushed under American freedom### Assistant: The occupation began after the 1967 6-Day war, when Israel was attacked by a coalition of Egypt, Jordan, and a mobilizing Syrian Army. This was after the 1948 Independence Day War (called the Nabka by Palestinians and Arabs, which translates to "catastrophe" IIRC), against Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Jordan (Although Lebanon participated in one battle as well). Israel's occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, and West Bank started at the end of the 6-day war, having taken the Sinai and Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan. To say that the occupation preceded Arab aggression is simply historically inaccurate. The occupation was originally seen as a temporary stepping stone to prevent further invasions that historically came through those areas, and the Sinai was given back in exchange for peace with Egypt, a treaty that's held to this day. I also believe very strongly that Israel's actions in the West Bank, specifically their settlement policy, is undefendable, but like I said before, the war didn't start because of the occupation, the occupation was the aftermath of the war. You could theoretically argue that the 1973 Yom Kippur War against Egypt and Syria was in response to occupation, but the first two not so much. However, your second point is right, although there are some people who question the validity of Venezuelan democracy and freedom of speech. But the point is, the US has no problem taking down democracies or propping up autocracies when it suits their interests.### Human: Your using wrong logic. The war started because Israel had been placed in Palestine. That is what I am calling an occupation. Britain promised Palestine they would not lose land and promised the Jews that they would have Israel. They had no right to that land### Assistant: Ok, I apologize for misunderstanding your point. For the record, the way I've seen it, "The Occupation" generally refers to the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip unless you specify otherwise. Regardless, you're right. Britain promised the land to two different peoples, and I've even seen some indication that they even expected to see a war fought between the Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine. However, things are a bit more murky when we say "X had no right to the land." There's plenty of historical evidence that there was a historical Jewish national presence in what we currently know today as Israel and Palestine that was eventually (mostly) driven out by the Romans in 70 CE, and after the breakup of the Roman Empire the area became part of the Mamluk Sultanate and then the Ottoman empire, each of whom denied reentry to the Jews that were now in diaspora across Eastern Europe, Spain, and North Africa. There has been a constant (albeit very small) Jewish presence in Jerusalem and Yafo (now essentially part of Tel Aviv) since that time, but it is also home to the Palestinians, who got that name after the British took the area from the Ottoman Empire after WWI. Jews, being persecuted all across Europe (But mostly in the East, where the highest concentrations were), fled in large numbers to so-called British Palestine now that the Ottomans, who had forbid entry to the area to Jews, no longer existed. So looking from a context of only the recent history of the area, yes, a massive influx of Jews seems nonsensical and immoral, with the British giving them the land there despite them having no claim to it. But in the broader historical perspective, there is an argument to be made that so long as Jews and Palestinians share the land, neither has a claim to all of it or none of it. If you're willing to overlook the factors that drove the Jews out of the area in the past, why aren't you willing to overlook the Palestinians getting pushed out of certain areas? This isn't to say I think either should be overlooked, quite the opposite - there has to be an acknowledgement that both Jews and Palestinians have been driven out of this place, and that each has a valid claim as well. You're welcome to disagree on that, of course, but that's the way I've always approached the issue.### Human: You're right that Jews have been in Palestine (the name has used since at least the 5th century bc, wiki Palestine for source. I'm on my phone, sorry) for a long time, but having a very long continuous history with much persecution and many an exodus, they have had presence in many places. There were many other suggestions for the location of Israel through the ages. On top of that there is no other country in the world that classifies citizenship on race/religion (depending on your definition of Jewish). America would never stand for Europeans having a right to citizenship because they shared ethnicity. And why does Israel act that way? To slowly dilute the impact of Palestinians and try to push the Arabs into (in their eyes) the Arab lands. Imo, the Jews had a right to the land, I don't believe in borders (in an ideal world), but they should have just moved there. A separate state should never have been started in the first place, then it would be much easier to ensure rights for all. As we now have two states, the responsibility is on Israel to abide by international laws and standards that it claims to follow (even having signed and ratified most U.N. conventions). The Palestinian state does not persecute on the same levels that the Israeli state does (not to say they are perfect, or even good). Racism, xenophobia, even moderate bashing is commonplace in Israel, whereas anti-Zionism (not anti-Semitism) is the go-to in Palestine. The occupied territories are not legally considered Israel by any other country. East Jerusalem is supposed to be the capital of Palestine, but it walled and annexed, with the water cut off, and movement to and from extremely limited to make life practically impossible to ensure they retain control of Jerusalem. That does not sound like they are trying to live together### Assistant: I mean, there is technically no state of Palestine yet, (and it's a damn shame, and the fact that Israel hasn't cooperated to make that a reality is at best wrong and at worst illegal) and I very much agree with the premise that Israel has not held its end of the bargain and acts towards the Palestinians in unjust and terrible ways, as well as having some significant societal problems such as the racism and xenophobia you mentioned. If you do believe that the Jews have a right to live there, then I think we agree on everything but the idea of the citizenship based on ethnicity. The reason that, in my opinion, the so-called "Jewish Right of Return" is different is because you're missing the motivation for it. It's not about "dilut[ing] the impact of Palestinians", it's about providing a refuge for persecuted Jews around the world. Israel was founded in the wake of the Holocaust and centuries of mistreatment around the world that essentially stemmed from being a diaspora of a cross between an ethnicity and a religion that refused to lose its essence. While many people claim that this idea of providing refuge no longer applies, the fact is that there's still a huge amount of legitimate anti-semitism around the globe (a recent study showed that [over 25% of people around the globe harbor anti-semetic attitudes](http://global100.adl.org/) and recent shootings targeting Jews have occurred even in the developed world in places like [Kansas City](http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/13/us/kansas-jewish-center-shooting/) or [Brussels](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/24/us-belgium-shooting-idUSBREA4N09Z20140524), alongside repeated strings of [hate crimes against Jews in France's Toulouse province](http://dl.antisemitisme.org/REPORT%202012.pdf). Go to page 10 of that last report for the overview. The point is, I want an Israel that is a refuge state for persecuted Jews around the world and gives the Jewish people a right to self-determination. I also want a Palestinian state that allows the (often-discriminated against) Palestinian minority of Jordan to be able to seek refuge and have the right to self-determination. Most people I talk to tend to think of anti-semitism (and most kinds of racism, frankly) as something of the past that ended if not at the end of WWII, then pretty soon after. The reason so many Jews moved to Israel was because most countries (the UK, the US, most of Europe, just about everywhere in Latin America other than Argentina) actively turned away refugees from the pogroms in Eastern Europe and Russia as well as, of course, the Holocaust itself. Israel was the only place that many of them were allowed to go that they had the means to, so when Britain told them they could have it, everyone packed up and left. Of course the Palestinians were going to resent them and want to push them out, these people were moving into their homes, but they had no place else to go, and it beat getting killed for sure rather than getting to fight for your own state where no majority could exterminate you, no angry mob would burn down your store, and you could use the mechanisms of the state that were always denied to you to protect your family rather than fighting to keep them from destroying you. While there aren't major pogroms happening and certainly no Holocaust is ongoing, Jews still perceive the threat when a Kansas-area sheriff agrees with someone who shoots up a Jewish Community Center's ideas about Jews, or people make fliers in Ukraine telling the Jews in the area to register with the government, whether it's backed by real power or not. Israel is that refuge where every Jew can go and be without fear of harm or persecution, but it breaks my heart and angers me immensely that that state has turned around and persecuted another group of people.### Human: I made the point before that there are many persecuted peoples around the world. The Rohingya people of Myanmar are the most persecuted in the world but they have no Muslim safe land to go to. Or the Christian slaves (mostly brick makers) in Pakistan too. Or the Hindus in Sri Lanka, murdered by their Buddhist brothers. Even moderate Jews are persecuted in Israel by the ultra orthodox, but where's the safe place for the persecuted non or anti Zionist Jews? There are large amounts of anti-Semitic acts around the world, and increasing in places (golden dawn in Greece or the neo Nazis in Ukraine, for example), but there is persecution in and/or by (probably) all states. If LGBT people would want to form there own state in another country because of hundreds of years of persecution, I wouldn't think it would be right for them to go anywhere and start there own state, because any state with ethnic, religious, cultural, gender or sexual preference requirements for citizenship inadvertently creates second class citizens of the rest. Having a country of one race sounds "on paper" like a good solution to racism against that race, but other races always end up in any state and then the racism goes the other way There were places in Australia and the Sahara, and others, that were empty, or at least empty enough to not create a risk destabilising a new country. A Jewish state could have not impeached on anyone else and still created a safe haven for persecuted Jews around the world. If then they claim historical right to particularly Palestine, then that right belongs to us all. All religions are of equal value (in human rights terms, and including atheism), and our joint human heritage can be of interest, and belongs, to us all. The Macedonians/Greeks were in Palestine with Alexander the great or the Romans with the Byzantine empire, but they have no modern claim to the country (although minimal persecution, which makes a difference). The history of Palestine is almost the history of the world, human (not Jewish) history. If the reason for the creation Israel is escaping persecution, then don't persecute, if it's historical rights to Palestine then they belong to us all, if it's religious then all Abrahamic should be included. They could still now decide to represent Jews around the world and also champion the rights of the people who safeguarded their special state when they were kicked out, but until then, I find it unacceptable. (Sorry that my argument goes back and forth a little bit)### Assistant: Once again, I think we're mostly agreeing. I find it unacceptable that Israel persecutes certain people the way it does as well, and frankly if the Rohingya people are persecuted, I think they should be able to have their own right to self-determination in a place that they have a historical claim to, and I feel the same about the rest of those groups you mentioned. Obviously, we should do everything in our power to eliminate racism and hatred of the outsider. I guess what I'm saying is that yes, right now Israel is not acting in the way that it should to embody the values it was founded on, and in a more flagrant way than most states. But to ask the Jews to move to Australia (were/are there Aboriginals there?) when all of their historical, cultural, and religious customs and beliefs center around Jerusalem, or to ask the Palestinians to leave their historical and cultural home to go to, say, Jordan, or even to push he Sri Lankan Hindus to isolated places elsewhere in the world when they have a homeland wrongfully taken from them seems to only add more injustice (especially because there's a reason nobody lives in the Outback or the Sahara). You're right that this is a microcosm of world history, but with few exceptions the Jews are probably one of the most persecuted peoples in world history. Burned by the Romans, harassed by the Mamluks, attacked by Muslim Ethiopians, forcibly removed from Italy, tortured/Inquisitioned in Spain, systemically murdered and burned in Russia and Poland, under the constant threat of annihilation in Persia, turned away from the UK and US, readily murdered by a fairly large group of Germans and later their French allies, etc. With the exception of the United States/Canada after around 1970 (many Jews were part of the Civil Rights Movement demanding respect for themselves as well), Argentina after 1950, and Israel in 1948, no large Jewish community has gone unharrassed or unpersecuted since the days of the Kingdom of Israel that fell with Masada in 70 AD, which is why none of Western Europe, despite their penchant for tolerance nowadays and historically larger Jewish populations, has more than .9% of their population as Jewish. This can't excuse Israel's behavior, nor should it serve as a counter to criticisms, ever, but if ever there was a group of people that were in desperate need of a historical homeland, this was them, and while much of the area that is currently Israel was populated, the vast majority of it was the Negev Desert with only sparse population. In 1910, Tel Aviv was a desolate sand dune a few miles north of Jaffa where a dozen families built homes, only for most of them to be kicked out by the Ottomans until after the end of WWI. The point is that people look at the racist, unjust policies of a state that has always seen itself, from a certain perspective with good reason, as the only thing standing between the Jewish people and complete annihilation and say "They're talking about imagined threats and spouting excuses to push away more Arabs and Palestinians". From the Jewish perspective, from the Israeli perspective, every time they've been the minority in their state in all of history, they've been persecuted, attacked, and murdered. That doesn't go away the moment they're in a stable geopolitical situation, and it's not yet a reason to say that a Jewish state shouldn't exist and cannot justly exist. If they become their own downfall by refusing to compromise, refusing to look past the past, and treating those it persecutes in the name of its own safety as subhuman, then the idea should be trashed. But just because it's not working now, doesn't mean it can't, and doesn't mean it shouldn't. I hope that made any sense at all.### Human: Firstly the British Jewish community celebrated 350 years of resettlement there in 2006, and they have the second highest population of Jews in Europe. And the 14 million Jews in the world only make 0.2% average, so that is still a higher representation. Then, what I meant about the other locations for Israel was that other locations had been suggested for hundreds of years. If their aim was singularly to escape from persecution then anywhere would suffice. And if they had claimed religious rights to specific locations in Palestine (like the Armenian or Russian orthodox, for example), or if Israel existed to champion the rights of persecuted people of all races and religions, how could I complain? Lastly, unfortunately, minorities are prosecuted in a huge amount of countries. There are huge amounts of different minorities and a huge amount of them closer to annihilation than the Jews. A few of them have longer histories of persecution than the Jews, Dalits (untouchables) are an example of this. The answer is not to create another state just for those minorities, but to create consistent, systematic machinery to protect minority rights globally. That cannot be achieved easily or by one group of people, so Jews cannot be held to blame for that, but is the reason why I cannot agree with the current incarnation of Israel. I'm falling asleep so I probably made less sense towards the end. I've enjoyed this well mannered debate with you. What's your background (work, studies, where you from, whatever), if you don't mind saying?### Assistant: Yeah, I fell asleep as well, apologies for that, but I'm glad we had this conversation. I'm an American Jewish International Relations and Political Science student just about to graduate from undergraduate school.

### Human: I think that people complain about the "fake girl gamer" shaming trend GREATLY outnumber those who actually participate in it. CMV### Assistant: >Am I just EXTREMELY lucky that I've dodged this apparently rampant problem my whole life? If you're a guy, it has very little to do with luck, and everything to do with being a guy. It's not really about being treated a certain way daily. It's about a pervasive attitude that exists throughout your 'gamer life,' of which you become more and more aware even if it doesn't happen every single time you log on. You're more likely to get nasty private messages *because* you're female. And you're more likely to get nasty comments *because* you're female and likely grounded in gendered slurs. Everybody gets trash talked, but the distinction is only women are trash talked for being women, and sometimes these comments transcend the realm of trash talk into threats and harassment. Regardless of credibility on acting on those threats, they're unwelcome. If you wear something with a 'geek' reference, you're more likely to be quizzed *because* you're female. You're more likely to be seen as an intruder in a sub-culture *because* you're female. Your perspective is necessarily 'biased' *because* you're female, with the presumption being that the male experience and consumer demands are necessarily valid *because* they're male. Being female becomes the 'but for' cause for the majority of your gaming interactions. It's harder to pick up on this as an outside observer because it doesn't happen *to you*; the element that you're using to gauge consistency or a pattern is not always present for you the way it is for me. Whenever you see a girl log on, consider that many others don't use voice chat or otherwise remain openly female because they've had to deal with crap in the past. It's not really about **frequency** (i.e., every day) so much as a **pattern of causality** (i.e., most times it does happen, it's *because* of gender.) And these are all things you may or may not observe but they sometimes operate on subtle grounds where you're only going to pick up on it after having experienced it quite a few times - where guys are not trying to be exclusive or jerks but they are operating on invalid assumptions about a group of people that makes it uncomfortable or undesirable to interact with them. I'm not trying to say that observations are invalid, but they require the observer to be wholly keeping an eye out for both obvious dickishness and subtle reactions, being constantly aware for changes in dynamic and attitudes. That's kind of exhausting and not always how we approach social situations. When it's something you just kind of go through as though it's routine, that you need to plan for, or you're just generally cognizant of, having people downplay its existence can be discouraging, precisely because most people are good people who do not aim to engage in this behavior, but nonetheless enable it by downplaying its prevalence. It's likewise frustrating when you've been enmeshed in a subculture for the majority of your life and are consistently treated as an outsider who must prove their worth or devotion to a medium just because you don't fit into some default conception of what a gamer looks like. It sounds petty and I'll admit it's very much a first world problem, but over time these experiences build up and you can't help but voice frustration with something so utterly irrelevant becoming a defining characteristic nonetheless. There's some obligation to take ownership over being a '____ girl' so you can spin it away from being a pejorative into something positive, and there's a lot of negative reaction and hostility to that.### Human: Very interesting points. >You're more likely to get nasty messages because you're female. And you're more likely to get nasty comments, which everybody does, but yours will be justified because you're female and likely grounded in gendered slurs. > I feel like this is true for any gamer of an obvious physical, vocal, or cultural difference. Little kids that play COD get harassed a lot because they have squeaky voices, people with accents are also harassed because they're difficult to understand. The few people that make fun of them are just assholes, and IMO not representative of an urgent issue within the subculture. Perhaps I would feel differently if I was a girl, but since almost half of my friends I play games with are female (and many have expressed that they don't see the issue), it's difficult for me to sympathize. >It's frustrating when you've been enmeshed in a subculture for the majority of your life and are consistently treated as an outsider who must prove their worth or devotion to a medium just because you don't fit into some default conception of what a gamer looks like. > I agree that this is frustrating (as gaming and fandom is very male dominated) but I just disagree on the way people are responding to the frustration. Do you have any convincing data with little room for doubt that girl gamers are harassed enough to warrant an entire movement of revolt?### Assistant: > an entire movement of revolt? Before we dive down this path, can I ask why you're characterizing it as some kind of rebellion instead of a general request for some fundamental awareness about how you treat other people?### Human: I suppose it just feels that way by how (IMO) comedically exaggerated these issues are. I guess it is just a request, but it's packaged like a rebellion.### Assistant: What are they rebelling against? And to what end? I think that "more humane treatment of one-another in game, regardless of gender" is a pretty fair thing to ask for. People take this stance about "rebellious" feminists, too, and it kind of irks me because I think fair treatment regardless of gender is a pretty reasonable thing to "rebel" for. If people are getting upset about it, it probably means it's an issue for them, right? Why would it be an issue if it wasn't...an issue? Is your stance just, don't rock the boat/stir the pot/piss anyone off? Or quit bitching? When people feel marginalized they have a right to bitch about it, IMO.### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: Income inequality is not an issue.### Assistant: So you've gone at it from two directions, I'll do the same. Firstly, what's the problem? The problem with income inequality is that it leads to *wealth* inequality. That's bad news, because it means the end of capitalism! Capitalism works because it's a *democratic meritocracy*. Your dollar and my dollar are the same, so if we buy the same pair of pants it spends the same. If we buy from different stores due to our individual preferences the market diversifies, if a new store opens up and we both start going there for pants then the previous stores must change or be outcompeted and lose. But what happens when I have ten times the money you do? Worse still, what if you have no money *at all*? Your preferences cease to be represented in the market! What happens as wealth and income concentrate is that the preferences of the poor cease to be considered in the marketplace. That's OK if it's only a small segment of society dropping out of a very large market like pants. But what about having it applied to other areas? Housing for example is a common issue. Property Developers love to build expensive luxury apartments and condos. Why? Because that reflects the preferences of people who can afford to *buy* property. But when you look at the end consumer, they are usually renters, and prefer cheaper dwellings that match their wages. The renters preferences are ignored by the market, resulting in an oversupply of expensive apartments, and an undersupply of cheaper dwellings. So the market is damaged by inequality. It ceases to be democratic, and so it can often start to become prone to instability and error as 'producers' (e.g. property purchasers) mistakenly favor the variables that don't matter as much to 'consumers' (e.g. renters). The other angle of attack I'll use is the idea that it's *justified*. In order to do this I'm going to point to the difference between income *variance* and income *inequality*. If the market were a true meritocracy we would expect that it would follow a roughly normal distribution. Intelligence, personality traits etc. are roughly normal in the population, so things like 'hard work' and 'smarts' should be too. If the market is giving out pay in accord with merit, then it should fit roughly with other estimates of merit right? And that gives us income variance. I'll use the example of a bank. The janitor is most likely below average on a variety of traits, education, drive or whatever. They earn a wage that is roughly as many standard deviations from the mean wage as an imaginary summary of their earning potential relevant traits is from the population mean. The teller is probably about average. Average smarts, average drive, average wage. The branch manager probably worked a little harder, is probably a bit smarter and/or better educated and earns an equally above average wage. The issue comes in when we try to take a major shareholder in that bank and compare them on the same scale. Their income is potentially *dozens* of standard deviations above the mean! Now logically this could mean that their meritorious traits are superhuman! If we use an analogy, Usain Bolt is probably around two standard deviations above average for running. To be ten standard deviations above the mean for running they'd have to be The Flash. Not even on the same scale. What we see with income inequality is that there is this ridiculously wide gulf between the mean earner and the top earners. This means one of three things: Either these individuals have *superhuman* merit. Seriously, we should just literally be bowing before these deity-class comic book-level earners. Or they're cheating the system somehow, and not actually *earning* that much but finding ways to defraud the system and steal their money. Or, as is much more likely, it's just a colossal market error, and just kinda fuckin' stupid. In two out of those three cases, income inequality is not justified. Meaning that it's an issue, and we have no moral obligation to let these people hold onto their money.### Human: The fact is creative productivity is not distributed normally, but following the pareto (I only remember it starts with"p", but it is a statistical distribution) distribution. This distribution shows that in standards of creation lots of people produce almost anything valuable, but few people produce almost all valuable content. This happens in the number of papers published in science, for example. Supposing that income would come in a normal distribution is an error, as productivity (the key to income) is not random. Random things distribute normally, non-random things don't. The thing is income inequality is what encourages people to try to be highly productive, as if there wasn't that inequality... why bother being productive? Why make sacrifices? What encourages lots of people to be productive and creative is the competition, being better than others, so that generates progress and wealth. That leads to inequality, and surely we can't let people die from starvation in front of our houses while we drink champagne. We cam provide a series of opportuinities to people that expects to rise from poverty, if they have an idea for raising a company, they can search for investors. But we can't just pay people for nothing, it would lead society to a static state. Also, things would start to collapse, like production, but that's just speculation.### Assistant: Productivity isn't the same as merit. More importantly, Productivity *is* roughly distributed normally, but *rewarded* abnormally. I'll take a step back and ask you to define or measure productivity. I'm guessing you ended up with some sort of outcome based measure. Now factor in *everyone* along the chain of producing that outcome. The grad students helping write the papers. The factory workers making the tools. The teachers and educators who got the publisher to that point. Most of them don't get paid based on their contribution, credit is nabbed by the 'final seller' of all that productivity. Creative productivity is a bit trickier, but I'd ask the question: Is J.K. Rowling (net worth ~$650 million) *really* 216 *times* as good an author as Lemony Snickett (net worth approximately $3 million)? Probably not. The actual product is almost identical (children's books of similar quality), but the market valuation of the product is very different. You've also stepped into it pretty hard with the cliche: >as if there wasn't that inequality... why bother being productive? Why make sacrifices? Read what I said about *variance* vs. *inequality*. Variance encourages effort. Frankly, anyone who needs billions in order to get off their lazy arse and work is someone who we can do without.### Human: I'm adressing only creative productivity. If Rowling is almost the same that Lemony, how is that people award mostly Rowling but not Lemony? If they are truly the same quality, they would truly be rewarded equally. Creative process is not something random, so it CAN'T be distributed normally, as normal distributions are for random things. The answer is: they are not the same. The stories are pretty much similar, but quality is highly different, as society acknowledges. Adressing your last argument, are you sure we could have arrived here without Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? The reward of wealth motivates to compete further, create more, develop more treatments, cure more patients, discover new things. Variance would motivate you to an extent, but not even close as super-wealth does. People burn their brains to get new ideas that are needed by society, and that generates a faster progress.### Assistant: >how is that people award mostly Rowling but not Lemony? If they are truly the same quality, they would truly be rewarded equally. Pure assumption. You've fallen into the classical economist's trap of assuming that the market *defines* value rather than *estimating* value. There's a reason classical economics is pretty much purely for undergrad and politicians. In reality there's a fame bias, which is a form of market error. This is where a lot of the problems come from. Would we have an OS without Bill Gates? Yes. But it might not be as profitable because a range of other players would have created more effective competition. But *early mover bias* (a form of market error) rewarded him well in excess of his actual differentiation. By being the first, he received payment dozens of standard deviations above people who were roughly equal in actual ability. Again, the point here is not that these people *should have their money taken* it's that there is *no moral reason to let them keep it*. A bunch of people are receiving more than they deserve. That doesn't mean they should be punished. It means the system needs re-calibration.### Human: The reason behind the money they won is because they were the first to monetize the idea. That encourages to be the first in generating new ideas. If you arr the inventor of the next super tech item, you will surely become rich in excess, but if you were the first to monetize(not necessarily create, but that's more likely nowadays) that's their reward. That encourages people to be revolutionary, to bring the results of ideas to people. And I'm sure that the system doesn't reward properly. For example, Patrick Rothfuss with the Kingkiller Chronicle has created a real masterpiece, with quality far beyond that of most writers of nowadays, but he isn't as rich as Rowling. The system doesn't award true creative quality, that's true, but awards the mixture of quality and knowledge of how the system works### Assistant: I'm sorry I have to stop you there. The Kingkiller Chronicle is *OK*, but the most recent book is frankly shite. He's got decent prose but his characterization and plot are mediocre.### Human: Well, I know lots of people (everyone I know except one person) that wouldn't agree with you. He's far better than Rowling at least Edit: tomorrow I will argue that properly

### Human: CMV: People who think it's wrong to hit animals/pets but have no problem hitting children are completely illogical.### Assistant: I don't personally support hitting kids, but just as an explanation: A kid can understand *why* they are being hit. Ideally, the hitting "turns up the volume" of what is (again, ideally) supposed to be basically a moral lesson. The parent explains why the behavior was wrong, and then uses the hitting to ensure that the kid remembers the lesson and considers it important. In contrast, an animal will understand that it is being hit, but may or may not have the capability to draw any kind of lesson from it. It's just decontextualized pain. ...I think that both children and animals learn just as well or better without any hitting, but there you go.### Human: Many animal trainers say you have to catch your pet in the act of doing something wrong to punish it. That way, they understand that the punishment is connected to the crime.### Assistant: This is true. If you come home and your dog got in the trash, people will say "he knows what he did wrong! He looks guilty!" No. You have reinforced them that they will be punished if you see trash on the floor. They cannot make the mental jump that you are displeased because they put it there.### Human: See, I've never bought this. When my dog was younger, he used to always greet me and my family at the door when we came home. That is, unless he's misbehaved (usually eaten some bread or torn up a tissue box). We wouldn't even need to find evidence to know he'd done something. He's be skulking in the corner instead of barking at the door. I have trouble believing he wasn't guilty and was simply reacting to our cues when we *weren't even in the house yet.*### Assistant: Regardless of whether or not you believe it, it's true. You've trained your dog to see torn up tissue box on the floor and see that as bad. You haven't trained up that the act of tearing up the tissue box as being bad.### Human: It's kind of like the little Albert experiment so when your animal sees trash on the ground it will get stressed but in reality it should only be stressed by the act of putting the trash there. By punishing your animal that way you are associating the wrong stimuli to the punishment.

### Human: CMV: It's deceptive when trans people wait to reveal that they're trans when things get sexual### Assistant: Yes, you have an uncomfortable feeling when encountering someone that doesn't fit your dating preferences. This is very common, and I too feel this way. The uncomfortable feeling is particularly intense when I find out they have bad credit, or they passionately collect model trains or dolls or something. By and large, that's okay. It's fine to have prejudices when dating. If i didn't want to date a person who suffers from depression, that's fine, some people might judge me for it, but it would be similarly mild. Even many trans people would be fine with your decision; the reality is that just like any human being, the vast majority of trans people don't really want to date people who are going to reject them for who they are. However, you having a dating preference does not mean that the other person somehow being deceptive. All it means is that you are uncomfortable with dating a trans person. Which again, is fine. Would some people cut off a relationship with a partner because they discovered that their partner was infertile or depressed or had bad credit (omg) or some other quality? Sure. But that person is not at fault and "deceiving" people because they didn't mention it before the first date. So it's somewhat fine for you or me or anyone to feel this way, but it is *wrong* to claim that the other person has somehow committed an offense because we found out we didn't want to date them after meeting up and learning about each other. --- *Edit to clear up misconceptions that people may have* (based on some later conversation): Many of the experiences that trans people have when dating go like this "oh this person asked me out and I was afraid, but I agreed and then I told them I'm trans on the 1st/2nd date and they said it was fine and they still want to date" or "they broke off the relationship when I told them, oh well." Trans people are just people, who are generally honest, and have insecurities just like most people who are navigating the labyrinth that is the dating world. It's largely a fiction from movie or porn tropes that trans women go "listen to my siren song and look how seductive and beautiful I am...surprise I have a dick!" The real world doesn't work that way and most trans people actually fall into these categories: 1. They isolate themselves not just from dating, but most social contact, because trans people are some of the most prone to depression due to familial/spousal/societal discrimination (the rate of transgender suicide attempts is 41%, ten times higher than the national average, it rises even more if they've experienced rejection from family members, or experience harassment from authority figures, etc) 2. Are visibly gender-nonconforming or trans in appearance. 3. They put that they are transgender on their dating profiles straight up. 4. They are genuine people and reveal that they're trans within a reasonable length of time while dating. Just like it's largely a movie/porn-fiction that gay guys are trying to trick heterosexual guys into sex. Gay men (and women) in the real world are mostly just regular people and they care about building sustainable, healthy relationships, and maybe raising a family, just generally taking care of each other. Assuming that oppressed LGBT people are out to deceive others because of fictional/sensational tropes is actively harmful, it gives uneducated people fear and drives them to discrimination. Trans people are also mostly just regular people with mostly regular lives.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: It's unfair of you to say that trans people are trying to appear "something they're not". Trans women are women. There's no deception going on.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: That's not really her responsibility. If someone has a strong preference for cis folks they should let that be known to potential partners since it's THEIR preference. If that's not something they're willing to do then I question just how important their partner's gender identity really is to them and I feel that they should do the same.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Because the preference is not that of the trans person in this situation. You can't expect your partners to meet your expectations if you don't make them clear up front. Trans people can put themselves in serious danger by outing themselves. Do you really think that risk is worth it because you're not willing to take the time to make your expectations clear?### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: America can't afford universal healthcare or free college education.### Assistant: We're already spending that money on those items, so the money clearly exists. It's just a matter of HOW it is spent on those items. Do we collect it in taxes first? OR do we set up a separate program? Or do we find another way to do it completely? The reason many of us are against "for profit" medical care being the only source of medical care is that simply by the need to turn a profit the money spent is not going towards care. Which means that money that could be discretionary for the patient becomes a mandatory expense. Please note I said "Only" there is still a place for private medical institutions, but they can't be the only source. Many state and local governments have been on a GOP led "privatization" kick for schools, hospitals jails etc. insisting that the open market can provide these services less expensively than the various governments can. The results are to put it kindly.. mixed. Those of us who side with Bernie Sanders feel that the government is only completely inept in jokes, and that the basic care (which has the most demand) can easily, effectively and more efficiently be consolidated under a single payer system similar to the rest of the western world. By increasing access to regular basic care we will automatically bring down the bills for pediatric care by eliminating the need for poor families to go to an ER for an ear infection. (As an example) For schools we would merely be increasing the subsidies already in place for public institutions, and allowing our recent graduates the ability to leave school without crushing debt. Not to mention increase accessibility to those who would like to go to college but cannot afford the cost or risk of doing so currently. The money definitely exists, it's just a matter of altering priorities.### Human: > The reason many of us are against "for profit" medical care being the only source of medical care is that simply by the need to turn a profit the money spent is not going towards car Unless you have plan to get doctors, nurses, and technicians to work, make drugs, and treat patients for free, you aren't going to eliminate for profit medical care. >The results are to put it kindly.. mixed. they are no more mixed than the results of government agencies. >can easily, effectively and more efficiently be consolidated under a single payer system similar to the rest of the western world. First, the rest of the world doesn't have single payer systems, except for a couple countries, they have subsidized insurance like we do. Second, US already has not one but two single payer systems, the VA and medicare. the VA has been problematic since its creation, and medicare is rapidly bankrupting the government. not exactly success stories. >By increasing access to regular basic care we will automatically bring down the bills for pediatric care by eliminating the need for poor families to go to an ER for an ear infection. A nice theory, too bad it's [completely without factual basis.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experiment) >The money definitely exists, it's just a matter ~~of altering priorities.~~ grabbing it at the point of the gun so I can spend it how I want. FTFY.### Assistant: Sorry, but not for profit does not mean employees work for free. Many nonprofits pay highly competitive salaries### Human: Exactly, the employees are profiting from their work, you didn't change anything. ANd if for some reason you think that non-profit organizations are somehow magically better than for profit ones, well, sorry, [non-profits](http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml) already have a [huge presence](http://economics.clemson.edu/files/dr-paper-final-010411.pdf) in american medicine.### Assistant: > employees are profiting from their work *sigh* Go do some research on the different level of acceptance of non-compensated care between hospitals based on ownership type, as well as the cost per patients based on hospital ownership model.### Human: You mean [like this](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10293600)? Which shows that there's no difference between the two, which is exactly the point I already made? You sure showed me!### Assistant: Citing a single 25 year old study really shows you're up on your scholarship.### Human: yes, your complete lack of evidence is much more convincing.....

### Human: CMV: Although I agree with and want to see the end goals of feminism, I feel that many contemporary feminists have adopted a McCarthy-style mindset. This has turned the movement into a dirty word.### Assistant: To put feminist philosophy into a bit more context, there is a focus on showing that the greatest source of sexism and bias is *implicit* in our culture and in our institutions. This is really hard to demonstrate, and the same people who may believe in the women's right to vote may refuse to believe that they themselves or their culture might have this implicit bias. I think much of what you're criticizing is feminists' effort to demonstrate this point. Take Shirtgate. If you look at what thoughtful feminists have said, it was never about shaming Matt Taylor for being sexist, it was about showing how the *decision* to wear that shirt involved thoughtlessness at a number of levels: he thought the shirt was okay to wear on TV, he thought his colleagues would be fine with it, his colleagues didn't say anything about it, and so on. It's about typifying this as a case of what feminists have been saying about STEM culture being especially difficult for women, not personally attacking him. Plus, his apology was widely well-received. The only people talking about him now are the people mad at feminists for talking about him in the first place. I think there's validity to what you're saying. Yea, some feminists end up spending more time shaming perceived individual sexists than the culture they came out of, but if I disassociated myself from any idea because wrongheaded people believed in it too, I could never believe in anything.### Human: That's another fantastic point. I recognize that there are many situations that my perspective is only researcher, not witness. I believe I would have found the shirtgate argument more palatable if it was veered away from attacks on Matt Taylor, and more into discussions of "Why does STEM culture allow/foster this? How can we fix this?" It would have seemed less like a witch hunt and more like an opportunity for change.### Assistant: > I believe I would have found the shirtgate argument more palatable if it was veered away from attacks on Matt Taylor, and more into discussions of "Why does STEM culture allow/foster this? How can we fix this?" It was, that's exactly what the poster above is saying. "If you look at what thoughtful feminists have said, it was never about shaming Matt Taylor for being sexist, it was about showing how the decision to wear that shirt involved thoughtlessness at a number of levels." Unless you only get your feminist news from comment sections. Otherwise it *was* about STEM culture and not an attack on Taylor.### Human: This could be my fault. Since graduating college, my feminist news sources have been my social circle (mainly folks involved in the comedy scene in Cincinnati and folks involved in the startup scene) and the internet, where my main sites are Reddit, Facebook, Tumblr, and The Mary Sue. Do you have any recommendations? I'll definitely check them out.### Assistant: Yeah, those aren't exactly bastions of high quality feminist thought so its understandable that you'd have a skewed perspective. Getting your opinions about feminists from posts on Facebook is like getting your opinions about computer science from HackerNews. Some of the stuff is from actually knowledgeable people and leaders in the field but most of it is just incoherent ramblings of people who don't know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, its tricky to get *really* high quality feminist writings outside of academia.### Human: > like getting your opinions about computer science from HackerNews Interesting. Got any recommendations for something better?

### Human: CMV: If the courier had died when he was shot outside Goodsprings, the Legion would have won the 2nd battle of Hoover Dam### Assistant: I don't think it's a sure thing. You don't mention House here. I think he's resourceful enough to either find someone else to get the platinum chip and upgrade the Securitrons, or come up with a different plan entirely. Straight up in a fight the Legion is stronger than the NCR, yeah. But House is probably the smartest tactician *plus* he has the most money and technology too. In fact, we never really see what he's truly capable of because he doesn't just want to repel the Legion, he wants the NCR to *barely* win so they are forced to surrender to him too. The House always wins. And war, war never changes.### Human: I think House could reinforce the NCR well enough to stop Caesar's Legion. Happen to be playing FNV right now, and it glitches WAY less for some reason.### Assistant: They fixed some of the glitchiness through patches. Not all the way though haha### Human: So far, I've had only 1 in 20 hours of gameplay. That's insanely reduced.### Assistant: It's a shame that everyone still looks like a baked Natalie Portman with Asian flush, sometimes attempting to do blackface. Otherwise; a very good game.

### Human: CMV: The driving age should be raised to 18.### Assistant: The big problem with drivers under the age of 16 is inexperience. If you increase the driving age to 18 you aren't meaningfully decreasing the odds of an accident just shifting who does it. People who start driving later in life are similarly likely to have accidents. Car accidents happen often, but increasing the driving age doesn't keep kids off the road, it just moves them to passenger seats and puts tired, annoyed, or distracted adults behind the wheel. Underage drinking and illegal drug use are things that I don't see being meaningfully effected as those who supply such things would still be able to drive, teens would be capable of scheduling drop off/pick up through a variety of services, and those things happen as often at their place of residence as away from it.### Human: You could perhaps get a permit at 15/16 as to not have to totally wait on learning, but not be licensed to drive alone until you fulfill a certain amount of time behind the wheel and also turn 18.### Assistant: Isn't that almost identical to what most US States and many nations already have? Between 14 and 18 (depending upon the local rules) you can apply for a license that provides limited ability to drive with restrictions on hours, occupancy, et al? When it comes to "certain amount of time" restrictions that becomes infeasible quickly because you'd have to actually monitor the hundreds of thousands/millions of new drivers in your jurisdiction or the rule becomes a thing on paper that is generally ignored.### Human: 14?! I would place zero trust in any 14 year old behind the wheel.### Assistant: I'm just saying that some localities allow very restricted learning permits for people of that age who pass tests.### Human: Mostly in agricultural areas. It's very limited and very important for those areas.

### Human: CMV: Obama and GW-Bush aren't "the worst presidents ever". Many people just lack historical context.### Assistant: Who seriously calls either Bush or Obama the worst ever? Who do you argue against? It seems most instances of statements like "Obama is the worst president in US history" are purposeful hyperbole in an attempt to make a point.### Human: A lot of younger generation people honestly believe Obama is the worst president ever and will defend that thought with all their energy. I went to a rich high school and a lot of these kids had republican parents so they adopted those views, and with Obama being the only liberal president they've seen they strongly considered him the worst. To be fair they probably couldn't even name five other presidents.### Assistant: ...to be fair, I can name pretty much every single president (in order!) and describe most of their administrations in relatively decent detail (history teacher!), AND ON TOP OF THAT, I am *very* far left, and while I do think that he's probably not the *worst* president ever, Obama is not a *good* president, nor will he be remembered as such. Part of that, of course, is unprecedented opposition-party obstructionism, but a great deal of the fault lies with the president himself. His senior advisers all came from Wall Street and senior Pentagon positions (for domestic economic and foreign military/diplomatic issues, respectively), and that's a perfect way to become an ineffective president who preserves the power of an extremely wealthy and/or politically powerful minority. His accomplishments as president are almost non-existent (aside from the ACA, which conservatives hate and liberals can barely tolerate... it's the worst outcome of compromise, basically). He's, at best, a mediocre president, and at worst, ranks with the "bad" ones (Buchanan, Hoover, Bush II). Edit: it appears I need to explain my ranking of the current president with the "worst" ones, so here's my rationale: the vast majority of Americans have not seen *any* improvement in quality of life following the "Great Recession", and no major policy initiatives from the executive or legislative branches have worked to alleviate their plight. For the first time in a century or more, the youngest generation can expect a lower quality of life than the previous generations, and that trajectory is not subject to change in the foreseeable future. The United States is very close to losing global hegemony despite an obscenely large military budget and two recent imperial wars, the longest wars in our history, both of which failed to accomplish even regional objectives. A power shift to a Eurasian alliance, primarily between Russia and Germany, threatens to upend the current status-quo, and U.S. meddling in Ukraine, along with recent NSA spying of the German chancellor, only fueled that flame and encouraged U.S. isolation. The current administration lacks the political will to impose real reform on the NSA spying, and has shown no interest in concluding either of the two longest-lasting wars in U.S. history, only leaving Iraq when that nation's governing body demanded it, and still actively working to maintain a troop presence in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, domestically, the U.S. has a crippled federal government in gridlock, no plan for a rapidly collapsing infrastructure, and no jobs initiative for the vast number of unemployed Americans who can't find work. All of these indicate a nation in rapid decline, and an administration lacking the political will to do anything of note about it.### Human: As a history teacher I'd hope you'd be more aware and cognizant of the nuance of politics and history and the dangers of summing up any President's accomplishments in wide swathes of generalities and missed context. Nor can you possibly even factually begin to summarize how President Obama's legacy will come to be while it's still on going. There's a reason why AskHistorians has a twenty year rule and it's a great rule. You need distance from current events before you can even begin to start piecing together a historical account and attempt to strip away emotional biases (not to say history and historians in general are not without biases or fully objective).### Assistant: Surely you realize that making any comment whatsoever on a current administration requires a person to forego that rule. Additionally, it is entirely possible to look at the legislative accomplishments, executive actions (or inaction), and popular support of a president and make certain statements about his administration in historical context. On top of all this, making a blanket claim of "wide swathes of generalities and missed context", then not addressing specific instances where you believe I have done so, is pretty unfair, since it's an attempt to shut down the discussion without having to prove your point at all.

### Human: Pirating is theft. CMV.### Assistant: So, you've got 4 arguments: 1, 'already have a lot of money', 2, 'too expensive', 3, 'isn't actually stealing', 4, 'wouldn't buy it anyways'. Let's address these. Personally, I've only heard the last three. There's a fourth argument, that is the ACTUAL reason people pirate, that you haven't addressed. Seriously, the reason people pirate is none of the ones you listed. I'll get to that at the end. 1) 'Just save up" isn't always viable. It isn't. I'm a student with literally no income, I have to live off what I saved up during the summer until next summer. If one of my classes informs me "Hey, you need to get your hands on Sony Vegas", I don't have $800 to pull out of my ass. That's as much as half my tuition. While that's a rather extreme example, it holds true for literally everything else. Just because YOUR financial situation lets you "just save up, dumbass", doesn't mean mine does. 2) They are being paid, though. The only time this is relevant is regarding music. And if I download a CD, guess how much I'm costing the musician? Assuming the CD was $17 in the store, it's a whopping... [23 cents.](http://www.theroot.com/views/how-much-do-you-musicians-really-make) Oh no. 23 cents. Now, a band will make [between 50-70% on ticket sales at concerts](http://www.sixthman.net/blog/2009/09/27/how-much-does-the-band-make-for-a-concert/). Assuming your average concert costs $40 for a ticket for rather large bands, the band will make $24 per ticket sale (assuming 60% profit). Now, also assuming a 4-man band, that's $6 each per ticket. That means that for every album download, one out of twenty-five people who downloaded the album go to the concert. That's actually a pretty reasonable number. Not to mention the number of people who will torrent it, share it with their friends, and their friends buy it; but wouldn't have bought it in the first place (meaning their friends never heard of it)... it's not too far a stretch to say piracy is a net profit for the band. Outside of music, every individual involved gets paid anyways- programmers, actors, or anyone else involved in anything you pirate is paid on salary; they're paid for their work before the product is finished. 3) "Wouldn't have bought it anyways"... Uh, this is a pretty big misunderstanding. Say I find a band I like maybe 15% of their songs. Not that unreasonable, I find that all the time. Am I going to go out and buy their entire discography just to find those 15%? Spend $50 to find 20 songs? No. No I won't. And listening to the preview on iTunes to figure out which I like doesn't work either, because that's only like 30 seconds- I'm not spending a dollar on something I only know about 1/6-1/10th of. I WOULD, however, type their name into my chosen torrent site, find the one that's their entire discography, and click download. "Listen to absolutely everything before you buy it and hope the preview wasn't just the only good part of the song, buying them one by one when you find a good one" would take me hours for a lot of bands with big discographies, while "download it all, listen to it all on shuffle while doing other stuff on your computer, if you find a good one, put it on your phone" takes a few seconds- the few seconds I spend starting the download. Listening to a band I just downloaded on shuffle vs songs I bought years ago on shuffle takes zero extra time on each side. So, that's enough for music- what about video games? I pirate those too, I can't say I don't. What am I supposed to do about games that just don't exist anywhere, really old games? I can't buy those, I HAVE to download them. Not my fault. What about games that I'm not sure if I'll like or not? I don't have the money to throw around to buy games at random and pray I'll like them. I'll download it, and if it's good enough, sure, I'll support the devs. I've been burned one too many times buying games I thought might be good and were just shit, I'm not doing it again. Now. What's the "actual reason people pirate" I mentioned? Simple. Convenience. It is infinitely more convenient to pirate things. The Dead Kennedys weren't wrong when they said we live in a society of "[give me convenience or give me death](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_Me_Convenience_or_Give_Me_Death)". Let's say I want to watch Season 3 of The Simpsons. Pretty hard to find that ANYWHERE. What am I supposed to do? Drive around to every single electronics store in town, praying they found it in the back, covered in dust, and put it on the shelf earlier today? Order it off the internet and wait a week to actually get it? I'm not going to hope for a 0.001% chance of finding the DVD, and I want it NOW, not in a week. Literally my only option is to download it. This is just as true for old shows and movies as it is for modern ones- stock in stores are utterly unpredictable, and ordering online isn't viable. Well, what about Netflix? Yeah, Netflix in Canada is so bad half of us used VPNs/tunneling methods to con it into thinking we were in the US, until they fixed that. What about buying it on iTunes? No, I'm not installing that program on my computer. The point of this is convenience, and iTunes is the single least convenient program there is. Piracy is literally the only viable option; and any business not willing to meet the demands of the consumer deserves to go under. For evidence this is the case? [Netflix is killing BitTorrent.](http://torrentfreak.com/netflix-says-its-killing-bittorrent-traffic-130504/) More people pirate for convenience than the reasons you listed above combined. And until businesses decide to actually offer the convenience consumers demand, people will do what they have to to get it- and that often means pirating it. Sorry for the massive comment, hopefully this explains it to you.### Human: > 1) 'Just save up" isn't always viable. It isn't. I'm a student with literally no income, I have to live off what I saved up during the summer until next summer. If one of my classes informs me "Hey, you need to get your hands on Sony Vegas", I don't have $800 to pull out of my ass. That's as much as half my tuition. While that's a rather extreme example, it holds true for literally everything else. Just because YOUR financial situation lets you "just save up, dumbass", doesn't mean mine does. Then you don't get to have it if you can't afford it.### Assistant: Are college students supposed to fail out of classes, then? I sympathize with this argument. When I was in college, I was given a list of films that I had to watch over the course of a semester. When we asked the professor where to find them, you can "usually find them online, or maybe at the library." It wasn't optional to watch these movies - either I could have spent nearly $1000 on Amazon ordering them (and trying to find them), or download them because it's not something I *want* to watch, it's something I'm *required* to watch.### Human: Former roomate of mine for one of his classes was required to get Photoshop. Him and I were both firmly against pirating and he couldn't afford it. All he had to do was simply let his teacher know that he couldn't afford the software and the teacher reminded him that the school computer labs have all required softwares installed on them, perhaps your school has a similar setup.### Assistant: When I was in school, we didn't really have another option. When you're in film school, you're expected to buy expensive software/cameras/media/etc. The library had some of the older/Golden Age films to watch that we could use in the media center. But if 75% of the class saw the film (even though it was through illegal uploads/downloads) it was inexcusable to show up and say you weren't able to "find it."### Human: How could you not know you would have to buy these things? Maybe you live in a different country than I do, but it took me all of 5min to do research on the best film school in my country, get a basic idea of what, where and how much it costs (and damn film school is expensive), and send a request for more specific info from the school.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Were you not allowed to drop/add classes without penalty before or during the first week of classes? Also I was responding to film school guy. Do you really think he couldn't know that he would have to buy equipment for that?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Of course he shouldn't drop a class because he didn't already have everything, but if he can't afford something they require? Then yes, he should if the choice is to drop the class or steal supplies. If the college you are looking at is "a complete clusterfuck" then why go there? Choose a school you can afford and one that isn't that screwed up in it's processes. Choosing otherwise makes no logical or fiscal sense. Being poor does not mean you are stupid or should resort to thievery to get where and what you want in life. The sad truth is not everyone can afford to get a degree. If you can't save,earn, borrow, or barter the funds to pay for it then you don't get to do it. It sucks but that is currently how it works. EDIT: spelling### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: The "large set of anecdotal data" is called student reviews. They have them online for colleges, professors, and even individual classes. Frankly if someone is not mature enough to look for these things then maybe they are not ready for uni. If you can find your way around a computer network to play video games then you should be smart enough to research the school that will provide the education for your future. Laziness is not an excuse and neither is it being too difficult to find. If you can't do research well enough for that then you probably aren't intelligent enough for a college education. I'm sorry, but you can not convince me that someone with the intellect to get a degree could not find a way to avoid pirating computer programs or textbooks or anything else involved in advanced education. So I guess I am done here.

### Human: CMV: #Alllivesmatter is a racist countermovement designed to minimize attention on black victims of police brutality, not to draw attention to victims of other races### Assistant: I think your argument breaks down in regards to the "countermovement" point you make. Segregationists, pro-lifers, and supporters of "traditional" marriage were/are fundamentally opposed to the social changes proposed by their respective counterparts. I don't follow these hashtag movements, so I can't speak with any authority on the particulars of either one, but "all lives matter" seems to be a poorly thought out response to "black lives matter" in the respect that they are trying to spread the focus out to include others. BLM is a response to police brutality and the callous disregard and disconnection that police officers have towards the black community. To my knowledge, ALM supporters look at that argument and respond that the black community is not alone in feeling that way, and that the problems are not only confined to one race, rather, they are indicative of police culture writ large on American society as a whole. Done correctly, ALM could have served as a bridge in order to connect the hearts and minds of middle class American culture with a traditionally marginalized underclass under a common banner.### Human: I think the whole point is that a segregationist would argue with a straight face that they were not anti-black intergration, but rather in support of the idea that the people of a state like Alabama (who happened to be a lot of racists) were within their rights to choose what policies they would and would not enact. A pro-lifer would say they are always in support of a child's right to life. And a supporter of traditional marriage would say that they aren't opposed to gay marriage, but rather in support of their view of what traditional marriage is. That's the brilliance of the propaganda. It serves as a smoke screen to divert from what these movements were actually doing in reality. With regard to #alllivesmatter, I have yet to see any platform for reforming policing in the US as a result of this movement. It just seems to pop up right after anyone says #blacklivesmatter which actually has a [platform](http://blacklivesmatter.com/demands/) (whether or not one agrees with it) for reforming policing in communities of color. If the goal is to bridge the gap as you say, where is the evidence of that as indicated by support of any changes to policing? It just serves as a facile gotcha.### Assistant: > I think the whole point is that a segregationist would argue with a straight face that they were not anti-black intergration, but rather in support of the idea that the people of a state like Alabama (who happened to be a lot of racists) were within their rights to choose what policies they would and would not enact. And thats kind of beside the point. Regardless of the justifications of those countermovements, they are still demonstrably opposed to the goals of those they're countering. Whereas I don't think you can make the argument that OPENING UP a movement to be more inclusive (regardless of how poorly worded) is in opposition to the original intentions. They're not saying black lives DON'T matter, they're pointing out that the problem exists on a larger scale than simply black communities. >If the goal is to bridge the gap as you say, where is the evidence of that as indicated by support of any changes to policing? It just serves as a facile gotcha. I don't think there really is a goal to ALM. I don't think it exists as an actual movement in the same sense that BLM is, although I admit I could be wrong on that. Personally, I would say that ALM is a misguided attempt at broadening the issue, but it would be hard to make the argument that its actively racist.### Human: The whole point is that of course it is hard to make an argument that insidious propaganda actually serves a nefarious purpose. But looking back in history it's not hard to see when it happened. One could theoretically be opposed to segregation AND opposed to the federal government enacting mandates that had the force of law in a particular state. I'm making the case that given the circumstances surrounding the creation of #alllivesmatter and the history of countermovements in American history that the hashtag is actually racist propaganda masquerading as an enlightened attempt at inclusion. Because if it was really an attempt at an inclusion we would have seen by now an emerging ideology that's more sophisticated than "let's not just talk about black people being killed."### Assistant: > the hashtag is actually racist propaganda masquerading as an enlightened attempt at inclusion. Because if it was really an attempt at an inclusion we would have seen by now an emerging ideology that's more sophisticated than "let's not just talk about black people being killed." I think you are picking and choosing who's intentions you are considering when talking about people who support ALM. Personally, I don't tweet, I don't hashtag anywhere, and thus I am not a participant in any social media "platform" or "movement". However my opinions still matter, and if someone *in real life* starts a conversation about #BlackLivesMatter, my counter argument is not "let's not just talk about black people being killed", but rather "your hashtag is vague and self-segregating". The key word in there is "matter", as the statement is a direct opposite of the strawman argument "black lives don't matter". Very few people actually believe in that statement, so why is that the statement you are fighting? Why not use something like "#EndPoliceBrutality"? or "#PoliceRestraint"? Is that not the actual issue? Or are we also fighting to reduce the rate of cancer, shark attack, and accidental fall deaths among the black populace? However the worst part about it is the self-segregation from the rest of the citizens affected by the issue. It is true that there is a higher rate of incidents between police and black Americans, but that does not mean every other culture should be excluded from garnering support from those movements who wish to fix the problem. This issue directly impacts the lower class, and indirectly impacts the entire country. Yes, I am privileged to live in a minimal crime neighborhood and have no bad interactions with cops, but that doesn't mean I appreciate seeing time and time again people across the country being mistreated, and I would like it stop, for *everyone*. Thus, back to the original point. Yes, #AllLivesMatter is a poor "countermovement", but that is only because it is forced to take the same wording as the poor movement "#BlackLivesMatter" that does not explicitly confront head-on what they are attempting to solve.

### Human: CMV: If the US Attorney General lies under oath, he is unfit for the job and should resign.### Assistant: > to blatantly lie and say you haven't established contact with someone when you very obviously did just a few months ago is a flagrant lie You're pretending the words are at face value. The accusation is that he "met" the Russian Ambassador, WITH the implication here that he colluded with the Ambassador on behalf the Trump campaign. It's provable that Sessions, in his duties as a Senator and member of military-related committees, has, on occasion, had necessary contact with foreign ambassadors, Russia included. He was doing his job. He also, once, ran into him in DC, and exchanged pleasantries. Technically, yes, he has met with the Russian ambassador. Sure. However, if the implication of the accusation is considered, and the same implication applied to his answer, his answer is truthful. If you try to catch someone on a technicality, as a political ploy, because you lost the battle and will do anything to get a small victory, don't be surprised people call bullshit on you.### Human: Oh so he met the ambassador during the campaign, didn't discuss the campaign at all, and then said under oath that there wasn't a meeting. I see reason to look deeper into that.### Assistant: I'm not sure the meeting was *during* the campaign. (Not sure what the date was actually). Presuming it was prior to the campaign, or even very early, I think there's little room for concern. Of course, if it was a week before Election Day, I'll concede, that's a dumb move even if nothing improper happened.### Human: There were several meetings, including during the RNC (when Trump received the nomination) and in September (after Trump received it). Not only was it during the campaign, it was during the *general* when Trump was the GOP nominee. This is not at all a valid line of argument. Sessions was an outspoken Trump advocate, at times a surrogate, and was meeting with the Russians.### Assistant: Ok, so answer this. Why does that actually matter in the first place?### Human: Because he then said that he didn't do it. Also the fact that he did is very concerning given that Russia hacked our institutions and affected the election (confirmed by several nonpartisan intelligence agencies and other gov't officials).

### Human: CMV: Shadowbanning users for "brigading" linked comments is stupid.### Assistant: Reddit thrives because of the organic nature of the upvotes and downvotes. The content which the community naturally decides to vote on is the content that should be featured. When you start manipulating the voting, you threaten the integrity of the site. Prompting people to vote, even implicitly, gives undue control of the content of the site to the groups of people who frequent those meta-subs. Shadowbanning is necessary because a regular ban notifies users that their attempt at vote manipulation failed. This is something the admins don't want. If you're an unscrupulous fellow trying to manipulate votes, taking away the feedback that your attempt failed makes it much harder for you to game the system.### Human: > Reddit thrives because of the organic nature of the upvotes and downvotes. The content which the community naturally decides to vote on is the content that should be featured. I have heard this statement a lot, but either I don't understand it or it doesn't make any sense. What is "natural" about votes? They don't make themselves... people make them. I mean, I can understand how somebody using alt accounts or something is being "unnatural". That violates the "one man one vote" principle, which is thousands of years old, old and established enough perhaps to label the rule "natural". But if you post something to sub A, and it is linked from sub B, and it attracts downvotes from real users, why is that unnatural? That seems pretty organic to me. It is certainly no less "natural" than any other kind of vote. Now one could argue, if sub B is really powerful, that small subs need some kind of brigade protection from sub A. You might call that idea *protectionism*, and I think there is a good conversation that we could have about it, and when it is appropriate. But if we want to talk about protectionism, there is no need to use "natural" and "organic" and other adjectives we use to advertise fruit. Those words' real function is to demonize the dissent and criticism from other subs as "unnatural" and therefore invalid. In my experience the "natural" categorization seems selectively applied. Votes from [insert favorite brigade sub here] are "unnatural" as a matter of course, but I have not heard nearly as many complaints about the upvote brigade at /r/bestof, or when /r/XYZSub links a post in less-popular /r/XYZDiscussion, etc. This leads me to believe that words like "unnatural" and "brigade" are less about legitimately categorizing voting behavior according to some kind of objective criteria, and more about inventing a plausibly-objective moral standard that we pull out when our post is downvoted to demonstrates that the critics are a motley crew of rapscallions.### Assistant: > What is "natural" about votes? This means that you were browsing a subreddit, saw a post or comment that you liked, and decided to vote on it without being prompted or directed. > But if you post something to sub A, and it is linked from sub B, and it attracts downvotes from real users, why is that unnatural? That seems pretty organic to me. It is certainly no less "natural" than any other kind of vote. Different communities that form on reddit are going to have different biases and opinions. When you have one sub direct users to another you start polluting the discourse and the opinions of that sub. If I decide to have a meetup with a bunch of people where we're going to talk about bubblegum, then the day of the meetup we get flooded with people who hate bubble gum and would rather talk about cotton candy, it's going to suck. We set up this meeting for bubblegum enthusiasts. And while we may have held it in a public park where anyone can show up, it's kind of dickish if you do. When users feel like they can't have a space for their opinions, they're going to leave the site. The site becomes more exclusionary, and more controlled by people with agendas. > but I have not heard nearly as many complaints about the upvote brigade at /r/bestof Generally, /r/bestof does not have much of an agenda other than highlighting high quality content, and so it doesn't do as much harm to the site as other metasubs do. I will make the addendum that votes from outside subs are not intrinsically bad, but they are almost always bad in practice. Threads linked to by any of the Shit*Says subs or from any of the drama subs are not going to see the same kinds of voting behavior in them as something linked to from /r/BestOf, and the voting trends in the former case are much more detrimental to the site.### Human: > This means that you were browsing a subreddit, saw a post or comment that you liked, and decided to vote on it without being prompted or directed. Well by this definition all votes are natural unless someone literally says "Please go here and downvote this post", which is not the case for the vast majority of brigades. Usually someone just says "look at this stupid thing that /u/bthrowaway22 said" and then people "decide to vote on it without being prompted or directed". > When you have one sub direct users to another you start polluting the discourse and the opinions of that sub. Again, this is *protectionism*. You're saying that some sub's opinions and discourse is worth being protected against the majority view. That is a principle worth discussing but it isn't "natural" or "organic". > And while we may have held it in a public park where anyone can show up, it's kind of dickish if you do. I guess what I'm saying is, the same principle that allows somebody to be a dick at your bubblegum meetup is the principle that allows people to protest Scientology and stuff. It's the cost of living in a free society. If you're trying to say "It's too bad that people are dicks" I agree with you there, but when it's followed by "and that's why we ban dissenters who also pay taxes and have an equal right to occupy the park as we do" is where I get off the bus... > and the voting trends in the former case are much more detrimental to the site. I still don't understand where we established what "detrimental to the site" means. For example, if there are large subs, and people in those subs are not allowed to do things that they would normally do, if nothing else this is **detrimental to those users**. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that being detrimental to a large number of users can be beneficial to the site as a whole, but I think this requires further discussion to establish what, if any, benefit to Reddit as a whole is credited to forbidding votes from large numbers of users.### Assistant: > Well by this definition all votes are natural unless someone literally says "Please go here and downvote this post", which is not the case for the vast majority of brigades The request to vote need not be explicit. If you're on an anti-bubble gum sub, and you link to some terrible lies being perpetrated by the pro-bubble gum crowd, there's an implicit request to read and vote on this content, whether intentional or not. Because the admins can actually see and measure this behavior, they can tell how pronounced this effect is, and they have determined that it does cause a lot of issues. > Again, this is protectionism. You're saying that some sub's opinions and discourse is worth being protected against the majority view. I'm saying all sub's opinions and discourse is worth being protected against outside views. > I guess what I'm saying is, the same principle that allows somebody to be a dick at your bubblegum meetup is the principle that allows people to protest Scientology and stuff. It's the cost of living in a free society. But this isn't society, this is reddit. You can talk about scientology on your own turf, but you can't butt in into their conversations in their own space. > I still don't understand where we established what "detrimental to the site" means. The votes on the subreddits no longer reflect the opinions and ideas of the community and instead reflect the opinions of outsiders. > For example, if there are large subs, and people in those subs are not allowed to do things that they would normally do, if nothing else this is detrimental to those users. What do you mean here? What are people in large subs being disallowed to do? What subs are you talking about here?### Human: > If you're on an anti-bubble gum sub, and you link to some terrible lies being perpetrated by the pro-bubble gum crowd, there's an implicit request to read and vote on this content, whether intentional or not If you post content on any sub, there is an implicit request to read and vote on the content. So if we interpret our definition consistently, now all votes are brigades. > You can talk about scientology on your own turf, but you can't butt in into their conversations in their own space. I mean, I think this is bad. If you want a criticism-free place to discuss your topic, make a private sub. The nature of public spaces is that other people can butt into your conversations. To try and change that is to upend the whole idea of a public space. > The votes on the subreddits no longer reflect the opinions and ideas of the community and instead reflect the opinions of outsiders. Would it make a difference if I subscribed to a sub before criticizing it? In other words, what makes me an "outsider", other than the fact that I have a dissenting opinion? Because if there is no difference, it's just dressing-up the shushing of dissenting voices. > What are people in large subs being disallowed to do? What subs are you talking about here? I'm not going to name subs, but there are large subs that link to posts on Reddit, either to criticize it, to laugh about it, to make commentary, etc. The fact that we have rules against "brigading" suggests that in the absence of those rules people from those subs would vote and comment on linked content. So those rules prevent people from doing that. Given that these meta subs are large, I suggest that these rules restrict a large number of people from doing things that they would do in the absence of brigade rules.

### Human: CMV: I should get a tattoo of my PGP Key ID and fingerprint to assist identification of my corpse### Assistant: In point 2, you forgot to acknowledge dental records. Since you'll most likely suddenly die in ways that identification won't be a problem like in your house or car, we're really only talking about murder and fires (that are not in your house or possibly work). The fact that the chance you'll get murdered is extremely slim, especially in Australia, aside, if someone is actively trying to stop the authorities from identifying your body and go through the lengths of destroying your teeth, I'm sure they won't shy from cutting off some skin. I'm pretty sure a good fire will destroy that tattoo, and again, dental records are a great source of identification in the case of a fire.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: What do you think the local cops would do if they found your dead body on a run? I mean how big is your town? Do you really think that they couldn't track you down?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Do you have a job that would miss you if you were dead? Do you drive to the place you run? Do you have a car that is registered? If you die, who would notice first?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Do you have a way of telling anyone that the tattoo on your body actually means something? If you're hanging out in Thailand and you die...you have no id....How are cops going to even know that your tat is something important? This isn't Momento. It isn't like people tat important information to their body.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: So you're going to a tattoo a relatively obscure ID system to your person so if you die, perhaps on vacation, you can be IDed? You know when you go on vacation you're traceable? If you stay at a hotel, which we all do, you do leave your passport number. When you fail to check out and thus pay I'm sure they will report you and then the cops will put two and two together. That's far more likely than they will Google what PGP Key ID is or Google something. If you really want to get it done, go for it. It just like a really odd way to solve a more of less non existent problem.### Human: > You know when you go on vacation you're traceable? If you stay at a hotel, which we all do, you do leave your passport number. That's not always true, by the way. If I'm abroad I'll often be staying in a tent for example, and when I do go to hotels, they often don't ask for my passport number.

### Human: I think affirmative action should be done away with. CMV### Assistant: Affirmative action is a large and complex issue. I'm just going to address your argument that the market solves workplace discrimination. You claim that the market will solve because people will prefer businesses that do not discriminate. Your claim assumes that consumers know which businesses discriminate. However, the market does not solve because discrimination in the workplace is surreptitious and insidious. Empirical evidence (and these studies only address discrimination against blacks): (a) [Job applicants with African-American names are less likely to be called back than job applicants with white names](http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873). (b) From the study cited in (a): [Improved credentials increase white job applicants' likelihood of being called back by a statistically significant 30%. Improved credentials increase black applicants' likelihood of being called back by a non-statistically significant 9%](http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf?new_window=1). (c) [Black male wages are 71% of white male wages for comparable work. Educational differences and self-selecting lower paying jobs account for some but not all of the wage gap](http://www.epi.org/publication/whiter_jobs_higher_wages/). (d) [Blacks are the first fired as the business cycle weakens](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000014/). (e) [Whites with criminal records are more likely to receive job callbacks than blacks without criminal records](http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf).### Human: A need for change doesn't justify a particular means for change (AA in this case). The defined, quantitative nature of a quota drastically contrasts the subjective, qualitative nature of race. What if I had plastic surgery done to seem African American? What if families started paying African American families to legally adopt their children for AA benefits? What if I change my name to an African American name for AA prospects? What if I'm culturally more similar to an African American than I am to my own "ethnicity?" Do I qualify? Probably not, but am I a victim to social prejudice? Quite possibly. (Ethnicity to be considered a loose term as its legitimacy as a concept is questionable.) Glad you admitted that it's a complex and large issue.### Assistant: You do realize that university affirmitive action does not use quotas anymore? That method is banned by the Supreme Court. Universities take all factors into account. You have to be qualified for the affirmitive action to take place. Canidates A and B both quality for the position. They are the same gpa and similar records. At this point, the university is allowed to pick a canadite for any reason they choose, like activity involvement or personality. In general, being black means you grew up with a different perspective. I'm not saying that this perspective is as important as grades, but it does give a canadite an edge that being a checker champion would### Human: WOAH WOAH WOAH... Firstly, I'm a Junior at UCB so yeah I know about University AA policy. Secondly, doesn't every "racial" background have a homogenous, cultural experience? These "edges" as you call them exist in every cultural niche and differ from those of other cultural niches. Also... We're speaking hypothetically. Since AA implementation is already so heated a debate, I was talking about the problems faced in that process. Lastly, *candidate. (;### Assistant: Sorry, typing from an iPad. Every culture has that, the problem is representation. Because of the state many inner city public schools are in, the inner city perspective is a rare commodity. If everyone had equal representation (or equal opportunity) then there would not be a need for AA

### Human: CMV: I believe a Palestine state should be established in the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt### Assistant: 1) What do you propose is done with the West Bank? 2) Even ignoring the difficulty of actually growing crops in the Sinai, Israeli efforts to reduce desertification were possible only due to large amounts of foreign funds and resources that poured into the state after its foundation. The Palestinian diaspora has no such source of funding, hence it is doubtful that they would be able to actually water in a climate that is even more harsh than Israel's is, on average. 3) Israel is generally thought of as being one of the most over-populated areas in the world, relative to it's carrying capacity. It is possible that global warming will exacerbate the issue along with the changing climate, and this would also likely apply to the Palestinian Sinai. 4) Egypt won't sign on to it because it weakens their hold over the Suez Canal by putting a foreign nation on the other bank pretty close to the canal. 5) Palestine won't sign on to it because, let's face it, they just won't. You're implicitly saying that the Palestinians should be forced to move out of their present lands for no reason other than their own ethnicity. 6) Israel won't sign on to it because lately the Israeli government has been against the establishment of any Arab Palestinian government in the region.### Human: 1) The people already residing there can be promised equal citizenship rights in the new state of Palestine. Egypt could even allow for the people there to have duel citizenship, so that they can choose to either stay in the new state or easily move to inland Egypt. Egypt even could offer incentives for Sinai people to move inland prior to the establishment of the state. 2) North Sinai has access to the Mediterranean, and U.N. funding might be able to help fight desertfication that same way Israel has been helped. 3) Migration of Palestinians would move people away from the over-populated state of Israel to a higher land-mass location of the Sinai peninsula. 4) Egypt doesn't have to give the Suez Canel, the map I posted shows that the North Governate doesn't border the canel. Border patrol from Egypt, Israel, and maybe even the U.N. can prevent security concerns. 5) Yeah they probably won't. The two-state solution just doesn't seem realistic anymore because Israel can never accept it. Israel loses too much from a two-stat solution. This is just the best alternative I can think of. 6) Yes.### Assistant: 1) That doesn't answer the question: what do you intend to happen to the West Bank itself? 2) So? Almost all of the Sinai's fringe has access to bodies of water, but it's still mostly desert. In addition, the only part of the Sinai that is habitable *now* is an extremely thin strip along the coasts. Not to mention; are you expecting the United States to pay for this, like we pay for everything else the UN does? Why should we be the ones to support the financial burden? 3) A land mass that is almost entirely desert, and would require large amounts of engineering to actually make habitable. You're basically looking at an extreme form of what is happening to California *now*. And don't even start with desalinization, unless you're seriously suggesting the world pour tens of billions of dollars into the country for water production alone. 4) It still weakens their hold though; it remains very easy for the Palestinian state to move in a grab what remains of the Sinai without much hassle. Not to mention there is *already* border patrol by Egyptians and Israelis, and it *already* isn't working.### Human: 1) West bank dissolves into Israel and Gaza strip remains connected to the new Sinai state. Maybe the Gaza Strip can be extended in exchange for this. Yes, this seems unlikely to happen, but it's more viable then the two-state solution. The Israel government clearly has no intention of giving Palestinians back any land. In fact, if you can change my mind that the two-state solution can happen, with both parties mutually agreeing to it, I'll scrap this solution. 2) America has funded more for less. If the Israel has been massively funded by the U.N., why not the state of Palestine too? If it can provide stability and prevent future wars, it could be well worth it. 3) Wouldn't a Sinai state be better then the living conditions of the West bank? 4) Then a further diplomatic solution would be necessary. That's just a result of the War on terror, which all three states would need to work together to combat. Edit: The desertification problem is a global problem in general. A new Palestine state in Sinai would still fair better then the West Bank regardless of this.### Assistant: >West bank dissolves into Israel and Gaza strip remains connected to the new Sinai state. And so the Dome of the Rock, one of the holiest sites in all of Islam, falls under the control of the Israelis, and you think this would lead to a *more* peaceful Middle East? >In fact, if you can change my mind that the two-state solution can happen, with both parties mutually agreeing to it, I'll scrap this solution. That's not the point; the two state solution might not be viable, but this is honestly worse because it *is* not viable. You're evicting the Palestinians from their lands and ceding control of many Islamic holy sites to Israeli government, with the world's blessing. 2) Israel wasn't funded by the U.N. They were funded by the wealthy Jewish diaspora who wanted to aid the foundation of Israel. As I said earlier, there is no such source of funding for the Palestinians. 3) Are you honestly saying that living the middle of the Sinai desert is preferable to living in Jerusalem? Or Ramallah? Or Nablus? It's true that their territory would increase, but [this](http://www.sinaidesertfox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Jebel-Berqa-view.jpg) is representative of essentially all they would be getting. In what world is that an upgrade? You think you can coax them out with promises of equality, but what use is equality for them if they're going to scratch a living off of the sands of the Sinai? 4) You're kidding, right? The Israeli-Egyptian border security problems have been an issue for decades. The War on Terror is only 14 years old in September.### Human: ∆ I did not know that Palestinians had religious roots behind the West Bank area. Are you sure it's completely impossible? [Supposedly half of Gazans already want to the leave area.](http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196500#.VdDmhZcwCqg) [Support for the two-state solution has been going down by both Palestinians and Israelis.](http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Poll-finds-fading-support-for-two-state-solution-between-Israelis-Palestinians-407222) 2) ∆ Good point. It would be vastly different if a Palestinians state were to be made. 3) I'd like to argue a little that it might be possible to develop the land with time. It would just be expensive and take a lot of time. Maybe a decade? 4) I still don't see border security as too much of an issue. I didn't mean the the War on Terror is specifically the root cause of Egyptian Sinai Canel disputes.### Assistant: >Are you sure it's completely impossible? Supposedly half of Gazans already want to leave area.[1] Support for the two-state solution has been going down by both Palestinians and Israelis.[2] Gaza is not the West Bank. >I'd like to argue a little that it might be possible to develop the land with time. It would just be expensive and take a lot of time. You can't just pour water on desert sands and expect it to grow crops; they'd need to bring in nutrient-rich soils from outside the area, because the soil that is already there is effectively dead. >Maybe a decade? You're way short; I'd be surprised to see it done in a half century. Where do you expect to get enough fresh water? Remember that California is sinking billions into desalinization projects that will only provide *drinking water* for 300,000 people. How much money do you want to spend to water 1.7+ million people *and* the crops they need to ensure they have economic viability? Not to mention the power and utility requirements for such a state; you can't just move people out into a no-mans land with no infrastructure and expect to just conjure it from nothing. >I still don't see border security as too much of an issue. [Do you just not realize how contentious the 12 km Egypt-Gaza border is?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Egypt_border) >I didn't mean the the War on Terror is specifically the root cause of Egyptian Sinai Canel disputes. Then why bring it up?### Human: ∆ I did not realize the security issues until just now. War on Terror is just a phrase I coin towards anything involving violence in general. War on terror in Mexico, war on terror in Afghanistan, war on terror in Africa, ect. I used it inappropriately in this case, sorry.### Assistant: Well that is not what the phrase "war on terror" means. You are purposefully miscommunicating if you are making up new definitions to common phrases.### Human: Meh, I don't really care. When the cartel dismember a bunch of kids and send them to their families, that's pretty terrifying to me. When Buddhist extremist burn down houses with Muslim families in them, that's scary too. War on crime, war on cartel, war on fear, war on terror, it feels the same to me. The only differences are the enemies and the names politicians use to label them.### Assistant: Changing the meaning of well understood phrases just means you will not be understood. A weird thing to not care about on a CMV

### Human: CMV: most rich people have done nothing extraordinary to remain rich.### Assistant: >these people are by no means extraordinarily smart, talented, or even **particularly business savvy.** Consider that 70% of rich families lose their wealth by the Second Generation, and 90% lose it by the third generation. http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/ So the ones who hold do to their wealth must be doing something outside of normal, as "normal" outcome seems to be reversion to not being wealthy.### Human: Well I think this is more due to diffusion of wealth than necessarily poor decision making by the parties involved. Sure it has some effect, but think of it this way. If I made 4 million dollars and have 4 children, I pass this down to them. each get 1 million. Then each of them have a few children. That money gets diffused down each generation. Couple that with spending and possibly the poor decision making you're talking about, taxes, etc. It's not that hard to see why the money goes down. Sure if they inherit a lot of money and play it smart, even with the diffusing of wealth they should be able to keep up with the money, but I think it's more than just decision making of the generations at play.### Assistant: That supports my point. If it's not hard to see how easy it is to lose money, then maintaining wealth is difficult.### Human: That doesn't mean the ones who maintain wealth have "done anything extraordinary". They could just be lucky.### Assistant: Then they have extraordinary luck.### Human: "Having" luck isn't "doing" something.

### Human: CMV:I refuse to go onto antidepressants because I don't want chemicals to screw with my mind### Assistant: Antidepressents operate in different ways to psychoactives like MDMA and have very different effects. There is also a school of thoughts that when you are experiencing mental health problems like depression your brain chemistry is already out of whack, so using drugs to correct that is just like medicating any other illness. But even if we follow the idea that antidepressents 'mess' with your brain chemistry, so what? Do you drink tea or coffee, or eat chocolate? Do you drink alcohol? These are incredibly common things that change your brain chemistry but are in no way comparable to drugs like MDMA, just like antidepressants. If you find an antidepressant that's right for you it is pretty much just like having a cup of coffee in the morning: it takes the edge off but it doesn't fundamentally change how you think. If you don't want to try them because you're afraid of the possible side effects, or are one of those people who just doesn't like taking any kind of medication, then you do you. Just comparing them to MDMA doesn't make a lot of sense.### Human: > These are incredibly common things Yes, alcohol and caffeine mess with brain chemistry. Humans have also been using both for thousands of years! Do you think the pharmaceutical that's been developed in the past decade is good comparison?### Assistant: I think people underestimate just how powerful alcohol and caffeine can be because they have such a historical and socially accepted use, and just because we have been using them for thousands of years that doesn't make them any different to newer drugs in principle. Just because something is older that doesn't make it better or fundamentally different. However my knowledge of the chemistry of these drugs isn't really sufficient enough to compare them chemically.### Human: I'm not trying to appeal to antiquity. The fact that we've been using some substances for thousands of years and have only recently synthesized others tells a lot about how much we understand the effects of either. Should we give amphetamines to children with ADHD? Do we really understand the full effects of these drugs on the brain? Is it fair to compare that understanding our understanding of alcohol and caffeine?### Assistant: The thing with recently synthesized drugs is that, if we're going to put aside Big Pharma conspiracy theories, as part of their creation they have been rigorously tested and studied to create a safe, marketable product. They've been the subject of research from day dot and while a lot of that is still ongoing, the knowledge base is pretty large and has been for a long time. The effects of drugs on a brain in crucial development stages are slightly less understood probably because it'd be difficult to get ethical approval for that kind of study, but OP indicates that they are in their 20's. I think talking about the safety of drugs on a developed/mostly developed brain vs developing brain is a completely different kettle of fish, as it would be for any other scenario like illness, injury or other types of trauma.

### Human: CMV: Osama bin Laden should've been tried### Assistant: If he had lived for a trial or imprisionmemt it would have exposed the US and it allies to attacks and kidnappings in the hopes of forcing the US to set Bin Ladin free. With him dead, you eliminate this very strong motivation.### Human: >If he had lived for a trial or imprisionmemt it would have exposed the US and it allies to attacks and kidnappings in the hopes of forcing the US to set Bin Ladin free. Instead, you expose the USA to attacks and kidnappings in retaliation to his death. While that's true, regardless of him receiving a trial, it shows that we will abandon the "justice system" if we deem somebody "bad enough" (see: Laden's assassination, and the drone program).### Assistant: > As soon as people inside the Bin Laden compound fired on US troops, those troops were justified in killing anyone that appeared to be a threat. It is honestly that simple.### Human: On what basis were they justified? The compound was assaulted using deadly force by U.S. forces first, without any prior warning or any form of identification. According to this logic if a police officer breaks into your house without warning, using deadly explosives and doesn't identify himself in any way, they are justified in killing you if you decide to defend yourself from them.### Assistant: > The compound was assaulted using deadly force by U.S. forces first No. Bin Laden's courier opened fire, beginning the use of force > without any prior warning or any form of identification. According to this logic if a police officer breaks into your house without warning, using deadly explosives and doesn't identify himself in any way, they are justified in killing you if you decide to defend yourself from them. You are equating domestic policing with covert paramilitary operations. You are equating "me" with a terrorist wanted internationally, having declared a desire and shown a capability to kill Americans, specifically members of the military. Finally, you are equating my home with a compound, which Bin Laden has no legal right to, stocked with automatic weapons. There are different rules to the two situations, and vastly different factors influencing any calculus on the use of force. All that being said, in the US according to jurisprudence, "[deadly force] may not be used **unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.**" The "illegal" part of this raid is that the forces entered Pakistani territory without the permission of the government of Pakistan. That is illegal according to Pakistan's laws and maybe international law.### Human: So which rules are we playing by? I think my problem with your line of thought can be summed up with this word from your post: >paramilitary Is this *law enforcement* or is it a *war*? If this was law enforcement then it was definitely illegal as the U.S. has no jurisdiction in Pakistan and Bin Laden received no due process. If this is war then shooting those that pose a threat inside the compound is all well in good but to be noted is that this war is unconstitutional and sending troops into Pakistan is most definitely a violation of international law. Its, by itself, an [act of war](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli).### Assistant: >Is this law enforcement or is it a war? It was an act of war. But it was not an act of war according to the US government, it was a military action. >sending troops into Pakistan is most definitely a violation of international law. Its, by itself, an act of war[1] . Pakistan had no problem with it--so it wasn't an act of war, nor a violation of international law. Here's an analogy--spousal abuse is illegal and wrong, but consensual BDSM is neither wrong nor illegal. Pakistan allowed us inside their borders.### Human: > It was an act of war. But it was not an act of war according to the US government, it was a military action. So if the US doesn't consider it an act of war then it's not? > Here's an analogy-- A really poor one but l imagine you were going for something like "intent matters"?. Are you sure that violating a country's sovereignty by killing their people can be brushed off by intent?### Assistant: No, it's definitely a war. I responded to a specific point. My analogy had **nothing** to do with intent and everything to do with consent. There is no violation of international law if no party claims harm. Pakistan allowed us access--just as consensual BDSM is allowed by the "wronged" party.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: BDSM often involves physical harm... If Pakistan doesn't claim they the US violate international law--no law was broken. Is it illegal to walk into my friends house without asking them for permission if they don't call the cops and claim it was trespassing? Seal Team 6 returned fire while trying to apprehend an international fugitive.

### Human: CMV: There's no reason gun ownership should be a fundamental right.### Assistant: There are no fundamental rights, anywhere. There is no moral authority that you can point to that will objectively state that free speech is a fundamental right, or freedom of religion, or whatever. The same applies here; a number of rights were agreed on in the new nation, the founders decided these rights should be particularly hard to challenge, and gun rights happened to included in those. If you really think that gun rights do not belong in the Constitution, get 2/3rds of the country to agree with you. Until that point, it is a right, just as surely as freedom of speech is a right. >If the framework is broken, we fix it. I'd agree, but what makes you think this specific issue is enough to say that gun rights are broken? Only certain segments of the population are misusing that right, so why do those who have been behaving responsibly need their rights taken away? Edit: I love how most of the responses to my post are quickly turning into the following: "But rights *are* fundamental." Me: "Then where do they come from?" "..."### Human: >If you really think that gun rights do not belong in the Constitution To be more clear, it's not just guns; it's weapons in general. The right to bear arms is an attempt to allow people to defend themselves from an oppressive government. Although, I think it is more an effective canary; as no government should be dumb enough to wage war on an armed populace.### Assistant: > I think it is more an effective canary; as no government should be dumb enough to wage war on an armed populace. In the US, such a war would be a war of attrition. There's no way the people could defeat the government but the cost of attacking citizens and the resulting defection from the army world make such an action more costly than the benefit.### Human: In asymmetric warfare, time always favors the weak. The United States military could not defeat the American people.### Assistant: Can you expand on this?### Human: A contingent armed people fight as long as it takes, a Democratic nations army fights till its people get weary.This is what killed the war in Vietnam. The United States military in every aspect was a superior fighting force. In every single major battle the US came out victorious. Yet the US could not beat an armed people who culturally refused to loose. Even Japan was extremely cautious of the idea of a US mainland invasion. "Behind every blade of grass lies a rifle."### Assistant: > Yet the US could not beat an armed people who culturally refused to loose Especially given that the American people could not stomach what could, and would, be done to win.

### Human: I believe that religion should not come into play when making decisions for a country CMV### Assistant: I get where you're coming from. A lot of decisions that are based on religions are things I strongly disagree with. But it simply cannot be done (except by making everyone non-religious). What you need to understand is that people who genuinely believe, aren't just being dicks when they oppose same-sex marriage or abortion. They really, truly believe that these things are wrong. That's why they're against it. And they vote accordingly. Religious politicians aren't making those decisions because they don't care about the rest, they're making them because they, and those that elect them, believe they are making the right decisions according to their moral compass. Try imagining it like that. Take something that you're really, really against. Let's assume you think rape is wrong and abhorrent (fair assumption, I'd say). But apparently, for some reason, the majority of your country doesn't. They're constantly saying how great it is to live in a country where rape is okay. They have studies showing that allowing rape would make people happier and they talk about the social benefits of not having to constantly hope the guy or gal of your dreams will be up for sex. They point at countries where rape is legal and tell you how great and normal people over there think it is. The majority of people think rape is great and want to legalize it. Why not, the benefits are obvious. But you don't. Of course not. You don't just think rape is evil, you **know** it to be so. You cannot fathom how people could think like that. It's so obviously wrong. So you fight against any and all legislations that would allow it. You lobby and vote for politicians who are anti-rape. You have difficulty remaining civil to those who are so misguided that they think rape is okay. That's how people opposing same-sex marriage see it. They really think it would be bad for the country. And you can't take away those people's choice to think like that. Educate them: sure. Tell them they're wrong: sure. Show they they are wrong: sure. Oppose them at every point: sure. Taking away their right to make decisions based on what they think is right and true: nope, that doesn't fly in a democracy. *Disclaimer: I do not wish to endorse rape in any way. Rape is bad. Don't do it.*### Human: But rape **is not** same sex marriage. Rape **is not** allowing women to abort a group of cells if they wish. Rape is controlling someone else's body against their will. If someone doesn't want to marry a man or have an abortion **they don't have to**. No one decides to get raped. No one decides to have someone's morality decide theirs. Religion forces moral superiority, and unless they can be relied upon to not be political, they should be ignored.### Assistant: That wasn't the point he was getting at. He was using rape as an example of something people believe to their core. His point was simply that religion isn't something people just do, it's something they genuinely believe, it's an inherent core ideal to them, it's a part of who they are. They feel as strongly about their beliefs, as one might do about how unacceptable rape is. The fact that Yxoque chose to use rape for their argument is irrelevant.### Human: The problem is that rape is an act forced upon others, whereas same sex marriage and abortion are personal choices. You can't compare them, apples and oranges.### Assistant: He wasn't comparing them. How can you not see that. He was using rape as it is a strong feeling, that almost everyone is resolved to despise and hate. His comment was a simple thought experiement with the purpose of giving someone the idea of what it would be like to have a certain belief when no-one else does. Some people in their religion and thus that certain things are wrong in the same way that most of us believe that rape is wrong. He wasn't equating the two or comparing the two in any way. He could have use prohibition of drugs, racial segregation (which I think might have been more effective because people are missing his point) but he chose to use rape.

### Human: CMV: The Anti-PC crowd is just mad that society is moving towards a time where you will be looked down on for having bigoted opinions.### Assistant: Have you seen the Talking for Claps special by comedian Patton Oswalt? That is my problem with PC culture and why I disagree that most anti-PC people are just mad that they can't be racist/homophobic/etc. The context is ignored for the words. Real world example: I was drunk at a party and a Christian friend of mine was arguing against gay marriage. I said something along the lines of "let the fags get married. It doesn't affect us at all and it's insane to think that a religion they don't believe should decide how they can or cant live their lives." Side note/Disclaimer: I know I shouldn't have used the word fag. I understand that it is a word that literally harkens back to when people were burned alive for being gay. That imagery definitely does not help illustrate my point. I was drunk and grew up in a very closed-minded area. Sometimes I revert back to using words that I shouldn't. Several people jumped down my throat about my use of the word fag. Despite the fact that my point was well-intentioned and not at all homophobic, the only thing that they heard was that I poorly chose a single word. I was advocating for same-sex marriage but was the one being called homophobic, bigoted, etc. All of your points have to do with bigoted opinions but a single word does not make up an opinion. As long as PC culture is about avoiding individual words and not an actual opinion, there will be people who are staunchly anti-PC culture who are not "mad that society is moving towards a time where you will be looked down on for having bigoted opinions."### Human: Saying "let the fags get married" may be well intentioned but also sounds very condescending and still prejudiced. It's basically signaling that you dislike their way of life even if you support their political right to it. Imagine if your friend wouldn't hire a black person for a job because they were black - would you say, "ah, just give the nigger the job" ?### Assistant: I went to great lengths to say that I understand it was wrong. I am in no way defending what I said. My point is that it's a little bit ridiculous that it was more important to not say that word than it was to not have a bigoted opinion. I made the mistake of using a word that I shouldn't have and suddenly we can't talk about the actual issue anymore. My opinion is completely invalidated by a poor word choice. Doesn't that hinder our ability to come to understandings? Why are we letting individual words hold that much power? We should be able to come to understandings even if someone says a bad word. Moreover, I acknowledge this might be my white privilege talking but I don't understand why my like or dislike of their way of life matters at all. Even if I did dislike their way of life but support their political right to it, isn't the support what matters? Isn't the important part that I acknowledge them as human beings who deserve respect? Just for the record, I don't dislike gay people now and I didn't then either. I just had the word fag ingrained in me young enough that in the animal parts of my brain, they are synonyms. It takes me actually thinking about what I am saying before I realize that there is more weight to one than the other. Again, I'm not defending my usage of the word, I'm just saying that I did not mean to be condescending/prejudiced. I just fucked up.### Human: I definitely appreciate what you're saying about the difference between liking/disliking someone's way of life and supporting their political right to it. I'm sure if more people could separate those out, the world would be a better place. I also appreciate you acknowledging the role of your upbringing in this (we all have stuff like this). With that said, if you're talking about having a personal conversation (rather than a political debate in a professional setting), you have to have a little more empathy if you're hoping to establish respect and have opinions be heard and understood. This, for me, is where the people complaining about "PC culture" have it wrong. The term "politically correct" itself seems to imply that these people are only out to 1) avoid offending people and risking their job or image, or 2) score political points against those who do commit such offenses. I think they fail to see how racist/sexist words, discrimination in the workplace, biased policing, etc really can effect people. It's easy for someone in a position of privilege to say, "sticks and stones..." But have they really taken the time to learn what it feels like, every day, to feel like an outsider, from the overt and violent forms down to the little subtle and unintentional things? Maybe all of these so-called easily-offended PC people aren't just trying to score political points against you. Maybe they have been personally effected by it, or know someone who has, or just feel upset that someone, somewhere, has to deal with that in this day and age. The reason I mention this is just to help you understand why people may get hung up on what you feel are "just words," even if you regret having said them and apologized. So bringing this back around to your original comment: if you're having a conversation with another individual or small group and you want to establish some mutual respect and rapport in order to have a real, deep conversation, maybe it's not enough to simply support their political rights if you still signal to them that you're not tolerant and open about their way of life. They will be reminded of the long history (and present) of discrimination, both official and informal, and feel as if they cannot be vulnerable to you, trust you, and ultimately, respect you. Why should they?### Assistant: Sure. And I'm not arguing for hate speech just because I'm anti-PC culture. I just think that we don't need to demonize individual words as much as we do. If someone is espousing hate then we should absolutely call them on it. If someone is trying to garner support/respect of underprivileged classes then they need to understand their struggles. But if a bad word is used and its pointed out and the offending party goes "aw shit, my bad" then that should be the end of it. The way I look at it is this: the reason that I should not use the word fag or any slur is because it holds more meaning to other people than it does for me. I try to respect the fact that it has different meaning to others by not saying it. I think that the same respect should go the other way. People should understand that the word does not have as much power to some other people and so just because they say it without thinking occasionally does not mean that they are full of hate. That's not to say that it's okay to use all the time. But it's definitely a double standard that some people should always be consciencious of the fact that others might value a word differently and other people can totally ignore that fact and demonize anyone who uses one of the words that offends them. Both sides should have understanding.### Human: Sure. But I kind of understand OP's concern that anti-PC people act like their lives and rights are being infringed upon... Their being demonized for using certain words is probably not always fair on an individual case basis, but this is a drop in the bucket compared with the shit some people continue to face in this country. In other words, we the privileged sometimes have to pay a minor price (occasionally being called out, demonized, made to feel uncomfortable, etc) for that privilege - I'm inclined to believe it's the least we can do. I for one won't be butthurt about it.### Assistant: I tend to think its larger than a drop in the bucket but that might just be my friend groups. There definitely are people who are mad that they can't express their bigoted views but there are also people who are mad that they have to dance around terminology even when espousing non-bigoted views. So representing the entire group as being mad that they can't express bigoted views is either misleading or flat out wrong.### Human: I feel you, I do. There are of course people who are TOO hung up on terminology so that they lose focus on the bigger issue. But again I think it may come down to the fact that you see it as "having to dance around terminology" (as you've put it casually a couple times now), whereas someone else has had to deal with the hurt behind certain words for a long time. They're not forcing you to adhere to some sort of technicality just for the hell of it, just to "get you." In a conversation, they are going to see it as you not really coming from a respectful place, but rather as a person rolling his/her eyes and not taking the importance of words seriously. I gotta say, I'm not even one of "these people," but the way you simply dismiss careful word choice as some annoying chore to have to navigate, or at worse, something that makes you "mad," makes me think you just don't care enough about the very real, sometimes emotional, impact inequalities have on people. It goes beyond some laws on a paper, beyond a political debate, sometimes. But I do appreciate that you're genuinely interested in having a meaningful conversation about sensitive issues. That's probably more than most people do.### Assistant: I'm not trying to convey it as a chore or a trap but another opportunity where people can make mistakes. Like I said, I think both sides need to be understanding. We are humans and we should forgive human error. My dismissal is not a dismissal of peoples pain and inequalities. Its just frustration at the fact that we can't move past it when someone doesn't know the right word or doesn't think all the way through their statement. A word should not hold that much power over us. Its just a tool for communication. When someone pulls the wrong tool out of the toolbox, they shouldn't be demonized. If they stubbornly continue to use that tool even though they keep smashing peoples thumbs, then yeah they are dicks. But if they apologize, put it back in the toolbox and grab the correct one then that should be the end of it.### Human: Well put, especially "another opportunity where people can make mistakes" (I should learn how to quote on reddit)

### Human: CMV: You should not be required to visit a primary health care provider for an acute problem.### Assistant: When you say "should" what do you mean? Do you mean in a perfect world or are you accounting for costs? Insurance that will let you see a specialist without a referral exists but it is more expensive than your basic HMO plan. It's just a pricier option. Likewise enhancing VA benefits to include this would also increase the costs. We already have increasing costs for Healthcare in this country. Even suggestions to lower cost like going to single payer likely won't change the referral issue. Every country I know of that has single payer requires a referral for most specialist visits. In other words, this option is expensive and will increase costs if you want to make it available to everyone.### Human: > Insurance that will let you see a specialist without a referral exists but it is more expensive than your basic HMO plan. A lot of specialists won't schedule you without a referral. Not in the US at least.### Assistant: I'm in the US and have that kind of insurance. I've never had that issue. You just have to explain that you have a PPO that doesn't require referrals.### Human: You aren't listening. It has nothing to do with your insurance. It has to do with the specialist. They can opt not to see you without a referral. Many of them do, specifically because people will decide they need a specialist when they really don't know what they are doing at all.### Assistant: I am listening, I'm just explaining that has never happened to me or anyone I know. I mean if it does exist I'm sure it's more likely in some specialties than others. If you have any links or anything discussing the issue I'd be happy to check it out.### Human: You aren't listening, because you are associating it with insurance coverage which I've stated repeatedly has nothing to do with it.### Assistant: I know it has something to do with it because they ask you to independently verify that you can go without a referral if you don't have one sometimes. I never claimed that was the only thing at play here. Only that I've never been denied and that is the only thing they ask for.

### Human: CMV: Bringing small children to an upscale restaurant is a major breach of etiquette and disrespectful to other patrons.### Assistant: Isn't this classist?* The idea that the kind of people who can generally afford upscale restaurants (i.e. rich people) ought not have to experience and be bothered by kids screams. While people who generally go to cheaper joints, shouldn't complain? **Edit:** I'll just add my most frequent answers in this thread to the top: * I'm only objecting to OP's claim that bringing screaming children is only (or especially?) disrespectful in upscale restaurants * Why not distinguish between all restaurants who cater to families, and those who don't, regardless of affordability level? * If OP had said that it's equally disrespectful to bring screaming children to any restaurant that doesn't specialize in family dining, I wouldn't have objected.### Human: I would argue here for his point, that while it sounds bad, some people like me could only splurge for going somewhere nice like Morton's once a year or so, and if I were to dine while loud children were around it might ruin my one nice romantic dinner with my SO for the year. Saying rich people deserve the nice atmosphere is one way to look at it; much like saying rich people always have super nice phones, but the real essence of this is that when normal people pay a higher price they'd like it to be worth the money because they can't do it as often.### Assistant: Then why not require the same tranquility at other restaurants? Why only at "upscale" ones?### Human: As I said, when you're paying more it means less frequent and in less frequent you expect a value associated with it. That value he associates is less children. The other point about some people not minding children in the restaurant could be argued here, but if you perceive the children as a nuisance, it reduces the value you're receiving.### Assistant: > As I said, when you're paying more it means less frequent and in less frequent you expect a value associated with it. It's less frequent only for people who can't afford frequent. OPs suggestion predominantly benefits the people who can afford upscale restaurants frequently. Why shouldn't it also be considered disrespectful in restaurants with lower prices?### Human: No it benefits all patrons of the upscale restaurants. Richer people just happen to frequent upscale restaurants more often. It incidentally benefits richer people as a group them but the purpose is not to benefit them exclusively. Isn't not classist, it's just a fact of the outcome. Classist would imply you're doing it for a reasons of class, or that it somehow benefits them at the expense of another class, or anything like that. But it doesn't. It benefits all people who happen to go to that restaurant. Making public transport buses and trains nicer would benefit poorer people because they're more likely to use public transport. Doesn't mean it's "classist" does it?### Assistant: > Classist would imply you're doing it for a reasons of class, or that it somehow benefits them at the expense of another class, or anything like that. It's classist by its effects, even if unintendedly so. > Making public transport buses and trains nicer would benefit poorer people because they're more likely to use public transport. Doesn't mean it's "classist" does it? It benefits richer people as well. If public transport becomes more attractive, there will be fewer people on the roads causing delays for people who can afford cars.

### Human: I believe infantile circumcision is wrong in almost all cases, and hence should be illegal. CMV### Assistant: The argument from the point of autonomy is invalid, as a parent's entire function is to make choices on behalf of their children. Children also get no say in whether or not they get immunizations, vegetables, or an education. You can make the point that circumcision isn't as demonstrably beneficial as those other things, but the point remains that a parent's job is to make decisions that they feel are in the best interest of their children, and in the absence of any conclusive evidence that shows circumcision is truly "harmful" to the child, you can't make the case that the kid should have the choice.### Human: Well I guess it depends on what kind of autonomy. I think as a general principle bodily autonomy could be considered paramount beyond any necessary medical procedures that absolutely must be done. I feel like you are blurring lines that don't really need to be blurred.### Assistant: On the contrary, I don't think I'm blurring anything at all. My point is very simple, that just because a kid doesn't have a say in the matter doesn't automatically mean that it shouldn't be done, as immunizations could easily be placed in the same category. What if a kid decides at age 18 that they really wish they hadn't been immunized?### Human: It is not obvious to me at all that immunizations would be in the same category. There is no appreciable permanent change to the body from immunizations, and hence doesn't fall within the scope of bodily autonomy. Now that you've made me think about it some more, I do believe we should adopt this principle. There is no reason to violate bodily autonomy for a child unless there is a specific and immediate need. I am having trouble seeing a downside to that.### Assistant: Ha ha, I have the same absolute, only the other direction. I would argue that the concept of bodily autonomy shouldn't exist at ALL for children when it comes to matters of well-being. Whether to eat organic foods, what school to go to, what shots to get, these are all decisions that our parents make for us because we simply don't have the information to make that decision for ourselves at such a young age. If you had a shot that could guarantee that you wouldn't get cancer as a child, 99 out of 100 kids are going to refuse it. Children do not think long-term. They think right now, and possibly 8 seconds into the future. They don't understand the trade-off of temporary hardship for a long-term benefit. I'm not meaning to say that circumcision is a vital procedure that saves lives, but my point is that it falls under the same umbrella as countless other decisions that we give to parents.### Human: I really tried my best in my previous post to point out my view has nothing to do with immunizations, nor anything doesn't permanently and appreciably alter the body. I don't view any of your examples as violating the principle I posited above. Despite our best efforts, you and I seem to still be shipmates in the same boat, and largely on the same side.### Assistant: True, this has become rather convoluted.

### Human: CMV: The prospect of being "genderfluid" is absolutely ridiculous.### Assistant: Can I ask OP why you think sticking to either the male or female gender is such an important thing? Are you open to the possibility that some people don't identify with either? Or both?### Human: It's not necessarily important to identify as. It's like being born 190cm tall, and then insisting you're "height fluid". I mean some people commit and chop off their legs below their knees, indeed becoming shorter. But you're just "height fluid". Today, you're a dwarf. The shortest man in the room, you are. Do I think it's super critical you identify with your height? Of course not. Do I think you're kind of depressingly silly? Of course.### Assistant: Like /u/BenIncognito I have to ask the same thing. I don't understand how you are equating people's perception of their gender with their height. Height is a fact. In actuality, its only a fact at a certain given split second in time. I challenge you to find a definition of male or female that every single person in the world fits into. I respect your opinion to think that these people are silly. But I feel you are being staggeringly ignorant about the concept of gender.### Human: >peoples perception >height is a fact So is sex/gender and my penis. Emotions are ever changing. Views and opinions are too. The physical body is what it is. Gender fluid by your definition is ridiculous and nothing more than an opinion of your feelings. So if you are a male and feeling a little sensitive today you can say you are gender fluid if you want. But you just gave feeling down or sensitive a new name because you associate these feelings with the opposite sex. Which is SEXIST.### Assistant: > So is sex/gender and my penis Yes, you having a penis is a fact. However the fact that you have a penis is not what makes you male and that's the point. Gender is culturally and socially defined, thus it is not *a fact*. > So if you are a male and feeling a little sensitive today you can say you are gender fluid if you want. What does feeling sensitive today have to do with gender?### Human: So we can manipulate boys into thinking they are girls then? >What does feeling sensitive today have to do with gender? Gender fluidity..pay attention### Assistant: > So we can manipulate boys into thinking they are girls then? Nope. You could possible help a confused person who is culturally assumed as male to figure out that they are actually female, but only if that's how they already feel/identify without knowing how to explain/express/identify those feelings. But no, you cannot manipulate someone into thinking they are the opposite gender, not without brainwashing at least. > > What does feeling sensitive today have to do with gender? > Gender fluidity..pay attention Ah, so if you feel sensitive you have to be a woman? Kinda sexist innit?### Human: >> Gender fluidity..pay attention >Ah, so if you feel sensitive you have to be a woman? Kinda sexist innit? It's pretty much what people defining gender fluidity are saying, though, that some days you feel more like societies gender role of a woman or a man. Is that not what gender fluidity is? If not you should be telling the people defending it.### Assistant: > It's pretty much what people defining gender fluidity are saying, though, that some days you feel more like societies gender role of a woman or a man Gender fluidity has nothing to do with saying "if you feel sensitive you must be a woman". It's not at all what people are saying with gender fluidity. What it is is that you feel that *you don't really fit in one way or the other* with society's perceptions of man or woman and that sometimes you feel more in tune with being male and othertimes you feel more in tune with being a woman, but either way you don't feel that you fit entirely as one or the other.### Human: >Gender fluidity has nothing to do with saying "if you feel sensitive you must be a woman". It's not at all what people are saying with gender fluidity. I'm sorry, but it's exactly what a lot of people in these very comments are saying, so that's what I have to go on when responding to it. >What it is is that you feel that you don't really fit in one way or the other with society's perceptions of man or woman and that sometimes you feel more in tune with being male and othertimes you feel more in tune with being a woman, but either way you don't feel that you fit entirely as one or the other. Isn't this exactly the same? Read what I said and replace "sensitive" with "like society's perceptions of a woman" and it still means the same thing. Sometimes I feel more sensitive, which is an attribute that society perceives as womanly. This does not make me gender-fluid, it makes me a human being with constantly shifting emotions and desires. It's the perceptions of what society thinks is manly or womanly that is messed up, we don't need to change our own labels to combat that.### Assistant: > I'm sorry, but it's exactly what a lot of people in these very comments are saying, so that's what I have to go on when responding to it. It's really not, it seems you just aren't understanding the points being made. > Sometimes I feel more sensitive, which is an attribute that society perceives as womanly. This does not make me gender-fluid, it makes me a human being with constantly shifting emotions and desires. You're likening a single aspect to the whole. Sure, being sensitive an attribute that society perceives as feminine, but society also allows for feminine men to still be men. In fact women are commonly on record as stating they want more sensitive men. Simply finding a single attribute that you find you like is not equivalent to feeling like you fit into society's perception of being a woman. Like i said, you're confusing individual attributes and a whole perception. You are completely correct that being sensitive sometimes does not make you gender-fluid at all. > It's the perceptions of what society thinks is manly or womanly that is messed up, we don't need to change our own labels to combat that. This isn't about combating anything. You are completely correct that it's the perceptions of society that are messed up, unfortunately *we still live in this society!*. So in order to survive in this society, you still have to deal with the rules, perceptions, and expectations that society puts upon you. Humans have a desire to fit in with others like them. Gender-fluid is simply describing people who don't feel they fit into the current perceptions of gender and find themselves wafting back and forth between the ends of the spectrum rather than sitting in one place. Fixing society's perceptions would simply be the elimination of gender as a concept, but until that actually happens, we live in a society where gender exists and has particular perceptions based on this society, and thus we figure out where we fit in it.### Human: >It's really not, it seems you just aren't understanding the points being made. Or you aren't. See, it works both ways. >You're likening a single aspect to the whole. Sure, being sensitive an attribute that society perceives as feminine, but society also allows for feminine men to still be men. In fact women are commonly on record as stating they want more sensitive men. Simply finding a single attribute that you find you like is not equivalent to feeling like you fit into society's perception of being a woman. Like i said, you're confusing individual attributes and a whole perception. You are completely correct that being sensitive sometimes does not make you gender-fluid at all. What is our whole perception but a collection of attributes? The only examples I've ever seen are around attributes. "Society's perception of being a woman" is nothing more than a bunch of individual things that society sees as being "woman". Do you have examples that don't use a person's attributes to explain this concept? >So in order to survive in this society, you still have to deal with the rules, perceptions, and expectations that society puts upon you. Except assigning yourself a new label to escape the rules perceptions and expectations entirely does nothing to "deal" with it, you're just ignoring it.### Assistant: > What is our whole perception but a collection of attributes? The only examples I've ever seen are around attributes. "Society's perception of being a woman" is nothing more than a bunch of individual things that society sees as being "woman" You're entirely correct here. Remember, I said you're ignoring the difference between a single attribute and a *collection* of attributes. A single attribute that is *more often* likened to one gender does not make you gender fluid. However, if you find that you fit in more with large set of societally expected attributes of being a woman than being a man, that would mean something. See the difference? > Except assigning yourself a new label to escape the rules perceptions and expectations entirely does nothing to "deal" with it, you're just ignoring it. How are you ignoring it? You are declaring where you fit in the existing societal perceptions. Either you fit into a box that society has named, or you bust open the box and declare that you don't fit in any of the boxes. Your gender identity is where you feel you belong in this spectrum of stereotypes, roles, socialization, and expected behaviors, actions, and mannerisms.### Human: >You're entirely correct here. Remember, I said you're ignoring the difference between a single attribute and a collection of attributes. A single attribute that is more often likened to one gender does not make you gender fluid. However, if you find that you fit in more with large set of societally expected attributes of being a woman than being a man, that would mean something. See the difference? Honestly not really. I could easily come up with a list of attributes about myself or about most people that I know that could meet this criteria, that doesn't make any of them gender fluid. How many attributes does it take? Obviously not 1, so 5? 10? 20? Where is the line? >How are you ignoring it? You are declaring where you fit in the existing societal perceptions. Either you fit into a box that society has named, or you bust open the box and declare that you don't fit in any of the boxes. Because the whole point is around the perceptions of what is "male" and what is "female". Saying "I don't care what your perceptions are, I'm neither/both/fluid" isn't dealing with the issues that attributes *shouldn't* be associated with a gender, it just ignores that and says "I'm all genders so I can have any attributes". With that mentality there's no reason to try and make progress on gender issues since they don't apply to anybody.

### Human: CMV: shouldn't anyone under 18 (or at least some set age) always be tried as a minor?### Assistant: I think its important to acknowledge that we don't have, have never had, and probably never will have a judicial system that is devoid of human judgment. A human has to make the judgment call of whether to press charges at all. Humans have to *choose* which charges to pursue. Human judges have a great deal of discretion over the court proceedings. A set of human jurors actually make the verdict. And then more human judgment goes into the sentencing. And thats not even mentioning any of the complexity that comes from settlements or plea bargains. Given the realities of the judicial system, I don't think its crazy that a judgment call is made over whether to try someone as a child or adult. And while I agree that its probably almost always preferable to be tried as a child, there are real differences in how the trial proceeds. Its not as simple as the prosecution just automatically inflicting a harsher sentence just by virtue of choosing to try the person as an adult. The trial still has to happen, and the standards and types of evidence that get examined are different. If you acknowledge that it makes sense to have two judicial systems at all, then I think its hard to argue in favor of strict age cutoffs. I appreciate the desire to remove human biases, but if you consider the wide range of possibilities for how people mature and develop, I don't think strict cutoffs come close to being fair either, especially since brain development continues to age 25. There are plenty of ways we can reform our justice system, but I don't think strict age cutoffs are a step forward. I think they basically just transform potentially biased human decisions into what are effectively arbitrary and almost random ones.### Human: That's very compelling. I'm beginning to understand that age may not be the best, stand alone standard by which to determine minor VS. adult, but there should be a guideline of some sort that is well defined.### Assistant: The more solid the rules, the less judges are allowed/trusted to exercise their own judgement case-by-case(for better or worse). The issue is that the justice system needs a better way to reprimand out of line judges. That's what the Eighth Amendment is supposed to be for.### Human: And an agreeable definition of " out of line". Many people prefer a particularly harsh judge, while others believe rehabilitation is the key to sentencing. I think it's a matter of where the line is.### Assistant: Yes, i remember hearing a Texas State Court judge lament about elections. Unfortunately, too many people like the "tough on crime" platform.### Human: Well, judges being elected is something that can be bad. [John Oliver](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8) covered it if you're interested in how it could go wrong.### Assistant: Every form of voting has a bias and can be manipulated for a particular reason. First past the post is bad too. I think the Seventeenth Amendment did more damage than good. It took people's attention away from State Legislature seats. I believe actively voting in good state reps to vote in/confirm Governor appointment of Congressional Senators and State Justices is a better system than the current one.

### Human: CMV:Learning how to do your taxes, budgeting and finance, emergency medical training, and leadership skills should be required to be taught in high schools.### Assistant: The idea of most education, certainly through high school, and to some degree through college as well is to teach you *how* to think. My school didn't teach me how do to a web search because there wasn't a web back then. It didn't teach about digital rights management, or Ebola, cyber safety, or electronic bill pay- because none of them existed. But I understand all of those now - because I learned to research, to understand news articles, master new skills. I had enough biology that I can follow the Ebola transmission arguments. There are many resources for all of the skills you listed. Are you able to master them if you so desire? If so, then your schooling has been effective.### Human: Thank you for bringing up what I am really trying to get at here. I enjoy that you discuss how your school taught you how to think through the skills you learned, and you could transfer that knowledge to your everyday life. I think I have not yet seen this yet: how really can solving a derivative transfer into broader skills that I can use later? I think my young college student age is part of the problem, I am not old enough to see how my high school has truly prepared me for life after college because I have not even experienced it yet. I think I am just afraid of not knowing these skills when its time for them to be practiced. School has taught me how to think and I can master the skills if I desire. Thank you for broadening my thinking on what high school has taught me.### Assistant: Glad I could help. As for the derivative transfer question, there are two answers. First, just being able to master complex, abstract thinking is an important skill. You might never have a job where you need to understand calculus, but being able to understand an analyze difficult concepts is a part of many jobs (at least the sort of jobs that the people taking calc in the first place get). The other reason is simply that you have no idea what your job(or jobs) will be. I would never had guessed what I'd be doing when I was a Freshman in college - either the type of job (because I didn't think my interests led that way) or the specific job (because it didn't exist back then). The more you know, the more you can apply to whatever situation you get yourself into.### Human: ∆### Assistant: Thank you - can please edit the comment and include some text as to how your view was changed? Deltabot ignores lone deltas without justification. Thanks!

### Human: CMV: I don't think it is transphobic to not want to have sex with trans people### Assistant: This is a really common viewpoint that's rooted in a lot of really flawed assumptions. Basically, nobody wants you to have sex with someone you're not attracted to. Doesn't matter the reason. If any given person turns you off, don't have sex with them. It's cool, it's healthy, no one is offended. Least of all trans people. No one wants you to have sex with someone you're not attracted to. Based on your comments, your main objection is that trans women are actually men, and you're not attracted to men. I'm taking a leap here but I'm going to assume that the scenario you have in your head for how this would go down isn't that a man would come up to you and suggest that you have sex with him. Instead, I think you're picturing something like this: you're on a date with a girl. She's smart, funny, kind, and beautiful. You have a great time, and agree to see her again. Second date is also awesome, so of course you set up a third. At the start of the third date, she says she has something she needs to tell you before things get too serious. She's transgender. At that point, your entire perception of her is deflated. You feel lied to and disgusted. Of course this is the tamer scenario, as opposed to the one where you get all the way to bed with her, have great heterosexual sex, and then you find out. So, if I'm right, the issue isn't actually that you're not attracted to trans people. It's that you admit that you could be, and it disgusts you. THAT is transphobic. However, I could be wrong, and you could be envisioning a completely different scenario for how this issue might actually impact your life. You could be assuming that you'd be able to tell immediately if someone was trans--which is also transphobic because not all trans people look the same. Or you could be assuming that all trans women have penises--which is also transphobic for the same reason. Finally I want to point out that by likening trans people to pedophiles you already crossed the point of no return on any trans person thinking you're not transphobic.### Human: I don't think transwomen are men, but I do think they have male bodies. I compared and contrasted them to a lot of things. Pedophiles, nonpedophiles, gay people, straight people. I fall under two of these categories (straight and nonpedophile, ftr), therefore I also compared myself to a pedophile. I was saying pedophiles aren't adultphobic, so why am I transphobic? If someone is offended by that (even pedophiles), they are looking for reasons to be offended.### Assistant: Men = have male bodies. Doesn't change my argument. As for pedophilia, I realize it's incidental to your argument but in case you haven't watched the news the last few months, people often accuse trans women of being predatory or pedophiles just by virtue of them being trans. So using them as a prop in an argument for how you're not transphobic is pretty insensitive and counter-productive, regardless of your intent.### Human: Your first line would indicate trans men, pre op, are not men. Isn't that worse than the things I've been saying? I have heard of gay people being accused of pedophilia, but I haven't heard of trans people being named such. I have heard "People will fake it to see the opposite sex!", but not "Adults will fake it to see kids!".### Assistant: No, trans men, regardless of whether they've taken hormones or had any kind of surgery, are men. Trans women, regardless of whether they've taken hormones or had any kind of surgery, are women. All trans women have female bodies. Every single one of them, regardless of whether they transition or not. You apparently don't agree with that though, and that is why your position is transphobic. You see trans women as having male bodies, which is the same as seeing them as men.### Human: nice circular reasoning### Assistant: Circular reasoning isn't a logical fallacy. If you're asking for a more thorough explanation of why trans women are women and have female bodies, I'd be happy to provide, but it'll be lengthy and pretty divergent from the main topic.### Human: Tautology, putting the cart before the horse, conclusions don't flow from premises, circular reasoning - these are all the same thing and they absolutely *are* logical fallacies. And just because someone isn't attracted to penises doesn't make them transphobic, just like not being attracted to men doesn't make someone homophobic. I'm not attracted to vaginas that the person wasn't born with. That doesn't make me transphobic. It makes me only attracted to biological vaginas. It doesn't matter if I'm otherwise attracted to the person. I've met plenty of biological females who I thought I was attracted to until I found out they had some extremely unattractive quality - whether it's smoking, or right wing religious zealism or even a stinky vagina (yes I've broken up with someone cuz they couldn't control their feminine odor). None of that makes me mysoginistic. It means I have standards. One of those standards is "has a biological vagina, two X chromosomes and a lack of a Y chromosome." That doesn't make me any more transphobic than it does homophobic. I think trans and homosexual people alike should be as free as any American to live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they don't harm anyone in the process. I don't get disgusted by the thought of gay people or trans people having sex, I'm not repulsed by them, I don't harbor any hatred of them. But by your definition, I'm as bad as those who do. Which is not right. Period. The sooner trans people like yourself accept the fact that their gender role is simply unattractive to the majority of people as not being transphobic and simply the result of people's own biological drivers, the sooner they'll be able to win non-trans people to their cause. But saying I'm transphobic because I'm only attracted to biological females is a sure fire way to get me to not give any fucks about the plights of trans people. They're unwilling to understand me, so why should I be willing to understand them?### Assistant: The difference is, you wouldn't be able to tell if a person has a biological vagina vs an artificial one. What's more, I strongly doubt that you would reject a cis woman if you found out that she was born with vaginal agenesis and had to have a vagina constructed. The same goes for chromosomes. Do you make all of your dates get a DNA test before you sleep with them? I doubt it. You'd probably go out with a woman with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (XY chromosomes but a 100% "female" body) and be none the wiser. So what makes a trans woman different from those instances? Your discomfort with the concept. You believe that it says something about who they are as a person, just like smoking says that someone doesn't care about their health, right wing religious zealism implies an incompatibility of politics, and stinky vaginas imply poor health or hygiene. Being trans, to you, is a character flaw. As you say, trans people, regardless of their practices, beliefs, or hygiene, don't meet your standards i.e. they are beneath you. Sounds pretty transphobic to me. It has nothing to do with their physical traits at all and everything to do with the fact that "their gender role is simply unattractive."### Human: Being trans isn't a flaw. It's something I'm not attracted to. I don't think smoking is a flaw, people can do what they want with their bodies. My grandpa has been smoking since he was 13, I love him with all my heart and will cry my grown man ass off when he dies. Just because I'm not attracted to smokers doesn't mean I think of my grandpa any differently. And I didn't say "artificial vs biological" I said "naturally self lubricating vs. not naturally self lubricating". The implication is that I'm attracted people who were born with the same genitals they possess today. Not people who previously had penises. I'm also not attracted to penises, so that narrows down my bandwidth of attraction to people who were born with the same vagina they possess when I meet them. And honestly, if I did find out a woman was born with vaginal agenesis, I probably would lose some attraction to her - especially if I'm actually considering having children with her. Similarly, if I found out my prospective fiancé was sterile, I'd rethink marrying her (the decision would come down to whether I'm ok with not having my own children or not). If I chose to leave her to seek out someone who can give me my own children, that doesn't make me bigoted towards sterile people. It doesn't mean I view them as flawed. It doesn't mean I think they shouldn't enjoy the same freedoms as fertile people. It doesn't make me sterile-phobic. It means that person doesn't fit my own subjective notion of a mate/partner. There's *nothing* bigoted about that because there's no *hatred* behind my rejection. Similarly, there's no *hatred* behind my rejection of trans people in the dating context. I fully accept them in every other aspect of life and society, I just don't want to date them because they don't fit my own subjective notion of what I want in a mate/partner. You saying that's wrong is absolutely oppressive. You're saying I need to change my conception of the ideal partner simply so that I don't hurt someone's feelings. No. I refuse to do that, and it doesn't make me a bigot.### Assistant: Even an artificial vagina can self-lubricate. Hormones are crazy like that. You could easily put your dick into an artificial vagina and have no idea whatsoever. As for marrying or having children, that's not what the question was about. It was about sex. Finally, I didn't say that you had to change to avoid hurting someone's feeling. You should probably stay as far away from trans people, especially trans women, as possible. Because, again, according to you, simply being trans makes them unattractive, regardless of their physical qualities, viewpoints, behaviors, etc. The fact that you take an argument that you could find a trans person attractive (because, yeah, you could, until you find out that they're trans) and jump to the conclusion that anyone is demanding you go out and date a trans person--well, that's pretty unattractive.

### Human: CMV:Taxes should be based on wealth, not income or expenditure### Assistant: This proposal is bad for a variety of reasons. 1. Your proposal encourages spending your money and saving none. This increases the use of the Earth's resources. Simply from an environmental standpoint, this is a bad idea. 2. How are you going to calculate wealth? Does a car count? Clothes? House? Some assets can increase in value in a single day (house, stocks) or decrease (car, stocks). At what point do you tax their current wealth? If it is a specific day, people will ensure that their wealth is the least that day of the year. If it is an average over a year, what happens to someone that had a lot of wealth, but then the stock market tanked during the last month? They'll have no money to pay for their taxes, despite having a high wealth on average for the year. 3. Who keeps track of how much wealth everyone has? *Do you* know your exact wealth, at this very moment? Do I report every time I donate clothes (decreasing wealth) or get a $20 birthday gift from my grandparents (increasing wealth)? 4. Retired people generally have a paid-for home and a set amount of money. They'll need at least $1 million+ for a comfortable retirement. However, your proposal would implement steep taxes on them and their money they've saved after decades of working. As well, their increase in home value would continue to increase their wealth. If you propose a 10% tax on their money every year, they'd have ~$348k after 10 years, assuming they didn't spend any money at all. And if they spend $40k/year during retirement, with the 10% tax, they'd have **no** money after 12 years. 5. Your "get a loan" idea is very flawed. Someone who owned a lot of stock that suddenly tanked may have had a high wealth for a long time that you tax. However, no bank is going to loan money to someone with nothing to back it up (except student loans). There are plenty of scenarios where banks simply wouldn't give out loans to pay taxes, because the bank has nothing to lien. They don't get to take back the tax money if the person doesn't pay their loan. If you actually try to flesh-out your idea with actual numbers, you'll quickly see how this plan isn't going to work.### Human: > > > > > Your proposal encourages spending your money and saving none. This increases the use of the Earth's resources. Simply from an environmental standpoint, this is a bad idea. I've addressed this in other posts >How are you going to calculate wealth? Does a car count? Clothes? House? Some assets can increase in value in a single day (house, stocks) or decrease (car, stocks). At what point do you tax their current wealth? If it is a specific day, people will ensure that their wealth is the least that day of the year. If it is an average over a year, what happens to someone that had a lot of wealth, but then the stock market tanked during the last month? They'll have no money to pay for their taxes, despite having a high wealth on average for the year. Does it have value? It counts. You can have it monthly based on the average value for the assets in that month. >Who keeps track of how much wealth everyone has? Do you know your exact wealth, at this very moment? Do I report every time I donate clothes (decreasing wealth) or get a $20 birthday gift from my grandparents (increasing wealth)? The tax office i suppose. Off the top of my head i can make a very good guess. If you want to stop getting taxed on it, yes. >Retired people generally have a paid-for home and a set amount of money. They'll need at least $1 million+ for a comfortable retirement. However, your proposal would implement steep taxes on them and their money they've saved after decades of working. As well, their increase in home value would continue to increase their wealth. If you propose a 10% tax on their money every year, they'd have ~$348k after 10 years, assuming they didn't spend any money at all. And if they spend $40k/year during retirement, with the 10% tax, they'd have no money after 12 years. I've already addressed this in other comments. In short, you can have certain tax exempt financial instruments that you can invest up to a certain value >Your "get a loan" idea is very flawed. Someone who owned a lot of stock that suddenly tanked may have had a high wealth for a long time that you tax. However, no bank is going to loan money to someone with nothing to back it up (except student loans). There are plenty of scenarios where banks simply wouldn't give out loans to pay taxes, because the bank has nothing to lien. They don't get to take back the tax money if the person doesn't pay their loan. Stock is very fungible, you wouldn't need a loan to pay taxes on it. On harder to sell things, like say houses, banks would be happy to lend money wherever they can make a profit. If your house is worth 100k today and next year it will be worth 200k. And you need 10k to pay taxes, any bank would be willing to lend you the 10k.### Assistant: > I've addressed this in other posts Link to you addressing the environmental problems with your idea? I can't find it in your comment history. > You can have it monthly based on the average value for the assets in that month. So now we are taxing every month? This is even more costly and time-intensive for the government to track. As well, it's better to track over a longer period, as it gives a better picture of a person's financial situation. Plus, if someone inherits a house, they aren't instantly going to have the money to pay taxes on it. (And no, banks won't necessarily give you money to cover your taxes. See below) > The tax office i suppose. So now you've put a massive burden on the government, on a scale factors more costly than our current system. Tax adjusters would be needed for every American, apparently every month under your new idea. Seriously, think about the scale of what you're proposing. The government tracking *every single purchase* you make. That's not only difficult to do, it is a privacy nightmare. > you can have certain tax exempt financial instruments that you can invest up to a certain value Thus preventing any hard workers from being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. You would single-handedly be preventing people from retiring early, even if they worked their butts off, or started a successful business. Your proposal is terrible based on this alone. > And you need 10k to pay taxes, any bank would be willing to lend you the 10k. No, you're blatantly wrong. Banks look at income history and credit score. If you're retired, and have been bad at paying back loans, they won't give you one. End of story.### Human: Additionally the banks would NOT loan on a home that they might end up taking possession of because then they would be liable for this imaginary wealth tax. Thus "get a loan" as the frequent answer is useless. "Sell it" is equally useless as no one will want to buy something that will become a huge tax burden in the immediate future.### Assistant: Extremely excellent point. There is no way they would give a $10k loan to cover a house tax if there is a chance they would have to take over the house, and now pay taxes on $200k of extra wealth. They would run away from that deal so fast. And as we have both pointed out, no one is going to buy a house when it is so costly to keep. Supply will be huge, demand will be small, and we'll have a bunch of abandoned, empty homes that no one wants to say they own.

### Human: CMV: Anti-speech tactics like shouting-down or stage-rushing scheduled speakers is a sign/act of ignorance### Assistant: > I believe that this is a sign of ignorance and the last resort of a person/people who know that their own beliefs and arguments will not stand up to scrutiny or debate. Not really. It's just an attempt to hijack a large audience to get their message to a wider audience. They want on TV. It's a relatively cheap and easy way to do that, and disrupted events get viewers' attention. The message doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the speaker. For instance, BLM and animal rights activists have tried to rush the stage when Bernie or Hillary were speaking, despite how their views don't necessarily clash (I wouldn't exactly say they aligned though). I would guess that they assumed liberal audiences would be more open to the ideas, and might go on to research and investigate the issue after the disruption. Saying this tactic is "ignorant" is just a meaningless insult, because they're very aware of what they're doing. Instead I'd call the tactic bullheaded, grandstanding, or hijacking.### Human: > Not really. It's just an attempt to hijack a large audience to get their message to a wider audience. That is part of the ignorance I am describing. The idea that they would be able to slow the advancement of an idea by promoting their own disregard of the rights of others shows a deep lack of understanding not only of others' rights and status, but an even deeper lack of understanding of what actually works politically. It is ignorant on many levels. >Saying this is "ignorant" is just an insult, because they're very aware of what they're doing. That is what makes it even more ignorant. Their more premeditated it is, the more it displays their disregard for many of the lessons of previous civil rights struggles; both moral and strategic. Take a look at the DePaul incident and tell me what you think MLK would have said.### Assistant: Just watched a bit of the DePaul incident and it just goes back to my point. "Dump the Trump" has nothing to do with microaggressions or gay conservatives. They're not reacting to the Breitbart speakers. They took over the stage and shouted some slogans about Trump. That's not an ignorant thing to do. It's opportunistic but not necessarily stupid and uneducated. > ig·no·rant: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.### Human: Are we talking about the same thing? https://youtu.be/NANZOkWk9d4### Assistant: Yes.### Human: >They took over the stage and shouted some slogans about Trump. They assaulted the speaker and when he offered to debate them, they jumped up and down and childishly blew a whistle in his face. That is ignorant on many levels. It is deeply ignorant of the rights and status of others and equally ignorant of the moral and strategic lessons of the civil rights movement. They looked both stupid and uneducated.### Assistant: How is it ignorant? How does it demonstrate a lack of knowledge?### Human: It demonstrates an ignorance of, and lack of regard for the rights of others. It also demonstrates a deep ignorance of our country's struggles for individual and group equality; particularly of the moral and strategic lessons of the civil rights movement.### Assistant: Historically the civil rights movement was packed with "agitators" who behaved in disruptive ways to draw attention to their cause. Check out the Freedom Riders or MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail: > You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue. I think the example we were discussing is a perfect 21st century example of MLK's strategy, updated for cable news and Twitter videos.### Human: As I said before, they assaulted the speaker and when he offered to debate them, they instead they jumped up and down and childishly blew a whistle in his face. You think that would have impressed Dr. King? King carried himself with dignity even when engaged in **civil** disobedience. He implored the entire movement to do the same. All they did was make a grand showing of their own ignorance and associated the whole BLM movement with these few, deeply ignorant children. They made themselves look stupid and their entire movement look like they didn't have a logical leg to stand on. BLM continues *in spite of* childish antics like this, not because of them.

### Human: CMV: The American Constitution has little to no relevance to the modern world and while it may have some things right, we should not look to it to dictate how the country is run.### Assistant: What's so special about the constitution is that it is the document that all of the states have agreed to use to set up our system of government. The Constitution sets up the roles of the President, Congress, and the Federal Courts; their election or appointment, terms, and how they interact with one another. It's the document that gives Congress the powers to create laws, the President to implement them, and the Supreme Court to interpret them. Without the Constitution they would have no authority to do those things, and each state would be its own de facto country. (I should note that each state also has its own Constitution.) In all those ways it is relevant. If you're argument is that the constitution should be amended in some way (you hint at changing the second amendment) that is one thing, but we certainly need a Constitution of some sort. In terms of ease of amendment, the Constitution can already be amended quite easily (the 26th Amendment from proposal to ratification took just over three months), provided that there is wide consensus on the amendment. The reasons it hasn't been changed much is that there isn't much agreement on what (if any) changes need to be made. Considering it protects the rights of the population in many ways it makes sense to have some burden here - you wouldn't want a political group with 50.1% of the decision making authority to throw out the 1st amendment and make opposing groups illegal and silence the press's ability to critique their actions.### Human: I think this is the best reply I've seen so far. You make a good point with the 50.1% thing. I just feel that perhaps it has become too difficult to change. Perhaps this is addressing a completely different issue now, and i apologize, but in our current political climate, nothing is ever going to get ammended. I used the example in a different reply already but take for example the electoral college. Obviously, the idea of it is fundamentally flawed and I believe that members of both parties would admit this however I am highly skeptical that the system will be changed in the near future. There is simply too much hostility between the two sides of the political spectrum. I guess if there is one thing I've realized it's that there is no easy solution. What I mentioned above is not the fault of our constitution but rather of a broken political climate all together.### Assistant: > I guess if there is one thing I've realized it's that there is no easy solution. What I mentioned above is not the fault of our constitution but rather of a broken political climate all together. Easy change is dangerous, that's the point. The US gov't is easily the most powerful and potentially dangerous organization on the planet. Everything it does needs to be lumbering, slow, and well forecast. If a single election could swing the US into a completely different direction, it could potentially have disastrous consequences for all Americans. A slow, frustrating, grindy government may cause you to roll your eyes, huff and puff over slow progress, but a slow grindy ineffectual gov't is not very likely to kill you for being in the wrong political party, or cut off your head for a Twitter post.### Human: Of course, one could see the opposite as well. A slow, ineffectual government leaves the people feeling disenfranchised, so they begin to turn to demagogues who promise them what they want by circumventing the constitution. Suddenly the bulwark of the grindingly slow government isn't a bulwark at all.### Assistant: Only that's a very long process and a slow government has plenty of time to defuse that situation. It's only truly inept government that lets it get that far out of hand.

### Human: I believe if it doesn't affect anyone negatively, adults should be allowed to do whatever they choose to. CMV### Assistant: How can you possibly know that any will negatively affect no one?### Human: well thats kind of why i posted here, I can't think of any way it could, but people here might have valid points### Assistant: Nobody makes things illegal for no reason. They make them illegal because they believe it will negatively affect people. Let's take gay marriage. The idea is that allowing gay marriage will cause the disintegration of the family structure, which is bad for kids.### Human: this is an actual reason, thank you for that, I can now understand why at least, they choose to make it illegal, however I have a follow up question: 1) children aside, shouldn't they at least be able to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple (e.g. not testify against a lover in court)### Assistant: That's not really your OP and I am having trouble arguing against it because I don't believe the government has any right to issue marriages whatsoever, to any couple.### Human: >surely there should at least be something else with a different name, which gives them the same legal rights as a married couple (and not after living together for a set number of years). that said, it was slightly different from my OP, hence why I called it a follow-up question as for the government issuing marriages, I kind of agree with you, marriage itself has always seemed to be a religious kind of thing, so government shouldn't really be touching it (separation of church and state works both ways), although I think there needs to be legal rights for any couple, regardless of what those rights are called, which is where government comes in.### Assistant: People should be able to give each other whatever rights they choose. It's not like picking a package deal or bundling your services. You shouldn't have to choose Package A (marriage), package B (domestic partnernship) or Package C (just friends) and base your rights off that. If I want to give Lew the homeless man down the street the right to access my medical files should I become incapacitated I should be able to, and if I want to deny my husband those rights I should be able to. The whole idea of offering these package deals on contractual agreements is absurd.### Human: The good example I've been using so far is the fact that you don't have to testify against your lover in a court of law. This is a law which should only exist for couples who love each other, since you can't expect them to testify against each other, but you can't let it be abused by Lew the homeless man either these are what I have in mind when I talk about rights for couples### Assistant: Again, we're speaking from two very different perspectives, it's practically impossible to have this discussion. I don't think anybody should have to testify to anything in court. If there isn't enough evidence from physical evidence and from people who choose to testify, then that just sucks.### Human: I.... agree with you on testifying in a court of law, you've changed my view on something that isn't actually my OP, do i give you a delta for that? Edit: gave you one, wasn't sure if editing this post to include one would trigger delta bot, so I made a new comment just in case### Assistant: NO. You stay on topic and try to continue the arguments in a relevant manner.### Human: I've got conflicting opinions on the delta, checking the sidebar it looks like I do so i'll give them one as for staying on topic, I'm trying to get to as many of the other comments as I can, and am continuing the arguments in a relevant manner, like I said this is on something that isn't my OP, so I obviously still intend to continue

### Human: CMV: I think we focus way too much time and energy on the President (USA) and not enough on the Congress.### Assistant: I always thought the house and senate should be followed like baseball. People know all the stats about every player when they are a baseball fan### Human: Late to the party, but stats don't work well on things like voting records. I hate the attack ads like "so and so voted AGAINST the puppy protection act" because bills are complex. Sometimes those puppy protections are ineffective. Sometimes the puppy protections don't go far enough. Sometimes the bill has too much pork. Not to defend politicians, but you can't reduce their voting records to a stat without knowing the context.### Assistant: I agree, but when a no vote on a bill is due to the bill not going far enough, I think that's a vote that needs to be reconsidered. A bill that goes "far enough" may never pass the partisanship and gridlock of congress. Something is better than nothing, and something can be built on later.### Human: > Something is better than nothing, and something can be built on later. Bold statement there. You sure that's 100% always the case?### Assistant: When the choice is a watered down bill or absolutely nothing for the next four years, the pragmatic choice is the watered down bill. The big juicy steak is in there but first you've got to kill the cow.### Human: So you're saying it's not possible for the "watered down" bill to be worse than the absolutely nothing?### Assistant: It's possible, even probable in some cases; but achieving something, gaining some ground, is better than gaining no ground at all. Always take the inch that's given. It's up to you to make it a mile.### Human: I don't agree, at all. I think that's fairly naive and a false daulism. There is no forward/backward, progress is some imaginary ideal that has as many definitions as there people and seems more subject to emotion than reason in most cases. What matters is the specific practical effects of the bill. I would take nothing over something that made things worse any day.### Assistant: Ok, can you show me an example of doing nothing at all being better than a half measure?### Human: Sure, we'll define a "half measure" as anything less than what should optimally be done while still having the intention of accomplishing the best possible result. Amateur surgery. In more general terms, you stated earlier that it's possible for a half measure to be worse than nothing. You also much earlier stated that the 'something that is better than nothing' can be built on later. If the "worse"ness of the half measure being worse than nothing is that it doesn't do anything useful and delays the arrival of the optimal result, then it's definitely not a great idea.### Assistant: Amateur surgery? Like, in the sense of "he's not the best we have right now, he has a vague clue what he's doing and will likely kill the patient rather than save him? That's not a half measure, that's walking in blind. I also don't think that someone willing to put aside their ideological future and settle for half of what they want legislatively believes that their end goal from such a measure will fully achieve their aims. It's called compromise and no one gets everything they want in the legislative process, you just get a little closer than you were. Even using the word compromise in this discussion makes me think of one historic compromise that one could call a half measure where none should have measured at all especially if the 3/5ths measured weren't given the right to vote but now we have this historic moment of shame to hang on the south forever. Imagine trying to justify demanding additional legislative strength to represent you for the slaves you owned. Even failed half measures have their uses. Even if those uses are just shaming those you disagree with. I'm a little lost; are we talking half measures like Mike and how he should have killed that guy rather than threaten him, or congress and legislation having to do with domestic matters? Because please do keep in mind that regarding matters of domestic legislation, incremental is usually the safest thing to hope for. Sweeping legislation is infrequent, fought over tooth and nail and even then, incomplete and added to over time. On top of that I've had a bottle and a half of wine and I'm not sure if this makes any sense to anyone but me.### Human: I only ever disagreed with your use of absolutes. I don't understand why you haven't understood that.

### Human: I think the MPAA is an outdated and useless rating model that squanders creativity. CMV### Assistant: Before I know if I could help change any part of your view I feel like some clarification might be in order. I want to preface this by saying I'm mostly playing devil's advocate but I've written more than a few papers on the topic and I really enjoy talking about it. When you say it's outdated, what specifically do you think should happen? More MPAA type bodies giving different ratings for movies that get to cherry pick the "best" or most desirable ratings or no MPAA type bodies having the kind of power they do? I think it's important to point out MPAA technically has 0 power, especially when you look at how much government power they have. I mean this mostly in the they don't use the law for these ratings. There's no law that says 16 year olds can't see rated R movies, that's policy the theatres take on by themselves. I think this shows there's a demand for at least the style of services they offer, granted when it comes from a monopoly that's pretty indefensible when our economy depends on competition. >No discussion of unrealistic violence/appropriateness of violence What are parents using to judge movies in a movie theatre on then? Are they trusting the people who made the movie to rate it themselves? Are there no more ratings allowed because there shouldn't be MPAA type bodies in existence? >No alternate, secular review board (monopoly) This I think is key though. If we had MPAA 1 and MPAA 2 and they compete on prices is that something you're ok with? Or if MPAA 1 and MPAA 2 are both choosing to be religious should there be some kind of trigger when people who are upset enough with MPAA 1 and MPAA 2 such that they could create their own ratings board? Cheers, I'll be on later tonight I expect, thanks!### Human: By "outdated" I mean that most of the criteria that the film is rated on has a religious/conservative basis to it (monogamous, heterosexual sex; patriarchy, etc.) that should not be the basis of a rating board in the modern era (growing populations of "out" homosexuals/alternate sexualites or sexual habits such as polyamory; populations that identify as atheist or non-religious). What I think should happen is 2 things: 1) an alternate (or several alternate) board(s) should be organized. The MPAA could continue to exist, but there should be a group or groups that doesn't ask that content is changed or cut out merely because it is sexual in nature, feminine-focused, homosexual, or otherwise seen as "deviant", and also address other social issues (should we be showing X types or violence; when is language appropriate and not appropriate*). I don't see why a movie couldn't be rated PG-13 by the MPAA and something else by another board, and just carry 2 different ratings. This would also help with the problems that documentaries run into where violence or language is a necessary component, but there is no leeway in the rating system for them. (see * below) 2) the monopoly on major theatre distribution needs to be destroyed. How can almost nothing get major theatre distribution unless kids 17 and under can see it? That's insane. It's very, very difficult to get distribution when a film has not been rated, and this alternate board would allow a "filter" without it being only for 17-and-under, and thus a safety net for major theatres. (Honestly, I think theaters themselves could run a little different, but that might be a little off topic) You also mentioned price. It's expensive to get rated. Having options means competitive market, which I support unless you want to convince me otherwise. :) In terms of if no one liked 1 and 2, could they make a 3? A 4? Sure, why not? The better ones would win out...just like how there are bigger and more prestigious film festivals and there are local ones. Why not have a local rating board? A state one? Film makers could pick and choose. *To explain the language thing more: A recent documentary, *Bully*, whose goal was to be shown to teenagers, was battling the MPAA board because it wanted a PG-13 rating (so kids could see it alone if needed, so schools with a "no R" policy could show it) but the language (which was kids saying what they are called at school - faggot, variations of the word "fuck") got it an R rating. There was also a war documentary that struggled because it had strong language (filmed in wartime, duh) and the MPAA wanted it cut down, but the language was at crucial moments of the film and the makers couldn't cut it down without it changing the movie and without it making the experience of war unrealistic (language is a part of that).### Assistant: 1) Are you aware that different countries have different boards and regularly disagree both on what something should be rated and why ratings are the way they are? I feel like you're mostly talking about the relationship hollywood movies (or really any movie that wants in American theatres) have with the MPAA where what they say has clout in the American industry as far as what gets shown in theatres. The reasoning behind having just a single body *was* that consumers would feel confused by multiple ratings. The sad part is though, consumers sacrifice choice for the "simplicity" a single monopoly could offer. I think the further problem with the system in this respect lies in the disrespect to small time movies. Movies in the past were gigantic and took millions of dollars just to come close to resembling a movie. With the cost of a movie going down to a little as a cell phone or less I can't defend wanting to charge upwards of $10,000 just for the chance of being rated and no appeal process. I will contest though that this issue is far larger than just the MPAA and I hope to expand that part of your view, the theatres are just as if not more complicit because they actually have the power to say no. Further complicating the market in this respect are the theatre monopolies. I'm lucky to live in Seattle where both kinds of theatres exist (those who only show MPAA movies and those who give no fucks), I don't think there are many other cities like that around the country. 2) It makes sense to split the content up for kids and adults. Currently if you want a G film like Finding Nemo rated it's identical to the process of rating a film like Kill Bill (chosen example for it's gore content). That I can't debate you on. Maybe parents wouldn't prefer to go to a movie theatre where these even exist? That's really no excuse to deny everyone else content they want though, meh. >Film makers could pick and choose. Here we might have a disagreement. I don't think film markers should have much of a say in what their rating is beyond what the rating agencies say and I don't think they should get to "cherry pick" the best one. If the extent of this comment was that film makers could pick and choose *and then* consumers get to look at a variety of who rated them what that would be fine to me. I'd have a problem with a film that probably shouldn't be lower rated but it got lower rated because the producers wanted to sell more tickets and they got that way because they paid for the answer they wanted. There needs to be some integrity checks, or at the very least a "standard" rating agency groups for theatre checks and "others" who rate for retail release. It's a complicated system either way, and entirely theoretical, we might both agree almost anything would be better than the 18th century ideas about movie ratings we have today though. P.S. I'm a huge fan of documentaries and that's a super great example to me. It's a good case for the idea that documentaries get their own rating system. I've been watching "Vice" on HBO and oh my fuck I'm beyond glad there's no MPAA telling them what they can and cannot show. That's not journalism at all and I see that as 100% not of what the MPAA was even created for. Journalism is not entertainment, and it shouldn't be judged by the same market forces. I hope to have expanded your view, and future replies might not be on topic to changing your view anymore, thank you.### Human: 1) I am specifically talking about the American movie industry/Hollywood system. I apologize, should have clarified that. You are right about the original goal of having one rating system, which I understand. However, I feel that this is an outdated concept (that the consumers can't decide for themselves and will get confused, so we should "protect" them or save them the trouble). Thanks for mentioning the point about cost. I think this is definitely a problem/contributing factor. P.s. I'm a Seattlite, too! I love our local theatres. 2) My "Film makers could pick and choose" was in regards to if there was more than one rating board, they could pick which to apply to get rated by. Although, I don't think there's a problem with applying for a rating and then not using it (some films do this now with the MPAA model). Ideally the boards would have different standards, so even if a film picked a different rating (say, they denied "NC-17" from the MPAA but picked "Q" rating from another board) that rating isn't "nicer" in that it represents different values - "Q" rated films have X swears, Y violence, Z drug use, etc. It's a *different* rating system, not a better/nicer one. Thanks for the dialogue. :)### Assistant: In regards to your second point that would start to get confusing. I think we look for a single standard for movie ratings because we want to be able to easily determine what content is in a movie. What we should not have is rating companies competing to get films by say "I'll give a pg-13 rating no matter how much violence is in your film". To control this we would have to set a national standard for movie content and we are back to square one. It is unfortunate that certain films get NC-17 ratings for having large amounts of sex or violence, but then again do people under 17 need to see films like these in theatres?### Human: >It is unfortunate that certain films get NC-17 ratings for having large amounts of sex or violence, but then again do people under 17 need to see films like these in theatres? Do people need to see *any* films in theatres? The distinction of having been *rated* NC-17 (not necessarily justified) isn't good enough of a distinction, because that's precisely what's being debated - a realistic portrayal of war? Why should this be off-limits to 17-year-olds, whereas sanitised versions aren't? Isn't that quite literally censoring, and misrepresentation of the realities to perfectly-mature teenagers? The question isn't "does anyone need to see this" (because that choice should generally be up to them, and if "you don't *need* to see this" is justification for censoring, then you can literally justify censoring of ***ANYTHING***), but "does anyone need to *not* see this".### Assistant: Thank you for wording that wonderfully.

### Human: I don't think that the Zimmerman case should be anyone's business but that of the Zimmerman and Martin families, the jury, and the legal professionals in the courtroom, and the media should be ashamed of themselves for sensationalizing it. CMV.### Assistant: The thing that bothers me about the public aftermath of this trial, like every other highly-publicized trial, is all the people who, having only heard about the case through the media, are so certain that the jury gave the wrong verdict, despite: 1. having seen virtually none of the evidence and heard virtually none of the arguments presented by the prosecution and the defense, except what the media deemed the most important to report 2. the small matter of the fact that the jury's verdict is *by definition* correct: the jury *is the method* used to determine the accused's guilt or innocence in a trial by jury Is it really so hard to believe that the state failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, or, on the other hand, that the defense was able to raise reasonable doubt?### Human: I'm sure many are still unsettled by the solemnity of it all. I think the jury made the right decision in its verdict, but the law lacks the complexity of human morals and that's why many are still, understandably, frustrated. It can be difficult to conceive the need for its seperation when verdict can appear so black and white.### Assistant: I think the law covered the situation perfectly well, the result just didn't fit the media narrative about cute 12 year old Trayvon and big mean racist Zimmerman and so they are unhappy. The difference between the media portrayal and the reality is the source of the discontent, not the clear cut and obvious case of self defense.### Human: Someone died because of human idiocy on both sides. The law can never Cover that. Not to mention in some alternative world the prosecution could of been better. Apathetic views like yours I find worse than the ignorant masses who make quick judgments on the case.### Assistant: > Someone died because of human idiocy on both sides. I don't think Zimmerman did anything idiotic. There's been wild speculation about what some of his actions may have been, and many of those straw man "theories" describe idiotic actions. >Not to mention in some alternative world the prosecution could of been better. They were so bad because they had no evidence to support them, and their witnesses were proven to be horribly dishonest, or supported Zimmerman. > Apathetic views like yours I find worse than the ignorant masses who make quick judgments on the case. Apathetic? I care a whole lot about this trial, and read hundreds of pages about what each witness had to say as the case was unfolding.### Human: So you find Zimmerman wholly innocent despite the fact that he was the one who killed a person? Like I said, the verdict was the best that could be reached under those circumstances, but you are as biased as one who fully believes Zimmerman is guilty. I advise you rebook into the case, because you are clearly lacking perspective.### Assistant: >So you find Zimmerman wholly innocent despite the fact that he was the one who killed a person? If you kill someone in a legitimate case of self defence (as the jury ruled), you're innocent of murder.### Human: >If you kill someone in a legitimate case of self defence (as the jury ruled), you're innocent of murder. *not guilty. There's a huge difference.### Assistant: Discussion is a bit old, but you're right.### Human: Yeah, I don't really expect anyone else to read this. Hope all is well on your end!

### Human: CMV: (USA) The Democratic Party would gain more than it would lose if it took a pro-gun rights stance### Assistant: As to point two, the policy that Democrats have most vigorously attempted to pass in the past few years, universal background checks, are overwhelmingly popular: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2057. It polls high eighties to low nineties consistently, which is almost unheard of for any policy proposal. So the risk of blowback is pretty low, at least on that front. And even the assault weapon bans and restrictions on magazine sizes are above water, though not by much: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx. The political risk of supporting gun safety measures is greatly overblown.### Human: **On the topic of "Universal Background Checks" polling so well:** I believe they poll well because it's something that sounds great in at first glance but falls apart once it's given a second look, mainly due to the logistical and practical hurdles of enacting it. The biggest of which is ascertaining a benefit to having it. I.E. How would UBC prevent someone from selling guns to a prohibited person (felon) and then lying and saying they were stolen? Even more to the point, how does the system deal with the hundreds of millions of firearms out there? **With respect to Assault Weapons Bans:** Like the Universal Background Check, this sounds great at first glance, but tends to fall apart once people realize what ends up being banned. The AWB in most states amounts to a ban on *cosmetic* features with no impact on the function of a weapon and can be easily bypassed. In both instances, the high level support seems to be predicated upon banking on low-information among voters than the law being viewed as successful. **The impact on Democrats**: Democrats passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, and suffered dearly for it. [Even Former President Clinton](http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bill-clinton-warns-democrats-against-overreaching-on-gun-debate/) realized this mistake. Mainly because with gun control there is one immutable truth: *If you pass Gun Control in January, who will come out in droves in November? The folks who passively support gun control? Or the die-hard gun rights folks who want to punish you?*. It seems to be the latter in most cases.### Assistant: UBC polls above 90 percent even with gun owners. It's hard to overstate how popular it is. It might be the most popular policy proposal on any issue in the country. You can't just write that off as a product of uninformed voters. Sure, people can illegally sell a gun even with UBC, but there would punishments for that, just like any other law that prohibits anything. The assault weapons ban is definitely less popular. But, you've framed this as if gun control is clearly a risk for Democrats. It's not, particularly if they approach the more popular proposals like UBC first. And we've seen in the past few years that this is exactly what they are doing. It's a winning issue for them if they don't overplay their hand.### Human: The concept polls highly. The proposals however, do not (people have to meet at a gun store and pay the FFL $30 -$150 to perform the check)### Assistant: Do you have any data to back that up? I've heard people say that but I've never actually seen anything that shows that to be true.### Human: Mostly the court of public opinion. I'm a strong proponent of gun rights, and I'm OK with our current background check system. When only .7% of guns come from a gun show, it's hard to justify that more background checks are needed. Most guns used in crime are purchased illegally on the black market or through friends/family (which would be exempted from universal background checks) Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt The real problem isn't background checks, it's straw purchases...We should simply start prosecuting those people instead of doing nothing (and hell, we already have that law on the books, just enforce it!)### Assistant: I'm with you on straw purchases. But, UBC will make it easier to prosecute those who privately sell firearms if those firearms are being used for crimes. Ignorance will no longer be a defense. And as far as public opinion goes, if you can't produce a poll or some sort of data set, then I don't think your argument amounts to much. It is an overwhelmingly popular proposal for the Dems to support.### Human: > But, UBC will make it easier to prosecute those who privately sell firearms if those firearms are being used for crimes. Ignorance will no longer be a defense. How? Registries are illegal. Repealing them would mean repealing the machine gun ban of 1986 (all part of the FOPA of 1986) As far as a poll, this is the best I've got for you...it's been updated since the UBC polling was done. Again, I'm for UBC's (even if I don't believe they will reduce violence)...just not the way proposed by Democrats. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx### Assistant: Yeah the gallup poll was what I was using when I said support was around 90. The problem with the argument that support changes depending on the actual bill is that it's not an argument against UBC, but against polling. Polls tend to ask broader questions, so whether or not support will drop on a finished proposal is not that important, because that's the case for just about every policy question that is polled. As for enforcement, I'm strongly against a registry. With UBC and no registry, you can prosecute someone for selling a firearm without a background check. It's really not that hard to prove that someone sold something without a registry. Law enforcement does it all the time.### Human: So I looked at the polls and the questions...and you're right...they were worded waaaaaaay to broadly. * Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers? * Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/ I guess we should get a poll saying would you like private sales of firearms (between two law abiding citizens) to pay a Federal Firearms Licensee up to $100 to run a background check? And maybe preface the question with some background...like Online sales are already subject to background checks, and all dealer at gun shows perform them. Only .7% of sales at gun shows are private sales.### Assistant: Yeah but the key thing here is that all public policy polling is done like this. So sure, maybe there is drop off depending on the specifics. But that's true of everything, not just UBC. So comparing apples to apples, UBC is still overwhelmingly popular. It's just good politics for Democrats, even if some chunk of support is shaved off depending on which specific policy proposal they're introducing.### Human: Here's an example everyone can relate to. We all agree that going faster than 70mph on the freeway is dangerous. So we can all support speed limits on highways. Now, in order to make sure this is properly enforced we can either have police patrol the areas and fine those who don't adhere to the speed limit OR we can have manufacturers make it so cars cannot exceed 70mph. We both support speed limits, but we both may not agree on the implementation of that law.

### Human: CMV: Men should not be required to pay child support if they wanted an abortion but the woman refused to get one### Assistant: So I honestly agree with you, but the implementation of such a policy would be a challenge which is why I don't think it's feasible. There is a very short window for abortion (first twenty weeks of pregnancy, less if mom doesn't realize she's pregnant right away). Plus it takes time to get the procedure done, so realistically dad would have to be able to make the decision before say, ~17 weeks so that mom has a chance to undergo all the steps for the procedure. So there's that. What about cases where mom doesn't tell dad that she's pregnant until after that point? Either because she doesn't know (I've seen patients come in at >20 weeks and not realize they're pregnant) or because she knows dad won't want to support the baby. Then what? Or what if dad initially decides that he wants to keep the baby and then 10 weeks later changes his mind. Mom's already bonded with the fetus, gone to prenatal appointments, etc. Is it fair for her then to have to make the choice to do it on her own when she had previously thought they'd go through it together? And how do you enforce that?### Human: It's not that she would have to abort. It's about that he should have equal opportunity to renounce his rights, essentially a constructive abortion. This would be the same time period in which she would have the right to an actual abortion. We must have equality in parental rights. If we're going to expect men to have equal responsibility they must have equal rights.### Assistant: Like I said. I agree that there should be equality in parental rights. I just don't foresee a way to create a system where that occurs. Dad would have a small window of time to make the decision and there would be way to many ways women (and men) could game it.### Human: It's the exact window of time a woman has. You could even make it a two week smaller window to give her time. Certainly 2-3 months is a lot of time to contemplate and definitively better than nothing. I think the best thing about this law is it would essentially extinguish the all too common situation of a woman secretly getting pregnant as a form of financial entrapment.### Assistant: It sounds like you didnt read any of their points. They had good arguments for why those 2-3 months is not enough. >Think the best thing about this law is it would essentially extinguish the all too common situation of a woman secretly getting pregnant as a form of financial entrapment. "All too common"? Got a source to back up your outlandish claims? Because from a common sense perspective, that's absurd. As if women would go through 9 months of pregnancy just to squeeze some money out of a dude. By bearing a child, the biggest social, logistical, and financial burden that most people will ever take on? Child support is awarded to provide for the child. It's hardly worth scheming for. After, you know, caring for the child with that money (as a single mother), there's probably little to none left over. However, if you have a source to back up what you say, then I'm all ears.### Human: Not enough in a perfect world. So I guess if we can't make it perfect we should just keep it shitty as possible. Great logic. You seriously don't believe women have kids for financial gain? You've neve heard of the "keep a n***** baby?" Or a welfare baby? If we have slang terms for these things then they seem to be happening with a decent amount of frequency. Let's not even get into the fact that for example the NBA holds a seminar for incoming players on how to dispose of condoms because there is an epidemic of fraudulent birth going on. Your argument for why it doesn't happen is because it's not rational is not an argument at all. People are not rational.### Assistant: >You seriously don't believe women have kids for financial gain? Of course I do. But we're talking about you, who said this was a crisis. I'm arguing that it's exceedingly rare >You've neve heard of the "keep a n***** baby?" Or a welfare baby? I have, but only from people fear-mongering on the news. Also thanks for the weird race slant >NBA holds a seminar for incoming players on how to dispose of condoms because there is an epidemic of fraudulent birth going on. Star athletes are a special case. I thought we were talking about people in general. The vast number of which are not rich and famous. Again, I ask for your stats on all these "fraudulent births", whatever the hell that means. The babies are real. The births are real.### Human: Fraud as in there is an understanding BC is being used and she stops in an act of deception. Or even worse fishes up a condom and inseminates herself. This shit is real. It's happening to lessee and greater degrees women use the fact that they have unilateral control over birth as a weapon.

### Human: CMV: An "Upgradeable" Xbox One is silly; Just buy a PC### Assistant: >how is this a good move for Microsoft? If it gets them more money, it's a good move. It doesn't matter if they ever actually follow through, if the announcement gets new customers in without losing too many it worked. And they probably will NOT follow through because consoles have very weird and non-standard form factors, connectors, and the like together with not much free space and carefully designed ventilation, upgrading the hardware is NOT easy outside of making a whole new console. As a side note your rant about optimization has been obsolete for a long long time now, mostly because the increased complexity of hardware means that not relying on drivers is pretty much suicidal for such large projects.### Human: > If it gets them more money, it's a good move. I don't think this announcement is going to earn them much in the way of money. If they wanted to push PC sales, announce the next Halo is coming to PC as well. If they wanted to push console sales, telling customers their old hardware might become slightly obsolete doesn't sound like a great way to do it. The advantage of a console is meant to be uniformity. You know what to expect in terms of graphics and performance, and everyone on the system is on a level playing field. There's no GTX 760 versus GTX Titan X, there's just Xbox. And every Xbox is meant to act pretty much the same. A console is meant to be the safe bet for consumers who don't want to get into the hassel of a PC, they just want something they can plug and play and know what they're paying for. This announcement pretty much ruins the whole point of a console, doesn't it? And especially for multiplayer games... this will ruin the balance. Someone playing at 60FPS will have a clear advantage over someone who can only get 30FPS. Someone with a larger view distance will have an advantage... etc. Issues like this are already an issue on PC, consoles were meant to avoid this. > As a side note your rant about optimization has been obsolete for a long long time now, mostly because the increased complexity of hardware means that not relying on drivers is pretty much suicidal for such large projects. But those drivers are console specific, and have to go through the usual Xbox and Playstation screening processes for approval. The hardware is still locked down, and it's far easier to predict the behaviour of software on locked down hardware.### Assistant: >those drivers are console specific Irrelevant. The point is, drivers abstract the hardware layer so yhe programmer does not have to deal with it and can only work on the logic. PC drivers are almost always certified too so behaviour is predictable there too. Consoles all having the same hardware only means the devs know exactly what the min specs the game will run on are, it does not make it run worse on stronger hardware nor allow some kind of magical optimization that would not be possible on a PC with identical hardware. What you say was true back in the ps2 era and for some Nintendo stuff, where the hardware was working together in insane and totally new ways compared to PCs so the code had to be radically different.### Human: Okay. That doesn't change the underlying main argument- why not just buy a PC? Microsoft are pushing Windows 10 as this whole unified environment so they're starting to release their Xbox exclusives on PC, so they're just Microsoft exclusives. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of a console to be constantly swapping and upgrading hardware? Console is meant to be the one box you buy if you don't know much about computers and just want something to game on where you know what you're getting. PC is the more fiddly platform where you have to think about what parts you're choosing and optimising settings and multiplayer advantages/disadvantages... Microsoft keeps pushing this idea of a unified system... they want Windows Phone to be Windows 10 so your phones runs the OS of your Desktop, runs the OS of your console, runs the OS of your tablet... but the reason we have different form factors is because each form factor is designed with certain expectations and goals in mind. It's a nice idea to have hardware neutrality like this, but... again... why not just buy a PC? You can get an Xbox controller for PC... there's almost no reason not to buy a PC if you're throwing out the whole point and advantages of a console.### Assistant: Can't argue with that, PCs have been the best choice for quite a while

### Human: I believe that lawyers fulfill a self-created role in society. CMV### Assistant: Let's reset the legal system for a moment: Starting from a blank slate, we're trying to construct a good set of rules. Well let's start with no murder. That's easy enough. "Law 1: No murder." Well, what about if you hit somebody with your car and they die? If you did it on purpose obviously you're guilty, but what if you slid on ice and accidentally hit them? Hmmm... "Law 1: No murder on purpose." But what if I *want* to murder somebody on purpose so I intentionally drive just a *little* too recklessly? Who determines that? Well, we're going to need judges. Which then leads to the next problem: I kill a man on accident, and I *know* it's an accident, but I'm not terribly good at speaking and the family says I did it on purpose because I didn't like the guy. So I hire a friend who's good at speaking to help me figure out what to say. He's done this a few times, so he's pretty good about figuring out what to say and when to help me make my case. This gets us to Lawyers without having a law more complicated than 'no murder on purpose.' ______________________ But that's not your real question. You don't really want to know about why *criminal* lawyers exist, you want to know why *copyright* lawyers exist. Well let's say you write a book. And you sell the book. But then somebody buys a copy, scans it in, and starts making and selling his own copies with your name crossed out and his written over it. You go to court, but in order to make an official claim there has to be a law. We call this sort of law copyright law. Copyright law (And other systems of laws) get complex not (just) because of greedy lawyers, but because once you say "You cannot hunt animals that are dying out" somebody will say "How do you define 'dying out'?" and another will say "How do you define hunting?" and another will say "How do you define animal?" So you write that out. And then eventually you go from "You cannot hunt animals that are dying out" to a massive document that requires an expert to suss out the exact meaning. This sort of thing happens over and over again with all sorts of things. It's just human nature to begin pushing on anything that's vague, which means you have to be specific to make sure the law is actually followed. Unfortunately, creating a comprehensive rulebook for life isn't an easy process which means even the most well-meaning legislature will eventually end up with a mess.### Human: >Well let's say you write a book. And you sell the book. But then somebody buys a copy, scans it in, and starts making and selling his own copies with your name crossed out and his written over it. You go to court, but in order to make an official claim there has to be a law. We call this sort of law copyright law. Not to nit-pick, but this is not quite an accurate assessment. If he crossed out your name and put his name on it that would be plagiarism, a separate crime. Even if he left your name on it and sold it that way, it would still constitute copyright infringement because you haven't given that person permission to publish copies of your books. The person who holds a copyright gets exclusive right to control copying on the specific piece of work. Copy-right, get it? Of course with modern copyright law in the US, the rights have extended *way* past just copying and into completely different territory, but that's a different topic for discussion.### Assistant: It wouldn't be plagiarism, because plagiarism isn't actually a crime. It's just the name that academics have given the practice. You'll note however that no one in the United States has ever been arrested for plagiarism. The example he gave of putting your name on another's work would indeed be copyright infringement in the eyes of the law.### Human: While I don't think that plagiarism is anywhere in the world prosecuted as a crime, there are countries where it is flat out illegal.### Assistant: I don't think you know what a crime is.... If it is illegal, and you do it, you are committing a crime. So what are you saying is illegal - putting your name on anything you didnt write? Does it matter who i give it to? if i tell my SO i wrote them a poem but i actually stole it, am i a criminal? what about if i perform a song i didnt write AND don't get paid, but it happens to raise money for something else - am i guilty or is the cause guilty? Laws are complex because society is complex.### Human: It is obvious that you don't know what a crime is. >While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime. Breaches of private law (torts and breaches of contract) are not automatically punished by the state, but can be enforced through civil procedure.[[1]](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crime&oldid=567323827)

### Human: CMV: People shouldn't pierce their babies' ears.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Yes, because vaccination is necessary for protecting the child's health. Vaccination is a medical procedure; ear piercing is a cosmetic one.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: You made a hole in a baby's body for no reason other than "it looked nice"! And sometimes, that hole doesn't close up! You made a baby bleed for no reason! (by the way I'm being a little facetious here, hard to convey in reddit comments sometimes so i just wanted you to know i wasn't super outraged haha)### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: text messaging and other forms of tech with linguistic relevance are vilified unfairly, and actually are good for evolution of languages### Assistant: I would say that assigning any positive or negative aspect to language evolution is silly. Language simply evolves - it's just as meaningless to say language is changing for the better as it is to say language is changing for the worse.### Human: Objectively speaking, I agree with what you said there for 2 reasons: 1. the good vs bad language you used is accurate in that it states how one is no more than the other. However, it's tough to get *exactly* how you mean this because of your word choice. You error in using "meaningless" calcuable figure (it's a boolean type semantic unit aka yes or no]). Basically I can't tell if you couldn't think of a more accurate word choice or if you being flippant. edit: forget to write the rest ahaaaa 2 Language does simply evolve I disagree however with the idea that understanding will not help us make for a better tomorrow. In so, I support reseach heavily into quantifying what makes it as bad and as good as it is now and how can we adjust learning material and other novel materials for the future.### Assistant: > You error in using "meaningless" calcuable figure (it's a boolean type semantic unit aka yes or no]). Yeah, no. This is just wrong. Something can be full, or something can be half full. Something can be meaningful, or something can be somewhat meaningful. So saying just as meaningless makes sense. Regardless, I don't really understand the point you have. Just because texting is good or bad doesn't mean that our use of language is flourishing or suffering in any way. If it's the use of brevity, eg lol, rofl, I think people still had and still would have analogues. Moreover, it's my stance that language DOES evolve. It evolves to fit what its speakers want to say. Eg: the word gay has had a spike in usage since the 80s, probably in response to current events shifting to that topic. Does that mean that our language is becoming dumber? Maybe it's overused, or has too few letters, or something. However, it's a powerful word. What other word is there that could gather people's attention like the word "gay" in the right scenario? Probably a lot, but this word could be particularly useful, but then again maybe only because it's relevant to us now.### Human: You seem to have a very solid grasp on how languages evolve. You nailed the semantic portion of the "exam" so to speak thats for sure. But its only 1 or 4 or five domains that linguist recognize as major domains (the others mainly being syntax and pragmatics but there are others too). So lets expand on this and exam how texting is evolving from the pragmatic domain (pragmatics is the study of the social use of language). If semantics studies the source code's unit meanings then pragmatics (edited here.. accidently said a stupid word) studies the flow of how these units are distributed across the system. A great example I'll just throw out there for you to think about for yourself is texting and driving. we communicate differently when we are driving or when the partner is driving and in todays world one of two is not out of the question. This issue also lends support to opposition because it kills. I feel like the scope of this topic is unrepresented in this thread. But I studied language in depth and mainly having troubles "translating" what Im trying to say without jargon. (PS my education on the topic makes my opion or view no more right than yours because this isn't really well understood academically.. LOTS of conjectures).### Assistant: I would look into the work of Bieswanger and Herring on hybridity in computer-mediated communication. Also, for situating machine-mediated cognition and interaction, I have a feeling you would really like the computational semiotics of Mihai Nadin, as well :D There is a definite tension between linguistic precision (e. g. programming code) and expressiveness (e. g. natural human language) as electronic media narrow the range of expressive affordances with which humans evolved (multi- and cross-modal pragmatics and cognition). The process of change is ecological, however; as Steve Levinson, François Jacob, and many others have observed that evolution, and indeed all human progress, is a process of 'bricolage'. All sorts of fascinating linguistic phenomena are emerging and being conventionalized as practice as a result of the confluence of technological innovation (precision, including constraints) and human creativity (expressiveness, overcoming or even exploiting those constraints).

### Human: I do not believe that being a pedophile is wrong. CMV.### Assistant: it's hard to argue against this since a pedophile is not the same thing as a convicted sex offender. Pedophilia is just like any other mental disorder that causes a person to produce unwanted thoughts or impulses. Having sexual attractions towards pre-pubescents is not inherently wrong, but the actions that are fueled by it are. Though if you believe that a pedophile shouldn't undergo some kind of rehabilitation, then i say you are wrong.### Human: What would that do though? How would that be different than sending gay people to rehab? Wouldn't they still hold those urges?### Assistant: gay people don't have illegal/harmful/traumatizing urges (depending on who you ask i guess). Pedophiles require rehabilitation because if they give into those urges, they have the potential to harm and scar a lot of people. Also there are many different methods that help pedophiles live normal lives, without scarring them like many "cure the gay treatments"### Human: > gay people don't have illegal/harmful/traumatizing urges What if we are in some population where there is only 1 gay person (or so few gay people that they'd likely never meet)? Then, by definition, their urges are illegal, because no other person in the population would have consenting sex with them, making it rape. Rape is harmful and traumatizing, of course. So in that hypothetical situation would being gay be the same as being a pedophile (the only difference being that (sickens me to have to articulate this) you cause more harm by raping a child than an adult)? Now, what if there are other gay people, but this gay person is extremely ugly and it turns out that nobody in the population would consent to sex with them. Same thing? Different?### Assistant: Your analogy is flawed. It is possible for an adult to consent to having sex with someone even though their sexual orientation is not for a person of their gender. Certainly not every female porn actress who does a lesbian scene is a lesbian or even necessarily bisexual. And while a straight man might be less inclined to experiment because *our* society is telling him he'll be stripped of his manhood, it's still possible for a straight man to consent to gay sex, either with the promise of secrecy and a large bribe or in a different culture where he won't be shamed for it. For that matter, many married couples have sex when one partner doesn't particularly feel like it but consents anyway because they love their partner. Children cannot consent in any way shape or form.### Human: Explain. Why can't children consent?

### Human: CMV: I believe that the way school shootings are dealt with cause more deaths. I taught my children to run as fast and as far as they could if something like this ever happened in their school.### Assistant: My wife is a teacher and attitudes are changing about active shooter situations. Each district will be a bit different but the focus is on getting kids out of the building and fighting back with any improvised weapons at hand. Usually this is chairs and books. I agree with you to some degree. My advice was always for her to get kids out of the building because her room was near an outside door. However, there are some problems. 1. If you do not know where a shooter is, depending on the layout there is a good chance you will run into them on your way to an exit. If you are in a group of students you make for an inviting target. 2. Shooters can create traps for students. Just like driving deer, one shooter causes a commotion while the other stands by an exit. The result is a slaughterhouse. 3. It leaves a lot of chaos for the first responders. If you are an armed good guy searching the school for a shooter, it gets pretty confusing if there are screaming kids running all around. With the traditional response there are far fewer people in the hallways making it easier to spot and take care of the shooter. 4. It makes it very difficult to tell who is alive vs. dead and provide quick medical care for the wounded. I there is a shooting at my kids school I want to know two things and I want to know them right now. Where are my kids, and are they okay? Nobody knows where anyone is. Maybe they bled out in a ditch somewhere while the medics are treating the wounded in the school. 5. Finally, if the classrooms can actually be locked down properly you can save more lives than telling kids to run. No doubt it is a large expense and retrofitting a school may not be possible. For new construction, adding substantial locks and walls that have bullet resistance properties can keep the shooter from getting in, or having much success shooting through walls. If you lock the school down at the first sign of trouble you could keep everyone safe.### Human: > one shooter causes a commotion while the other stands by an exit Scenarios with two shooters are extremely rare. You might as well prepare your children for the zombie apocalypse.### Assistant: Thankfully you are right. However, shooters can be crafty and they have a plan. Lets say evacuating the school becomes the norm, all they have to do is wait by an exit. Or chain a few shut first. If the classrooms are locked they just trapped any students who tried to run.### Human: I suppose, but as far as my knowledge of most mass shooting incidents goes, that sort of prep work doesn't happen. It's generally more of a "go in, shoot people until the cops come, then commit suicide" sort of plan. From what we can infer into the minds of shooters, the prep work appears to me mostly limited to picking a vulnerable target (schools, movie theaters, military bases, etc) that heavily restricts weapons. You have to remember, these are completely crazy individuals, not trained military personnel running a covert op.### Assistant: I used to work with kids in a residential (psychiatric) treatment center and most of the ones who were violent were very reactive. If angry, they snap and start swinging. These kids were somewhat of a missed blessing because you could see it coming and there were warning signs. Then there were the proactive kids. If they get angry, you not see any outward signs. You might not ever know they were even pissed off, but they had a target and the advantage of time. They were scary. They had time to plan and manipulate. Sooner or later when the time is right (or they made it right) they carried out the plan. Like making sure they were at the end of the line just behind the target, and distracting the staff just long enough to throw the kid over the railing in the stairway. He was planning that entire move for weeks and it was executed perfectly. One thing I learned quickly is that these kids might be crazy, but they are not stupid.

### Human: CMV: Bernie Sanders idea of free college doesn't seem like a good thing.### Assistant: Of course nothing comes free. You are right in that sense. "Free" college would indeed ultimately come from taxes. The specific implementation isn't exactly clear. In any case, in economics there is an idea of positive externalities that make free college beneficial to society as a whole. Here are a few bullet points for you to chew over: * People, regardless of their wealth, would have equal opportunity to accomplish their goals. Those in poverty would not be limited simply because of their inability to afford college. So in the future, your kids will be able to go to a $60,000 school if they qualified in merit. * In the long term, free college would mean that more people would be educated and be able to occupy higher paying jobs. Ultimately, these people would be paying back into the system through their own taxes. The returns on this investment is high since it would only take a few breakthroughs in technology to create many other jobs. Consider how the university system created Gopher, a predecessor to the modern day internet browser. In addition, educated people have greater potential to make more income when they graduate. This makes taxes towards education fundamentally different from something like welfare, where there are no direct returns. You actually benefit from it. * An educated population will be more knowledgeable and active in society, steering the nation in a good path for the future.### Human: You left out the part of his plan where Wall Street speculation would be the tax that pays for college. There will be a tax on trading (only a small amount) and he has it so that it would be enough funding. You did add the "trickle UP" bonus of a well educated and wealthier middle class - in that it will only help the U.S. as well as big business by putting more money into our economy. So, to OP's point - it will only help us grow as a nation and the only tax burden would be on the rich to wealthy speculating on Wall Street which they will get back in some form or another when businesses and stocks grow.### Assistant: So these people who invested their money into American businesses will have their money taxed once when they receive if, and again whenever they want to trade it?### Human: Implying the stock markets primary function these days is to raise funds for companies and not for gambling. It's 2015 dude get with the times.### Assistant: >these days It's always been that way hombre

### Human: CMV: "White Privilege" and other social justice concepts aren't going to convince people who aren't already on board with the left. At worst, it will polarize the issue and inspire resentment.### Assistant: Firstly: I'd be interested in hearing how it is you would suggest "marketing" this problem that you admit exists. Secondly: > a reality almost no one disputes when you get down to it: That white people have it better off in everyday social interactions Perhaps this is your experience, however there are many people who do deny this very fact. I have even met liberal open minded types who deny this because they have never experienced it first hand. It is a very hard thing to understand if you have had little interaction with minorities. I agree that many of these concepts such as "white privilege" and "cultural appropriation" have been exaggerated and blown out to the point where they are repulsive, inflammatory, and unrealistic. However, this is really the tumblrina/SJW version that you encounter on the internet or on posters and stickers at your community college. Having an educated milder discussion about the concept of white privilege may not sit well or be easily recieved by conservative waspy types, but it is necessary to introduce a person to an idea before they can recognize it. Most white people I know have a story about that one time they were with their mexican/black/native friends and a topic came up in conversation so casually and shocked the white person by how matter of factly these people deal with some small act of discrimination regularly. It does take more than a conversation to make a person realize another person's situation, but it is a starting point.### Human: I've always said that the progressive movement has very bad 'PR', as in they make more enemies than friends. Even the term 'White Privilege' is a hostile term because it assumes that: 1. You will be treated better for just having European features 2. The reason others fail is because of white people. So basically you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. And Leftists have been trying to clean up the message to attract people, but not a lot of people are buying it (ex: Hermaine from Harry Potter) But what you are forgetting is that its not just how the message is delivered, its also its content. I'm Mexican American, not white at all, and I don't believe in 'white privilege' You have these ideas have some serious holes, and that people will continue to disagree with you because of it (not because they are offended) First of all you need to explain how the very real problem of racial profiling is just the white persons fault. I was under the impression that this is everybody's fault because I know immigrant communities are very suspicious of black youth, so singling out white people is unfair. Also white privilege ignores the fact that white people are not even the most successful ethnic groups in America per capita: East Asians and Jewish people are very well off in this supposed "white supremicist" nation Also, immigrants like my parents risk their lives to make it in here. So this white privilege narrative doesn't make sense when you put into account how actual non-white immigrants feel about this nation. They don't feel anythings holding you back here, the white privilege stuff they probably don't even know about.### Assistant: I feel like you are mixing issues and you have a view based on the type of SJW stuff you see on reddit and tumblr. White Privilege does not mean blaming anything on any white person. White Privilege simply means that white people have more advantages than other races, this is something that you admitted. > East Asians and Jewish people are very well off in this supposed "white supremicist" nation Jewish is not a race, it is a religion and culture, there are black brown and white jews. While there are many financially successful asians in the US, there are still certain situations in which white people have an advantage. For example, a survey where I lived recently showed that employers are more likely to grant interviews to people with white sounding names, likely due to a subconsious fear that people with foreign names have poor english, this affects asians as much as anyone else. White privilege does not mean that white people have the ultimate advantage in every situation. It means that as you say: > That white people have it better off in everyday social interactions### Human: Jewish is a race tied to a religion; as Shinto is to Japanese, Shinto is the worship of Japanese ancestors, most Japanese are Shinto but you don't have to be Japanese to be Shinto. Most Jews have ancestors that can be traced back to the Levant, its a historical and biological fact. I don't know what people get out of denying this. Anyways how is looking at an Asian name and thinking they might not speak English merit the term 'white privilege'? Shocking as it is, people in Asia don't speak English and you'd have to forgive people to acknowledge that simple fact. It seems that most of these grievances are just hyperboles. Is it racist for me to think a Sami with the name: Janni Seurujarvi might not be as fluent of speaker of English than someone named Tom Jones? If I applied for a job in Malaysia with a Spanish surname, would it be racist for them to think I might not be fluent in Malaysian? Is that Malaysian privilege. 'White privilege' is such a loaded term, and all the examples I hear that justify it are just petty greivences.### Assistant: > 'White privilege' is such a loaded term, and all the examples I hear that justify it are just petty greivences. Two words: Drug War. White people in suburbs use just as much if not more illegal drugs, but the police target the urban poor black communities with the brunt of harsh narcotics enforcement - whether because of stereotypes, their inability to afford a lawyer, or a plain old desire to keep "those thugs" off our streets. It's far easier to lock up people who don't look like you. As a result, blacks in Baltimore don't trust their police force anymore, viewing cops as a bigger threat even, than the criminals they're out to get.### Human: Again I'm not denying that black folk continue to get a raw deal in this country; I'm not stupid I know this happens I'm hispanic so I know many people who have seen this shit first hand. Now we are talking about the term 'white privilege', I'm saying everyone has their hands dirty in this situation. You think cops are anymore ambivilent to a group of white youths as they are to a group of asian youths? The stereotype is that black people are always up to no good, but people have their stereotypes about asians: they see them as intelligent and docile; not much into crime. So would cops not inflitrating asian neighborhoods be 'asian privilege'? Also would the cops be just as suspicious to a old black female? Old mexican womam? No, its the black and hispanic male youths they are after. I say ditch this 'white privilege' term its an inaccurate term that hurts race relations more than it helps.### Assistant: >Now we are talking about the term 'white privilege', I'm saying everyone has their hands dirty in this situation. >You think cops are anymore ambivilent to a group of white youths as they are to a group of asian youths? The stereotype is that black people are always up to no good, but people have their stereotypes about asians: >they see them as intelligent and docile; not much into crime. So would cops not inflitrating asian neighborhoods be 'asian privilege'? The problem is you're taking "white privilege" and isolating it, when in reality, the term is simply "privilege" and does not exclude white people. You're absolutely correct. Asian people *do* have an advantage over black people in that instance. They also have many instances where they're discriminated in different ways (see: model minority, exactly as you pointed out). There's this strawman of privilege constructed by right-wingers in opposition to Tumblr that has very little to do with the actual term. The real term is not white-exclusive. I think a lot of people's problem with privilege is that they see it as a black:white (haha puns), oppressor:oppressed, when the reality is that it's multifaceted and overlapping. There's class privileges, racial privileges, religious and cultural privileges, etc etc. It doesn't mean, for example, that all white people are better off than all black people, or that only white people have advantages. It simply means that white people face a unique lifestyle and set of circumstances as compared to blacks and other minorities. So, for example, the class privilege of the black son of a multimillionaire and senator is going to have a substantially larger effect than the white privilege of a white person who grew up in a trailer park. That said, they're also going to have fundamentally different experiences. The white person being mocked and isolated from his peers as "trailer trash" is fundamentally different than the black person being pulled over and questioned substantially more than a white person. Is it better? No, not necessarily. Just different.### Human: If its not exclusive to whites...... then why is it called 'white' privilege? I'm a conservative who is against feminism, there is a lot of liberals who are against feminism. How is it a strawman to say 'white' privilege is about 'white people', when it is in the name? I mean, is the 'white' part just rhetorical? U can't honestly think we are pulling this out of nowhere when it literally is in the term. Calling a non-racially exclusive term: 'White privilege', now you know what I mean by bad PR

### Human: CMV: I believe that downvotes are about as useful as upvotes and should generally not be discouraged (for the most part).### Assistant: Your hypothetical assumes that people use their votes to upvote quality posts and downvote bad posts. But in fact many people upvote the posts with which they agree and downvote the posts with which they disagree. Therefore, if you want diverse opinions, it's important to discourage downvotes, or at least knee-jerk downvotes. Otherwise you will end up with lots of popular opinions and few unpopular ones. And that would be bad for this particular subreddit, which thrives on diverse opinions and healthy debate. As for downvoting trolls and other truly bad posts, I don't think anyone disagrees with that.### Human: >if you want diverse opinions, it's important to discourage downvotes, or at least knee-jerk downvotes. Doesn't the exact same logic apply in the exact same way to upvotes? Since people upvote posts that they agree with and don't upvote posts with which they disagree, the posts with which they disagree get buried. The primary difference between these two approaches is that if you exclude downvotes, the first-comer preference is magnified. The two alternatives are 1) Upvotes only and 2) Upvotes and downvotes. Both alternatives bury dissenting opinion at the bottom of the list, but alternative 1 has a stronger preference for early posts over more well liked posts.### Assistant: The difference being that too many downvotes will flag your post and hide it. IIRC you can also have a time limit set on your new comments for having too many downvotes to your username.### Human: That's not an argument against downvoting, though, it's an argument against the stigma attached to downvotes, which OP's point. If downvotes were treated as a normal, acceptable way to regulate posts, highly downvoted posts wouldn't (or shouldn't) be hidden.### Assistant: That's like saying humans don't need to go to war. In theory they don't, but we're not in magical imagination land where just because something sounds good makes it correct or guarantees it will happen. Humans will always have wars. People will always use downvotes incorrectly.### Human: I think you're misunderstanding the train of thought. For one, people use *votes* incorrectly which you didn't really address. But if we take it a step further, it's like saying "humans don't need to go to war automatically every time certain conditions are met," because we're talking about comments getting hidden once they fall below a threshold.

### Human: CMV: Citizens United was a good ruling, and opponents of it are fundamentally arguing that Americans can't be trusted with democracy.### Assistant: I'm not going to take a legal or philosophical approach to this. Let's take a psychological approach. >But that argument is, fundamentally, about the belief that if the American people are exposed to the same viewpoint too much they will be forced to agree with it. And an argument for limiting the First Amendment based on Americans being lazy or stupid should not hold water. Unfortunately, research points to this absolutely being the case. ['The illusion of truth'](http://methexp.uni-koeln.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Dech%C3%AAne-Stahl-Hansen-W%C3%A4nke-2010.pdf) is a psychological concept which states that repeated exposure to information, regardless of whether that information is true or false, will result in a higher probability of that information being accepted as truth. You are not a purely rational being, nor are any of your peers. You operate using certain heuristics--unconscious shortcuts that allow you to easily and quickly make judgments in order to conserve your mental processing ability. It's not a matter of being lazy or stupid; it's a matter of simply having a human brain.### Human: A quick addition to this: The argument that political ads don't change opinions is absurd on the face of it. If they didn't change opinions, why would super PACs spend millions on them in the first place? Limits on free speech shouldn't be allowed, but ads are not the same as speech. We very sensibly put limits on ads.### Assistant: What's the point of free speech if you can ban it when it gets too effective?### Human: Because you're saying those who have money have a louder voice. Everyone's should be equal. If it were based off of actual platforms and issues. Someone with and (R) or (D) at the end of their name wouldn't keep making it into office if it was based solely on that.### Assistant: > Everyone's should be equal. Except that America was not actually founded under that principle. That's why it's a republic and not a simple democracy. The founders were specifically worried about the "tyranny of the masses" which is why they put stuff like the Electoral College in place. Unfortunately the EC doesn't really perform its intended function anymore. You can view the _Citizen's_ decision as replacing the republican function of the EC with the influence of the wealthy.### Human: The principle does still apply, people with money aren't separated from the mob rule either. And if you want to talk about what the founders had in mine, I'm sure it wasn't whoever has the most airtime and mud slings the other more wins. And the EC based primarily on whose more popular.### Assistant: Wow, you can really Engrish. >people with money aren't separated from the mob rule either They're as separated from the mob as Electors are. Probably more so, actually, since Electors are essentially just well-connected politicos. At least the rich have generally had to do something vaguely useful at some point in their life. They key feature that they both share is that they're essentially elitist institutions designed to curb the forces of populism. They're effectively indistinguishable in that regard.### Human: But they shouldn't be, and being a successful businessman shouldn't mean you have greater influence on policy.### Assistant: WTF, why not? Smart people should have more say than stupid people.### Human: I didn't say smart people, i said being a good businessman. If you're a fortune 500 company you have all the power and money in the world to lobby and they obviously never do anything to help anyone besides themselves. If it were actually up to smart people, why don't we see scientists or other positions having more say. We don't see that because you have to pay to win.

### Human: I believe it's naive to think that climate change can be prevented, CMV.### Assistant: Even if we cannot prevent climate change, is it not in our best interests to mitigate the effects? Humans are best suited for environments without extreme weather conditions, and seeing that man made climate change is producing these undesirable conditions, by all reasoning we should cease these actions. Even if we cannot prevent naturally occurring climate spikes, anthropogenic change exaggerates an already bad situation, therefore it is in humanity's best interest to limit C02 emissions so we can weather the naturally occurring change without having to also deal with the man-made effects as well.### Human: Thanks for your reply. So if I understand you correctly, we should limit our impact to *minimise* the intensity of climate change. I can accept this point... But it raises another issue. In order to seriously reduce just our greenhouse CO2 emissions, we would have to clamp down on using fossil fuels. In order to clamp down on greenhouse methane, we'd have to basically end the dairy industry. Wouldn't our economy grind to a halt and result in a terrible great depression? Is there really a mature alternative to fossil fuels that we could switch to? Won't switching our trillion-dollar oil economies to alternatives take a lot of time and massive austerity measures? I can't imagine any government pushing this through in a hurry, but I can imagine venomous opposition from industry. With a growing world population and an industrialising China and India, I can't actually see how it's possible to do more than a token change to our impact. Do you?### Assistant: > Won't switching our trillion-dollar oil economies to alternatives take a lot of time and massive austerity measures? We could start by switching the subsidies the government gives to the oil industry to other sources of energy. If we really put substantial resources into researching solar power and batteries, solar panels would become much more affordable and could actually be a better source of energy for much of the world.### Human: [To be fair, the Government does not really subsidize the oil industry any more than it subsidizes any other corporate endeavour.](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/7/debunking-the-big-oil-subsidy-myth/) While oil companies enjoy some specific tax breaks, namely ['Intangible Drilling Costs (IDC)'](http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/04/12/myths-and-facts-about-oil-and-gasoline/184527#taxes), this is not a direct subsidy, but an indirect one which aids in the development of new domestic wells. Essentially, it allows you to write off your labor costs in drilling a new production well... not much different from other corporate write-offs for labor costs. Green energy subsidies take the form of both direct and indirect ones, much more so than those going to oil companies. Though, ironically, oil companies benefit from these as well because they also do work in the field of alternative energy and green industry. TL;DR -Subsidies are a mixed bag... it would be better if they were all removed.### Assistant: Whether you call it a subsidy or a deduction is trivial. You could easily equate the search for new wells with researching new types of solar panels. > Green energy subsidies take the form of both direct and indirect ones, much more so than those going to oil companies. I find that hard to believe, unless you are counting the number of ways they get subsidies as opposed to the dollar value of subsidies/deductions. Do you have a source for that claim? > Though, ironically, oil companies benefit from these as well because they also do work in the field of alternative energy and green industry I'm not anti-oil as much as I am pro-clean-energy. I'm happy to see financial incentives for the oil giants to work with alternative energies.### Human: > I find that hard to believe, unless you are counting the number of ways they get subsidies as opposed to the dollar value of subsidies/deductions. Do you have a source for that claim? I'm counting it as "available" subsidies. Not by how much they get. Remember, the oil industry is far larger than the green industry, so even though they may get less subsidies overall, they will probably get a larger dollar value. It's simply the economy of scale. Also, it's unfair to make claims for an entire 'industry' like the oil one, because while it has it's EXXONs and Shells, it also has smaller mom and pop businesses too. > I'm not anti-oil as much as I am pro-clean-energy. I'm happy to see financial incentives for the oil giants to work with alternative energies. Right. But then this goes back to "oil companies getting subsidies". Subsidies in general are messy... there are so many ways to give companies breaks and loopholes that the actual amounts they receive are unquantifiable. I also don't like playing "favorites" in any sense with the taxpayer's dollars. I firmly believe that clean energy is a viable investment on its own without the need for subsidies, especially as the supply for oil becomes increasingly competitive in a global market.### Assistant: > they will probably get a larger dollar value That is my point. If we spent that many dollars on improving other forms of energy, they would become much more economical. > it's unfair to make claims for an entire 'industry' like the oil one, because while it has it's EXXONs and Shells, it also has smaller mom and pop businesses too. That is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether pollution comes from a big company or lots of small companies. > Subsidies in general are messy... there are so many ways to give companies breaks and loopholes that the actual amounts they receive are unquantifiable. I also don't like playing "favorites" in any sense with the taxpayer's dollars. Again, that is a point in favor of cutting subsidies and instead having the government fund research into cleaner energy. > I firmly believe that clean energy is a viable investment on its own without the need for subsidies, especially as the supply for oil becomes increasingly competitive in a global market. That's great, but we are talking about whether we can do things to reduce climate change, and it seems pretty clear that if the government invested more in clean energy, clean energy would become more prominent and would reduce the amount of pollution humans produce.### Human: > That is my point. If we spent that many dollars on improving other forms of energy, they would become much more economical. I disagree. Throwing a trillion dollars into Solar Power, for example, might make solar panels cheaper to the average consumer, but it would also cost the taxpayer quite a bit of money as well in the form on increased taxes or increased inflation. You don't necessarily "lower" the cost of producing the thing at all. Which is a huge problem with say... solar power. Providing money to research is a decidedly more worthwhile investment, but research is comparatively cheap compared to direct subsidies on the sale of a product. Also, what if we take your advice, give solar industries $1T to install current generation solar panels everywhere... but then, 5 years from now, new panels come out that are 50% more efficient and 50% more cost effective. Now you're gonna have to spend all that money all over again to upgrade everything. The free market handles things better than subsidies or government investment ever can. > That is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether pollution comes from a big company or lots of small companies. Solar companies make pollution too. You think those rare-earth elements they need come out of thin air? Furthermore, all industry benefits indirectly from the lower cost of oil. If the cost of shipping rare-earths from Africa goes up because the cost of oil went up, then the cost of your solar panels has gone up too. Or if the cost of gas has gone up, and the employees of your solar factory need to commute to get there, then you need to pay them more so they can account for the uptick in the cost of living. If you're already giving subsidies to everyone, there is no real benefit to reducing it for one group over others. > Again, that is a point in favor of cutting subsidies and instead having the government fund research into cleaner energy. Listen, you can only have it two ways: you can have a world where everyone is subsidized in some way, shape, or form. Or you can have a world where no one benefits. There is no realistic "in-between" that is politically viable. Especially in the United States. > That's great, but we are talking about whether we can do things to reduce climate change, and it seems pretty clear that if the government invested more in clean energy, clean energy would become more prominent and would reduce the amount of pollution humans produce. What can we do to reduce climate change? Well, not much to be honest that wouldn't involve killing a few billion people off. So, the logic goes like this: before oil was discovered, the human population on earth was pretty stable living off of coal powered industry (steam). The population on earth was like 1~2 billion people, especially in the 1800s when the Americas were being colonized (and thus increased the human population). The carrying capacity of Earth is about [4 Billion people](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity) without oil. We're currently at what? 7 Billion? Every single human after that 4 billion mark is here because of the energy and chemistry provided by our development of oil resources. From fuel for vehicles, to fertilizer, to medicine, etc. Right now, our entire infrastructure, our economy, everything is dependent upon our global access to oil. Hell, our very ability to debate this topic on Reddit is due to oil. Oil is a good friend of ours. Without it, we'd basically be living like steampunk Amish people. But there is a bright side to this: *If we keep going the way we're going, the problems of population growth, oil consumption, and pollution will naturally solve themselves*. Why? Because of the following logic: If we assume oil is, in fact, a finite resource, then eventually the cost of that supply will continue to grow along with our demand for it (supply and demand). As more humans are born and live on earth, they will demand resources that are partially subsidized by oil resources (food, medicine, transport, work). As this population grows, it will drive the cost of these resources up to a point where they are no longer abundant enough to be economically viable. This means that food, medicine, transport, jobs begin to become scarce. People cannot afford to feed themselves, and they either make a rational choice to avoid having children (already happening in developed nations) or to starve (as in undeveloped nations). The same is true with medicine and access to transport. Eventually, the human population will plateau, and drop until it reaches equilibrium. This process will be helped along with things like war (competition for resources), plague (lack of access to medicine), or starvation (economic collapse). Climate change will play a crucial role here, it will do two things: force people to migrate from regions which cannot sustain human life to those that can, causing war, and it will reduce the available land for food growth. Following a few cycles of this, the human population would continue to drop until it hits the equilibrium needed for a sustainable carrying capacity. Hopefully by then, we will have figured shit out to keep on keepin' on.### Assistant: > The free market handles things better than subsidies or government investment ever can. No, it doesn't. Again, we aren't talking about what is cheapest or most efficient, we are talking about whether we can slow or prevent climate change. The free market can't handle that because the cost of pollution is not paid for by the people who produce it. > Also, what if we take your advice, give solar industries $1T to install current generation solar panels everywhere... but then, 5 years from now, new panels come out that are 50% more efficient and 50% more cost effective. Now you're gonna have to spend all that money all over again to upgrade everything. That's right. But if we *don't* do that, while the free market is taking its time waiting for university research to make new technologies, the current energy technologies will be giving thousands of extra people asthma and cancer. > Listen, you can only have it two ways: you can have a world where everyone is subsidized in some way, shape, or form. Or you can have a world where no one benefits. There is no realistic "in-between" that is politically viable. Especially in the United States. I'm not sure what you mean here, because we *do* live in the "in-between" that you seem to say isn't possible. The government uses subsidies to encourage the free-market to focus on certain things. The "in-between" that I have been advocating is that we stop directly subsidizing oil. Yes, that will make costs go up in other sectors, but that will create incentives people to develop cheaper alternatives and cut consumption. > Right now, our entire infrastructure, our economy, everything is dependent upon our global access to oil. Hell, our very ability to debate this topic on Reddit is due to oil. That is silly. Yes, we live off oil now, as we lived off burning wood and coal before that. It is time for us to move on. In the short term it will be expensive, but in the long term it is necessary. > What can we do to reduce climate change? Well, not much to be honest that wouldn't involve killing a few billion people off. That statement has been widely accepted as being false by scientists, so if that is what you believe, I'm afraid our discussion is done. Big picture: you seem to be advocating letting the free market and mass starvation solve this problem. It could do that, but that is an unnecessarily cruel and inhumane approach, given that as a species, we have developed governments to allow us as people to deal with such big problems. The free market can do things, but it isn't some magical force that we can't tinker with for the good of our country or our species.### Human: > No, it doesn't. Again, we aren't talking about what is cheapest or most efficient, we are talking about whether we can slow or prevent climate change. The free market can't handle that because the cost of pollution is not paid for by the people who produce it. Yes, it does. The free market is dependent upon the efficient allocation of resources. If solar energy costs more than fossil fuel energy, then it is not an efficient allocation of resources until fossil fuel costs increase. > That's right. But if we don't do that, while the free market is taking its time waiting for university research to make new technologies, the current energy technologies will be giving thousands of extra people asthma and cancer. That's acceptable as long as it results in the efficient application of a new technology. The free market can handle this on its own. > I'm not sure what you mean here, because we do live in the "in-between" that you seem to say isn't possible. The government uses subsidies to encourage the free-market to focus on certain things. The "in-between" that I have been advocating is that we stop directly subsidizing oil. Yes, that will make costs go up in other sectors, but that will create incentives people to develop cheaper alternatives and cut consumption. As I've mentioned before, we're not *directly* subsidizing oil. Only *indirectly* through the use of itemizations for specific labor costs. > That is silly. Yes, we live off oil now, as we lived off burning wood and coal before that. It is time for us to move on. In the short term it will be expensive, but in the long term it is necessary. Expensive isn't only a monetary measure, we're talking about lives here too. To do what you ask would involve removing a significant portion of the human population to accomplish. > That statement has been widely accepted as being false by scientists, so if that is what you believe, I'm afraid our discussion is done. It's true if you intend to shock the system in a way that you wish to do. Most scientists agree that we can keep things going, and that population issues will resolve themselves on their own. > Big picture: you seem to be advocating letting the free market and mass starvation solve this problem. It could do that, but that is an unnecessarily cruel and inhumane approach, given that as a species, we have developed governments to allow us as people to deal with such big problems. The free market can do things, but it isn't some magical force that we can't tinker with for the good of our country or our species. You're advocating the same thing by driving up the cost of oil in order to artificially drive down the cost of alternative energy sources that are not nearly as efficient as oil (or nuclear). By removing all oil subsidies, you'll drive up the cost of well development and production, which will drive up the costs of oil overall. These changes would also be accompanied by speculation in the markets to ensure businesses can hedge their risks with respect to the potential for future economic growth. In the meantime, access to resources like food and housing would increase significantly dropping the quality of life. More importantly is this: Climate Change is a global issue, right? While the US can enact specific changes to itself and a few other willing nations, what are we to do about those countries which refuse to comply? Do we force them to comply? Because doing so may involve killing and bombing them to do it.### Assistant: > Yes, it does. The free market is dependent upon the efficient allocation of resources. If solar energy costs more than fossil fuel energy, then it is not an efficient allocation of resources until fossil fuel costs increase. You're wrong about this because you are only considering the short-term cost of fossil fuel and not factoring in the tremendous long-term health and economic costs of pollution and climate change. > Most scientists agree that we can keep things going, and that population issues will resolve themselves on their own Yes, at the cost of millions of lives and many trillions in economic damage. > You're advocating the same thing by driving up the cost of oil in order to artificially drive down the cost of alternative energy sources that are not nearly as efficient as oil (or nuclear). Again, that is only true if you ignore the long-term hidden costs of burning fossil fuels. > In the meantime, access to resources like food and housing would increase significantly dropping the quality of life. Yes. I am advocating that we stop asking our children to pay for the health and economic costs we are inflicting by polluting so we can get cheap goods. > More importantly is this: Climate Change is a global issue, right? While the US can enact specific changes to itself and a few other willing nations, what are we to do about those countries which refuse to comply? Do we force them to comply? Because doing so may involve killing and bombing them to do it. I am unconvinced by your hyperbolic approach. I'll give you one example of something governments are doing: they are investing in more efficient cooking stoves that they give to 3rd world countries. It costs a bit of money, but the result is that the countries get safer, cleaner energy, they drastically reduce deforestation, and they spend less time gathering wood and more time educating women and children. Another example: we can insist that anyone who wants to import goods to developed nations needs to have environmentally-decent factories.### Human: > You're wrong about this because you are only considering the short-term cost of fossil fuel and not factoring in the tremendous long-term health and economic costs of pollution and climate change. Unfortunately, this goes back the the previous point: you either get cheap energy and large populations, or you go to more expensive energy and smaller populations. How you get to point B from A is really a matter of semantics. > Yes, at the cost of millions of lives and many trillions in economic damage. This either happens through climate change, or it happens through war and starvation. The end result is still the same, just one is forced through policy while the other will happen naturally. > Again, that is only true if you ignore the long-term hidden costs of burning fossil fuels. I have not at all. I am very well aware of those costs. But then again, I'm also aware of the benefits from those costs that we have attained thus far. > Yes. I am advocating that we stop asking our children to pay for the health and economic costs we are inflicting by polluting so we can get cheap goods. Our kids will either pay the piper for what we buy today, or they will pay the piper when they grow up and find the real costs of those cheap goods. I'm not even talking HDTVs either, but the cost of food between now and then. Let's face it, cheap fuel drives our economy... the fact that fuel isn't so cheap anymore is a major reason why we haven't bounced back from the crap-out of 2008. > I am unconvinced by your hyperbolic approach. I'll give you one example of something governments are doing: they are investing in more efficient cooking stoves that they give to 3rd world countries. It costs a bit of money, but the result is that the countries get safer, cleaner energy, they drastically reduce deforestation, and they spend less time gathering wood and more time educating women and children. Another example: we can insist that anyone who wants to import goods to developed nations needs to have environmentally-decent factories. That's great. Especially since there is an emerging market for these things. [Governments aren't even doing this, plenty of private corporations beat them to it... ](http://www.biolitestove.com/campstove/camp-overview/features/)

### Human: CMV: Lando Calrissian was right to betray Han Solo### Assistant: I don't agree that the narrative asks us to dislike Lando, considering it expects us to forgive him shortly after.### Human: I disagree, it still feels like we're supposed to take him as the traitor by the time they break out of imperial custody, considering how Chewie nearly breaks his neck and Leia isn't exactly quick to stop him. By the end of the movie, he's in the cockpit of the *Falcon* promising to find Han and "fix his mistake". It feels like the story wants us to be still kinda mad at him but glad that he's trying to track down Han after...abandoning his city.### Assistant: How do the characters being mad at him mean the *story* wants us to see him as a traitor? How would you have prefered the movie dealt with Lando's betrayal? Show Leia saying, "oh cool, you may have just condemned the man I love to death; no biggie?" The fact that they are able to forgive and accept him so quickly shows that even they are able to see that Darth Vader forced his hand. The movie also makes him sympathetic by showing how he reacts when Vader keeps "altering the deal."### Human: I see your point actually, the characters being royally pissed off doesn't necessarily mean the story wants us to feel the same. Even so, it's not quite what this CMV is about. Interesting point though.### Assistant: It is related to your cmv. It's the whole premise of it If you think that people are raucously disagreeing and shaking their fists at lando for the betrayal then you're wrong. The story shows us that we should be fine with him and I think that's how people feel. To argue otherwise would be to argue that the plot is wrong and they shouldn't have forgiven him### Human: >If you think that people are raucously disagreeing and shaking their fists at lando for the betrayal then you're wrong. I've been wrong before, guess it wasn't really worth a CMV if most people agree already.### Assistant: > guess it wasn't really worth a CMV if most people agree already. A CMV is to change your view, not to try to change others' views. The expected thing on this sub is that if someone changes your view, you award a delta. It looks like DHCKris deserves a delate here.### Human: You're right, this turned out to be a more nuanced discussion than I expected, and it turns out my interpretation of the scene and how I thought people perceived it were both flawed.

### Human: I don't think piracy is bad. CMV### Assistant: Because he isn't taking something tangible doesn't mean he isn't taking something that belongs to someone else. Intellectual property has value, and it has an ownership, and that owner should have the full to do with it what they want. Is it ok the NSA takes people's information? They're not taking anything physical from them, so they're not really losing anything by them operating. Maybe sometimes they do tap in through backdoors in software that we were trying to keep private(keygens), but c'mon, we have so much public information on social media(free alternatives) that they would get our information regardless. But hey, they can actually help. They can just let other government agents(friends) know if anything is interesting about this person(product). Intellectual property, even though it cannot be felt with the hands, has a value, and a value people hold closely and deeply. Taking other people's stuff, REGARDLESS of what happens to them, is STILL taking other people's stuff!### Human: It's not taking other people's stuff, the only disadvantage for the creator is they don't get paid for it. It makes no difference to them if one person has a copy of their song or if a million people have copies, but getting paid for selling a million copies would matter. What they are doing is imposing restrictions on something they can lay a claim to, for monetary gain down the line. It may not even be the creator who imposes restrictions. Record companies and families of artists who've died are examples of people using this system to profit from someone else's work. Now the problem with all of this is when you say value, you actually just mean monetary value, you don't seem to be thinking about other types of value. The problem is we live in a society where money occupies a position of greater value than sharing cultural information, knowledge and experiences. The priorities are all wrong, so piracy is an act of rebellion against this. The overall benefit to the human race from cultural + artistic work being freely available is vastly greater than someone getting monetary benefit from restricting it. Your NSA analogy is inappropriate, because that's a privacy and power of authority issue. Nothing to do with money, and you can't honestly argue that artists want their songs to remain completely private...### Assistant: >It makes no difference to them if one person has a copy of their song or if a million people have copies, but getting paid for selling a million copies would matter. Yes, because it cost them money to make it. They don't get a salary, they get what they sell. If pirating is legal, and they need to invest several hundred grand to make their album, how do you suggest they do it?### Human: > If pirating is legal, and they need to invest several hundred grand to make their album, how do you suggest they do it? 1. Sell the album to people who still want to pay for it. Physical copy preferred, looks good on the shelves of fans. 2. Hold concerts. 3. Sell merchandise, 4. Charge for commercial appearances, licenses to commercial products such as radio or movies. 5. Kickstarter### Assistant: 1. The number of fans who would buy it isn't feasible to make a living/cover recording costs. 2. They don't need to record their album to hold concerts. 3. They don't need to record their album to sell t-shirts. 4. Licensing only works if the copyright has a strong value. 5. Prepay...because we all want to wait 6months-year+ for anything we buy.### Human: 1: No, but it's not insignificant next to the many sources that can be used right next to the rest. Right now, many artists are already acting like that. The copyright that is supposed to make veryone pay doesn't work, so they rely on fans buying out of moral reasons, and then focus on the other 4 points and many other ideas. 2 & 3: No, but being more popular increases their ticket & merch sales, and recording an album is a good way to be more popular. Artists don't need to charge a paycheck for every time they lift their finger, just do what artists do to gain a fandom first, and then you can figure out many creative ways to separate them from their money. 4: Licensing works if copyright law allows for it. The current problem with copyright, is that the current ban on file-sharing is both too excessive, and unenforceable. The same is not true for licensing. Sueing a corporation because they are commercially using a song of yours, is easier and more ffective that going after the general public and the Internet. Easy enough, that corporations don't really break copyright too eecessively in the first place. 5: Has it's own benefits and disadvantages, time is one of the latter, at least it gives a sense of financial certainity to creators, relieves them of risk.

### Human: CMV: We’re waiting until our son is six before sending him to kindergarten, even though at 4.5 he’s a fluent reader and can do basic math### Assistant: I'll say this. I generally agree. As someone who went through the opposite (may birthday, was the youngest in my class), it was tough at times. That being said, the biggest problem is going to be keeping them challenged. I saw a lot of those older kids end up going "bad" because they weren't challenged enough for their level.### Human: >That being said, the biggest problem is going to be keeping them challenged. I saw a lot of those older kids end up going "bad" because they weren't challenged enough for their level. My problem in school was the exact opposite. I was similar to OP's son: started kindergarten a few months shy of my 5th birthday, was advanced academically, but behind socially. And it caused a lot of issues. #1 issue being: I was smart and could finish my work quickly, but I didn't have the impulse control to behave and occupy myself while my classmates finished their work.### Assistant: > 1 issue being: I was smart and could finish my work quickly, but I didn't have the impulse control to behave and occupy myself while my classmates finished their work. That's a strong element of the 'second' motivation (not that it's all that far behind the first). He'll be that much better equipped to comport himself with teacher expectations, especially important if he ends up prone to boredom and things associated with it.### Human: I think you're making the right choice, for sure. You know your son better than anyone else. Also to consider, if he starts school younger he'll also: still be 15 when his friends are 16 and driving, still be 17 when his friends are 18 and going to clubs, (likely) still be 20 when his friends are 21 and drinking legally. None of that SEEMS like too huge of a deal...but when you're the younger one being left out, it sucks. I remember feeling bad when my friends went to the school's blood drive together and I couldn't because I wasn't old enough yet. Being the odd man out is rough in high school, especially when it's something that could have been avoided.### Assistant: Are you kidding? Turning 18 in college was awesome. And by the time you turn 21, everyone else is also 21 so they can all go celebrate with you instead of having to leave half your friends behind. A++, do recommend. Not everyone gets a car when they're 16. I don't think I ever suffered socially for being younger.### Human: Currently studying in the UK. Uni first year and currently 17. 99.9% of other first years are either 18-19. Everybody goes to clubs/bars on the weekends. Clubs/bars are really strict around here. So I just stay in my room and can't socialize. Did well in high school. Was socially awkward and viewed as immature. Don't have much of a social life, neither then nor now. Got into trouble since apparently I should act ~1.5 years older than I am since every teacher assumes I'm older than I actually am. This is just a personal experience and I understand that experiences vary. One thing - you said by the time you turn 21, everyone else is also 21 and they can all celebrate with you. Can I not deduce when everyone else turned 21, you weren't 21 and were left out of a ton of parties?### Assistant: I was left out of bar crawls, which I didn't care about. But I was rarely the only one left out as there were other people under 21 at all but the second-to-last birthday in our group. There are way more options than just "go out to bar" or "stay in dorm room." Many of them are even more fun and rewarding than going to bars.

### Human: CMV: League of Legends has the most boring and the least competitive circuit from all major eSport titles### Assistant: I don't see how you can say more tournaments and competitions equals more important competitions what I love about League in comparison is that you have a series of events that are regionally determined all leading up to one grand event with the entire world. I like that. I like seeing the regions work to better themselves and seeing how their different metas and strategies will interact when they finally meet at world's. Frankly, having constant international tournaments gets boring for me because you see one meta develop with very little creativity happening in different places.### Human: >Frankly, having constant international tournaments gets boring for me because you see one meta develop with very little creativity happening in different places. This wasnt the case in S2, when the circuit was way more international and I dont see why this would be the case if the circuit would change. And more tournament means more BoX series that matter. Who cares more about a Bo1 or Bo2 in the regular season more than about a playoffs Bo5?### Assistant: That is exactly why I got bored with S2. Ya the meta changed, but in the same way for the best players everywhere.### Human: What? There wasnt really that much of a clear meta in S2. Many teams played their own style and clashed. TSM, M5, CLG.EU, Azubu Blaze and Frost, WE, TPA all played a very distinct style and prioritised different picks. I would say that the meta now, is way more uniform than it was back in the day.### Assistant: Just a note, rewatch games from season 2. You'll notice that pros then are actually not that great at the game compared to now. And their macro strategies are abysmal. Usually just deathball teamfights. The meta was less rigid for a few reasons. People weren't min-maxing the most efficient strategies yet, and there were still a bunch of sleeper OP champions. From Froggen playing Anivia just because he was good at her and liked the champ, to Regi playing AP Sion mid because Sion was originally a tank and people didn't realize it could be a thing. Nowadays that type of min-max happens extremely fast. With analysts, coaches, tons of pros, aspiring pros, and the sheer amount of players around the world playing the process has been condensed to a matter of weeks to figure out meta shifts.### Human: I agree, but I dont see how this tackles my view in any way.### Assistant: It doesn't directly change your view, which is why I didn't comment on the thread itself and merely replied to a comment of yours. It's just something to keep in mind. You were saying that the meta in season 2 was a lot less rigid even though it was a more international affair. I'm saying it was a lot less rigid more due to people not knowing how the game worked yet and a lack of infrastructure.

### Human: I believe that if God was as humble and caring as most Christians would say, he wouldn't wish for so much worship. CMV### Assistant: Christian here. This is a great question. Christians answer it differently, but I subscribe to the "Christian Hedonist" view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_hedonism I'm not sure if you are a Christian or not, but if not, just engage in a thought experiment for a moment. Imagine that there is a God who is absolutely and infinitely perfect in all of his attributes. Perfect in love, justice, intelligence, creativity, the wellspring of joy, beautiful, good, kind, compassionate. Such a being would be inherently worthy of worship and for him to *not* zealously pursue his own worship would be to lie about his true nature. It would be to bear a false witness about his true character. The other side of this is to say that beauty is most beautiful when enjoyed. A being of perfect and infinite goodness, beauty, and love would a supreme source of joy to all who beheld him. Those who become enamored with someone are filled with joy when they praise them. Praise itself is the culmination of enjoying a thing. People praise their favorite video games, their favorite artists, their favorite performers, their favorite player and sport. No one has to ask them to do it. God pursues his own worship, not just because he is worthy of it, but because those who experience it are deeply satisfied. The loving thing to do when you are a wellspring of joy is to put yourself forward to be enjoyed. The developers of the greatest RPG known to man, Baldur's Gate II Shadows of Amn + Throne of Bhaal expansion pack, could have developed the game and had a perfect RPG and never released it to the public. But doing so would be stupid. Sure they wanted to make money but they wanted people to be enthralled by the game. Likewise, when a lover rings the doorbell of his partner with a bouquet of flowers, she might answer, "Oh I love them! Why did you do this?" He does not respond, "It was my duty." He responds, "I'm enthralled by your beauty. I love every minute I spend with you." She does not respond, "What a selfish twat! This guy only cares about himself! I don't exist to be your source of pleasure." She responds, "Oh honey, I love you!" So it is with God. If God truly exists and is truly infinitely good and perfect in his attributes, the only fitting response is to enjoy him and worship him, and for God to pursue worship is not vain, but compassionate.### Human: I feel like the god you describe is pretty insecure if he needs to be repeatedly reassured that he's so amazing.### Assistant: An interesting article on this point: http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/c--s--lewiss-most-important-discovery### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: >Sorry, I don't mean any disrespect, but the fact that it takes SO much text to try to explain this dilemma is very demonstrative of how hard this argument is to defend. It's not disrespectful, I just think it's arbitrary to expect for the divine to act in ways that are entirely intuitive to humans. I think that it would actually be a bit too suspicious if everything regarding the divine fit together with minimal need for engagement. The Bible doesn't present itself as a bulleted list of what's expected of man, and God doesn't maintain an FAQ. I mean, I've written what, a handful of pages? How many subjects have you studied that didn't go into at least this much depth?

### Human: CMV: As a trans person I believe that current trans activism has completely lost the plot. They will lose much of the public debate they choose to engage in due to their overly radical agenda.### Assistant: I think my only point would be to say I don't believe the more SJW style activism subculture(who it sounds like you take issue with) are actually trans activists. They just use trans people as a card to be played, another oppressed demographic they can shame people for being offensive to. They are playing a different game entirely, it's not that they're going about helping trans people the wrong way, it's that it's not what they really care about. They want to bring identity into the postmodern realm, where people define themselves to other people rather than people having labels for them. This is why pronoun debate is such a big deal to them. People can be labeled unfairly of course, but they've taken this to an extreme in the other direction where they want people to be able to choose what other people label them and punish them if they don't obey. This is unfeasible and foolish, and I agree they're dragging groups they're associated with down with them - I see more and more trans people taking issue with it and that's a good sign though.### Human: Of course that's what they're doing. All they care about is votes at the political level, and how many votes do you really expect to get from .01% of the population. Obviously they don't really care abouts trans individuals as a lot of their policies regarding them actually turn out to be harmful, like explained in the OP.### Assistant: You are really misreading this post. This is not what most political people are advocating for, which is more along the lines of some basic rights. Only the "SJW" "Tumblr" people are trying to drag identity toward this postmodern place. People shaming others for pronoun misuse and pronouns which begin with X aren't lawmakers, they're people on the internet.### Human: I'm not talking about politicians. I was referring to the activists that the guy above was also talking about. You can go ahead and believe they only exist on tumblr, but my experiences have led me to believe otherwise.### Assistant: But the political level is where it actually matters. SJWs aren't actively influencing legislation.

### Human: I think 99% of people (including myself) are not qualified to vote or even debate politics. CMV### Assistant: THe system wasn't set up so that people would enact complicated legislation themselves, it was set up so that we'd elect representatives to send to the houses of the Legislature, and so that we'd elect a president. Doing it this way allowed us to choose candidates who best reflected our own personal ideologies, not necessarily the specific legislation a representative has stood for. Think of how long and complicated most bills are today. Even simple legislation that make small changes to tax code are hundreds of pages long. The amount of law and tax background you have to have in order to even understand most of these proposed bills is staggering. Even a law degree doesn't prepare you for the intricacies of Tax Code. But we don't elect public officials based on minute differences in their views, we elect based on what larger ideals they have. All the vetting a candidate goes through is done by the media (and trust me, they dig as much as they can on every candidate they get their hands on). Parties will judge whether or not the candidate has the same ideals as them based on if they get endorsed or nominated. Yes, we vote down the party line. Some of us actually understand what that line seperates, but a lot of us don't. But that party line changes with each generation. It isn't robots being elected to office, and siting as chairs on the DNC or RNC. They are, or will be, our peers. Republics come with a lot of trust. You have to trust that a candidate has been vetted. A candidate has to trust that their party will support them. A party has to trust that the candidate will vote with them. A nation has to trust in its president and its representatives, and they have to trust their people. Relying on trust doesn't make us weak, as some would claim. Its easy to make the case that someone could, with no problem at all, betray all of these trusts that have been set up, but the system is slow, and thats what makes it strong. All of these debates rage on in the house and senate, and there will always be tensions between them, the Executive and the Judicial. But the amount of time it takes to enact real, lasting change is slightly more than a term No one president, representative, or justice can fuck this country up. And its more than just these checks and balances, its because of the trust between government and people. And if the trust is broken, there is an implicit understanding; the People have the Power.### Human: And yet, the system can be completely dominated by outside influences with enough cash and with the help of lobbies and super PACs. In addition, vast swaths of voters' opinions can be swayed by these same outside influences (corporations, banks, other interest groups) and their propaganda through the same 'neutral' media agencies you attest are leveling the playing field and allowing people to be more informed. Misinformed is more like it. I think OP's question could be clarified/reinterpreted: how can a voter can be expected to take part in the traditional american democracy when he/she is forced to educate him/herself about candidates and issues, since he/she is being bombarded by misinformation and propaganda backed by powerful interest groups?### Assistant: Don't just accept information at face value, no matter where it comes from. See an ad on TV "paid for by [such and such mushy freedom-loving organization]"? Find out who is involved with that org (although, non-disclosure donations are definitely making that harder nowadays). Read RealClearPolitics.com, which aggregates articles and viewpoints from across the spectrum (although the site itself is somewhat center-right, but it doesn't discriminate on what it links to). And I know it's incredibly vapid and cheesy to say this, but watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Those two guys are smarter and better-informed than 98% of the rest of the punditocracy, and they will open your eyes to issues you had no idea were even "a thing". Lastly, skip the cable news. They're interested in one thing: ratings. Journalism is not about how popular your work is, but rather how honest and genuine the information you're providing is. PBS Nightly News is the end-all, be-all for straight information news, as far as I'm concerned.### Human: Stewart and Colbert are honestly the main source for my news. Since basically no one takes them seriously as a news outlet (not to say that they should be taken seriously, that's a whole other debate), there is no incentive for bias or twisting. They just mock real events.### Assistant: What are you talking about, I think that they are both quite funny but around election time they turn into an hour long commercial for the democratic party. I voted for Obama, but still they get annoying.

### Human: CMV: Past political hyperbole by Democrats is now coming back to haunt them because legitimate criticisms of Trump just sound like the same old tire rhetoric.### Assistant: The withdraw of Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court was due to bi-partisan opposition. While many liberals were upset at her close ties to Bush, many conservatives were frightened that Meyers' lack of paper trail having never been a judge made her a wolf in sheep's clothing. Republicans still felt betrayed by the liberal tenure of Justice Souter (nominated by Bush the elder), and feared a Meyers nomination could have the same result. Reading the wiki, doesn't sound like she especially impressed either party during hearings either. You can't be result oriented either. One might argue accusations of Roberts and Alito were overblown since Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, but that's unfairly dismissing context. Roe (Casey really), is standing DESPITE their nomination, not because of it. If all 9 Supreme Court justices thought like Roberts and Alito, it would indeed be overturned just as liberals fear. Similarly to lots of the accusations you mentioned. If you look into issues that didn't come true, it was likely due to steadfast opposition. The rhetoric wasn't WRONG, the person just didn't get their way. Can you cite some recent instances where liberal accusations *didn't* materialize despite having the opportunity to implement the policies in question?### Human: > Can you cite some recent instances where liberal accusations didn't materialize despite having the opportunity to implement the policies in question? I'm not sure what you're asking here.### Assistant: I'm saying can you cite an instance where a liberal fear ended up being completely unfounded despite the person having a clear opportunity to implement the policy in question. I propose that much of the liberal "rhetoric" you say is overblown in fact looks that way only because liberals have given their blood, sweat, and tears (and congressional seats) fighting against the policy.### Human: I probably could, but I don't think that's really relevant to my view. Are you suggesting that Romney, McCain or the Bushes had the potential to be just as dangerous as Trump, they just never got a chance?### Assistant: Ummmm, all in different ways, sorta, yeah. I absolutely agree that Romney and McCain would have been far better qualified as well as are infinitely more palatable as human beings. However I don't see a reason to believe their Presidential administrations would have been much different policy-wise than Trump's will be. Congressional Republicans are making it clear they feel like they're running the show. McConnell has already shot down Trump's term limits and I'm sure that's not the last. In addition, (dwelling on the court again), Trump's list for a SCOTUS seat seems pretty standard. Almost every candidate I can see [on this list](http://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/495216645/donad-trump-unveils-new-more-diverse-supreme-court-short-list) or have heard elsewhere that is rumored to be considered, has already been appointed to their position by a Republican or is otherwise reliably conservative. This seems to me the exact same field that either a President Romney or McCain would have chosen from also. And considering congressional Republicans seem undeterred from pursuing their standard policy positions and ideas, barring an absolutely astonishing repudiation of his own party's agenda by Trump, I see no reason to believe his won't end up being your standard, run-of-the-mill Republican administration.### Human: and this is where I'll agree with OP and say that this kind of rhetoric is hyperbolic. Romney was a moderate republican, and McCain, while not moderate on all issues, is definitely more left than many in the Republican party. Comparing them to fascists while they're campaigning. Acting like the average person will be unable to live their life under them, led the way for people to ignore those same sentiments under Trump. Just because Trump is seeming less dangerous than the hyperbole suggested, doesn't mean the left's constant fear mongering of republican candidates (and the right's of democrat candidate's) works anymore. People aren't as dumb as politicians want to think they are, if you keep saying "this person is the devil" every 4 years, eventually that argument won't work.### Assistant: > Romney was a moderate republican, and McCain, while not moderate on all issues, is definitely more left than many in the Republican party. And had Romney been allowed to run as the moderate he was, he'd have crushed it. But the Republican establishment for the last two election cycles have kept their candidates on a leash. McCain had his knees cut out from under him by his own VP's reinforcing the bases' fear he was a moderate. Romney basically DISAVOWED his moderate resume and ran against the same sort of system he was credited with instituting. Until Trump goes on record as repudiating his own party's establishment, I still see no reason to think his and their administrations will likely be at all different.

### Human: Indian guy here, I feel Gandhi is given too much importance and limelight today, in a systematic attempt to delete historical importances of other freedom fighters, and raise his status to an unnecessarily saintly level for benefits of obviously related people. CMV.### Assistant: I'm much more inclined to think that it is the human way to raise one man above others once the time has come and gone. It's much easier (and psychologically pleasing) to think that it is a group of singular great men who alter history by sheer force of will than the more random course history follows. Thus, you get the aggrandizing hero worship for great events and the demonizing villain for horrific events.### Human: We do seem to have a strong bias for focusing on individuals over masses and groups.### Assistant: Dan Carlin on Hardcore History brought it up in one of his podcasts positing that it was the reason there were so many JFK conspiracy theories: people don't accept the fact that such a historically insignificant random person can change the world so much.### Human: In the most recent wasn't it? Glad to see fellow Carlin fans.### Assistant: I'm not sure, I discovered him pretty recently, so I've been bouncing around his library.### Human: Personally, my favorite is his Death Throes of the Republic series, about the end the Roman Republic. They get taken off iTunes after a while, so if that's how you listen to them, make sure you download all the older ones on there. If you miss them, you can buy them on his website.### Assistant: Yeah, that's the latest one I've been listening to-- I'm on the final one. Thanks for the heads-up about the older ones!### Human: Yep, just try not to blow through them all too quickly, he takes a while to release new ones.

### Human: Infant male circumcision is always wrong unless a medical conditions requires it. CMV### Assistant: To open with this, I'm an atheist, so this is in no way coming from any religious feelings. 1) Circumcision, according to a number of sources drawn from all around the world, heavily reduces the chances of infection with HPV and HIV. Yes, this includes the United States. This is a huge advantage. Most numbers I've seen indicate a 2/3 drop in the odds of contracting either of these diseases, making it medically similar to a vaccination. Remember, this doesn't just prevent the disease from hitting that person, it also prevents the disease from spreading from that person if they never get it in the first place. 2) Despite claims to the contrary, there's no evidence it harms sensitivity or anything like that. I've actually taken the time to talk to people who got the procedure later in life, and they all agreed that in general your sensitivity spikes WAY up after getting it, for about 6 months (making it too painful to have sex during that time). After that, it returns to normal. Studies on this topic are mixed, with an average of "no change". 3) The procedure heals FAR faster on a baby than on an adult. It's 6 months of pain vs maybe a day. This is similar to getting braces when you're young to avoid far more pain when you're older. Waiting until the person is old enough to make a choice themselves means waiting until they have a long painful process to go through during which they can't be sexually active (which obviously is an issue for a young adult but not for a baby). Complications are also a lot more likely on an adult. 4) Parents always give consent for medical procedures of their babies, so I don't see this as a consent issue unless for some reason the parents are not competent to make the decision. This is the same as vaccination.### Human: As a response to point 1- Women are at significant risk for breast cancer. Is it an acceptable treatment to remove the breast buds in pre pubescent girls to eliminate breast cancer? If so, why, and why is the response to this any different than circumcision?### Assistant: Brease cancer is not transmitted, so doing so does not prevent the disease in others (and thus does not create herd immunity). Mastectomies can be performed after breast cancer is detected, while a circumcision after HIV diagnosis is useless. Social stigma for a removed breast is also significant, but insignificant for circumcised children. Breast cancer is extremely rare in the young, while HIV (and HPV) transmission even before the age of consent can absolutely happen. Breast removal is also a far more dramatic and traumatic procedure as compared to male circumcision. Really this is closer to "would you allow parents to pierce the ears of their children if it cut their chances of getting Malaria to 1/3 normal". You know, if ear piercing had significant potential complications and a long healing period if done after infancy.### Human: Social stigma is subjective, and can be significant for men with unwanted circumcisions. Female genital mutilation is also effective at reducing Hpv, as are historectomies. Circumcision isn't a big surgery? What about the boys that die due to botched circumcisions, or the one(s?) in New York that caught herpes from their rabbi during the oral sucking part of the procedure.### Assistant: Yeah, doing any form of medical procedure like that outside of a hospital is a very bad thing, but obviously since I said I was an atheist and talked about medical benefits, I was speaking only of procedures done by a proper medical professional in a proper medical setting. Rabbis doing the oral thing are absolutely not a good plan at all. And when we take that out of the question, it's not a big procedure, and nobody's ever died from it. It's perfectly safe and minor when done under proper medical circumstances. Social stigma against circumcised men is rare as all heck, as rare as stimga against uncircumcised men (if not rarer) so that's not an issue here. And female genital mutilation has all sorts of problems that don't exist with male circumcision. The same is true of hysterectomies. All medical procedures have merit based on their benefits and harm. Bringing up procedures with serious harm (infertility, lack of pleasure permanently, etc) is essentially a non sequitter because circumcision doesn't do that.### Human: There have been serious complications even within medical settings. Google botched corcumcisions. Also, there have been multiple studies done that report lack of sensitivity, with some going so far as to say that the reduction in HIV rates is largely due to the subjects lack of love of sex, rather than any issue of cleanliness. Cutting off little boys penis's makes as much sense as cutting off their earlobes. Both are useless flaps of skin. Unless of course youre religiously or culturally motivated.### Assistant: I actually went and checked... on average, studies show no reduction in sensitivity. You might want to recheck your studies on that one. A few showed a reduction, a few showed an increase, and most showed no change. Overall, no change. Make sure you're using unbiased sources, and not just picking the few that show what you want without checking what the majority have shown. And let's be clear: it's not cutting off a penis. Not even close.### Human: Death from circumcision isn't common, but it happens a statistically significant amount. http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html Erectile dysfunction is up to 5 times more likely in circumcized men. 5.1% of boys will have significant complications, and the rate can be as high as 55% for all complications. Meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urinary opening) is found in 20% of circumcised boys. The average male will have more health problems from being circumcised than from being left alone. The American Association of pediatrics recomends *AGAINST* circumcision. Doctors who are circumcised are 5 times as likely to recommend circumcision, however, circumcision is not advocated for by doctors in 65% of all cases. I agree, make sure you're using unbiased sources, and not cherry picking.### Assistant: Let's look at your claims, taken from the BS site Circumstitions.org, and compare them to reality. On complications: "In large studies of infant circumcision in the United States, reported inpatient complication rates are approximately 0.2%1, 40, 41. The most common complications are bleeding and infection, which are usually minor and easily managed" Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/risks.html On the AAP's recommendations on circumcision: "Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement." Source: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585 You realize that site is so biased as to be useless, right? And it's outright lying to you at this point. Seriously, look at actual unbiased sources, not circumstition.org. You could easily have checked the AAP's actual position instead of relying on the equivalent of Fox News there.

### Human: CMV I believe that the term ''Islamaphobia" is a phrase used to supress criticism of Islam, legitamate or not.### Assistant: Unfortunately, the bulk of your comment focuses on the ideological intolerance of fundamentalist Islam rather than on supporting your point. Virtually every religion believes they have the exclusively correct view of the world. That's kind of the point, that they have the Truth. But regardless, how is the term islamaphobia being used to suppress criticism of the religious doctrine? It is used to describe attacks on Muslims, particularly those launched from Westerners who assume all Muslims are terrorists. I recall after 9-11 a friend suggestions that we should "bomb all the 'stans'", not just Afghanistan. These sorts of attacks are based an the bigots understanding of the Koran, but of mistrust and misunderstanding of who Muslims are and what they believe.### Human: > Virtually every religion believes they have the exclusively correct view of the world. This is untrue. The Dharmic (Budhist, Jain, Hindu, Sikh) religions believe that there are many paths to truth, and what they have is just one among many. The followers of these religions represent a very significant portion of the humanity### Assistant: "Virtually" means "almost".### Human: Does "almost" mean "some"?### Assistant: Of course not, I wasn't arguing that it did. I still think it's fair to say that the majority of the religions of the world believe they have the exclusively correct view on theocratic matters, but I'm not an expert.### Human: Ok, but majority in what scale? I think you might also agree with me that a simple majority does not qualify for "almost". Dharmic religions account for a [quarter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups) of world population while Abrahamic religions account for one half. If you are counting the distinct number of religions rather than adherents, there are a large number of Dharmic religions too.### Assistant: But the real question is, why does it matter?

### Human: CMV:Historians tend to judge past US presidents more on how interesting their presidencies were than on how good a job they did as President.### Assistant: I'll jump in because; as luck would have it, I'm a historian. (As an aside, most historians who venture to rank all US presidents are probably wildly more qualified to do so than I) The past itself isn't up for debate, American history is a continuum of choices which lead to where we are today. These last 240 years have seen America as she both reaped the benefits wrought by and weathered the setbacks caused by the American president. Yet there have been only 43, this small handful of individuals have been able shape the nation dramatically, and in some small way contributed to what we have now. These are the men we seek to rank, and before doing so it's only fair we look at how we will be ranking them. "Success", a term which is in no way objective and as such is rendered all but useless within academic fields, but damn if people don't enjoy a good popularity contest. Our popular culture is dominated by "favourites" and general punditry, very often seeming to become the dominant way in which we view the world. But what should "success" be, with respect to an individual serving as both the American head of state and American head of government? I'll answer this question from my own experience, I generally notice three prevailing schools of thought among historians for this matter: First are those who wish to be solely objective and compare each president to their respective policy. Their rankings would tend to favour the presidents who presented a very clear agenda prior to entering office and carried out most or all of their plan efficiently and consistently. This also tends to rank highly presidents who adapted to changing circumstances and readily reacted to the nation at large from a position coherent with their own policy. Polk and Lincoln both exemplify these qualities, and are common choices as the most successful presidents respectfully. Secondly are those who value the theory more than the policy. Jefferson suffered immense policy disasters at the close of his second term, but his presidency gave birth to a doctrine of democracy which revolutionized many of the tenants of freedom and liberty which carried through the century. Jackson's approach to populism or Wilson's push towards moral diplomacy embodied or perhaps gave rise to sentiments of the era, which carried the nation down defining paths and as such are ranked highly out of acknowledgment for these achievements. Thirdly are the Marxist historians. Seeing the president as simply another citizen and valuing inaction over unjust action. This is the smallest of the three groups and have their own schisms of opinion, but generally hold presidents who acted in the best interests as to the desires of American citizens highly. The reason presidential popularity lists often have agreement at the tops and bottom is that there is significant overlap in these definitions of success which presidents can fall into. It's fairly obvious why Lincoln and Washington fit nearly all these criteria while those like Buchanan fail nearly all of them. Historians; by and large, don't view history as a series of binary successes and failures nor as four-year periods which can be divorced from their era or stewardship. A president's legacy can be long-spanning and mundane or short and impactful; oppressive or laissez faire; inclusive or restrictive. None of these inherently "successful" or "good" or "bad" or "interesting" or any other subjective attribution. Historians; to a fault, seek consistent narratives which can withstand historiographical pressures, and too often are expected to bend to whatever is the prevailing morality of the decade. Anti-war eras see calls for scrutinizing the Bushs' and Polks of history, globalist eras the Monroes and Washingtons, revisionist eras the Jacksons and Fillmores. Historians can't make everyone happy nor do they seek to, if you ask for a list of presidents ranked in some meaningful way you'll find them receptive, but when asking for "successfulness" to be the criteria don't be surprised when we default to a larger view of history and produce a very ordinary, boring list.### Human: Woah, woah, woah, hold on. You're claiming that *Marxist* historians value government inaction?### Assistant: By Marxist I'm assuming he means the more general academic version of the term which views things in a lens influenced by Marx. So what that means is that they view history how Marx viewed it, without necessarily drawing the same conclusions. So history is a series of by conflicts driven by class divisions and material possessions, and all social interactions are influenced by, if not directly caused, by those two. Oftentimes they're very different from what Marx intended people to view history/society. Like there's Marxist literary interpretation, Marxist art critics, Marxist historians of architecture etc. I'm pretty sure someone has made a Marxist analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire and how a lack, or a wealth, of resources on Westeros caused Ned's head to fall off.### Human: You beat me to making same response by about 60 seconds and you're completely spot on. I'm off to go find this supposed aSoIaF analysis as that sounds amazing. I go back and forth on whether to use the "Marxist" label, even if that's what historians of such a disposition would prefer to be called. The terms: "Scholars of peoples history", "historians from below", "materialists", and "determinists" are said to be able to be used interchangeably, even if I do think each is in some way lacking as to providing the whole picture of what constitutes a Marxist view of the past, which I must say you quite excellently laid out.### Assistant: The Jacobin actually has a deconstruction [here!]( https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/game-of-thrones-season-five-marxism/) Interesting read, and sarcastic. The piece that it's critiquing, which is more of a straight Marxist analysis is also worth reading, but we're going off topic.

### Human: CMV: "It's in the constitution" is not an intellectually valid argument for not changing gun ownership laws.### Assistant: There is a famous Weber quote I'll paraphrase here - "a government is defined as the entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force." What makes a government a government is the fact that people generally are comfortable vesting them, and only them, with the the ability to lawfully exercise force outside of very specific conditions (self defense being the most obvious). The second amendment is America's asterisk to that definition - by codifying the right of the private citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms, the founding fathers added one extra scenario where an entity other than the government has the ability to exercise force in a legitimate way. That way is popular revolt. If a day comes when the people wish to take up arms against the government, that entity which has monopolized the legitimate use of force, the second amendment guarantees that there will be arms availabe to use. The second amendment isn't about your right to own a gun, it is about your right to - as a public body - withdraw your consent to be governed from the government. The US is one of the few developed countries in this world where the government would be GUARANTEED to fail in instituting martial law if the people at large did not support that decision. The only country in the world where the ultimate limitation on governmental overreach is the fact that the people of this country can mount a legitimate defence to resist the force of the government. If you take guns away from the public, the avenue to popular revolt becomes much longer and likely to failure, in effect you are removing the dimension of government where popular consent is what vests power in the government, and replacing it strictly with access to force. People are no longer governed because they want to be (although that may be the case), they are governed because the government has access to force and the people do not. The government is no longer emergent from the will of the people, but it is more akin to the mafia. This might not seem relevant to the current American climate, but that is the point, the current climate is current _today_, and there is no way to tell what tomorrow brings. If one day the consent of the people waivers, guns _need_ to be on hand to support popular revolt, because the only thing that matters in governance is popular consent, anything else is tyranny. This is the way our founding fathers thought about the right to bear arms, about what it means to have a government, and how the government and people interacted. When someone says "You can't take away my guns because of the second amendment" what they really mean is "The act of taking away my guns is the act of taking away my ability to consent to your governance, which makes you a tyrant. Tyranny is antithetical to the soul of this nation, a country with tyranny is not America." Implicit in discussions of law is the basic premise that completely compromising the fundamental tenants of American governance is off the table.### Human: > The US is one of the few developed countries in this world where the government would be GUARANTEED to fail in instituting martial law if the people at large did not support that decision. I've always found this to be a questionable premise. In every historical case I'm aware of, the government successfully instituting martial law *had* widespread popular support. We're talking a strong minority and widespread apathy at the *least*, if not an outright majority. Even your typical tin-pot warlord has strong tribal support from a significant chunk of the population. The guns are irrelevant. If the hypothetical tyrannical government doesn't possess the widespread support, it's a non-starter- they wouldn't even have tight enough control of the rank and file military and national guard to effectively take over anyway. If they have that widespread support, the premise is moot and the game is already lost.### Assistant: I agree the premise is unlikely, but the point is not the likelihood of occurrence, the point is where the locus of control sits. Starting from a premise of unpopular institution of martial law and then extrapolating the popular reaction and consequences of that popular reaction reveals the group which actually has power, the situation doesn't need to be probable. If a basic tenant of America is that the people are more powerful than the government, something which I think most people accept, then I think one of the critical discussions is whether or not the people can do so when they are at a complete disadvantage to the government in terms of force. If you can draw up a possibility where an overwhelming power is vested in the government at direct opposition to the will of the governed (you can) and the people are unable to resolve that situation, it follows that the people are not actually the group with highest order of influence. If we can capture back that possibility for the people without sacrificing that same order of influence in any other situations (by continuing to protect the rights of the citizenry to bear arms) we should, because it is a system with higher fidelity to that core tenant. Part of the discussion ends up at what the goal of the government is, it is a fairly common view that the goal of government is to provide the optimal life for its people, but America was not designed for that goal - if it were we'd have benevolent dictatorship. American government was designed to limit the risk exposure of the American people to tyranny, that is the one unifying direction in all the foundations of the American political system. Sacrificing any tenant which furthers that central goal in the name of furthering the (absolutely worthy) goal of optimizing the quality of life of its citizenry is fundamentally abrogating the spirit of America. Now, I'll make explicit the fact that I have no problem in doing so - if it is the will of the people that the will of the people not be protected in the interest of promoting the protection of the people (a confusing sentence but I'm running out of brain power at the end of the work day) then I'm perfectly fine with that. What I'm not fine with is holding the discussion which has such profound implications at the level of a specific issue. To use a colorful (if perhaps imperfect) analogy, I see the typical evolution of gun control discussions as a discussion over whether or not to launch a nuclear weapon based on the preference over the aesthetics of the two positions of the launch switch. I might have an opinion on whether or not the switch looks better up or down, but I have a preference _orders of magnitude stronger_ about whether or not a nuclear weapon is launched. Edit: Rewrote a bunch of sentences for clarity### Human: > I agree the premise is unlikely, but the point is not the likelihood of occurrence, the point is where the locus of control sits So are you saying that private gun ownership is only symbolic of a people's ability to incite revolution against a tyrannical government? Terrorist attacks tend to be politically motivated. They may also be religiously motivated, or whatever, but they're definitely political. So when a terrorist cell attacks US citizens and the media and government officials say that they are attacking our way of life, isn't this exactly who the 2nd amendment is protecting from your view? Because this is a militia protesting, combatting, rebelling against what they perceive to be a tyrannical government. > if it is the will of the people that the will of the people not be protected in the interest of promoting the protection of the people And that’s a good point, and the debate becomes, how much freedom are we collectively willing to sacrifice to limit the ability of militias that the majority don’t agree with from accessing weaponry? I mean, all of this is just never mind the fact that the vast majority of gun violence occurs from people you know and love(d) or from accidents. Because part of the frustration is that people treat tools designed to maim and destroy human life like they’re toys.### Assistant: > So are you saying that private gun ownership is only symbolic of a people's ability to incite revolution against a tyrannical government? I'd say that is a key component to gun rights in the US, yes. I think there are other critical areas to explore, especially areas other people might consider more critical than that, but as far as I'm personally concerned, yes, that is accurate. > Terrorist attacks tend to be politically motivated. They may also be religiously motivated, or whatever, but they're definitely political. So when a terrorist cell attacks US citizens and the media and government officials say that they are attacking our way of life, isn't this exactly who the 2nd amendment is protecting from your view? Because this is a militia protesting, combatting, rebelling against what they perceive to be a tyrannical government. So we've got to be a little nuanced here because these are some deep waters, but you've correctly characterized my view that terrorism is an extreme form of political speech. What I don't want to get lost here is that the government is armed as well, specifically to combat things like terrorism via gun violence. Small groups acting politically against the government via terrorism should be overwhelmed by the powers of the government, gun rights are more about how many people it takes to move the needle from "terrorism" to "revolution". I would go as far as saying if 1% (or other random arbitrarily small number) of the populace of America was willing to risk life and limb arming themselves to combat the government via violent resistance to the government's expression of its ability to use force, the government has failed on such a profound level that they have no legitimacy what-so-ever. That small portion of the population being that thoroughly discontented with the political state of the country is well past the tipping point of revolution. The key is that gun rights are the mechanism through which people can become _discontented_ but not _disenfranchised_. Regardless of how people feel to the government, provided gun rights remain intact, franchise remains intact. I think in this way we can view gun rights as the more extreme version of voting rights - but I don't think it is an unpopular statement to say we are currently witnessing the breakdown of voting rights in the country. This is looking like the least popular presidential election, perhaps ever, but certainly in modern memory. How many Americans feel not only that their vote is meaningless, but also that even if their vote were meaningful, there is no option worth voting for? Gun right are the ultimate line of defense against erosion of franchise. > And that’s a good point, and the debate becomes, how much freedom are we collectively willing to sacrifice to limit the ability of militias that the majority don’t agree with from accessing weaponry? > I mean, all of this is just never mind the fact that the vast majority of gun violence occurs from people you know and love(d) or from accidents. Because part of the frustration is that people treat tools designed to maim and destroy human life like they’re toys. Every gun death is tragic, because _every death_ is tragic. Unfortunately gun statistics are highly politicized in this country, but quick google searching suggests something like 30,000 gun deaths in the country a year (adjust the number up or down as per your sources, but I found that number [here](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)). That is comparable with the number of automotive accident deaths (32,675 in 2014 [according to wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)) and less than 1/10th the number of smoking deaths each year ([480,000/year according to the CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/)) I'm not trying to say the volume of deaths from gun violence is acceptable, but I want to contextualize that this isn't an unprecedented epidemic of preventable death. The opportunity on hand to be captured, if you were to completely eliminate all gun violence in the US, would be the saving of the life of 1 out of every 10,000 US citizens each yea, and I don't think it would be unfair to recognize over half of all gun deaths are suicides, some significant portion of which will, unfortunately, find another way to commit suicide. The price for that preservation of life is, to people who think like me at least, the surrender of the fundamental right to self determination politically in this country. We can work to reduce the number of gun deaths in the country so many other ways before we go to restriction of gun rights, things like gun education, better support for the mentally ill, better social safety nets for at risk youth and better rehabilitation (and overall reform) in our justice system. I just struggle with why the conversation seems to gravitate so strongly toward restriction of gun rights, an action which has a profound negative consequence in metrics other than the # of gun deaths, as opposed to those other fruitful avenues which have incredibly positive effects in other areas. We should reform the justice system even if you ignore the problem of gun violence. We should improve support for those struggling with mental illness even if you ignore the problem of gun violence. We should ensure every young person in this country gets the help and care they need to become a productive member of society even if you ignore the problem of gun violence. And doing those things, which we should be doing anyway, is going to have direct, positive impacts on the amount of gun violence in this country. So why, if our goal is the reduction of gun violence, do we consider the obvious course of action restriction of gun rights? Why do we the people want to discharge the ultimate moderator of the government's power in the interest of not pursuing other, more positive actions? You see though, all of this, it is besides the point in my mind. These are all detail arguments in a space where I don't believe it is fair to even argue until we have resolved that we as a people think it is acceptable to make primary alterations to the very framework of our relationship with government. That is the crux of the issue, and that is the issue which I think needs to be resolved _prior_ to any discussion of restriction of gun rights.

### Human: CMV: We are not living in a simulation.### Assistant: Rene Descartes examined this idea much earlier with his "Dream Hypothesis". It helps to examine the idea from his point of view. Namely, to look at the idea as a rationalist, rather than an empiricist. First we need to accept his claim that we come to know the world through our senses. And we also must accept his claim that our senses are occasionally wrong. This line of thinking eventually leads Descartes to his cogito "I think therefore I am", but that is a digression. So there you are reading my comment on Reddit. Who's to say that you are not, in fact, dreaming about reading my comment on reddit? Perhaps the dream is so vivid that it provides all your senses with enough detail to fully convince you that you are not dreaming, but in fact physically sitting in your chair. Taking this to a further extreme: Any information available in reality could, in fact, be provided to you by your dream. So there is no basis on which to draw any kind of conclusion. Take that whole paragraph with a grain of salt. I may not be doing the argument justice. And just to avoid some obvious counterpoints: Yes, you could try and do some kind of test to prove yourself in a dream. Like reading a book. Or you could run a physics experiment. It would probably be difficult to setup a large hadron collider in your dream. But this is how rational argument works, rather than empirical observation. It is logical to assume you may be in a dream, but it is not necessarily provable. And logically any answer available to you in the one **true** reality would be available in a dream that was a **perfect** copy of reality. Anyhow, the whole simulation argument is simply a sophisticated version of this thought experiment. Simply replace the mind with a computer simulation. Finally, I'd like to point out one sentence in your post. > CMV: We are not living in a simulation. No, /u/mrfe333. We are not living in a simulation. You are the one in the simulation. I am simply an artificial construct, created solely to act before you. When you turn away from Reddit, I will, in most senses of the word, cease to exist. My state will be stored, and I will be shelved until such a time as you pick up this thread once more. *edit: i haz clarification* **edit 2: i have changed my view on this topic thanks to some fantastic responses by /u/DashingLeech and /u/Bill_Swaggin_Gates**### Human: ∆ , Ok, I agree that the only thing that I can know is real is myself, and nothing else. However, taking it back to it being a simulation, why should we take our skepticism to that level? What's the point?### Assistant: > What's the point? Funnily enough, to try and answer that very question. Why are we here? What does it all mean? Is there a purpose to life?### Human: If you are asking those questions, you haven't started living your life though. So these questions always arise from an ignorant perspective of that specific person.### Assistant: >If you are asking those questions, you haven't started living your life though. Why can't you be living your life while also asking those questions? I guess I don't know what you mean by "living your life".### Human: Well if you ask someone, "What is happiness?" They can only answer that question if they can recall an experience that made them happy and draw a conclusion from that information. Otherwise, there's no way to determine what it is... at all. It's the same thing with "Why is life?" You have to have an idea from a previous experience as to what brings meaning to menial tasks for you, personally. If that's never happened, you cannot answer those questions. To answer the question of "what's the point?" you would have to ask the scientists trying to make life's work out of this subject. Do you have any respect for these types of scientists as opposed to engineers and physicists? Philosophy is a scam. Sociology is racist indoctrination. Stay woke, fam.### Assistant: I still think you can live your life while asking these primordial questions. To use your example, if someone hasn't experienced happiness, it doesn't mean they should stop searching for the answer to "what is happiness". And not even someone who *has* experienced happiness should stop searching. Is it just that you find these questions uninteresting? Saying philosophy is a scam is silly given the fact that science wouldn't exist without the inquiry of philosophy. And hard sciences like physics or chemistry tell us how things are but not how to act or why to act at all. What should you eat tomorrow? Does science even have an answer to such a simple question? Should you pick up litter you find on the road? If so, why don't you? To answer questions like these you need an internal value system, and that's one of the central areas that philosophy investigates. Having people (philosophers/theorists) that study and/or try to improve moral or political or societal systems is just as important as having engineers and physicists.

### Human: [Mod Post] /r/changemyview feedback### Assistant: I think this sub is frequently able to tackle very controversial questions in a respectful manner. It is one of the best places of reddit and I would like to thank the mods and the community for making that happen!### Human: And since this is the top comment (as of now), I think a fair message to the mods is **it isn't broke, don't fix it**! Over the past several months, we've seen "banned topics" for a period of time. That isn't necessary. When a topic gets over-posted, it will be downvoted. If it isn't downvoted, then the community has decided that it is not yet over-posted.### Assistant: Or it's an indication that people are comfortable with ignoring the big sign that says "PLEASE SEARCH BEFORE POSTING YOUR VIEW" A lot of the repetitive topics have been hashed out ad nauseam and the discussions are pretty much all along one or two lines of thought. The problem is that generally these "hot button" issues produce very strong reactions among the base which draws out the same conversations that don't ever actually get resolved. It's important that CMV is able to continue to grow instead of getting bogged down with a few of the more common topics (generally those concerning abortion or politics) There are dozens of other places on reddit where a person can go to have that same old discussion a few more times, but CMV is best when it's forcing people to consider new topics in new ways.### Human: I disagree with your assessment and I disagree with the directive of "USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION" (nevermind that Reddit's search function is, well, dysfunctional). Just because a topic is *discussed* frequently doesn't matter to me. I don't think that a topic should be repeatedly discussed if the issue has been *resolved*. But if a topic is frequently discussed and differing point of view continue to exist, we should continue to expand that discussion in hopes of working towards a resolution. Functionally, that works better by starting a new thread because commenting on a 3 month old thread is basically invisible.### Assistant: > Just because a topic is discussed frequently doesn't matter to me. I don't think that a topic should be repeatedly discussed if the issue has been resolved. The problem is that the arguments rarely change, and most posters would be able to simply look through a post and see all the responses they would get to a particular topic. If they feel that those responses are inadequate to change their view so be it. But the *vast* majority of the time that these topics are brought back up isn't to solve the problem, but to continue an argument.

### Human: CMV: Virginity shouldn't be a big deal### Assistant: I would probably agree that literally losing your virginity isn't really that important, but I think that having the ability to navigate social encounters (and working on your appearance) to the point that you *can* lose your virginity is. To take a different example, we would generally view someone who doesn't have a single friend as deficient in something. If someone is incapable of making a friendship and desires to, this is an important social dysfunction. (The kind of person who literally does not desire human companionship of any kind is quite rare, so I will ignore that for now.) I agree that our society places too much emphasis on sex, which leads to a kind of weird polarity where on side people think it's so important they never have it, and on the other where people think it's so important that never having it is shameful. But I think there is a real, human need for sex and relationships, and it's important that someone is capable of having it. Generally, when people are hurt by being virgins past high school or so, it's because they feel they're missing out on something important that everyone else is having, and, well, that's not completely wrong. Romantic and sexual relationships are part of human experience, and the first one is important.### Human: I agree with most of your points. The inability to interact with others is definetly a defecit. Romantic relationships and sex are also essential. At the same time, however, I feel that the societal pressures to have sex can lead to these deficits. Someone who would otherwise live a normal life doesn't have sex at an early age and therefore and cripple his ability to socalize. He might be a perfectly attractive and intelligent guy, but just because he didn't have sex, others will view his as weird.### Assistant: I agree the societal views can sometimes be harmful and warping, but navigating a relationship is a legitimate life marker. If your objection is that we shouldn't expect everyone to have sex at an early age and not judge someone for waiting until they're ready, great. I agree. (Not to mention asexuals, for which the expectation of forming a romantic relationship is definitely harmful to.) But the actual task of losing your virginity? As someone else said, you personally might not appreciate the importance because it came easily and naturally for you. But I would say the ability to form a romantic/sexual relationship, indicated by actually doing so, is a legitimate milestone to pass in life, and people should place importance on it because of that.### Human: I would actually agree with this completely. While sex isn't everything, I'd agree that is important and a milestone in life, one that may not be easy to achieve. ∆### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: I don't mind it when kids say things like "yolo" and "swag"; I see it as the language evolving. CMV### Assistant: I think that your general point about language is absolutely correct, and there's not much to disagree on there (unless you are [French!](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise)). Language can, does and should evolve. But just as refusing to let language evolve at all is extreme, so is a completely liberal hands-off approach to it; language is extremely important in all aspects of life as a vehicle for communication, so why shouldn't we be critical about things that affect it? First off, I believe you misunderstood the nature of the opposition to 'yolo' and 'swag' - people aren't reacting to the words, they're reacting to the concepts and the culture that they represent (their reactions are coloured with prejudice, but that's how our minds work). You could argue that carpe diem is a time-honoured concept, but people have convinced themselves that the yoloers are young vandals who are just looking for an excuse to be stupid. Again, who can pass up the chance to feel superior to those imbeciles with their superficial 'swag'? The point about text-speak influencing spoken language is a separate one, and more nuanced. On the one hand, language needs to move with the times. On the other hand, to put it bluntly, text-speak is *lazy*, and is clearly not an acceptable substitute for written prose in modern society in most professional contexts, and many social and recreational ones in modern society (would you like me to elaborate on this point?). It's harder to argue that it is bad for spoken language. Indeed, written French and spoken, everyday French are remarkably different (imho because of the severe restrictions placed on written language enforced by the Académie I linked to above). As long as we remain vigilant about our written language, we can happily let our spoken language lapse, right? Well, it's difficult. I hate to be prescriptivist, but language is a lot more central to our intelligence than we might first believe. They say that innuits have 100 different words for snow. This anecdote is probably not true, but imagine for a second that you did know 100 different words for snow, each slightly different. An English speaker would look at snow, and just see 'snow'. If he paid attention to it, he would notice hundreds of characteristics and properties - maybe it's shiny, crunchy, sparkly, fresh, slushy, wet, dry, compact, powdery... but without further prompting he probably wouldn't. You, however, would automatically process all of these characteristics in order to decide which word for snow best fits, and the nature of the snow will be a lot more precise and readily accessible in your memory. I am just trying to illustrate a feature of language that is introspectively obvious: precise vocabulary is the cornerstone of intuitive understanding. The more rigorous, precise and varied your language, the more intelligent you are, in a very real way. If, indeed, text-speak is a concession towards laziness as I stated above, it should be avoided by people who value their intelligence, as lazy language promotes lazy thought. Indeed, I believe that we do this naturally - text-speak *feels* uninspired and unoriginal most of the time. Please do not twist this argument by concluding that people who make extensive use of text-speak are dumb; this absolutely does not follow from the above. Also, this does not prevent us from extracting the more creative aspects of text-speak and making use of them - in order to bring my long ramble full circle, we absolutely should let our language evolve - subject to critical scrutiny.### Human: Very good answer but I'd like to adress 2 points: * The "Académie Française" do accept some changes (like a few new words every year or some new grammar rules). But they indeed are a gardien of the "good french". * The 100-words-for-snow-in-inuit is in fact due to the fact that in Inuit, the adjectif is put IN the word, like in German. Instead of "Hard Snow" you have "Hardsnow" so it's no really 100 words. [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_languages#Morphology_and_syntax)### Assistant: My remarks about the Academie Francaise should be read as tongue-in-cheek. They are without doubt the most stuffy old stick-in-the-muds you will ever encounter, and yet the enduring elegance and poetry of classic French no doubt owe much to their nurturing. Also, thank you for the information about the Inuits! This is very interesting stuff.### Human: I'd also just like to add that, while the Academie Française is indeed quite old-fashioned, usage will invariably decide if a word will be accepted by society or not. I don't know if it's particular to my province, Québec, but our french does get influenced a lot by our english neighbors, and is going through a lot of changes, whether official or not. It's a process that's quite remarkable to observe, especially with neologisms that often appear in great number in technical/specialized fields. No criticism intended, just wanted to share! I'm a student in translation, and more often than not, our final choice of words will tend to be what's being used, versus what's 'right'.### Assistant: My Father speaks North African French and he always said the Quebecois accent sounded funny. Thats all I've got to contribute other than agreeing that a solid linguistic foundation is the best tool to increase "intelligence" PERHAPS because it allows for multiple schema for the same object >I'd also just like to add that, while the Academie Française is indeed quite old-fashioned, usage will invariably decide if a word will be accepted by society or not. >I don't know if it's particular to my province, Québec, but our french does get influenced a lot by our english neighbors, and is going through a lot of changes, whether official or not. It's a process that's quite remarkable to observe, especially with neologisms that often appear in great number in technical/specialized fields. >No criticism intended, just wanted to share! I'm a student in translation, and more often than not, our final choice of words will tend to be what's being used, versus what's 'right'.

### Human: CMV:Using deception to become pregnant should be a criminal offence punishable by law, possibly involving prison time.### Assistant: "Reproductive coercion," as it is formally known, *is* [already illegal in some jurisdictions](http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1165863-top-court-to-hear-condom-piercing-case-appeal). It seems damn near impossible to prove though. So what you want already exists - it's just practically impossible to prosecute someone for it.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the fact that it's already illegal in some jurisdictions and is damn near impossible to prove.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: > are seemingly and likely only put in place to make men liable for the crime, I don't see where you get that - other than a few odd-ball statements from a judge. If a man goes to jail for poking holes in a condom, why wouldn't a woman also? >But given that there have been cases where women have stolen sperm from blow jobs and been given bullshit pardons from being criminally responsible for such actions, I doubt it Now, let's see those cases please and we can discuss the details.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: >at which point the argument becomes more about what we each believe is realistic This really isn't true. There's either credible sources to back up your untrustworthy one or there isn't. If you can't find proof for what you're claiming *chances are* it never happened. This really isn't a grey area.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: That's screwed up, but why exactly do you assume that *a Cosmo article* is representative of society as a whole?

### Human: CMV: Batman isn't a hero.### Assistant: >Did he ever think about putting down the cape and cowl? Using his resources and clever mind he could have affected more change in Gotham as Bruce Wayne than as the Dark Knight. Isn't that *exactly* what he tries to do between Nolan's *Dark Knight* and *Dark Knight Rises* films? After taking the blame for Dent's death, Wayne retired the cowl for eight years and tried to make a difference as Bruce. It seemed to me that a huge plot point in that third Nolan film was that Gotham needed *Batman*, not just Bruce Wayne.### Human: > Wayne retired the cowl for eight years and tried to make a difference as Bruce If you call being a social recluse and never leaving the manor, "making a difference". Then tanking his company because he was paranoid someone would use the reactor technology as a weapon. Alfred mentioned that he was just stuck in time, waiting for things to go bad again so he could rush off with cowl in hand. That hardly seems to me like he was trying to make things better. So one could then infer that he believed the only way he could make a difference was by being the Batman and punching drug dealers in the face. That it had never occurred to him that he could make a difference in other ways.### Assistant: Well, and hosting charity events, funding orphanages, investing into clean energy, and whatnot.### Human: Well to be fair, we see one charity event at the beginning and that was for the Mayoral reelection campaign IIRC. The funding to the orphanage was actually cut because he killed his own investment into clean energy.### Assistant: Correct, but it seemed to me that mentioning a large number of socially positive things that the Wayne Foundation and Wayne Enterprises were involved were meant to signal that Bruce *was* trying to do good without the cowl. He even dedicates his mansion to be used as an orphanage. He certainly didn't throw himself into humanitarian pursuits a la Bill Gates, but he *did* make contributions. I mean, within the context of the films, Bruce's parents tried for years to better the city through civic projects and nearly nothing came of it. Bruce overtly says that Gotham needed a symbol to believe in, took up that mantle, and then took the fall when he thought a better symbol (Dent) needed to be preserved. The whole point of taking the blame for Dent's death was so that the city could move and to the point where it didn't need Batman.

### Human: CMV: I feel that fighting for better contraception availability and sex ed in the US is more important than fighting for abortion.### Assistant: The two things you are comparing are related (better sex-ed would lead to less unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions I agree) but the rational for advocates who fight for these things are totally unrelated. For sex-ed advocates you are trying to make sure people are able to make responsible decisions and prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Abortion rights advocates are fighting for a totally different concept, women's reproductive rights. Your premise is flawed because you are comparing apples to oranges. *Of course* someone who doesn't agree with abortion would think the other was more important. But these are actually two separate topics.### Human: How are women reproductive rights separate? They seem the same to me. So explain to me what is covered in Womens reproductive rights becuase i was under an impression that the major right they were fighting for was the right to have an abortion.### Assistant: > i was under an impression that the major right they were fighting for was the right to have an abortion. ....Yes they are. This is separate from advocating that public schools teach kids how contraceptives, STD's and pregnancy work. You are a clear demonstration of how these are two separate topics. You agree with one and not the other. This is like saying it is more important to teach people about racial equality than fight for gay marriage rights. These are related topics because they both fall under the umbrella of civil rights, but they are two separate subtopics. You can be not-racist and a homophobe.### Human: Ok, but what im asking is what are the "womens rights" they are fighting for? Maybe if you could give me a quick list i could be able to see how this goes beyond just abortion and how the two are not connected.### Assistant: What? I said yes they are fighting for the right to have an abortion. Fighting for that reproductive right is a separate topic from fighting for teaching public school students about how sex works.### Human: Ok i think we are getting our lines mixed now im sorry. I was replying to "Abortion rights advocates are fighting for a totally different concept, women's reproductive rights. " And i was asking how do these rights go beyond the concept of abortion? You are saying its apple to oranges to compare contraception and abortion but in my mind they are tied, when one rises the other would fall. so what other rights besides the right to be able to have an abortion are they fighting for?### Assistant: Well contraception is contraception and abortion is abortion. Both have to do with a woman's reproductive system. But what I'm going to go ahead and call the umbrella issues are different. Abortion is more or less the union of two issues: Bodily autonomy, and church vs state (again, more or less). Under topics relating to bodily autonomy you might find issues such as... whether you can sell your liver after you die, or whether you can consume drugs in your own home. Under church vs state, you can find issues such as... whether to include "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. Here, these issues boil down to a woman's control over her own body, and what does it mean to be a human. Point being, these "umbrella issues" aren't the whole story, but arguments for or against it usually fall under them. On the other hand, contraception availability is certainly not an issue about bodily autonomy or church vs state. It is an issue about where to spend taxpayer dollars, the role of the government, and what constitutes adverse selection. I can be pro or against contraception, but for reasons having nothing to do with whether I am against abortion. If I believe that requiring abortions as backup is due to insufficient contraception, fine. But I might not believe in abortions, but also not believe in, I don't know, spending taxpayer dollars in a way that encourages sexual activity, spending taxpayer dollars on only one sex, or spending taxpayer dollars on giving people handouts at all. People like this aren't terribly difficult to find, by the way, and what you should take away from this is that while they are definitely connected, they are fundamentally different issues. Given your role on abortions, there are still many things that can swing your view one way or the other.

### Human: I believe that taking a course in Statistics is more valuable for the average High School senior than taking a class in Calculus. CMV### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: In High School, you do not get a solid understanding of any subject. If someone is going to get a basic, fundamental knowledge of something it makes sense for them to learn something at least marginally useful. If all a student retained from their statistics course was "Correlation does not equal Causation," "Studies often have flawed methodologies," and "Averages are commonly misleading," than would still be more useful to most people that knowing how to find derivatives or integrals.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: >Those are useful concepts, but why would those basic principles not be covered as part of general critical thinking skills / logic? in simpler language, you're just saying, "coincidences happen," "be skeptical of claims without looking at the research/sources," and "averages aren't the whole story." You don't really need to understand statistics know those things. Why not teach those at an even younger age as part of basic rhetoric/reasoning/writing? They just aren't taught before this. I don't know why. I'm not a teacher. I don't set policy. I'm a student who is trying to see if I'm missing something about Calculus that would make it better for the average person that Statistics. And it doesn't seem like I am. >Derivatives just allow you to understand how one thing changes when you change another. Integrals let you understand the total change in one thing over a span of change in another. Do you think it's not useful for people to develop a better understanding of how related values change with respect to one another? We think about the change in one thing per change in another all the time. Sure, poor teaching can over-focus on the algebraic operations, but the concepts are still quite relevant. Calculus in high school doesn't teach critical thinking. It barely teaches the concepts behind a derivative. Ask most students and they won't have any idea how to answer. It really isn't worth their time.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: >That said, I think most high schools should teach introductory stats and offer a quality calc course for anyone who wants to pursue a STEM field. There really shouldn't be a dichotomy between the two. This statement I absolutely agree with. Any decent High School SHOULD have both available for students to take if they wanted to. I just think that more people going to college should take Statistics rather than Calculus, and don't choose that option because their guidance counselors do a poor job describing why Statistics is a viable and valuable option for them.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: That is what I am choosing to do. I'm doing the Calc BC test for practice/some credits, and then doing whatever I have to for University. I hated both the Calc teachers at my High School, and really didn't think the classes had any value for me that I wouldn't get from the book.### Assistant: Might be a bit late for you, but the Stanford Distance Learning Program is great if you prefer learning math from books. I passed out of Calculus, Multivariable Calculus, and Linear Algebra (which was not even available at my high school, but passed out of it at my university) during high school by taking them via the DLP.

### Human: I believe that mods who go on banning sprees and swear at those they've banned are actually worse than the posters. CMV.### Assistant: Hello! I'm actually a mod of /r/changemyview and I thought I'd put in my 2 pence. First of all, I personally do not believe the behavior described in your account is acceptable whatsoever. I think I can say that the modship of CMV strives to be as professional and informative as *humanly* possible in moderating including adhering to our own rules. However, a couple small things to consider: being a moderator means being exposed to *all* of the bad stuff that happens on a sub, not just what a single redditor might encounter, since that is the essentially the job description. Mods of higher-traffic, more controversial subs *generally* have to deal with a lot more crap than your average lurker or poster since it's our job to. We encounter lots and lots of instability, accusations, and general hostility from all kinds of different people. Additionally, moderators are human. Dealing with more crap is generally going to have a greater effect given two otherwise equal individuals. I don't believe any of this excuses the behavior described at all, but it might help explain it a bit. It's possible that there was a misunderstanding; it is notoriously difficult to read someone's tone through the internet and text (no vocal tones or body language cues). It's possible that they are dealing with an influx of dozens of *actually* hostile people at the same time and their emotional outburst happened to misfire on you. As for banning independent of swearing/hostility: each subreddit has their own system of rules that they are allowed to arbitrate and enforce in non-democratic fashion. On CMV at least, bans are appealable and we will thoroughly review each individual case. Bans have been successfully lifted before. It's unfortunate you were treated that way, and I don't condone behavior like that at all. Hope this information helps add a little bit of perspective!### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Again, I cannot excuse their behavior and I find it *largely* indefensible. Without actually seeing the conversation, I can't make any accurate statements about it. However, it is possible that: * they have encountered people before that *facetiously* ask for explanation and then suck them into a hostile interaction. They may have mistaken you for someone who does this (there are people who do). * They may be overreacting as a result of assuming you didn't read the rules and interpret them like they do. It is the responsibility of the user to read subreddit rules before participating. I wouldn't have handled it like you described and I don't think any of our mods would either. Our moderation style is the opposite. But, there are potential reasons from their perspective why they treated you poorly (still not excusable). Does any of this help change your view at all? If so, do you mind awarding a delta? The instructions on how to do so are in the sidebar and subreddit rules :D Thanks!### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I'm curious why this person is a moderator, tbh. They called you a "fuckstick".

### Human: CMV: While "Radical Islam" is currently the religion causing issues across the world, it is really just the next iteration of religions as a whole acting to tear people apart.### Assistant: A radical or fundamentalist perspective on religion is a distinctly modern phenomenon. Prior to the modern era, religion and religious institutions were not seen as these marginal sidelined things. They were mainstream concentrations of power, wealth, and divine knowledge, and basically everyone had a religion they were born into. Heaven and Hell were literal real places and had physical locations (in the sky and under the earth), and the church was the formal institution which connected you to them. Being religious wasn't a marker of identity like it is today--the catholic church has been around more than a thousand years and in medieval Europe, it was the most permanent thing around. So it had an obvious function. Faith wasn't magic, it was the most logical thing around. It was a logical response to a confusing and uncertain world. As you pointed out, technology and science have sidelined religious beliefs which are demonstrably untrue. Plenty of religious people today (in developed countries especially) are fine with giving God a smaller role in public life, as the have longer lifespans, better health, and most public institutions are run by the state instead of by the church. (or the mosque). For most religious people today, faith communities offer a family, tradition, ritual, and a sense of togetherness. It has a place in modern life, and that place is non-political for the most part, but still can offer a lot in terms of emotional support. But on the radical side, consider: capitalism and politics offer solutions only to material problems. Life in a developed democratic capitalist country is pretty comfortable and practical, but it provides no definitive answers as to what we should *do* with ourselves. Modern ideologies do not offer solutions to spiritual problems. Regardless of what advancements we make you're still gonna die someday. (unless you go for that anti-aging Singularity crap like Ray Kurzweil, which is in itself a kind of faith). And if you grow up without a community or a close family, without access to modern amenities, under an autocratic regime where power is concentrated beyond a place you can touch, then radical faith offers a LOT. You suddenly have spiritual certainty that your uncomfortable and difficult life isn't just a stupid pointless thing where you die in the ground--it's a thorough test of your toughness. You have knowledge that the divine kingdom will outlast any oppressive governments or other institutions. You have a mission and an underdog identity and a new group of friends. Those in power call you stupid, and it just makes you prouder that you've glimpsed at eternal secrets they'll never understand. "It teaches morals" is a diluted way of saying of what radical faith actually offers: an alternative value system not based on material reality. Religion has always offered that, now it's just a way more radical thing to say in light of what we know about the empirical world. You seem to be arguing that the pursuit of radical religion divides us and hinders progress; practitioners of radical faith would agree, as that's exactly what they're trying to do. It's not a "we're in it all together" sort of mentality--it's a "the saved vs. the sinners" mentality, and it is much stronger than you give it credit for. Scorning it only makes it grow.### Human: FALSE. Fundamentalism in religions had be prevalent for basically as long as human existence. I'm only well associated with Christianity so I'll only give some examples from Christianity's time. The Spanish Inquisition, The Protestant Reformation, and more recently the Great Awakening were all fundamental movements in one way or another. Also don't just say religion used to be more important in people lives, or they thought of religion differently. While it is true religion is constantly evolving this dosnt mean that religion was any less important or they don't view it as fundamental as they do today. Example: The Catholic Church almost had Galileo burned at the stake for saying the earth resolved around the sun. I could go into more depth, but I don't feel like writing an essay. Mainly this is my point. Fundamentalism in religion is not a modern phenomenon. And you can't just say people used to think differently about religion because that's not really true. Religion is constantly evolving, but our ideals from religion basically remain the same.### Assistant: I think we disagree on the meaning of fundamentalism here. I think you're taking it to mean "religious movements which kill people," and I mean something like "people rejecting the modern world in order to return to a pre-modern interpretation of their scripture and faith tradition". I don't think I was using the word very clearly either, but that's what I was hoping to get at. We agree on how serious religion was back in the pre-modern era. Obviously it held enormous influence--it could imprison Galileo for life, and start crusades. And obviously some people take it very seriously today, with abortion clinic shooters in the states and ISIS in Iraq/Syria. So I disagree with you when you say "our ideals from religion basically remain the same." Becoming a fundamentalist today requires a deliberate rejection of modern ethics and science, and basically all the evidence that invisible things like heaven don't exist. Back then, all the evidence pointed to the literal existence of spiritual realities. That's a different mentality. You're right that people are taking it extremely seriously--but these days it's no longer logical to do so. Medieval states were seen as partners of faith. Even science was seen as a partner of faith. Today's fundamentalists often see things like science and the state as a priori enemies to their faith. You have to maintain your religion *in opposition* to everything telling you it's wrong in the modern era. I think it's a totally different mentality. I think the yearning for a return to "the fundamentals of faith" are specifically created by the modern world's relegating religion and the church to a sphere of non-influence. edit: read this interview with Karen Armstrong. Relevant summation: "Basically fundamentalism is a reactive and revolutionary movement. It’s a reaction against the rationalistic, secularistic ethos of modern society which developed over a long period of time in the Western world and has since been transplanted in other cultures. " https://faithljustice.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/karen-armstrong-part-ii/### Human: I agree with your characterization of fundamentalism as that which denies known facts about the extant world in favor of religious dogma. So called 'moderate' religion, by contrast, seems to be that which has the most in common with secular beliefs. But it strikes me that, by this metric, the most moderate religion is no religion at all. That is to say, all of the features of moderate religion that we prefer to fundamentalism are the features it shares with secularism. On a tangential note, it also strikes me that fundamentalism is a lot more strictly logical than moderate religion. At least fundamentalists are consistent with where they get their morality and metaphysics from (scripture/church). Moderates have to pick and choose. Sometimes they think they should follow the word of the bible (for example), other times, the bible is just metaphor. Well, is it the word of God or not? And how do you know? Moderate religion, to borrow a term from logic, is self-referentially incoherent. Fundamentalism seems... well... less so.### Assistant: That's an interesting point and one I hadn't considered, and it makes a lot of sense. I don't think in the medieval era doctrine was necessarily coherent either for the average believer (though exTREmely important for people like Thomas Aquinas & Co.) , but you're right that the moderate faithful of today have to be much more cafeteria in the way they chose their beliefs. Fundamentalism presents fewer conflicts of interest.

### Human: We're living in a musical golden age. CMV### Assistant: There's no such thing as a musical golden age, because there's no reliable metric to gauge the quality of music of a given period, and the reason for that is that the only metric one could point to for such a quantification (the success of a given artist/song among the population it's made available to) is a constantly shifting dynamic influenced by an interplay of a shitload of factors. Also, you cited A$AP as being an example of good music today... and you picked *Ferg* ? Rocky tears his shit up.### Human: shit i forgot Rocky. But Trap Lord slaps, don't deny.### Assistant: I wasn't a big fan. Been rinsing Schoolboy Q and Danny Brown's albums lately, only one in A$AP who can compare is rocky### Human: Danny Brown is also good. Did you listen to Cocaine Castle? Very surprising. Also, Shabba is always good for when you need to go dumb.### Assistant: Shabba is easily my favorite Ferg song. That shit is *raw*

### Human: I believe people who refuse to identify as a specific sexuality (even pan or poly) are simply just being difficult. CMV### Assistant: Is it really too much to ask that people pick their own identities without hearing a long winded explanation why they have to conform to your labels for your convenience?### Human: I'm not saying they can't pick their own identities. I'm saying that whatever it is you choose to believe in, there's a term that can be used to coincide with. In my experience, rejecting labels leads to further alienation and distancing from people who would otherwise understand. Sexuality is fairly straightforward. It's not binary, it's a simple matter of attraction to other people. Everyone knows that people are attracted to people. The question is which range of people are you attracted to? No matter what the answer, there has been a name created for it. Going into a long explanation is basically trying to reinvent the wheel.### Assistant: First, sexuality is fluid for a lot of people, and they could feel that a label ossifies their sexuality more than appropriate. Second, none of these labels exist in a vacuum. They all have baggage attached that people may or may not want to adopt.### Human: Baggage such as..? Whatever sexuality you identify as can change however frequently you change, and that's how I understand sexuality being fluid. Telling someone that you are bi/trans/poly *shouldn't* change what they expect you to be like; at least not in any way different than a non-label explanation. Sure, society holds a stigma against non-hetero sexualities, but that shouldn't have anything to do with a name for a preference. The fight against labels is completely illogical to me. Maybe I'm missing a point completely.### Assistant: Devils advocate, I'm with OP on this one. But let's talk about baggage, because I think pezz29 has something there. I could see plenty of early 20s bisexuals not wanting to identify as bi because a lot of their peers go through a 'phase' of it in that time of life. Telling people you're bi might lead to condescension and people just thinking you don't have your life sorted out yet.### Human: So the alternative being that you instead describe it as not bi, but liking both men and women; therefor solving the problem of condescension. (What?) Or even better, tell people that you {insert non-label sexuality explanation here}. Or lastly, keeping your sexuality a secret, and staying in the closet, but this discission isn't about that. I don't mean to sound abrasive. This thread has changed my way of handling people who don't care to identify behind a label, and I don't push the issue anymore. But it still makes very little sense to me.### Assistant: >Or lastly, keeping your sexuality a secret That's what I'm talking about. People will avoid the label and not tell anyone because of repercussions. > instead describe it as not bi, but liking both men and women And how does this change it? Saying that is still using a label, just with more words.### Human: >Saying that is still using a label, just with more words. Basically the point of my entire post.

### Human: CMV: Far too many people (specifically Redditors) do not understand Biblical homosexuality and often read the Bible at face value### Assistant: The problem is that there are more people who interpret the Bible than those who have actually read it. You say other people don't understand the Bible. Fundamentalist Christians say *you* don't understand the Bible. Religious scholars say *you* and *fundamentalists* don't understand the Bible. In my experience, how a person chooses to interpret the Bible says more about *them* than it does about the book itself.### Human: The way I understand is that choosing how one interprets the bible is not an entirely subjective action; all must take into account the history and context of what is being said. I would argue that many fundamentalists are just parroting what has been taught to them by religious affiliates and western society (and it doesn't help that religion holds so much political baggage) without ever questioning their beliefs. Regardless, we can't both be right, and I doubt that there are any other arguments concerning homosexuality that have been presented, and so I doubt both arguments are wrong. I recognize my morality as a vehicle for understanding God's mind, which is why I reject monogamous homosexuality as a sin (and separate from the relationship presented in the bible), because I believe in a God if love. Thoughts?### Assistant: If you recognize *your* morality as a vehicle for understanding "God's mind", do you not also recognize everybody else's morality as performing the same function? So when a fundamentalist accepts monogamous homosexuality as an abomination, aren't they just doing the exact same thing as you, but with a different outcome? You are onto something when you say "you can't both be right", but there is a way for both of you to be wrong: The Bible may just act as a mirror to your own belief system. It's also possible that the Bible is not a means to understand the Universe. If that's the case, then you are also both wrong.### Human: No, I don't think so. Jesus's message was love. One of my favorite verses can be summarized in this: if I have everything in the world but have not love, then I am *nothing*. My proof is in my OP and in the person of Jesus, which both undermine any position of hate or belief that homosexuality is a sin. The position that homosexuality is a sin is because the Bible says so. But when the Bible doesn't actually say homosexual monogamy and is misinterpreted, then fundamentalists have nothing to stand on. My sources will defend my position on a translation piece, and I am confident that the love that Jesus expressed is not in line with believing homosexuality (that God knit into a person's *being*) is a sin. edit: > there is a way for both of you to be wrong: The Bible may just act as a mirror to your own belief system I agree to a point, but anyone who has done a small reading of the Bible can tell when one person is extrapolating versus when someone is trying to justify dogma based on background and context.### Assistant: The aspect you're not getting is that you're basing your interpretation on what *you* believe about Jesus. A fundamentalist could do the exact same thing and reach a different conclusion. Now, imagine an extraterrestrial coming to earth, and it hears your view and it hears a fundamentalist's view. Why would the alien believe either view to be right?### Human: Then let me ask you this: what do you think Jesus represents? From his actions, I extrapolate him to be a person capable of profound and revolutionary ideas and love. He helped the poor and needy, fought against injustice, said that "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," to turn the other cheek. I don't know about you, but that sounds loving to me. It is from this love that I conclude that Jesus would not approve anti-gay sentiments and would condemn anyone who hates homosexuality. As the Bible says "Perfect love drives out hate," and "you shall judge by the fruits they bear," based on anti-gay and hateful sentiments, Jesus would disapprove. An intelligent alien visiting Earth would most likely see both positions and make a conclusion based on evidence. I argue that monogamous and loving homosexuality is not forbidden in the Bible and is misinterpreted, as stated and defended in my links. Since the fundamentalist argument relies on the sole belief that God forbade it based on a limited reading of the Bible, and I prove that He doesn't, then they have no defense.### Assistant: >Then let me ask you this: what do you think Jesus represents? Fiction. Edit: Thank you for the gold, kind internet stranger!### Human: So you believe Jesus wasn't real, or the broader belief that the mythic stories around him weren't real (which, if you ascribe to, then we have reached an impasse). Either way, you haven't addressed the rest of my reply.### Assistant: > Either way, you haven't addressed the rest of my reply. Imagine my surprise when your statement was: >I argue that monogamous and loving homosexuality is not forbidden in the Bible and is misinterpreted, as stated and defended in my links. Since the fundamentalist argument relies on the sole belief that God forbade it based on a limited reading of the Bible, and I prove that He doesn't, then they have no defense. I came to the conclusion that you lack the perspective to realize that a fundamentalist would say something along the lines of: "I argue that Bible specifically states that God forbade it based on the actual words that are in the book. Since the other argument relies on the misinterpretation that the Bible condones it, based on adding words that are not in the book, and I prove that He doesn't, then they have no defense." Both arguments have the same flaw: both assume that the alien will see things *their* way. It's quite predicable, as the one thing I've found about people and their respective interpretations of the Bible: Invariably, they are sure that they are **right**. It's pretty amazing, really, that *your* interpretation of the bible is the *correct* one. What are the odds?### Human: > Both arguments have the same flaw Well, not exactly. In that case, the fundamentalist view has more ground because it's based on what is actually printed on the vast majority of the bibles.### Assistant: Drawing conclusions about a whole book from isolated passages in the book can be very misleading. I'm not saying OP is right or wrong, but quoting specific language out of context can be very misleading even though the quoted language really appears in the text.### Human: It can be misleading. But for instance, the discussion is an abstract from a set of rules: - rule #1: you must not... - rule #2: you must not... - rule #3: you must... If one of the rules prohibits homosexuality and calls it an abomination, then I think there is no risk of misinterpretation. And if a book contains a passage advocating that homosexuals be murdered, then the whole book can be "judged" as homophobic.

### Human: CMV: I believe that the mandate that companies maximize shareholder profit is one of the prime causes of unchecked corporate greed and the resulting long term structural unemployment in our stagnant economy.### Assistant: So, with regards to my 401(k), what is the approximate rate of financial return on "warm fuzzies"?### Human: depends on how they treat their customers and employees in addition to how how profitable they are. It should be better to have lower profit and happier customers and employees, than sky-high profit and upset customers and employees that feel the threat of being laid off every day. Or put another way: companies with lower profit and happier customers and employees should be be seen as more valuable and thus rewarded so in the stock market than companies with sky-high profit and upset customers and employees that feel the threat of being laid off every day.### Assistant: My point is, as an investor, why shouldn't I focus on my financial return? The knowledge that the company has 5 stars on Yelp or that they are top-10 in employee retention won't help pay my bills when I am 70 and retired. I am investing money, not warm fuzzies. If I could buy stock with happy points, then I might care more about happy points as a return.### Human: > My point is, as an investor, why shouldn't I focus on my financial return? 1) You are a human being and your investments should be moral. Most people wouldn't invest in a company that profits by torturing puppies; people should also take into account more subtle moral decisions by companies and pressure companies to act better. 2) Ignoring morality is effectively ignoring long-term financial risks. The current system focuses on short-term profits and underestimates the financial risks caused by immoral behavior.### Assistant: To start out, clearly there is a difference between investing in a morally ambiguous company like Wal-Mart (not a superstar, but not doing anything illegal or dangerous) and investing in (ignore the fiction) LutherCorp, OsCorp or Wolfram and Hart. > Most people wouldn't invest in a company that profits by torturing puppies; people should also take into account more subtle moral decisions by companies and pressure companies to act better. I'm not arguing your premise, but if I can get 13% percent annual growth in a company that does terrific work with puppies and runs no-kill clinics and organizes a foster program, or 19% with a company that just doesn't have anything to do with puppies either way, I'm taking the 19% every day. >Ignoring morality is effectively ignoring long-term financial risks. We aren't talking about ignoring morality. We are talking about factoring in brownie points and warm fuzzies into the valuation of a stock. Whole Foods can't convert hugs and praise into dividends for me, so why should it factor into the price I am paying for the stock?### Human: The fact that you describe them as "warm fuzzies suggests" that you aren't seriously evaluating the impact of their moral position. Whole Foods *does* convert their morality into higher prices, which has an immediate impact on the stock. That is easy to analyze. What is harder to predict is when morally ambiguous companies like Wal-Mart will end up suffering because of their "moral flaws" (for lack of a better term). For example, there is a substantial chance that minimum wages will rise (lets pretend that is likely to hurt profits, even though that isn't necessarily the case) because of political pressure due in part to Wal-Mart's treating its employees poorly. If banks had been viewed as more moral institutions, they probably would have received better bailout packages during the crash. The fact that airlines and the auto industry had union jobs made it much easier for them to get the support needed to survive restructuring. Good values can effectively act like an insurance policy--making it easier to get legislative or financial help if something unexpected goes wrong. > I'm not arguing your premise, but if I can get 13% percent annual growth in a company that does terrific work with puppies and runs no-kill clinics and organizes a foster program, or 19% with a company that just doesn't have anything to do with puppies either way, I'm taking the 19% every day. I'd argue you can take the 19%, but you have an obligation to try to be sure that company isn't secretly hurting puppies.### Assistant: My point is that while many companies have been able to convert community activism, customer satisfaction, and employee retention into increased value, it is done indirectly. Whole Foods doesn't have their stock increase in value because of the good things they do, but because those good things increase customer loyalty and customer spending. The outreach, whether intentional or not, is an investment. OP is proposing a means to quantitatively value a qualitative assessment. Good policies will hopefully beget good income, but dollars have to come from somewhere. How do you value a company that has doubles its financial value over a year but has a C- customer rating against one with 40% growth and an A+ rating? I'm not saying that it is impossible, or that I'm unwilling to change a view, but I can't see a method that makes mathematical, economic, financial sense to implement this idea.