Datasets:

Siddish

/

change-my-view-subreddit-cleaned

like 0

### Human: CMV: Anyone with a moderate amount of singing talent can be a pop star.### Assistant: I would argue that 'vocal quality' in pop music is a little different to what you think it is. Clearly, not all of the current crop of very popular pop singers has the vocal range and dexterity of a Mariah Carey or Aretha Franklin. However, what I would argue is that, to get to the point where they are a big pop star able to get on the Hollywood Walk of Fame: 1. They always have a *distinctive* sound to their voice, and that one of the things they have done to become a better singer is to hone and harness that distinctiveness - a Rihanna or Taylor Swift can sing without much pitchiness as far as I can tell, or perhaps there's lots of autotune - who knows! But they absolutely have to *sound like* Rihanna or Taylor Swift, and that is a skill that singers have to hone. 2. They always have a very good understanding of *how modern pop songs work*, and sing to that understanding. They need to have an intuitive understanding, at least, of exactly where to, say, slide onto notes, or where to put vibrato in order to make a melody into a hook that has an emotional resonance for a 16 year old fan. Obviously this is something that a experienced producer could also make happen - Max Martin who has written and produced an enormous amount of hits, from 'Hit Me Baby One More Time' to 'Shake It Off' is famous for wanting the singer to sing the song *exactly* like his demo. But ultimately a pop star these days will have to work with dozens of different producers over their career, and not all of them will have strengths in this area - the pop star has to know this themselves or their career won't last. 3. The other bit of skill a pop star has to have is that they have to be experts in how to use the distinctive sound of their voice and their understanding of how pop songs work in order to *convey emotion to the teenagers that make up a pop star's fan base*. A teenager at any given time will have grown up listening to the pop songs of the last 5-10 years, and they'll have learned the language of how *that* era of pop music conveys emotion. The singer needs to use *this* language - not the emotional language of Aretha Franklin or Frank Sinatra - to convey the emotion which is at the heart of the pop song. This is the bit that is hardest to understand if you're no longer 12 and into pop music - the music is not for you, but is trying to appeal to someone else, who's been really into Justin Bieber's 'Sorry' and Rihanna's 'Only Girl In The World' when they were younger. And so you often can't hear the emotions that are there for people who grew up listening to that stuff. These are all difficult things to get right, and it takes a lot of skill that's not as obvious as Aretha nailing a song. It might not be obvious to you that they're doing it, but if you're in the music industry and you get to hear an endless conveyor belt of pop singles that get made and put out to great fanfare *and sink like a stone*, it quickly becomes obvious to you that the difference is singers capable of these kinds of things (and a little luck).### Human: Best response on the thread. Excellent insight. I have to ask, do you work in the industry? The way you talk about it, it sounds like you're in or close to the industry.### Assistant: Thanks...excellent enough for a delta? 🙂 And yes, I review music for a newspaper, and so I'm on a bunch of major label mailing lists. So I get a constant stream of press releases about new acts the record companies are pushing, most of whom don't quite have the 'it factor' that the big acts obviously do. So here I was trying to explain what that 'it factor' actually is.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/hillsonghoods changed your view (comment rule 4). DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [​](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": { "littleText": 1 }, "parentUserName": "hillsonghoods" } DB3PARAMSEND)

### Human: I think circumcision is male genital mutilation, CMV.### Assistant: I was circumcised this morning actually because I suffered from frenulum breve (a painfully tight frenulum). This affected my sexual performance and relationships. Had I been circumcised at birth, that would not have been an issue. However, the procedure was super easy, I was under general anesthesia and no pain so far, just mild discomfort.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Circumcised at birth here. I have nothing to compare to so why should I care? I don't feel mutilated but I sure feel like shit because apparently I am. But the only time I think about it is when these threads come up.### Human: Uncircumcised here. My dick is sensitive as shit and yours ain't. You've been robbed my nigga.### Assistant: You act like we can't feel anything. We're still really sensitive.### Human: Not sensitive as shit!

### Human: CMV: The mother who had an autistic child disrupting a Broadway show is not a hero and is completely selfish.### Assistant: That's not a report, that's an opinion piece. It's way too biased. I wasn't there and I don't know what happened, the details here are important. Were people yelling she's a bitch and needs to get that fucking kid out of the theater? Or were they saying "hey, come on, I'm trying to watch the show." Was the kid screaming and yelling above the performers, or just being noisy? How long had this been going on, and what opportunities did the mother have and how hard did she try to remove her son? These are all details that matter.### Human: Does it matter? The OP is discussing the harm in bringing the child to the performance *to begin with*. Her refraining from bringing her child precludes any reaction, positive or negative from either her child or the audience.### Assistant: That's not a fair thing to put under discussion, however. Children and autistic people are people. They have exactly as much of a right to attend public performances as any neurotypical adult. A reasonable conversation on this subject needs to be restricted to caregivers taking children and autistic people outside if they are causing disruptions. We can't question the right of children to attend performances to begin with: that is pure bigotry, on par with questioning, say, the right of Indian people to attend crowded events on the basis that they *might* have eaten curry and thus *might* cause olafactory discomfort to the people around them. We should not be aiming to preclude the possiblity of any impact certain groups of people might have on the audience! That can't be our logic.### Human: Sure they have as much right too, but does the autistic child or developed adult have a better perspective on what could set off the child? Why aren't people upset at the parent for taking a child with a higher level or autism to a crowded space with loud noises, lots of strangers and something completely foreign. Subjecting an autistic child to a threatening environment for the sake of the parent's enjoyment, cause I can almost assure you the child will not remember the plot or characters as much as they will the trauma they suffered, an outburst that was followed by negative reinforcement - heckling from the crowd - more important that the other attenders experience, let alone the child's development? It's not like the child woke up with autism one morning and the parents unknowingly took an autistic child into a demanding environment. The parents choose to put their kid through a stressful situation for the sake of their entertainment.### Assistant: > Why aren't people upset at the parent for taking a child with a higher level or autism to a crowded space with loud noises, lots of strangers and something completely foreign. Because doing that is the caregiver's JOB. You seem to think that the caregiver's job is to cocoon their charge, put them in a bubble of zero challenge and 100% comfort at all times, ensuring no outbursts, zero life skills, and most importantly, no discomfort for the general public who should NEVER have to interact with "abnormal" children who may (gasp shock) make some occasional loud noises (horror *faint*).### Human: I would like to have a bit of faith and say the child probably showed signs of distress before the outburst appeared and wasn't immediately heckled by other audience members. Why can't the parent remove the child from the situation where they don't understand why everyone is looking at them, why they are getting negative attention for expressing discomfort or fear? Why doesn't the parent take action instead of inconveniencing everyone else? Before you say I have no idea what an autistic kid was like there was a boy at my school who was severely autistic but his parents wanted him to try and do main stream schooling instead of the special Ed program. I know his condition was severe not only because of the manner of his outbursts but because a poor public school district had to assign a caretaker to be with him 24/7. She would be there in the mornings when his parents dropped him off, sit with him in the back of the class room through all his classes, monitor him at lunch/recess and drop him off at his parents at the end of the day. He was in my classes from 4th grade all the way to 8th grade. When he had outbursts most people didn't know what to do, they were shocked or tried to stifle their laughter cause children are cruel, or just stare at him which would cause him to freak out even more. He wouldn't leave the room unless his caretaker told him too, he would just sit in his chair and scream or stand up and pace by his desk. I never minded having him in my classes and the teachers knew well enough to keep him by the back of the classroom so when the caretaker saw signs of distress they could quietly leave the situation. the parents know of their kids condition, and should have responded by removing their child from the situation. The negative trauma and reinforcement that came from what happened at the play is the parents fault. If you have an autistic kid or a baby at a place like a theater, ask for seats in the back or leave when the warning signs appear.### Assistant: So you only see an issue with this parent's actions because of what you IMAGINE happened, not what actually happened in reality. Hmm. Interesting. In reality the parent did get an aisle seat for easy exit. The parent did choose a very family friendly show to take the child to. The parent did choose the show with the least crowd - a wednesday matinee. The parent did try to remove the child at the first sign of discomfort but the child melted down because they didn't want to leave, they held on to the railing refusing to go. So you see? You can rest easy! Nobody fucked up and mistreated this child!### Human: I'm sure the meltdown didn't go from 0-100 in an instant, and if I recall correctly there was a violent whipping scene that caused the child to react. I think the parent should have screened the content better.### Assistant: Hmm. Even though you have lots of evidence to show that this parent was behaving responsibly towards their child, you insist on IMAGINING ways that the parent MIGHT have been irresponsible, and then use that to hate on the parent. That doesn't seem very rational of you. PS: there was no whipping scene. There was only an about-to-whip-but-decide-not-to scene. Which, FYI, was not mentioned in any reviews of the show, and nor was it of any effect on the rating.### Human: Is the parent responsible for the child's actions and well being in public? At the end of the day the person in charge either takes the glory or the blame.### Assistant: Is the parent to blame if the child farts? Is the parent to take credit if the child farts, because clearly, that is evidence of a working digestive system, which is necessarily the result of success in feeding the child? This strict dichotomy of "everything a child does or is must be either a parent's fault, or to a parent's credit" that you are forcing onto this situation is silly and reductive. A parent is not a God. Your agenda here seems to be all about blaming the parent no matter what.

### Human: CMV:There isn't one place where blacks have become the majority that has improved the area.### Assistant: Harlem Renaissance (1920s)? As blacks moved in, property values rose and the neighborhood became a cultural powerhouse. Many people associate Harlem with high crime rates and poor property values, but it's important to note that this decline occurred in the 1960s-1970s (long *after* the Harlem Renaissance), and that the decline occurred after a decrease in the black population (1950s-1960s).### Human: Long after blacks began to be exploited by the left and driven into a victim mentality. Blacks would be much more successful today if left alone to grow on their own without the government constantly telling them how much of a victim they are constantly and trying to raise animosity.### Assistant: How did the government tell blacks that they were victims? Was it the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which helped secure equality for blacks by abolishing slavery and stating that blacks were supposed to be *de jure* equals with whites? Was it Brown v. Board of Education, which said that "separate, but equal" was unconstitutional? Was it the 24th Amendment, which banned poll taxes and literacy tests that were used by Southern states for almost 100 years to discriminate against blacks and keep them from voting? Was it the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented states from making laws that kept blacks marginalized and separated from the white community? Was it the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which gave teeth to the 24th Amendment trough federal enforcement? Which of these bills or constitutional amendments, pray tell, told blacks that they were the victims and raised animosity in blacks for whites, instead of helping the victims of centuries of slavery and ninety years of Jim Crow to become equals?### Human: Yes, blacks were treated terribly in the past by a small percentage with a lot of wealth/power. But to ignore the past except when only convenient, such as ignoring all about the racist democrats including the recently-deceased KKK Byrd, is sad. The governments keeps everyone feeling like victims and encourage abortions all the while trying to make poverty a sexy thing. All the while introducing crack into the inner cities. That US government sure is awesome to blacks. I grew up and live in the deep south in the US in an area where blacks are the majority and nearly every example of blacks I see that ignore the uppity rhetoric being spewed from the government and instead rely on their own individualism to strive and realizing their own equality without needing a crutch are all successful. Much like any other race. But keep telling them they are being oppressed and they will become oppressed.### Assistant: Just a tip.... The word "uppity" has a loaded racial history, and was used to describe blacks who didn't "know their place." So your sentence could read, "...the rhetoric being spewed from the government telling black people that they have a higher place in society than they do...." I don't want to argue with you, I just thought you should be aware that that word is going to derail your point faster than anything you're actually saying.### Human: Yea, I think "agitators" and the "agitated" would have been a better choice of words.

### Human: CMV: As a white person, I don't feel personally guilty about slavery or think I need to do anything to compensate black people for slavery.### Assistant: Good news! You don't. You really don't. But... are black people descended from slaves at a statistical disadvantage because of that historical injustice and ongoing prejudice against dark-skinned people? Statistically, do black people who do the same work get paid less than people with white skin? Is that an injustice, and if so, should we do anything about it? I think you can answer "yes" to those questions without needing to feel personally guilty about anything. It's simply an acknowledgement that centuries of poor treatment have baked certain prejudices into our society -- around law enforcement, wages, housing opportunities, etc -- and that we should work to eliminate them. That's something we can all agree on.### Human: Well since you can't prove how prevalent discrimination is or who suffers the consequences of it, it is immoral to compensate to any degree. All you have is your confirmation bias and the stories of people you want to believe. Discrimination is illegal, that is all you can morally legislate to combat it. The obligation is on you to change social perceptions.### Assistant: > you can't prove how prevalent discrimination is or who suffers the consequences of it > Discrimination is illegal, that is all you can morally legislate to combat it So discrimination can't be proved, and we should make it illegal. Do you think racial or other unlawful discrimination exists at all? This thing that can't be proved?### Human: Strawman: never said you couldn't prove discrimination. Nice try though.### Assistant: > you can't prove how prevalent discrimination is or who suffers the consequences of it### Human: Thank you for illustrating my point. Is this the point in which I have to explain why the words "how prevalent" change the meaning of the sentence you accused me of saying via a strawman?### Assistant: Your sentence has two subordinate clauses. Of course I'm specifically referring to the second one, but I would challenge both. I think that [we do know, statistically, how prevalent discrimination is](http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/05/06/institutional-racism-is-our-way-of-life). I also think that we can identify individuals who suffer the consequences of discrimination.### Human: Your article fails to provide evidence as to why I should believe there aren't countless other (possibly self induced) factors contributing to certain groups arriving in less desirable situations.### Assistant: Oh, the burden of the white American, a being of such *powerful natural virtue* that he knows, in the absence of a whiff of evidence, that the suffering of the African American statistical demographic must be due to countless self-induced factors. They're *countless*! One cannot even hope to count them, apparently, perhaps that is why we have not observed or measured them.### Human: Lol, your evidence of discrimination against black children is literally "they get suspended more"... could you possibly be any more transparently bigoted? It couldn't possibly be that black children misbehave more frequently. I'm sure you're totally prepared to defend how that is not at all the case.### Assistant: > black children misbehave more frequently And you call me bigoted. And there was far more in that article than preschool suspensions. Did you read any of the linked studies?### Human: Ah, better not question the extreme left victim narrative. So let me get this straight, the only possible explanation for black children getting suspended is discrimination? Black children never exhibit deviant behavior? Oh they do? So they must account for some percentage of suspensions? It has to be perfectly proportional to their population otherwise discrimination? After we hit our black child suspension quota we must raise the rates of white suspensions, right? Maybe you should summarize your interpretations of those studies because it looked like it was all pretty similarly specious.### Assistant: We can speculate all kinds of reasons. If your goalpost for establishing that demographic effects observed across racial lines are actually due to race is to rule out every other possible cause, then we'll never reach it. Many of the statistics in that article came from studies that worked hard to establish like-for-like cohorts. For example, drivers with few citations over their lifetimes are more likely to get pulled over if they're black. We can speculate that black drivers go crazy and start driving like maniacs, but is that a plausible explanation? Or maybe the judgement of traffic control officers is affected by sunspots? Or, or, or, or. You can play that game forever. Sometimes the situation is as it appears to be.### Human: So basically: we can't possibly know, so we should just settle for whatever it is you've decide might be the cause. I'm glad we've established you have no real solid evidence for believing what you do.### Assistant: > we can't possibly know You're the only person claiming that we can't prove who suffers the consequences of discrimination. There's ample proof. The linked article includes direct links to detailed studies and information. But evidence can only cure ignorance, not willful denial.### Human: Well instead of copy/paste spamming articles maybe you should describe those studies and how you think it proves your position, because a higher number of traffic tickets shouldn't convince anyone of systemic racism.

### Human: CMV: A Bachelor's in Kinesiology should be the absolute minimum requirement for personal training certification### Assistant: I'm going to come down on the opposite side of this for an almost orthogonal reason: professional licensure requirements like this are killing the middle class. [In the 1950s, around 5 percent of people needed a license to do their jobs. Today that's over 30%.](http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2015/01/26-time-to-examine-occupational-licensing-practices-kearney-hershbein-boddy) Almost every job involves some risk that you'll harm your customers or yourself. Landscapers work with dangerous machinery. Cooks could get customers sick through a number of vectors. Car mechanics could cause your brakes to not work properly. But if we licensed all of those professions to require a bachelors degree or equivalent, we'd be forcing millions of people to go through tons of hoops to get basic jobs. Professional licenses mean people can't change careers (because getting a bachelors after you've been laid off and you have kids to feed is not plausible). It means that consumers face much higher prices from the much smaller pool of available providers. If you want to protect people from injury by bad trainers, you could just require trainers (or gyms employing them) to carry insurance against tort liability for negligently bad training. The insurer will then evaluate the real risks involved and may impose some requirements on the insured to get or maintain their insurance, but those risks will be balanced by the competitive nature of the market for insurance and the real probabilities of tortuous injury.### Human: Certification and licensure establish a position of knowledge. We require nurses to have that as it gives us a logical reason to initially believe they know health. Exercise is quickly gaining prominence as the means to living longer, healthier, and without pharmaceuticals. ACSM even acknowledges exercise as medicine and in the huge body of literature it is shown to be as effective or more effective than pharmaceutical medication in pretty much every chronic ailment you can imagine. As such, somebody promoting this "drug" needs to at least know the foundations of what they are teaching. They need to fully understand that cardio is not the end all be all for everyone (and most don't) and HIT training is not the first prescription. A personal trainer should know not only what they are prescribing but also why and the solution is more education.### Assistant: We require licensure of nurses because if a nurse is incompetent, there's a very high probability of death resulting from that. Further, having jumped through the hoops of education does not mean you necessarily possess the knowledge in question, or know how to apply it. You have to go through tons of specialized education to become a lawyer, but there are loads of not very competent lawyers out there. I don't think you have made a case (or could you plausibly) that personal trainers who aren't good at their job pose the same long term danger to their clients that incompetent nurses or lawyers do. Yes, they could cause some injury, but not nearly to the same degree that a doctor or nurse could. What you're going to end up with if you do this is just totally unlicensed/untrained people being personal trainers 99% of the time, because it's generally a cash business and there's a lot more demand for personal trainers than the possible supply if you required a bachelors for everyone.### Human: > I don't think you have made a case (or could you plausibly) that personal trainers who aren't good at their job pose the same long term danger to their clients that incompetent nurses or lawyers do Not OP, but a bad personal trainer can easily cause you to get an injury that can take years to recover from.### Assistant: Not just that, but most personal training sessions cost around $50/hour where I live. Why would I want to pay $50/hour to some kid whose only certification is "I've been lifting for 5 years and am ripped?" When I was in high school, I fucked up my rotator cuff because of bad form while weight lifting. Thankfully, my school had a physical therapist for our athletic organizations that I could see after school. It wasn't serious, but it hurt terribly and I couldn't do anything involving my shoulder for 3 months. It took me a week before I could lift my hand/arm high enough to open my locker. I'd have raised hell if I was working with a trainer when I got hurt. Without any license or higher education requirement, you're risking your safety, progress, and money.### Human: $50 an hour for services is pretty near the minimum of what you can charge when you're doing short sessions, for any professional service. If you're talking about a 1 hr job for instance, you'd probably find most housekeepers would charge $50 for the hour to clean your apartment, just because transportation and inconsistency of the work make it hard to charge much less. My worry is that if you impose this requirement, you're going to have two markets: $50 an hour totally untrained kids who are buff, and $250 an hour trained people with nobody in the middle.

### Human: CMV: During the Quidditch World Cup Final, Viktor Krum should have given his team a chance to win instead of catching the Snitch while his team was down 160 points.### Assistant: Bulgaria cruised into the final due to Krum. The rest of the team was only so-so. Ireland has an actually good team. Sure, their seeker was worse than Krum, but so was every other seeker on the planet. Apart from that, Ireland **dominated** Bulgaria. They got a 160 point lead really quickly. Krum could have extended the match. He could have flown circles around Lynch all week long. The chance of this making a meaningful difference was very small. Ireland was just *that* much better. A full-on miracle would have been needed for Bulgaria to come back. The point differential would have grown and grown. The Irish team could have gotten sudden injuries, but so could the Bulgarian team and given the quality of their flying, the chance that Bulgaria would have gotten an injured player was greater. Krum was aware that the best chance of winning the Cup was hoping that Bulgaria gets a 10 point lead and then catching the Snitch as quickly as possible. This didn't happen, so the chances of winning was minimal.### Human: A .0000000001% chance of a comeback is still better than certain defeat. Any professional athlete with any amount of self-respect would play hard until their joints erode if there is any chance at all of winning. Edit: Also, you don't need a lead to win; you only need to be within 14 goals. So in this specific context of being down by only 16 goals, you show you don't trust your teammates.### Assistant: > Any professional athlete with any amount of self-respect would play hard until their joints erode if there is any chance at all of winning. Your use of this sentence is almost the definition of [**No True Scotsman,**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) which is generally frowned upon in actual debates. In this thread, whenever someone says that Grum was a world-class athlete who did what he could to prevent further disgrace to his teammates, you respond with: >Well, not is he has any self-respect! Others have shown that, given the circumstances in the book, taking the loss by 10 is a much more respectable loss than losing by 200+ points. And based on the description of the game in the books, that was likely to happen. Yes, you are right that there was a minuscule chance that a comeback could be mounted, but as someone who had played quidditch for a long time, Viktor could tell that the odds were more likely that his team would've lost by a lot. Which is more embarrassing for your favorite quidditch team? Intentionally losing by 10 or losing by 200? I'd argue that most people would take the loss by 10.### Human: >Your use of this sentence is almost the definition of No True Scotsman,[1] which is generally frowned upon in actual debates. He is saying that a professional athlete should and indeed does play to win, no matter the odds. Whining about fallacies is poor form.### Assistant: But that's not true. It's false. A fallacy. No self respecting professional athlete would play a match until his joints eroded. Instead, he'd respect himself. This is CMV, not some Harry Potter for kids sub. If you ask for someone to change your views, and counter argue with actual logical fallacies, you will get called out. That's why I subscribe. Actual logical debate on issues. Not just noise about a topic.### Human: I mean by the same token you're assuming the conclusion which is another fallacy. You're saying that it's Impossible for them to have come back and OP gave you several ways in which a comeback could happen. You can't claim a NTS fallacy either when OP is the one defining the scenario. He's not moving the goalposts he's correcting your flawed understanding of his assertion. You were saying that some athletes don't care about winning and so he clarified that he was talking about a group that does care and that he believes Bulgaria's team was in it.

### Human: CMV: We are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Republican party.### Assistant: So you think we'll have one party rule? The Republican party won't fade away, it will transform into something more politically viable. There are already indications it's moving in a more libertarian and anti-war direction (probably accompanied by the Democrats absorbing the foreign policy neoconservatives). Maybe it's moving towards Ron Paul's turf, where there is a thriving pool of support. In any case, one-party rule is untenable for long in the US. An opposition will find its footing, and the current institution of the GOP is an obvious launching pad for that opposition. It just may have a different ideological composition than the GOP we currently know.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I too mourn for the peaceful millennia before the Republicans invented war.### Human: I think you mean "long". You long for that time. Why would you mourn for a peaceful time?### Assistant: One can mourn for something that has passed, right?### Human: I guess so...it just doesn't make much sense to say that. Suppose there was such a thing as a "pre-war" era and that that era has "passed" as you call it. Well the era isn't "dead". An era can't die. We could always theoretically return to a warless existence. That is why mourning an era doesn't make sense to me.

### Human: I believe that the crucifix is a form of idolatry. CMV.### Assistant: >Idolatry: immoderate attachment or devotion to something. There are two definitions of idolatry, one is the one you mentioned, the other is "the worship of a physical object as a god" or "worship of idols". The crucifix isn't worshiped as a physical object, nor is it viewed as a god, there may be immoderate attachment, but that is more personal opinion as to what is moderate and what isn't. >2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: Catechism 2132 states that veneration of images passes onto whoever the image or item portrays. The crucifix portrays Jesus, so venerating the crucifix simply passes onto Jesus, instead of worshiping the crucifix. It isn't idolatry, it is simply venerating an image of Jesus.### Human: I'm sorry, could you please explain what a 'Catechism' is?### Assistant: It is a series of questions and answers summarizing the principles of Christianity. It's used for instruction and teaching. More or less, it is their doctrine.### Human: Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Bible is the doctrine of Christianity? So what you're saying is that in the context of Catholicism it is allowed because of this catechism? Who writes these things?### Assistant: >Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Bible is the doctrine of Christianity? Yes, I shouldn't have said that the catechism is their doctrine, it adds to, explains and summarizes their doctrine. >So what you're saying is that in the context of Catholicism it is allowed because of this catechism? It was allowed before, the catechism explains why it is allowed. >Who writes these things? People at the Vatican, Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Catechism 2132 was taken from, was written by a council at the Vatican. It was approved by Pope John Paul II.

### Human: CMV: Christians generally complaining about gay marriage are defending their power to impose, not their right to practice, their religion.### Assistant: I think the thing about the situation we're unspokenly alluding to (where the Christian florist refused service for the gay wedding) was that it was *her* business, and she knew exactly what it was contributing to. I feel it may have been different if she didn't know what kind of wedding it was for, or if she didn't own the business (in which case she would have likely been fired). Also, you were saying in another comment that then a server at a restaurant shouldn't serve a few teens because they may think they'll have premarital sex... Two distinctions, the server probably doesn't own the business, and providing food doesn't directly contribute to premarital sex like, say, selling a condom does. Providing food directly contributes to feeding them, and what they do afterwards is largely unrelated to service at a restaurant. For a Christian, it can be compared to owning a gun shop and selling a gun to someone who just told them they're about to kill someone. They believe someday they'll have to stand before God who will ask why they did that for them when they knew what it was for and when they believed it was wrong, like the gun shop owner would stand in front of the police/judge who would ask them the same question. Important to note is they believe a sin is a sin and all sins are equal in the sight of God (many Christians struggle putting that belief to action though, something I'm sure you've noticed). I'm not really trying to argue honestly, just provide a bit of insight. It's a gray area that I don't feel comfortable making solid decision, but I understand where both sides are coming from.### Human: > Also, you were saying in another comment that then a server at a restaurant shouldn't serve a few teens because they may think they'll have premarital sex... Two distinctions, the server probably doesn't own the business, and providing food doesn't directly contribute to premarital sex like, say, selling a condom does. Providing food directly contributes to feeding them, and what they do afterwards is largely unrelated to service at a restaurant. I was thinking of the restaurant owner, actually, having a "no dates" policy for... oh, I don't know, biracial couples. Is that okay?### Assistant: Well, now you're making up what is and isn't morally sinful in Christianity. I don't recall a part of the Bible that says "no dating minorities," yet you seem to want to make up false equivalencies here. This feels less like "Change My View" and "Let Me Make Things Up As I Go to Change Your View."### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: As before, there are two different answers, the legal and moral ones. Legally, the First Amendment allows the right to free religious expression. There are the obvious limitations of not allowing your religion to murder, but in terms of holding and expressing beliefs, there would be legal backing to allow that expression of being against interracial marriage to occur. However, on a moral level, from the Christian/Biblical perspective you're trying to corner here (which is why I previously stated your post seems more about trying to play "gotcha" with Christianity than honestly consider a new view on these matters), the suggestion is immoral. I'm not taking a Google link about some random guy as equal weight to the Bible, which DOES NOT establish interracial couples as sinful. But, to answer your question in a selfish manner, there is part of me where the answer to your first question is "yes." That is baked into most every theist religion, the idea that your religion is right and that others are false religions we should rebuke. On that level, I am quite selfish in support of my beliefs, but I also understand that the government is not run off of my beliefs, so I cannot expect it to be beholden to my beliefs, no matter how I would prefer reality to be. That means I cannot expect the government to agree with my beliefs, but I can absolutely believe that the government has no right to legislate my beliefs beyond the basic acts of not allowing me to go on a religious killing spree (though the recent trend seems to be brushing off when Islam does this).### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV - I don't see what's wrong with "morally unethical" human experimentation if all parties are consenting.### Assistant: One of the biggest problems here is that researchers will offer money for subjects to undergo these unethical experiments ... and desperate people will accept money and agree to be mutilated or risk death etc, so that they can afford to feed their starving children or whatever ... it's doubly unethical.### Human: However, what's *actually* unethical about this? Offering money? I don't believe that. If Party A (The Researcher) explains *all* possible outcomes, or at least, the important ones, ranging from death to important risks, then it is up to Party B (The subject) to decide if getting paid is worth the risk. These kind of experiments are what drive scientific knowledge. Look at the Holocaust. A horrible thing, yet *many* of common scientific knowledge today was first tested on the Jews and others being held in camps.### Assistant: Because it's exploiting desperately poor people### Human: And I'll repeat. *and*? Both parties know the potential risks. If you're so poor that you honestly would need to result to this, there are bigger issues than if this is moral. There is nothing immoral about it. The whole concept is inherently amoral.### Assistant: Quoting /u/thiazzi1, in this scenario it is more akin to coercion than to consent. If I said you could either starve to death or take part in this experiment of mine that might kill you, do you really have a choice? It's not like offering that money to people with good, stable lives in which that isn't a life or death choice. Also, it doesn't matter if there are bigger issues than moral here. The subject is moral so we're discussing the moral aspect of it.### Human: > If I said you could either starve to death or take part in this experiment of mine that might kill you, do you really have a choice? You are leaving out the part where the experiment might actually make the person's life a lot better, like in OP's example above with homeless amputees. Also I don't see why OP said these experiments would necessarily target poor people *specifically* - just (as everyone notes) that poor people would be more likely to sign up for them.

### Human: CMV: Bicyclists should not be allowed to ride on public roads with speed limits exceeding 25mph### Assistant: Residential roads in my state, even the small neighborhood ones, have a speed limit of 30mph. That means that I couldn't even go for a bike ride around my block. Maybe the problem here isn't the bikes, but rather the road infrastructure that is heavily geared towards motor vehicles?### Human: ∆: I Just looked up the legal definition of impeding traffic in my state. You are in violation if you consistently travel 15mph or more under the speed limit. In your case I guess this would be acceptable... I have changed my view to allow riding on 35mph roads (assuming a fit cyclist can average 20mph), BUT NO MORE! I still believe cyclists riding on faster roads should be pulled over and ticketed.### Assistant: > BUT NO MORE! Except that rural roads that have 55 MPH limits are often the least traveled, and therefore the safest for cyclists to ride on. You're upset because a large group is impeding traffic, which is fine, but what about the group of one or two? They're not impeding traffic compared to say, a piece of farm equipment. If your argument were "cyclists must yield to cars when they're impeding traffic", then you'd be right (and have the law on your side), but more often than not a cyclist is in a group of less than five people and the problems they cause are not nearly so obnoxious.### Human: > Except that rural roads that have 55 MPH limits are often the least traveled, and therefore the safest for cyclists to ride on. I would argue the opposite, Around here those roads are rarely policed so people usually exceed the posted speed limit by a large margin. Those roads also do not have any median of any kind so there is no buffer room for bikers to ride in. They are basically required to ride in the driving lane. I am guilty of going 70+ on those roads on a regular basis, especially when on my motorcycle.### Assistant: And do you feel that farm equipment should not be allowed on those roads either? Or what about horses? The fact is that those roads are still the lowest traffic and lower speed than highways. Most accidents happen in city driving, and minimizing accidents is best here. Do you really fault the biker in the video you showed?### Human: [Example of the road for reference](https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1417536,-95.5481026,3a,75y,186.6h,76.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc2vHNXoYsNcnmiN8jvdyeA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!6m1!1e1) Most of the farm equipment on these roads drive along the ditch in the grass and rarely get up into the road, so that is a non issue, also they generally have lights and blinkers to notify drivers of their presence and are much larger and easier to spot while driving. Horses should absolutely not be on these roads, but even then i only ever see people riding in the grass ditch, not once have i ever seen a horseback rider on the asphalt unless they are quickly crossing a bridge at a creek. Of course more accidents happen in the city, more people are driving in the city. Thats like saying "California is more dangerous than Rhode Island because more people die in California each year." If you look at the books though, accidents in the country are generally much more serious and end with loss of life much more often. And yes, I believe he is PARTIALLY to blame for the accident. He should not have been riding there in the first place and by doing so he took the risk upon himself... [I am not the only one who holds this belief](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2b1uit/cyclist_appears_to_be_deliberately_hit_by_a/)### Assistant: > And yes, I believe he is PARTIALLY to blame for the accident. He was literally on the shoulder on a *two lane road* and that truck didn't have anyone on their left, they couldn't have had more room to avoid a roadside obstacle. That could have been anyone there and that truck would have hit them. Distracted driving was the cause of that accident, nothing more, nothing less. >Of course more accidents happen in the city, more people are driving in the city. Yes, and that's why it's safer, per mile ridden, to be in a rural area. The danger isn't the cyclists. The danger is assholes who can't be bothered to look up from their cellphones. It doesn't matter who they hit, it's distracted driving that causes much much more harm than anything you're talking about.### Human: I am not arguing against drivers being bad. Most drivers are not even worthy of being behind a wheel. With that in mind, WHY WOULD YOU TRUST THEM?! Why ride a bike on a road with people who are constantly distracted and will run you off the road for no reason. It is absolutely reckless to ride on these streets because even if you do nothing wrong, you will still have the potential to get hit. The fact that he got out on that road, Which was not a bike friendly road, is enough to hand him some blame. A rational person would have decided to ride elsewhere instead of blindly trusting that everyone passing you will stay in their lane. There is so little room for error on that road.### Assistant: >The fact that he got out on that road, Which was not a bike friendly road, is enough to hand him some blame. 1. How is that not a bike friendly road? It's got two full lanes, plus a shoulder that's as wide as a 3rd lane. If the biker rides in the shoulder, that's more room than most "bike friendly" roads that have dedicated bicycle lanes. The road condition isn't an issue either - you can clearly see from the video that the road (ahead and behind) is in pristine shape and there's no debris anywhere in sight. Apart from the speed limit this road couldn't be any *more* bike friendly than it already is. 2. This is textbook [victim blaming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming). It doesn't matter if something you chose to do slightly increases the odds of whatever disaster actually occurred, "fault" is doing something *wrong*. There's nothing *wrong* with lawfully riding on the shoulder of a bike-friendly road (and this *is* a bike-friendly road from the video). It's no different than the reasoning for how we don't say that a rape victim is at fault for the way they dressed - whether or not their clothing contributed to what happened to them, it's not *wrong* to exercise their right to wear whatever clothing they please and the fault is entirely on the person who chose to do the raping. >A rational person would have decided to ride elsewhere instead of blindly trusting that everyone passing you will stay in their lane. You could say that about riding a bike literally anywhere that's not a bicycle-only path. Any time you're sharing any road with motorists (and even in many "bike friendly" roads with separate, marked bicycle lanes) you are *always* at the mercy of *every* passing motorist. Although the level of protection afforded by your mode of transportation varies, that's also true when you're driving a car or when you are a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk near a road. Shit can and does happen, and no matter what you do there is always a chance that somebody will come along and flatten you. By your logic a rational person would never be able to ride a bicycle anywhere, and every accident involving a bicycle would have the bicyclist partially at fault. >There is so little room for error on that road. This comment really shows how out of touch you are with the realities of biking in the USA. Seriously - that shoulder is *huge* compared to the size of a typical bicycle-only lane that many US cities have on their marked "bike friendly" roads. What's really surprising to me is that you are bringing up such terrible arguments in order to blame the victim here, but you skipped over the one thing that actually *was* the victim's fault: they were riding too close to the left edge of their lane. They had a gigantic shoulder there to utilize and they were riding close enough to the edge that their handlebars would've been basically sticking over the white line.### Human: From what I have read, it appears you have constructed a straw man. OP looks like he is arguing solely that cyclists should not be allowed to drive on the *driving lanes* of the road. In order words, they should be restricted to the shoulder except for when they are crossing the road. I feel that that is a reasonable argument. After all, it is undisputed that pedestrians should not be allowed to walk down the middle of the road because they would impede traffic, so why shouldn't the same logic apply to bicyclists?### Assistant: >From what I have read, it appears you have constructed a straw man. OP looks like he is arguing solely that cyclists should not be allowed to drive on the *driving lanes* of the road. No. OP linked a video of a cyclist riding on the shoulder of a road (*not* in a driving lane) who got hit by a truck that wasn't paying attention and veered out of their lane. OP then claimed that the bicyclist was partially at fault. This was the only claim I was refuting. >In order words, they should be restricted to the shoulder except for when they are crossing the road. I feel that that is a reasonable argument. After all, it is undisputed that pedestrians should not be allowed to walk down the middle of the road because they would impede traffic, so why shouldn't the same logic apply to bicyclists? Sorry, but I'm not going to get into the larger question at hand. I just wanted to call out the ridiculous victim blaming that I saw, and my comment had no relevance to what you're now asking me. If you're seeing a straw man, it's because you're looking in a mirror.### Human: My interpretation of his position comes from when he wrote > Most of the farm equipment on these roads drive along the ditch in the grass and rarely get up into the road, and >Horses should absolutely not be on these roads, but even then i only ever see people riding in the grass ditch, not once have i ever seen a horseback rider on the asphalt unless they are quickly crossing a bridge at a creek. in reference to an example rural road. The "grass ditch" he repeatedly refers to is clearly the unpaved shoulder on the side of the road. Likewise, unless he posted a link to a video in the original post before it was removed, he never linked to a video of a cyclist getting hit by a car. He linked to a Reddit *comments section* about a video of a cyclist getting hit by a car, with the statement: >I am not the only one who holds this belief Naturally, one would expect you to read the comments in the thread. Sort it by controversial, and you find quotes like: >Idiots biking on the highway should at least try to stay as far away from the car lanes as possible. and >What I don't under stand is if he has around 2 meters of space to the right of him on that shoulder...why try to stay as close to that traffic lane as possible? and >Sucks. He was riding right next to that white line though. I'm not really surprised and >I'm not blaming the cyclist at all but why is he only like a foot away from the white line? Wouldn't it be safer and smarter to be further away from the line and stay further to the right? and >hey, cyclists need to understand the dangers of riding on such roads. stay further into the shoulder lane. cars always stumble across the lines. and >This is pretty messed up, but why was he cycling so close to the road? It seamed like he had about 4 feet of shoulder to his right. and >I'm just curious. Why do cyclists choose to ride closer to the road instead of staying further to the right? and hopefully, you get the point. He's arguing that many others also believe that cyclists should stay on the far right of the shoulder.### Assistant: Wow. You really are missing the point here. *I have no interest in debating OP's overall views on the topic espoused in the original post, I just chimed in to contest the blatant victim-blaming*. OP linked to the video in question twice - once to a reddit comment section, and once directly to the video itself. To clear this up, I'm going to give you a rough, paraphrased outline of the conversation thus far: OP: Here is a video of a bicyclist riding on the shoulder and getting hit by a truck. The bicyclist was partially at fault for reasons A, B, and C. Look at this reddit thread, other people also agree that the bicyclist is at fault. Me: Reasons A, B, and C are invalid for attributing fault because of X, Y and Z. I'm surprised you didn't mention the strongest (but still invalid) argument in favor of the biker's fault, reason D. [Note that I didn't go into the reasons why I consider reason D to be invalid, because OP did not actually directly mention it as their own view.] You: OP is talking about bicycles in the driving lane. Why do you think bicycles and pedestrians should be allowed in traffic lanes? Me: No, OP directly commented about a video of a bicycle that was on the shoulder (*not* in a driving lane). Nothing I said is relevant to whether bicycles should be allowed in the traffic lanes, I only said that you can't blame a person who *isn't in the road* for getting hit by a car that veers off of the road. You: Well look at all of these people in OP's linked thread who commented about reason D. Clearly you're ignoring OP's argument. ...are you serious? Just like OP was exhibiting textbook victim blaming, you're now exhibiting a textbook example of [shifting the goalposts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts). OP stated a conclusion (that the biker was at fault) and several reasons that made them arrive at that conclusion (reasons A, B, and C which did not include any mention of riding too far to the left). OP linked a reddit thread where other people came to the same conclusion - but this does not mean that *every reason shared by every person who came to the same conclusion* becomes part of OP's argument. OP described their own reasoning, and that is the reasoning I chose to refute. I'm not going to get bogged down responding to every person in this other thread that's not even in /r/CMV, who aren't even posting in a debate forum. Since you apparently need some sort of closure out of this though, I'll go ahead and give you my argument against reason D (that the biker was riding too far to the left). Here we go: First, let's figure out where exactly the collision in question occurred. The video listed the location as Highway 69, at the junction with TX 344. This location actually won't come up if you search it in Google Maps, because it looks like 344 goes through some name changes as it passes through Bullard. Nevertheless, [Bullard is a pretty small town](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bullard,+TX+75757/@32.1429053,-95.3321622,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x864836a432fd23c3:0x16ee86e5d6282c8e) and you can see that the only road with a major Highway 69 intersection (Henderson St) is in fact FM 344 E just outside of town. So let's look closely at Google Streetview and find the location of the crash. [Here it is](https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1399162,-95.3114627,3a,75y,150.03h,84.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTOJ9GvgKyKYbyf7G-fxrcA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1). Unfortunately the street view doesn't go any further south (the linked location is at the top of the bridge where it's paved with concrete, the crash happened slightly further South, on the slope where there's asphalt), but you can look at [the original video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvs3xrO9_gw&t=0m12s) and compare the treelines - we're definitely looking at the right place. Now we know where this place is, let's figure out how much space the biker had to work with. I can't exactly get out there with a tape measure but it looks to me like (even though it's not an interstate highway) that section of road is following the standard [US Interstate lane standards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards). This is a common practice, because if you conform to the standards there's a chance you may be able to get federal funding for the road sometime down the line. I'm going to say then, that this road has 12-foot wide lanes, with a 4-foot inside shoulder and a 10-foot outside shoulder. In the video the bicyclist is riding dead-center in the directly-sunlit portion of the shoulder. How wide is that portion? Well you can measure on your screen, almost exactly 60% of the lane is in shadow - that means the sunlit portion is 4 feet across. Note that this well-lit section is *wider* than many towns' actual marked bicycle lanes, which [often have only 3 feet of asphalted surface](http://azbikelaw.org/aashto-guide-for-the-development-of-bicycle-facilities/). As I said above the biker was riding about dead-center in this well-lit section, which puts the biker riding 2 feet from the white line. How close does that put them to the white line? For that we need to know how wide their bicycle is. I don't know what bike they're riding, but I have a hybrid bike hanging on the wall next to me that has relatively wide handlebars, and mine is only 12.75 inches from the centerline to the edge of the handlebars. Given that this bicyclist is so into their hobby that they have not one but *two* cameras recording their ride and they're on a major highway, in all likelihood the biker was probably riding a road bicycle with a much thinner profile than the hybrid bike next to me. Such bikes often they have vertical-only grips that only go out about 6-8 inches from the centerline and serve to drastically reduce the profile of the bicyclist and therefore reduce drag. If the biker was riding a road bike like that, they had about a foot and a half between them and the white line - but even with the worst case wide-handlebar situation they still had a foot of empty space between the edge of their bicycle and the lane. That's *farther* from the white line than you would be if you were riding in the marked bicycle lanes in my town, and it's enough space that even one of those pickup trucks with the comically large side mirrors isn't going to clip you unless their tires cross the white line. Imagine a situation where we have two cars in a head-on collision on a two-lane highway. In this imaginary situation we have traffic camera footage that shows car A in its lane with a foot of space between the yellow lines and the farthest left edge of the lane. Car B crosses over the center line and hits car A. When this evidence reached the police, the insurance companies, or anyone else - there would be *no question* that car B was 100% at fault for crossing out of their lane. This situation with the bicycle is no different. We have a bicyclist who is demonstrably completely outside of the lane of traffic, and a vehicle that drifts out of their lane and hits them. The fault (as in "who broke a traffic rule in such a way that directly caused or contributed to the accident") is 100% on the driver of the truck. So there's my rebuttal of "reason D", which OP never even directly mentioned in relation to this specific incident. Again - I only came here to contest the victim blaming in that specific case, and I have no interest in debating OP's broader views on the topic of how bicyclists (or anybody else) should be using the roadways. I will not be replying further to this thread, and I am going to disable inbox notifications for this thread since you apparently can't take a hint.

### Human: In Europe, I find Gypsies are a race of untrustworthy thieves and beggars. CMV### Assistant: Would you be willing to consider that a great number of people having this attitude and mistreating them because of it might make this something of a self fulfilling prophecy? I live in the United States so I've not really had much interaction with any Roma but it seems to me if most of the people around them are just going to be straight up racist towards them (and don't kid yourself, your post **is** racist) by **constantly telling them that all they are is thieves and beggars** they shouldn't be that surprised when that's what some of them end up resorting to to get by. I want you to consider this carefully: if it's not some external influence on them that is causing this behavior to be so prevalent among them, then it has to be something essential (ie, genetic) to Roma. Most people, for obvious reasons, are not really willing to go there. Are you? If you decide on external influence, you should treat Roma with the respect you would anyone else, because currently you are doing and saying things that encourage people to do things you don't like.### Human: so if a gypsy walks up to me as a tourist and attempts to engage in conversation should I just listen to what he has to say like anyone else? And what if I'm robbed? Do I do it again and again until I am not?### Assistant: Why... wouldn't you? This strikes me as a very strange thing to ask. "You mean if somebody starts to talk to me I should treat them like a human being and RESPOND?". That's what your post reads like. You can be wary and not let them near your belongings without being blatantly racist.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Why would you ignore somebody who is simply trying to engage in conversation? If you're in a weird neighborhood with nobody around, obviously be wary and maybe try to get away from weird people who engage you. If you're just hanging out in a semi-populated area and somebody asks you a question, or is just trying to be friendly, are you really going to snub him based on his race alone? If he tries to get closer than you are comfortable with, or asks you for weird favors that might put you in a vulnerable position, don't do that... but also this whole pre-judgement thing you have going on here is really frightening to me.### Human: I think half of this thread has valid and logical way of approaching things based off of prior experience. The other half is applying rules from their own society to these types of people. These are not normal homeless people from the US. These people can blend in and appear friendly at first but they can have your wallet in their hand the next minute. They use groups for either intimidation or distraction in order to steal. EVERY experience a fellow traveler has had with gypsies has been detrimental to their traveling experience. This is including my own experience when I was pick pocketed in Athens. After my experience, I will be absolutely shocked if you can CMV.### Assistant: I am definitely not "applying rules from the US" here. Although the way people in the United States treat homeless people pisses me off as well, I still think they often have a much better chance at improving their situation than any Roma are ever given.### Human: >I still think they often have a much better chance at improving their situation than any Roma are ever given. I doubt this is true. But nevertheless it's not comparable either. We have open borders in Europe and so many of those Roma/Sinti/etc. move to some Western city and do their stuff there. So what you're asking is for a country to deal with a (with few exceptions) foreign problem that they had nothing to do with. And yet they are given substantial help. And yet you make it sound like we all treat them like scum. You have to take the circumstances into consideration here. Europe is not a united country where everyone feels the same solidarity towards foreigners as to their own countrymen. Europe is not America. We don't have a common culture. Americans will feel more solidarity towards Americans than towards Mexicans and Peruvians. And in the same way Spaniards feel more solidarity towards Spaniards than towards Romanians.### Assistant: I'm not telling a "country" how to deal with anything. As I've stated elsewhere, I don't have a policy answer here because I don't live in Europe. But if there's going to be a solution it's going to have to include substantially less people being racist towards them. That's how this kind of stuff works anywhere. That's why I suggested that OP treat them with respect.

### Human: CMV: Infringing on Free Speech rights is indefensible.### Assistant: Private places don't have to give you space to speak what you want to speak about. And often when people make free speech ideas they simply want to talk about things with no criticism. It seems like you aren't making this argument, but it is often made. You may the right to tell your boss to fuck off, but that doesn't mean you have the right to say that and not face consequences. So just to clarify, you aren't making that type of free speech argument right?### Human: No, absolutely not, people have a right to react to what you say, just not to prevent you from saying it!### Assistant: But then they have the right to say "I don't want this person here." You can't have free speech unless you have free speech for all. They didn't say Milo should be banned from speaking anywhere, they didn't say he should be censored, they said they didn't want him there. Why is it permissible in your eyes to ban them from saying that?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: To shut down him speaking *there*. They're entirely entitled to do anything legal in protest of that. Those that committed crimes in the process committed crimes, that's obviously wrong. Those that protest against his speaking *there* are not silencing him, they're just taking away this venue and audience. That's not an infringement on rights, nobody has the right to an audience or venue.

### Human: CMV: Bernie Sanders' policies and view for America is too radical to be effective.### Assistant: Abolition was once considered radical, gay marriage was once considered radical, but after candidates who supported the same "radical" view were elected multiple times it stops being considered radical. If you support Bernie's positions you should vote for him, because even if he can't accomplish it, the next person will have an easier time doing it.### Human: Yes, but I think the grand majority of radical ideas have simply been thrown out and ignored and for good reason.### Assistant: Im not against his views. How will he effectively implement them?### Human: I think you may be overlooking the number one priority of a Sanders presidency: get money out of politics. Why is it that things that most voters support are "politically impossible"? Things like the minimum wage, closing gunshow loopholes, getting prescription drug prices down consistently poll at over 50% but aren't realistically going to get passed anytime soon. Bernie is essentially giving a populist rewording of the reality that voter preferences are irrelevent if their interests conflict with those of big money. I've heard of political science studies showing that there is no detectable influence on policy of the opinions of people in the bottom 70% of incomes. The reason you find his policy proposals unrealistic is that you're imagining trying to pass them in the current political environment. But those policy ideas are second to the whole purpose of his campaign, the reason he calls it a political revolution. Once it becomes possible to get elected without funding from private interests we can start to seriously debate ideas like his which are common sense/ centrist politics in the rest of the developed world. (Sorry I'm on mobile so no sources atm).### Assistant: Okay, now how does that system get passed within the very system you've shown to be so good at excluding that influence?

### Human: CMV: I think false rape claims are much more prevalent than the 2% rate that is commonly cited.### Assistant: I am gonna go with a "none of the above" statistic. The 2% is likely wrong, the 10% is likely wrong, and the 40% is likely wrong. The truth is, [we have no idea what portion of rape accusations are false and never will.](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-19/how-many-rape-reports-are-false) There is simply no way to know what portion of rape accusations are true and what portion are false. Especially considering there are a lot of accusations which may be true, but cannot be proven to the level required by law (beyond a reasonable doubt) so that conviction statistics don't tell us what we'd like.### Human: I can lift a ball with my mind with a kids toy hooked up to my head. eventually we'll be able to tell if someone is lying with 100% accuracy### Assistant: Not everyone that lies knows they are lying tho. If I'm convinced Santa is real and talk about him, it's not going to trigger as a lie. Doesn't make him exist tho.### Human: then check the other person. there will still be problems at that point, but some day we'll be able to actually see their memory of what happened### Assistant: And what if both people believe they are telling the truth? Remember, you don't have to be telling the truth, you just have to *believe* you are telling the truth. So both people can potentially believe they're in the right.

### Human: I believe that if Wal-Mart started paying their employees 15 dollars an hour, 95% of those employees would be out of a job in 6 months. CMV### Assistant: Your argument makes an assumption that sticks out to me: >For 15 dollars an hour one employee would be willing to do the work of two employees. Why would this not apply to current Walmart laborers? It would make sense that there would be higher standards for higher pay- is it not possible that a Walmart employee would then rise to meet the demand? There's a social justice theory called "Broken Glass" theory. It works like this: people are more likely to commit crimes (including small ones, like littering) in a bad-looking area. It relies on the idea that people's behavior conforms to the expectation of the environment. If people were paid $15, a think a stronger percentage than just 5% would begin to work much harder because the work environment would change. EDIT: I suppose my point would be: is the average Walmart employee not a good worker (which is an uncomfortable assumption, by the way) because as a person they don't work hard, or because they're not properly incentivized to do good work?### Human: **Why would this not apply to current Walmart laborers? It would make sense that there would be higher standards for higher pay- is it not possible that a Walmart employee would then rise to meet the demand?** I believe 5% would, heck maybe even 10%, but the reality is the majority of these people aren't working at Wal-Mart because they were turning down other jobs to get them. If you pay 15 dollars an hour, you will be the highest paying retail store in the nation, and this includes pretty much all of the services Industry.. Servers and cooks of restaurants would flock to Wal-Mart, these people are used to running around their whole shift, constantly staying busy, and now they would be offered a job paying them more than what they make now... and asked to do less work. They will come in and run circles around the Wal-Mart Employee who has been just standing around the last 6 years. Not to mention this cream of the service industry crop will bring actual service skills something that is seriously lacking at Wal-Mart. AS for the Current Wal-Mart employee... you can earn raises at Wal-Mart, you can earn promotions. But those people are no longer making 9 dollars an hour.. its the ones that weren't skilled enough to stand out at Wal-Mart. As for my "assumptions" of their work ethic, sadly I have a Wal-Mart 3 minutes from my house, nearest grocery store is 15, Target is 25. I hate Wal-Mart as the service is atrocious, but it just isn't worth the travel most the time. In my years of going there I have come across one quality employee. I'm sure there are more but the numbers are low. The influx of fresh blood would crush these people, they have been doing the same job for 10 years, they aren't just all the sudden become harder workers, or understand the value of customer service. Wal-Mart doesn't care about customer service, its much cheaper to have low skilled employees, and they still make their profit. If Wal-Mart is forced to pay such a high wage, they will care about their customer Service, thus the vast majority of the one they have will be out of work... as for the 95% that is my opinion.... what is yours 50%? Either way a shit ton of the current Wal-Mart employees would be out of a job### Assistant: >I hate Wal-Mart as the service is atrocious, but it just isn't worth the travel most the time. In my years of going there I have come across one quality employee. I'm sure there are more but the numbers are low. My point is that of course it's terrible. If I worked for Walmart my job performance would also probably be terrible. You're working for minimum wage with a clientele that can be difficult for a company that receives constant criticism over how it treats its employees. My point is that these employees put in the minimum because they don't have any realistic expectation of being rewarded for anything more. It's literally soul-sucking work. You talked about servers- a server can make more money based on their performance, which is why they tend to develop such a strong work ethic. When a person's job performance is directly linked to their income, you'll see people work much harder. I can't give an exact number in terms of how many would end up losing their job and remain as sub-par. However, I see your figure of 95% being far too low. As I've mentioned before, people will act in accordance to expectations in the environment. Alter the expectations through proper incentives as well as real opportunity to be rewarded for work, and people's behavior is also very likely to change.### Human: So now you are saying, employee who aren't coming close to doing their best work should be rewarded for this with more money... cause then they would do their best work. I mean seriously, you are making excuses for an employee sucking at their job and only putting in 50% saying they deserve to be paid more. And while I agree if expectations were raised output can be raised, you are ignoring that these people will be up against all the best in their business. Your shitty half assing it employee will now be able to compete with the best cashier/box boy Target had to offer? Not to mention the influx of hard working and skilled restaurant employees and other laborers? You cannot just go from being a slacker for 10 years to competing with the best in your field over night### Assistant: Did I indicate that it would be immediate? Of course not. Corporate culture takes some time to fix. Furthermore, I never stated they deserved to get paid more than minimum wage. You're making a lot of assumptions about me. Your argument: If you raise the minimum wage, 95% will fail and get fired. I'm directly responding to your hypothetical. I'm making no claim as to whether or not they deserve that raise or if what Walmart is doing is correct. All I'm doing is showing you why environmental factors of working at Walmart also play a significant role as to why their employees don't work particularly hard, and that by changing that environment (incentives, including better pay) those expectations (and thus behavior) is also likely to change. Furthermore, if Walmart raises its wages, it's likely that other major retailers will do so as well (such as Target) as they are also likely able to afford it and will want to retain quality workers.### Human: Wal-Mart is "expected" to raise their wages because they are the most profitable retailer in the world and could "afford" to do so. Target could not afford what Wal-Mart could afford and each retailer after that could afford even less Service Industry jobs cannot just afford to pay more because Walmart is paying more, constructions jobs cannot just way more because Wal-Mart could afford to Wal-Mart pays the same as other retailers do.. (feel free to look it up, the aren't paying less than Target and Kohls) Wal-Mart is targeted as the evil company because they are one of the few who could afford to pay their cashiers a "living wage" but don't The point is... if they did pay their cashiers the living wage... the vast majority of current Wal-Mart employees would be out of a job in 6 months as better more qualified employees would come in and take their jobs as Walmart would be paying 50% more than anyone else for that type of work### Assistant: I'd like it if you could please start responding to my actual argument, and *not* what you *think* I'm saying. * I'm not saying Walmart is obligated to raise their wages (although a case could be made considering that now my tax dollars are basically subsidizing them, since their workers invariably need governmental assistance. This is irrelevant to your post, however.) >The point is... if they did pay their cashiers the living wage... the vast majority of current Wal-Mart employees would be out of a job in 6 months as better more qualified employees would come in and take their jobs as Walmart would be paying 50% more than anyone else for that type of work Once again, I'm not saying Walmart must raise their wages. All I'm doing is demonstrating why 95% of Walmart employees may not lose their jobs. You then keep coming at me with why Walmart isn't evil, and I have nothing to say about that, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about human nature in the workplace, the nature of incentives, and whether 95% of Walmart employees would lose their job if their pay was increased. Let's stick to that, please. My argument, once again, is that if you change the environmental factors, including pay and incentive, then I think more than 5% of Walmart employees would keep their job. Is there any reason why Walmart employees as people are inherently lesser than any other type of low-skill worker?### Human: >Is there any reason why Walmart employees as people are inherently lesser than any other type of low-skill worker? Usually when I see Walmart employees they tend to be older and a little rougher looking compared to some of the employees I see at other retail stores. I do get the impression that this was the only job they could get and if the wages were increased a lot of them would be replaced by younger more energetic people.

### Human: CMV: America cannot continue the quasi-permanent state of war we are currently in and remain a true Republic.### Assistant: Well, the definition of a republic is "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch." So, I'm not sure how infringing on liberties of citizens makes that invalid. While I think you pose an argument against war time law changes or how they should function, there is no part of your argument that means America is changing or adjusting their ways to leave that definition.### Human: That's what I was trying to address with the Madison quote. It's the idea that if you give more and more power to limit liberties and rights to a small group of people, in this case the Executive Branch, they will use it. The problem is that if those powers remain invested in that small group of people indefinitely, you get a more authoritarian government that doesn't stop being more authoritarian after the war, because there is no after the war. If that continues for long enough, you end up devolving into an oligarchy, whether the pretense of a republic is maintained or not.### Assistant: Well what's weird with this war is we aren't actually in war. We haven't declared war on a sovereign nation, so there for we're in a battle, not a war. This grants certain things but it doesn't grant the president full wartime powers. The 1917 Espionage act was actually moved out of Title 50 (War Crimes) and into Title 18 (Crimes), so we no longer need to be in war for someone to commit said crime. RICO has always been Title 18, and isn't enforced to silence war opposers, but to stop criminal congregation. It was originally formed to fight the Mafia. So still there are two things that have nothing to do with wartime leniancies for the Executive Branch. Your argument is essentially "The government shouldn't get more powers because we're in war" then, which I hope you see is wrong. But our War On Terrorism isn't actually a war, and the two examples you used have nothing to do with additional war time powers, and you're not less of a republic for the additional powers. That all make sense?### Human: I'll get a more detailed response later on when I have a little more time, but I'm saying that expanding executive powers for wartime is fine and helpful, the problem comes when we are constantly at war. And we may not be officially at war, but since 2001, our military operations in the Middle East have been conducted under the AUMF, which granted the President the use of "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons" President Bush used this as justification to indefinitely detain people without provide access to a lawyer or trial, as well as to authorize the NSA to carry out their warentless wiretapping program. President Obama has used it to justify military strikes on ISIL, which would allow him to retain the authority to use the "appropriate and necessary force" that he and his predecessor have used in ways that would be blatant violations of the constitution in peacetime.### Assistant: While they're violations, they're no worse than what others can do during other wars. This also doesn't remove or threaten a republic because you can't put the presidential election on hold indefinitely while on war. If the people are sick of the war, they'll vote for the candidate who will try to end the war. Yes this war has gone on long and yes there are questionable decisions made by the presidents during their terms, but they're scarcely more severe than what would've happened if we formally declared war on another nation.

### Human: I think that Daft Punk is just 70's elevator music that some 40 year old guys sing over. CMV### Assistant: Well, you might not enjoy Daft Punk but they are a lot more than 70's elevator music, they're (arguably) the band that launched an entire genre of music (or at least helped it get some traction). They used their record label influence as well as influence among other artists to help get the French House music scene off the ground. They take elements of disco, funk, and soul and throw them in a mixing bowl with the other common elements of electronic dance music. Now, I don't think I'll be able to convince you that you're actually secretly enjoying Daft Punk, but saying they're *just* 70's elevator music is like saying The Beatles are *just* a boy band or that Led Zeppelin was *just* a rock group. Daft Punk is probably not as big as The Beatles were, but it helps paint the picture. Also, their live performances are pretty fucking phenomenal.### Human: A lot of people tend to forget that Daft Punk shaped the future of music to some extent with their pioneering EDM work, as you mentioned. With Random Access Memories, they decided to create a throwback to a time when the sounds of the future were still created by instruments, not computers, and people seem to be missing that point. It makes sense given where they are at in their career. Also, as a small aside, RAM is largely sample-free (Contact being the only track involving a sample), and the entire album was recorded to tape, like it would have been during the time of disco, and there was meticulous attention to detail throughout ever facet of the album (although the CD mastering is terrible in comparison the LP imo).### Assistant: Can you explain this to me? Serious question. If you said Kraftwerk, Soft Cell, OMD or maybe NIN was pioneering I would agree. Daft Punk always sounded like average electronic dance music to me. If there is anything distinctive about it them, its the smooth elevator-like quality that OP remarks upon. Exactly what did they pioneer?### Human: Pioneered may have not been quite the right word. Daft Punk made EDM accessible to the masses, paving the way for groups like Justice to blow up. Whether you care for DP or not, "understanding" their popularity and influence is all about context. In that vein, understanding the idea behind Random Access Memories involves looking at the context of DP's discography/history. Also, it is worth noting that I don't care much for Daft Punk's studio discography outside of RAM. That being said, their two live albums (Alive 1997 and Alive 2007) are some of the best live recordings you will ever hear, and are well worth looking into.### Assistant: But again, I don't think that's really the case. Electronic dance music was popular a long time before Daft Punk and it has bigger artists, the masses already had it. I'm not attacking them by saying this. They've had a few hits, some songs I like (especially the soundtrack to Tron), and they do have a particular sound of their own. They've also done more average songs, and I just don't think they merit the attention they seem to get. But that's marketing for you. If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it.

### Human: One should never expect people to use invented pronouns (xe, xir, etc.) CMV### Assistant: Not that long ago, if you were a woman, you were either referred to as "Miss" or "Mrs." Your marital status defined you (while men, of course, escaped such a thing). "Miss" denoted young, innocent and weak, while Mrs. was property of the husband, as in "Mrs. John Smith". So, some women came up with a stupid made up term "Ms.", which was scoffed at by a lot of people. But now, it's common, and makes sense. Not long ago, people from China or Japan were called "Oriental", a reference to being from the East. Of course, it was only the East relative to Europe, and the people from there got tired of the term and asked to be called Asians. Sure, there's a limit of reasonableness that needs to apply. You might not know a persons preferred gender designation when you meet them and use the wrong term, and they should have no right to get pissed off. But what harm does it do to make a small accommodation to acknowledge that the term of address that they prefer is a better one to use than an ill-fitting one-size-fits-all approach?### Human: Isn't Ms. the same thing as Miss?### Assistant: No. Miss applies only to unmarried women. Ms. Is for any woman, regardless of marital status.### Human: What is the difference in pronunciation? Any?### Assistant: I don't know how to represent phonetics but Ms. is pronounced "Mizz" generally. Some dialects use "Mizz" or "Mizz-es" for Miss/Mrs. but most people do not in my experience.

### Human: CMV: I think female tennis players should have to play 5 sets in Grand Slams.### Assistant: Given the women aren't in competition with the men, I don't see the different number of sets being a problem. If you win the womens competition, you're the best of the best. Likewise for the men - Why shouldn't the best of the best be paid the same for each division?### Human: Because they're being paid the same for doing much less in a comparable sport. Not to mention their skill level is much lower and the attendance for the men's matches is the main draw.### Assistant: The idea is basically that for the woman to be the best in the women's tennis competition she needs just as much effort, training and skill as the men need to win their competition. Technically you are right, because there are more people interested in watching men's tennis and the matches are longer, so in your logic, since they are providing less for the audience they are supposed to be paid less. The thing is though that the tennis associations pay the women as much as they do the men out of acknowledgment that their effort is just as valued as the men's effort. It's kind of socialist, but that's not uncommon in sports.### Human: I think it is uncommon that women get payed the same amount as men in sport. As to your point with effort, it's not the same as men because they're doing much less. in nearly every other sport you can argue women put the same amount of effort as men but tennis Grand Slams is not one of them. It's not like Women's marathon where they run half and still call it a Marathon and the men have to run the full distance. They both run the 42 km.### Assistant: But typically women need a lot more time to finish a marathon. I mean that socialist measuers are not uncommon, with wage caps and all. And they may be doing much less to you, but for a woman those 3 sets are just as exhausting to her as the 5 are for men. A marathon is different, because you can play slower, make a break and similar. In tennis, you have an opponent to fight, so you can't do that.### Human: Is there any other sport where women have opponents where they play less than men? As far as I know Grand Slams are the only time it differs from men to women because even in regular tennis competions men only play 3 sets. Also to your point about marathons they can play "slower" and they don't have an opponent, other female versions of sports with opponents like MMA in the main fights even the women have to fight 5 minute rounds instead of 3 for non title fights which is the way it should be for Women's Grand Slams.### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: An elected EU President is a terrible idea.### Assistant: I don't think it's fair to use the current voter turnout to predict the turnout if there were direct election of a Europresident who had real power. Many think that the current elections are meaningless, while they might think otherwise in that case. There are still many problems with the idea of an elected president, but I don't think that the low voter turnout/low representation is necessarily one of them.### Human: That's true, but even with 90% turnout the winning candidate would have 35% support at most. Dissatisfaction is inevitable; why pretend to be democratic about it?### Assistant: I don't see how that's a valid argument against elections. For many elections the winner gets less than 50% of the vote. Countries like India see this with great regularity. The point of an election is that somewhere in the middle between the extremes lies a median position that most people would be comfortable with and typically vote for. Even if extreme parties eat up a large percentage of the vote, individually they will be smaller than the moderates, the ones that attempt to serve the greatest number of people.### Human: The minimum wage in Romania is 180€/month. Do you really expect there to be a happy medium between voters living at that level in post-Soviet states and ones in developed countries? The French minimum wage is 1430€ per month. Because of the nature of the EU no 'happy medium' is possible without fanning the flames of scepticism.### Assistant: There are two problems with your argument. The first is that you seem to be lacking the creativity or political strategy to find common ground. There is great precedent for rich and poor to come together and vote similarly on a cause. Part of the trick is to not pledge full parity or complete inaction but some common-ground compromise that lets wages be more, but not fully, equitable. The second problem is that you are trying to point to the extremes to tell me that there's no middle. In that vein I would say that your argument is fundamentally flawed.### Human: > There is great precedent for rich and poor to come together and vote similarly on a cause. I think you're forgetting the fragile nature of the EU. Member states, because they are still sovereign, can leave whenever they wish. If a rich country wants to leave because it doesn't like the President that got elected with Romanian votes, it can. That kind of sentiment is not something that should be encouraged. Until there is a United States of Europe, there should never be an elected President. > The second problem is that you are trying to point to the extremes to tell me that there's no middle. Of course there's a middle. The EPP is a relatively moderate group; their candidate would be relatively moderate. But if their candidate were elected by the 'middle EU' countries, the poor and rich ones would have at them. *And because they can leave when they want*, this is obviously a problem.

### Human: CMV: Abortion Is Far More Than Just Religion VS Science### Assistant: If there was a child who was four years old and they needed a kidney transplant, and the mother was a match, and the mother had two kidneys so would only be impacted with a minor reduction in lifespan and health, would you like there to be a law forcing her to undergo the surgery and give up a kidney for her son? I would assume you would say no, the parent has bodily autonomy, and while you or I may decide that the correct moral thing to do for our kin would be to donate the organ, she may have a different moral view, and as such we should allow personal choice here rather than legislating morality. This is analogous to pregnancy because for 9 months the woman loses her bodily autonomy. She is made sick, she can't eat as she likes, she can't drink, she can't go to an amusement park, she can't make all sorts of choices about her life, and her body is totally deformed. If she has a normal birth her vagina will never be the same, if she has a caesarian she will have to carry a scar for the rest of her life. And all this because she got pregnant when she didn't want to or was unable to prevent it. Now it is important to remember that you are talking about morality which, as history tells us, is not a shared constant, but rather a constantly growing and developing body of thought. Thus means that your moral position is utterly irrelevant to what we should be making laws around. The right way to make a law is to assume you don't know who you will be in the system and try to make it as fair as possible for everyone regardless of their position. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. I absolutely hate acupuncture, I think it is bullshit and fleeces the gullible. Should it be illegal? No, because I can't take away the freedoms of others without simultaneously taking away my own. The important thing to remember is that a baby does have distinct phases during the pregnancy. There is a point where they gain sentience, the ability to feel pain. Babies gain sapience a little later, by about 2, but they gain sentience in the womb. Thus means they can feel pain at one point whereas they couldn't the week before. This should be the dividing line for a normal abortion, but there are cases which are outside even as liberal a law as this. There are diseases which cause constant pain for a short life. Is it fair to give birth to these children who will suffer for several years only to die?### Human: I'd just like to step in here and suggest to you the bodily autonomy argument is a bit skewed here. Ask a room full of people if a mother should be forced to give up a kidney, most or at least many would say no. Ask if a person should have to give up a kidney for them taking a deliberate action that resulted in the child needing one and you'll get much different answers. And that's the main thing here, the fetus, did not ask to be conceived in the first, that only eventuates when two people consciously engage in intercourse, a large part of which (whether protected or not) is pregnancy. I think OP definitely has a point. It's a simple issue. If you define humanity based on conception, that will make you anti-abortion, if you do not, that will make you pro-abortion. All these other arguments that crop up for or against, are basically just attempts to humour the other side.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Pro life/anti life= Anti abortion buzzwords, Pro choice/ anti choice are Pro abortion buzzwords. Let's be just a little self-aware here, huh? "Pro-abortion" doesn't mean you necessarily hope people have them, but it means you support people having free elective abortions.### Assistant: That position being much better served by the term "pro-choice" than "pro-abortion".### Human: Yes it is served much better as Pro-choice. But by served better, I of course mean,it serves the purposes of those arguing in favour of it. No differently than how "Pro-life" serves Anti-abortioners' stance. The position of course being, one is in favour of free abortion under law under any desired circumstances. Or objectively, being Pro-abortion. Same end point.### Assistant: Except it's not the same end point. I don't want abortions, I want the possibility of elective abortions. Therefore I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. On the other hand, anti-abortions folks are quite literally *against abortion*, so they're anti-abortion.### Human: 'Pro- choice of abortions' or in other words 'Pro Abortion'. Nobody believes you think every child should be aborted, but they know you do support them happening in principle, therefore emphasising the 'choice' has a very specific purpose. And you'll hear the exact same arguments from the opposite side about *their* choice of terms also.### Assistant: > therefore emphasising the 'choice' has a very specific purpose. Choice is the whole point of the matter. The *choice* to abort is all anyone I ever heard support that argument wants. You're cutting off the *whole* of the argument and reducing it to something *nobody* wants.### Human: I'm not saying that is wrong thing to say, only that it is a very loaded label, in the same token that Pro Life is a very loaded label. And choice may be what the matter is about, but that stance permits that abortions *will* happen which is what this whole issue is about anyway, so you're back to square one again. For or against abortion, in essence.

### Human: CMV: Nobody chooses his/her country of origin, so it is foolish to be proud of it/patriotic.### Assistant: I think it's important to draw a distinction between pride and patriotism. I agree that's it's foolish to be proud of something about yourself that you have no control over, such as where you were born. But patriotism is loyalty to your country. I didn't choose which family I was born into, but I'm loyal to them. I feel the same way about my country; I didn't choose to be born here, but I'm loyal to it.### Human: Are you loyal to what is *right* first or your country?### Assistant: I don't think a simple answer exists to that. While I believe in an absolute morality, many do not. Also, where in one's morality does loyalty stand? It might be more important to stand for one belief than to stand for loyalty to a country (or your family), which might in turn be more important than standing for a different belief. For instance, I think that theft is wrong, and I would not broach theft by a family member. But while I also think that it's wrong to use profanity in public, I won't stop my family from doing so.### Human: Let me be more specific then. Would you stay loyal to your country despite knowing what they were doing is wrong.### Assistant: Again, this is not a yes or no answer. At the risk of sounding pedantic, take, for instance, the concentration camps for Japanese Americans. Those were wrong. I'm still loyal to America, because I think that we have learning from that and grown beyond it. If, on the other hand, I was ordered by a superior officer to fire on unarmed civilians, I would disobey.### Human: >If, on the other hand, I was ordered by a superior officer to fire on unarmed civilians, I would disobey. Would you consider this disobeying the officer or your country? As for the concentration camps, let me be more specific to the time frame: Would you be loyal to your country if the concentration camps were happening now?### Assistant: I would consider it disobeying the officer, who is appointed by my country. I would not support the concentration camps now, and I would not have supported them then; but I don't consider them a fatal flaw. That is, I don't think they're a reason to abandon everything else america has done.### Human: Interesting. It's all about the good outweighing the bad it seems.### Assistant: To an extent. But there are deeper meaning that good simply outweighing bad. The best example I've heard is this; a healthy man walks into a hospital where five people are dying, each in need of a different organ. It would still be wrong to kill the man and use his organs to save those five, even though it would result in the most measurable good.

### Human: CMV: It's Not A Bad Thing That The American Military Is Downsizing### Assistant: >To unprecedented size. The U.S. Army had 18 divisions 20 years ago, today out had 10. We had 15 carrier groups, today 10. The list goes on. No one is talking about anything like those force levels, so the size is not unprecedented. >But why is it necessary to increase the size of the military? Because our rivals are increasing theirs. >e reason we're downsizing is because our current military is efficient and powerful. No, it's because sequestration and other budget cuts are forcing it. The army doesn't want to downsize, it's being forced to. >One of our jets is worth 5 of our allies. Our allies fly pretty much the same jets we do. This is completely false. >While I support increasing the budget for the miliatry, I think that money should go towards Research and Development, enlisted pay, veterans benefits, and officer pay, in that order. the vast majority of it already does go to those things. only about 1/6 of the budget goes to procurement. >But that simply isn't the case, so how do we stand to gain from spending more Because jets, or anything else, don't last forever. they wear out and need replacing. the average plane in the US inventory is considerably older than its pilot. we have fathers, sons, and grandsons that have flown the same plane. >As for the Navy, while it's important to protect ports from piracy and potentially belligerent states...we don't live in a time of high piracy or potentially belligerent enemy naval powers we most [certainly do.](https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf) >. It is well known in the field of International Relations that democracies do not go to war with other democracies that is not "well known", it is highly contested. > and every day we get closer and closer to establishing a positive peace with China, given our growing economic interdependence the only way to ensure that you never fight a war with china is to make sure they never think they can win a war. >why do we need to expand? because force trumps all. the only reason those other things play the role that they do is because the world operates under american military hegemony. >in a time of global military de-escalation we are in a time of [military escalation](http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database), not de-escalation. >Even realist theories of International Relations would accept America as the comfortable military hegemon and in accordance with the principle of dominance hegemony doesn't maintain itself.### Human: >we are in a time of military escalation, not de-escalation. Thank you for the primary source. Using this data, that is not the conclusion I drew. Japan, with the 4th strongest military in the world, is down from spending 2.7% of its GDP in 2002 to spending 2.5% . India with the 5th is down from 9.6% in 2003 to 9.1% in 2014. France, with the 6th strongest military in the world is down from spending 5.2% of it's GDP in 2000 to 3.8% in 2014. Italy, the 8th strongest military in the world is down from 4.1% in 2000 to 2.7% in 2014. The U.K, with the 9th strongest military is down from 7% in 2000 to 5.1% in 2014. Turkey, with the 10th biggest, is down from 9.0% in 2002 to 5.8% in 2014 (no data available before 2002). Pakistan, with the 11th strongest, is down from 18.3% in 2011 to 16.3% in 2013 (no other data available), Egypt with the 12th is down from 9.6% in 2002 to 5.1% in 2014, Australia with the 15th is down from 5.6% in 2001 to 4.8% in 2014, Thailand in 16th is down from 8.1% in 2000 to 6.6% in 2014, Germany with the 18th is down from 3.3% in 2000 to 2.8%, and Canada with 20th is down from 2.6% in 200 to 2.3% in 2014. **China, the third strongest, went from spending 11.5% in 2004 to 7.3% in 2014. Even China is downsizing** [Source for lists](http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries-ranked-2015-9) This means that only 3 of the top ten (and 7 of the top 20) are increasing their budgets: America and Russia, in spots 1 and 2 and Korea in 7 (security dilemma with North Korea). And even there? Russia has the second strongest military, but only spends 84.5 billion, even though they have 7,000 more tanks than us. We spend 601 billion, which is 7.15x as much. So of the top 20, 65% have decreased their budgets, and of the top ten, 70% did, and **China was one of them** >hegemony doesn't maintain itself. It does when you outspend the next guy by about 517 billion dollars. Seriously, the gap is unreal, how much more do we need to outspend people? >the only reason those other things play the role that they do is because the world operates under american military hegemony. This is unfounded. International regimes are heavily resistant to change and are not dependent on the hegemons that initially established them. [Cooperation in anarchy is possible without a hegemon because there exists a "convergence of expectations". Regimes facilitate cooperation by establishing standards of behavior that signal to other members that they are in fact cooperating. When all states expect cooperation from the others, the probability of sustaining cooperation increases.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_theory) Now that the U.N Security council has been set up and the Soviet union no longer exists, we exist in a state of collective security where the major militaries of the world all work to uphold the institution of the U.N and not renege on their reciprocity, lest they incur the wrath and retaliation of the other council members. If they U.S cut their spending by even 100 billion, we would still be outspending Russia by more than 400 billion dollars and China by 200 billion (and China is still downsizing!), which is more than enough power for us to continue to enforce the cooperation with the UN, which is the world federation regime that maintains peace today. We can be their big stick, but we can be a smaller stick than we are now and still be effective, and WE don't have to be the only stick, the UN has lots of sticks. >because force trumps all. Wrong. Trade trumps all. If force trumped all the Soviet Union would still be around. Also, we would have won the Vietnam war. And the Korean war. And the Iraq war. But we didn't. And the sanctions with Iran? All worked out using effective nonviolent leverage, **it's called diplomacy, and it works** >we most certainly do. [While that's certainly true, are we pretending the Trans Pacific Partnership and our invitation to China and the Phillipines to join doesn't exist?](http://useconomy.about.com/od/Trade-Agreements/fl/What-Is-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership.htm) You keep undermining the importance of trade and dismissing the efficacy of nonviolent methods of leverage. There's more than one way to intimidate a country, you don't always need destroyers to get what you want. >Because jets, or anything else, don't last forever. they wear out and need replacing. We spend 601 billion dollars a year, but that isn't enough to cover the cost of replacing jets? When Russia, with the second biggest non U.S Airforce is able to do so with only 84.5 billion? Are Russian planes really that much cheaper? That's not a reason to increase the budget, it's a reason to maintain it. Increasing the budget shouldn't be necessary if it's been sufficient so far. >we have fathers, sons, and grandsons that have flown the same plane. If you're talking about the B-52 stratofortress, those have been perfectly serviceable for a long time, especially because they were supplemented by the excellent B-2 Spirit. Also, we only just approved the 60 billion dollar 2020 contract to replace them all with a newer model, so don't act like this is a perennial cost that has been plauging the Air Force. [Source](http://www.stripes.com/news/us/new-long-range-strike-bomber-will-start-phase-out-of-older-planes-1.375550) [Also, calling a B-52 an old plane is about as absurd as saying that Theseus' was sailing the same ship at the end of his voyage that he was at the start. We upgrade them all the time, to the point of basically total overhaul. The only thing old about them is the name](http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/07/12/air-force-begins-massive-b-52-overhaul/) [Ship of Thesues reference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) >only about 1/6 of the budget goes to procurement. This is deliberatley misleading. 1/6 of our 601 billion dollar budget is about 100 billion, which is **still 20 billion more than Russia's entire military budget** >The army doesn't want to downsize, it's being forced to. While the army is a very important branch of the military, it is not the most expensive one. I'm rather surprised to hear they're being hit harder than the other branches, but it's cheaper to cut infantry personnel than end contracts with the defense contractors who make our planes and ships, especially because of how inflated the army got after the surge and the influx of recruits (I'd still rather see them still in the army if that's where they want to be, but it's understandable that this happened) >No one is talking about anything like those force levels, so the size is not unprecedented You're absolutely right, I didn't realize I'd said that. That was stupid of me, I should've known better### Assistant: >Thank you for the primary source. Using this data, that is not the conclusion I drew. I trust SIPRI over business insider on military budgets. You should too. SIPRI Is very good at what they do. And that goes double when a source makes an absurd claim like that chinese military budgets are shrinking. That is flat out not true. >It does when you outspend the next guy by about 517 billion dollars. Seriously, the gap is unreal, how much more do we need to outspend people? the gap in spending is unreal, because american soldiers cost much more than chinese soldiers. The gap in capability is much smaller. And, what matters more is the flow, not the stock. other countries are making efforts to close the capability gap. We cannot allow that to happen if we want to remain the hegemon. >Now that the U.N Security council has been set up and the Soviet union no longer exists, we exist in a state of collective security where the major militaries of the world all work to uphold the institution of the U.N and not renege on their reciprocity, Ah, you mean the way the Russians are upholding the UN in the Ukraine? >Wrong. Trade trumps all. That's what [this guy said](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Angell). Trade helps, but, as the man said, you get more with a kind word and a gun than you do with just a kind word. >If force trumped all the Soviet Union would still be around. the USSR fell apart [literally the moment](http://home.bt.com/images/boris-yeltsin-stands-on-a-tank-to-appeal-to-communist-coup-leaders-to-end-their-revolt-136399838373803901-150818165533.jpg) people stopped believing it could force them to do things. >Also, we would have won the Vietnam war. the vietnamese won that war by invading an occupying south vietnam with military force. >And the sanctions with Iran? All worked out using effective nonviolent leverage, it's called diplomacy, and it works if diplomacy worked just through the magic of words, then small countries would be just as important as large countries. they aren't. >You keep undermining the importance of ~~trade~~ force and dismissing the efficacy of ~~non~~violent methods of leverage. FTFY > which is still 20 billion more than Russia's entire military budget and if the US only had to worry about russia, that would be more than enough. but it doesn't. it has to worry about russia, and china, and north korea, and iran, and it has not just to worry about them but to be able to project force to deal with them on the other side of the planet, while they play in their backyard. that capability costs money. >While the army is a very important branch of the military, it is not the most expensive one. the three services are about equal in how much money they spend, but from 2003 to 2012, the army budget was the largest, by a [pretty wide margin.](http://intercepts.defensenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ServiceTrends1.jpg) >We spend 601 billion dollars a year, but that isn't enough to cover the cost of replacing jets? as I already explained, only 100 billion of that buys equipment. And that 100 billion covers not just jets but ships, tanks, fuel, ammo, everything. > When Russia, with the second biggest non U.S Airforce is able to do so with only 84.5 billion? the russian military is much smaller. It can't deploy across the globe. it lacks the ISR, tankers, precision guided weapons, and other force multipliers that make the american air forces so powerful. The russians also have very different doctrines that place less emphasis on planes than the american. And russia is currently rather desperately trying to improve its air force because they know if its inadequacies. >Ship of Thesues reference you can extend the life of planes, but not forever. the ship of thesus did not have to deal with [metal fatigue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material%29). the problem is less bad with aircraft like the B-52s, but smaller, lighter weight fighters that endure high G loads cannot be made to last forever. >but it's cheaper to cut infantry personnel than end contracts with the defense contractors who make our planes and ships, especially because of how inflated the army got after the surge and the influx of recruits As I have said repeatedly, the military's payroll expenses VASTLY exceed their procurement expenses.### Human: >when a source makes an absurd claim like that chinese military budgets are shrinking. That is flat out not true. So, do you not click links? Because Business Insider never said that. SIPRI did. I liked your source so much, I downloaded it and spent about an hour poring through it collecting all that data that you just dismissed as "absurd". Maybe I need to get my eyesight checked, but to the best of my ability, that's what I saw. Those numbers aren't made up; they're from *your* source, not mine. Business Insider literally only gave me the rankings for the 20 strongest militaries. Doublecheck for yourself, the data is under the bottom left mustard yellow "Share of GDP" button in the SIRPI excel spreadsheet. >you get more with a kind word and a gun than you do with just a kind word. Your overlooking the efficacy of nonviolent leverage again. No one is saying we need to emulate Dr. King or Ghandi and embrace the ideology of non-violence. Economic sanctions exist, and they hurt. Direct violence is not the only kind of violence available, there is also ["structural violence"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence), otherwise known as poverty, starvation and oppression. [Ever heard of the Irish potato famine?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)) It was deliberately exacerbated by hardline economic policies from the Brits to starve the Irish out. Economic sanctions can also mean the denial of future aid, such as in the case of eathquakes and other natural disasters, that you would have been otherwise entitled too. Imagine how screwed Japan or Haiti would have been if we'd imposed economic sanctions on them during their crises. Same can happen to China, that's why you don't waste your international good will and reciprocity willy-nilly. If you think the potentially jeopardizing the economic stability of your state for the sake of ego is something modern nations still engage in, your in the wrong century. Nations know it is in their self interests to be mindful of the long-term, and economic sanctions from America can be a death knoll, not worth any short term benefits >Ah, you mean the way the Russians are upholding the UN in the Ukraine? [Crimea's desire to secede is...complex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_local_elections,_2006#mediaviewer/File:Ukr_local_elections_2006.PNG) [Here's a decent timeline of what happened](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ypca3/official_eli5_ukraine_thread_pt_2/cfrf707) [Here is the 2015 Minsk Agreement that Russia complied with, because they feared economic sanctions](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31436513) [Russia is actively co-operating in the ceasefire process, and Ukraine has even invited China to act as a mediator](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/opinion/more-than-a-war-of-words.html) It's not black and white. While Russia has definetley violated international borders and sovereignty *by now*, this wasn't initially true, and the crisis is more about the human rights violations (7k civilian deaths) from Ukraine's own government than it is about sovereignty. Also, the Minsk agreement is a triumph of modern day negotiations conflict resolution, so this issue doesn't exactly strengthen your other claims about violence being the best way. >the vietnamese won that war by invading an occupying south vietnam with military force. We had superior force, period. We underestimated their tenacity, bravery, and desperate sense of national independence. We lost because they wanted to win more, and had better reason to, not because they had superior force. >he USSR fell apart literally the moment people stopped believing it could force them to do things. Actually most historians agree that there were three stages to the fall of the USSR, which started in the 1980s with the policies of ["glastnost" and "pestroika"](http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/mikhail_gorbachev) which relaxed bueracracy and censorship (both of which would be considered "low politics" and therefore "irrelevant" to realist theories of IR like you've been using) This led to the communists losing the elections in the 1990s in the Baltic and Caucasian satellites, which marked the transition from being independent of the Kremlin to becoming full on soverign states. It is only the last stage, the coup of 1991, that you seem to consider important, but the establishment of the Russian Republic could not have occurred without Gorbachev's attempts to modernize the USSR into a social democracy. It had nothing to do with the USSR not being able to force people to be communist anymore; they still had those capabilites. The issue was the identity of the USSR itself had unraveled and the will to communism had collapsed. No one wanted to be communist anymore, not even the Kremlin. Everyone was tired of it, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been forced to continue. Had Stalin been alive they would have kept going; but he wasn't and Gorbachev was and the will to communism died because of him >but from 2003 to 2012, the army budget was the largest, by a pretty wide margin. But we're talking about the recent budget, aren't we? You mentioned yourself the army was seeing budget cuts; and they are. From page 10 of the CSBA pdf "Analysis of the FY 2015 defense budget": The Air Force is the only Service to receive a real increase (0.6 percent) in FY 2015 with a larger increase (8.6 percent) planned for FY 2016. The Air Force’s share of the budget increases to 28 percent by FY 2019 (22 percent excluding pass-through funding to other agencies), while the Navy’s budget share stays roughly the same at 29 percent. The Army’s share of the budget falls to 23 percent, the lowest level since FY 1959, while defense-wide accounts remain at 20 percent, the highest level since the end of World War II. >And that 100 billion covers not just jets but ships, tanks, fuel, ammo, everything. But we don't buy jets, ships, tanks etc all in the same year. The stratofortress is being phased out in 2020, the new DDG-1000 destroyer class (7 ships, 29 billion) were made in 2013, we time these things out. We don't just buy them all at once. >As I have said repeatedly, the military's payroll expenses VASTLY exceed their procurement expenses. That's exactly what I mean! In 2006 Donald Rumsfeld increased the payroll across the board, especially for starred generals (double their pay). Procurement is only 1/6th of the budget, and are attached to binding contracts that cannot be canceled easily. Therefore, it's cheaper to cut infantry personnel, especially with the influx of recruits from the surge. Most of the money goes towards pay and military entitlements, to severing saves more money than buying cheaper weapons. We need the weapons, they're long term assets. We can make do with less troops (I disagree, but this is the logic the Defense Department employed)### Assistant: > So, do you not click links? Because Business Insider never said that. SIPRI did. then you are reading it wrong. according to sipri, chinese military spending has been stead at just over 2% of GDP for a decade. You are, perhaps, reading the page that is share of government expenditures, which is not a useful figure. >Economic sanctions exist, and they hurt. there is a large literature on sanctions. They almost never hurt. they tend to empower the leadership of the countries that are targeted. > It was deliberately exacerbated by hardline economic policies from the Brits to starve the Irish out. I'm not sure where you got this absurd idea, but it's completely false. >It's not black and white. Yes, it is. the russians used military force to invade and annex crimea. the fact that the locals were more or less in favor of the idea doesn't change that. >We had superior force, period. And we won every battle while we were there. the south did not fall until 1975, 3 years after the US pulled out all troops and congress forbade material aid to south vietnam. it was a military conquest, pure and simple. >"glastnost" and "pestroika" which relaxed bueracracy and censorship in other words, they rolled back the physical force..... >This led to the communists losing the elections in the 1990s in the Baltic and Caucasian satellites after it became clear that they would not use military force to preserve the eastern european empire. >It had nothing to do with the USSR not being able to force people to be communist anymore; it had everything to do with the failure of the anti-gorbachev coup. that's 3/3 where the absence of force for the first time in decades was the deciding factor. >The stratofortress is being phased out in 2020, no, it isn't. the last b-52 pilot hasn't been born yet. >the new DDG-1000 destroyer class (7 ships, 29 billion) were made in 2013 2 of those ships were built, one is building now, and there will not be a fourth. the fact that your numbers are wildly off the mark should make you pause and question your grasp of military affairs.### Human: >You are, perhaps, reading the page that is share of government expenditures, which is not a useful figure. Great Scott, your right. I *do* need to get my eyes checked. But why is this not a useful figure? >I'm not sure where you got this absurd idea, but it's completely false. [Here's a video by CrashCourse history, proud educational partners with both Khan Academy and PBS Digital Studios](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAkW_i0bDpQ) [As well as Charles Trevalyn's wikipedia page, where it talks about his Malthusian policies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Charles_Trevelyan,_1st_Baronet#Career) [And a peer reviewed academic journal published by the University of Wisconsin](http://www.jstor.org/stable/3146668?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) [A AskHistorians comment about it](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2zqz3z/i_often_hear_people_say_that_the_irish_potato/cplvaxl) [The Journal of Economic History published by England's Cambridge University](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7578748&fileId=S0022050700104681) >They almost never hurt. they tend to empower the leadership of the countries that are targeted. [Previous research has documented only a modest success rate for imposed sanctions. By contrast, the success rate is higher in cases that are settled at the threat stage.-Prof. Hovi of University of Oslo, Cambridge University Press](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7666184&fileId=S0043887100018591) [The Washington Post detailed 13 high profile cases where economic sanctions worked just fine](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/04/28/13-times-that-economic-sanctions-really-worked/) [To undermine my own point, here's a Huffpost article that says they don't work](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/do-sanctions-work_b_7191464.html) I'd say it's contentious, but I clearly have the minority opinion here. Maybe they don't work. Maybe they do. I cannot confirm this with a satisfactory degree of certainty, and that's not good enough. Let's leave it be for now >the fact that the locals were more or less in favor of the idea doesn't change that. It changes how the U.N can act about it. We can't just declare war when things get that complex. We can't just do what we want because we don't agree with what happened, we have rules that we follow. >in other words, they rolled back the physical force..... No. Glastnost is defined as: "the declared public policy within the Soviet Union of openly and frankly discussing economic and political realities" this has nothing to with physical force, it's a cultural policy. Perestroika: "the policy or practice of restructuring or reforming the economic and political system. First proposed by Leonid Brezhnev in 1979 and actively promoted by Mikhail Gorbachev, perestroika originally referred to increased automation and labor efficiency, but came to entail greater awareness of economic markets and the ending of central planning." Again, *nothing to do with physical force*. This is a transformation of the USSR's bureaucracy and economic policies to embrace modern "social democracy". That has nothing to do with physical force, it was a policy change. >after it became clear that they would not use military force to preserve the eastern european empire. The initial claim I made was that if force was the only thing that mattered, The USSR would never have collapsed. The elections occurred and the USSR did not exercise force to change the results; this shows that force is not the only thing that matters, the will of the people, the character of the leadership, shifting cultural norms and the modernization of politics all clearly played a key role here. Stalins USSR would never allow it; Gorbachev's did. The difference was not only in the fact that Stalin was a murderous autocrat and Gorbachev was not; that was only part of the bigger picture. And you didn't even mention this in your initial comment. >that's 3/3 where the absence of force for the first time in decades was the deciding factor. The abscense of force was a contributing factor, not the deciding factor; and only in 2/3 cases. Glastnost and Pestroyka was designed, introduced and implemented by *Gorbachev himself*, why would he use force against his own policies? >no, it isn't. the last b-52 pilot hasn't been born yet. [The Long Range Strike Bomber is meant to phase out the United States' aging fleet of bombers, which includes the B-52, an aircraft that has been in service since the 1950s....The plane, after hopefully entering service in the 2020s](http://www.stripes.com/news/us/new-long-range-strike-bomber-will-start-phase-out-of-older-planes-1.375550) I should have said that that's when it's going to *start* being phased out. Your right when you say they're going to use the b-52s into the 2040s [The Air Force is quick to emphasize its now-in-development next-generation Long Range Strike Bomber, or LRS-B, to be operational sometime during the 2020’s. At the same time, the service wants to be sure to maximize the usefulness of its inventory of B-52s for their remaining years. “Their structure, service life and air frames are good until around 2040. They are built very strong structurally. This is not a structural modification, but upgrades to the capabilities and the avionics,” Eric Single, Chief of the Global Strike Division, Acquisition.](http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/07/12/air-force-begins-massive-b-52-overhaul/) >the fact that your numbers are wildly off the mark should make you pause and question your grasp of military affairs. Case of that bad eyesight again. I tragically misread a line from CNN, I tracked the article down and saw my mistake. [The Navy had planned to spend up to $9 billion in research and development on the DDG-1000 program and up to $20 billion to design and deliver seven ships. But cost overruns cut production to three ships.](http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/29/bigger-faster-deadlier-navy-launches-new-stealth-destroyer/) I'm sorry, it must be frustrating having this conversation with someone who isn't in the military. I have to rely on my own research, and I make a few mistakes. That being said, this conversation has been very educational. The only issue is it doesn't have much to do with my CMV, which was asking why Republican presidential candidates were howling for an **increase** in the budget. We've been debating whether the budget should decrease (not something I ever actually expressed, quite the opposite when it comes to higher pay for soldiers) and arguing over semantics. But even with all this information, there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to increase the budget. We don't seem to be underfunded at all; quite the opposite. While I'd debate whether we need to increase the Navy's allocation of the budget to deal with the brewing South China sea issue, I don't see a need to increase the overall budget### Assistant: > But why is this not a useful figure? because the level of state spending can grow or shrink independently of military spending. >this has nothing to with physical force, it's a cultural policy. It was a declaration that the KGB would no longer arrest you for complaining. it had everything to do with physical force. >I'm sorry, it must be frustrating having this conversation with someone who isn't in the military. I am not in the military, but I study it for a living. >which was asking why Republican presidential candidates were howling for an increase in the budget Over the last 5 years, the defense budget has declined from about 700 billion a year to 600. That is what they are complaining about.

### Human: I believe that further extension of human longevity through the advancement of medicine is detrimental to the human race. CMV.### Assistant: That's assuming people continue to reproduce at the same rate as their longevity increases. Current statistics do not support this, in fact countries with higher average lifespans have lower birthrates than those with lower lifespans, if the two are directly correlated then the problem will correct itself.### Human: The issue is not that people reproduce more as their longevity increases. The issue is that with longer life spans, an individual may stay alive and therefore consume resources (electricity, food, water etc)for 80 years, versus say 50 years if certain medical advancements hadn't prolonged their lives. You bring up an interesting point. Unfortunately, correlation does not imply causation. Countries with very low birthrates and/or declining populations are typically developed nations such as Japan and those of western europe. These countries were some of the first to industrialize and therefore experience the resulting societal effects. These include an increase in standard of living and access to quality healthcare, which is why these developed countries have some of the world's highest life spans. The low birth rates have nothing to do with the long life spans/access and affordability of quality healthcare. They are the results of numerous factors, including greater opportunities for women in the workforce (so they pursue career instead of kids),and these days, in recession-hit places, the expense of raising kids. There is also an anomaly in your statement. The united states has, comparitively, a long life span, yet it is one of the few industrialized nations to have a birth rate of 2.2 (I'm pretty sure - will double check later) children born to each woman - quite high compared to the rest of the west. So no, birth rate decline is not caused by life span increase - the two are symptoms of industrialized and advanced societies. Hypothetically if we drastically improved the healthcare and therefore lifespans of a country that had a culture that really valued large families, I doubt living longer would change their mind about having many children.### Assistant: Then the optimal solution is to both extend the lifespan and decrease the birthrate. Reducing lifespan and maintaining the birthrate is a sub-optimal solution; the terrible things that happen in this world will continue to happen, and the population will continue to number in the billions. Really, the only way to get past suffering and poor quality of life is to have a small number of extremely privileged people living on this planet, alone. And that can be accomplished by extending the lives of a few people, and lowering (i.e. eliminating) the birthrate of everyone *but* a few people. Now you might not share the same view, but certainly you can see how life extension could be a very good thing for this planet.### Human: I take some issue with extending lifespans to be good 'for the planet'. For people, certainly. I think death is one if the most horrifying potential fates possible. I would love for it to stop, but that would have no direct benefit to the planet Earth that I can see.### Assistant: If people understand that 100,000 years from the present, they and their children could very possibly still be alive, then I feel it would only enhance their belief in environmental stewardship. And if people were to live for that long, then it follows they would need to occupy themselves by doing *something*. What better than cleaning up the environment and right the wrongs committed throughout thousands of years of human history? We could probably sequence a mammoth genome from scratch with 100,000 years and adequate technology. Nanotechnology could disassemble trash and junk to their constituent elements, accelerating beneficial natural processes. In 100,000 years, the possibilities are endless. Bear in mind that with age comes experience and knowledge, so a 1,000 year old human will almost certainly recognize that they must make themselves an asset in this world, something many people of 20-30 years don't realize.### Human: Something seemingly missing from this thread is space exploration. If we were to colonize Luna and even terraform Mars before an Apocalypse started to happen on Earth it would afford us more years than estimated for society to advance enough to eliminate some of these problems, like fixing the birthrate, more space exploration, and fixing the environmental issues that arise from a large population.

### Human: If you are campaigning for president and explicitly lie about a topic publicly and you win the presidency you should be impeached and possibly removed from office. CMV### Assistant: The president doesn't just get to "do" things he wants to or promised. He can influence legislation but as far as the actual drafting and passing of bills that's all about Congress. He can strive to change tax rates but at the end of the day what he can and cannot accomplish is hugely tied up with the other two branches of government (for good reason) and so it would be unreasonable to base his job security on things outside his control. Most candidates, at least successful ones, do lay out plans they'd follow to carry out their campaign promises. Unfortunately they need everyone on board to actually carry out the plan which rarely happens.### Human: > The president doesn't just get to "do" things he wants to or promised That's why you don't promise what you can't deliver. That's what a promise entails - first you do everything you can, and second if you fail you answer for your failures. The topic is how to answer to one's failure, not count the ways in which we can get away with breaking promises. More specifically, the topic is whether OP's suggestion about how to hold someone responsible is a good suggestion.### Assistant: 1. it is hard to express contingencies to the public, specially if they are complex. Things he could take for granted might change in the last minute (eg. it looked like his party would be the majority in the House, but it turned out not to be) 2. if there was a law that forced politicians for that, they would sidestep it like ads do, like "I will end poverty^* ". Like plato said, you can't make rules to force people into honesty, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws". And remember that the policians make the laws themselves!### Human: 1. Yet nobody is putting a gun to his head and forcing him to make promises that are not within his power to deliver on. He could choose to phrase it in any other way that does not change the meaning of a promise, as you make clear in point 2. For instance, he could be honest about what physical actions he'll perform, instead of lying about how certain the results of those actions are. 2. The fact that a rule can be sidestepped has never held anyone back for making rules, least of all politicians. Furthermore, it makes absolutely no difference if I were to say "Pay me money and I promise to get you 10 willing servants" or "Pay me money and I will get you 10 willing servants". Neither of your points appear valid to me in any way whatsoever.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I don't advocate impeachment. I merely oppose defensively voting for corrupt liars. It's the reason why people can't imagine anything other than dishonest, corrupt politicians taking office.

### Human: [META] How to make a good argument### Assistant: Going to attempt to fit this in one post... **1.) What are some fallacies to look out for?** List: [Ad Hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem), [Argument from ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Ignorantiam), [Argument from authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority), [Argument from final consequences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences), [Appeal to Tradition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition), [Overgeneralization](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Overgeneralization), [Begging the question](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question), [Correlation does not imply causation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation), [False analogy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy), [False dichotomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy), [Slippery-Slope](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope), [Straw man](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), [Moving the Goalpost](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) **2.) How do you recognize you are running around in circles?** Person A presents an argument, and Person B responds with a counter argument. Person A then uses either a Logical Fallacy or doesn't address any point Person B has made. If you try to get back on track, and Person A refuses to get back on topic, then you might be talking in circles. You may simply have to leave the discussion if the other person refuses to address any point you've made. **3.) How do you recognize there is a flaw in your own premise?** See the list of Logical Fallacies, check to see if you have adequately addressed the argument at hand, and remember to not become too overly aggressive. Instead of posting immediately, check your own post and see if you can predict any counter arguments. Clean up your own argument for clarity, get rid of loopholes, and simply strengthen your point. **4.) How do you admit that you made a mistake?** If a person points it out, thank them for catching the mistake, apologize, and amend your argument accordingly. *Do not* become defensive! Pride and ego have no place in an honest discussion. If you are more concerned with being right than having an open discussion where everyone learns, then you are hurting yourself and the discussion. Please, for the sake of everyone involved, come into all debates with a super humble attitude! **5.) How do you recognize when you have used a fallacy?** Check the list of Logical Fallacies, and become familiar with all [fallacies](http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx). You just have to learn them, be aware that they exist, and reread before posting. If you find you've posted an argument with a fallacy, edit, declare the edit at the bottom, and say something like, "Amended argument issues". **6.) What are some common misunderstandings you see?** Very open question, but here are a few... These aren't suppose to be arguments, which is based purely on emotion, but instead discussions. We're debating and discussing topics, but we aren't here to argue. If you need clarification from the original poster, then ask for it instead of simply debating from miscommunication. **7.) What are some fallacies that are more grey than black or white (in your opinion)?** **No True Scotsman:** "The term was coined by Antony Flew, who gave an example of a Scotsman who sees a newspaper article about a series of sex crimes taking place in Brighton, and responds that "no Scotsman would do such a thing". When later confronted with evidence of another Scotsman doing even worse acts, his response is that "no true Scotsman would do such a thing", thus disavowing membership in the group "Scotsman" to the criminal on the basis that the commission of the crime is evidence for not being a Scotsman. However, this is a fallacy as there is nothing in the definition of "Scotsman" which makes such acts impossible. The term "No True Scotsman" has since expanded to refer to anyone who attempts to disown or distance themselves from wayward members of a group by excluding them from it. " No True Scotsman *is* a Logical Fallacy, but a clarification exists. If I were debating religion with a Christian, I point out bad things that extremists do, and the Christian says, "I acknowledge they exist, but they're not the majority." That is *not* No True Scotsman. They acknowledged that those Christians exist, but are clarifying the statement by saying they are not the majority. **Tone Argument:** "The tone argument is a form of derailment, or a red herring, because the tone of a statement is independent of the content of the statement in question, and calling attention to it distracts from the issue at hand. Drawing attention to the tone rather than content of a statement can allow other parties to avoid engaging with sound arguments presented in that statement, thus undermining the original party's attempt to communicate and effectively shutting them down." A clarification can be made though. Every discussion of tone is not a tone argument. If you are being uncivil, using personal attacks, and generally making an argument so hostile and toxic that the other person has to leave, then you haven't won. If you act awful to people, then when they call you on it don't yell "Tone Argument! I win!". No, you didn't "win", you just were rude to a person before they decided to leave. **8.) How do you continue to maintain a civil discussion when name calling starts?** Calmly say, "I do not appreciate being talked to that way. We can have a discussion without going to personal attacks." If they continue you may want to message the moderators, or simply leave the discussion. If they aren't interested in a real discussion or debate, then don't waste your time. **9.) Is there an appropriate time to downvote?** In regards to /r/ChangeMyView, do *not* downvote for disagreement. Downvote for not adding to the conversation. If they have broken a rule message the mods, don't downvote. **10.) What are some of your pet peeves?** Please check your post before posting. Be clear, to the point, and don't assume your audience can read your mind. You have to explain yourself well, but with the fewest words possible. If someone has made a great argument or post, please upvote them so we reward good skills! **11.) What is your biggest mistake in argumentation?** I have used logical fallacies before. Just admit it, amend your argument, and move on. The biggest mistake is I have to be careful about topics I am emotionally involved in. Humans are emotional creatures, so it's easy to be overly emotional. I just have to take a deep breath, if I need to I'll take a bit of a break, and then come back. Don't let it get to you, and just remember you are responsible for the civility of the discussion as well. **12.) How can your argumentation be improved?** Avoid fallacies, watch debates on Youtube, or research a topic some before posting. Build up points and anticipate the counterpoints to your argument. Look through some of the best posts on /r/ChangeMyView and see common techniques used. **13.) How do you find common ground so argumentation can take place?** Treating the other person as a thinking, feeling human being. It creates common ground when you treat everyone involved as a person. If the other person makes a good point, acknowledge it and say you'll think about it. Treat the discussion as a sharing of information and ideas. If they change your view in some way though, then obviously award a Delta. **14.) What are some topics to formally study to better your experience?** That's complicated. School and college obviously always are helpful. The book [Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion](http://www.amazon.com/Thank-You-Arguing-Aristotle-Persuasion/dp/0307341445/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1) is a great book that I've lectured with. **15.) What are some concepts that are important to grasp?** The other person is a person, treat them as such. Base your argument around actual counterarguments, not fallacies. Don't take discussions personally, and likewise don't make them personal. **16.) What are some non intuitive logical results?** None I can think of. May edit later. **17.) How do you end a debate that you have recognized is going nowhere?** "Thank you for the discussion, but I feel we are talking past each other. I think this discussion has run its course, so I should leave." Just say something like that and leave.### Human: This comment does not dispute any premise or argument of OP's post. As per CMV sidebar it should be removed.### Assistant: Shh! Stop trying to get me in trouble!### Human: ;)### Assistant: Off topic - but does your username imply that you are wont to do anal or you won't do it?### Human: [deleted]

### Human: I do not believe gay or straight marriage is a fundamental right but rather a series of (arbitrary) benefits offered by the state and should be regarded as such, CMV### Assistant: I think when people get up in arms about gay marriage they're really campaigning for equal rights, regardless of whether those rights are fundamental. Personally, I think the government shouldn't recognize marriage of any kind, but so long as they do, it needs to be available to everyone.### Human: Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that way? Why shouldn't the government recognize marriage?### Assistant: I just don't think marriage should be it's own legal category. If people want to get married they should do it because of their religious or cultural beliefs, not because it's legally convenient. I'm against the idea of tax breaks and naturalization benefits for married couples (even though I'm married). Other benefits like visitation rights and inheritance should be handled by separate contracts. People in the military should be able to designate anyone to receive their benefits should they die, not just a spouse.### Human: It's in the State's best interest to recognize marriages/civil unions because it has an immediate contract stating who is responsible for who in case of emergencies, i.e. without marriage, the courts would be overburdened with civil cases for inheritance.### Assistant: Recognizing that a contract exists is different from unnecessarily privileging those who sign that contract.### Human: And what privileges are those? There aren't tax breaks that kick once you're married if you are both making equal sums and there's actually a marriage penalty that sometimes applies. Naturalization takes a few years and isn't automatic, while everything else that you're saying should have a separate contract is just more middle steps going towards the same thing.### Assistant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits There are a few.

### Human: CMV: In addition to universal healthcare, Democrats on the local and national level should focus on automatic voter registration, standard mail-in voting, and making Election Day a national holiday### Assistant: > Democrats need to focus on their ability to get elected so they can actually enact an agenda without it being blocked or sabotaged by the GOP / vested interests. So you are saying the Democratic party, long term, should focus on getting elected rather than more important issues like the environment or social justice? Doesn't that sound disgustingly self-serving? > It doesn't matter how morally right you are or how popular your agenda is if the other party is enacting legislation to keep people from voting at all * Who determines who is morally right here? * To what legislation are you referring? > rather than putting up more barriers like the GOP wants Examples please. > enacting mail-in voting so people don't have to take off of work, and ultimately making Election Day a national holiday so that people understand that voting is super important for this country to function properly. These two points are contradictory. If it is a national federal holiday, people will get off work to vote. Then the mail-in voting bit is much less important. > but they are the foundations for the power that Democrats will need if they actually want to enact an agenda that benefits Americans. Generations of Democratic presidents and congresses have enacted change without focusing on getting elected more than they already were. > and could possibly help counteract the effects of gerrymandering as well. Doubtful. Increase turnout from gerrymandered districts makes the problem *worse*, not better. I'd expect an increase in voter fraud too.### Human: In the title, clearly not "rather than" but "in addition to." You can't enact an agenda to help others if you can't get elected, so we could call that enlightened self-interest. Examples of GOP efforts to restrict voting: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/opinion/five-ways-republicans-are-threatening-voting-rights.html Mail in voting is a baby step that can be done on the local level, to build up to making Election Day a national holiday. Not contradictory at all, but aligned and additive. "It wasn't necessary to combat bird flu in the past, so why is it now?" -> insane argument. The solution should be adapted to the problem. Voter fraud has been proven to be a pseudo issue used to justify voter suppression.### Assistant: > In the title, clearly not "rather than" but "in addition to." I didn't refer to universal healthcare so the point stands. It's worth noting that, regardless, any resources spent on getting elected *aren't* being spent on enacting policy. > https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/opinion/five-ways-republicans-are-threatening-voting-rights.html I'll respond to all five: * Questioning someone on the legality of their registration isn't restricting voting - if you are a legal citizen with proper documentation, there should be no problem. If you aren't, you aren't allowed to vote anyway. * Not a problem if people go through the correct channels (register beforehand, go on a different day, go to the right precinct). * Not a problem if people go through the simple process of doing it themselves. * Not disenfranchisement, it's not letting criminals vote - like everywhere else in the country. * That's not intimidation, it was an (admittedly badly-worded) attempt by Trump to stir up anti-Hillary fervor. I agree that intimidation by poll watchers DOES happen, but I don't think that is what Trump was shooting for here. > Voter fraud has been proven to be a pseudo issue used to justify voter suppression. I'm not saying it happens often, only that it would happen more.### Human: The attempts to increase the costs of voting and playing up the threat of voter fraud are cynical strategies geared toward voter suppression. So the argument of "what's the problem with making voting slightly more inconvenient in lots of different ways, they're all surmountable problems" ignores that in aggregate those small changes can decrease voter turnout substantially. That's why Democrats should focus on countering those policies.### Assistant: Or the US can do what Australia has done and introduced Compulsory Voting. Our lowest ever election turnout since 1924 wad 91.01% which was in 2016 (http://www.oldsite.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15). This would very effectively eliminate the problem of voter disfranchisement, as every eligible voter would be forced to vote. The other benefits of this include candidates being able to campaign more on policy rather than just trying to get people to the polls. It would also give the winner a real mandate to govern, avoiding the 'not my president' thing. However to gain the full benefit of this, the electoral college system would have to be reformed, the electors would have to distributed proportionally, like in Maine or Nebraska.### Human: I don't think just voting is important. I think *informed* voting is critical, as did many of the Founding Fathers. Given that there is no serious impediment to voting for the vast majority of eligible voters, that means that most people aren't voting due to pure apathy. If they are too apathetic to vote, then it is quite likely they are too apathetic to learn about the issues and the candidates. Thus, if you make voting mandatory, you are mainly padding the current votes with the uninformed, the ignorant. There are two takeaways from this: 1. The media will become all important, as whoever has the best sound bite to nudge the uninformed's finger one way or the other wins. 2. If you think mandatory voting will put your party in power, then that means you think you can only win due to the votes of the ignorant, not the informed voters. That's pretty sad.### Assistant: You've made your point. I just think that mandatory voting helps create a true representation of society, which is what democracy is supposed to be. I also think government should have a mandate to govern, you can't really have a mandate if only 54% of voters vote.

### Human: I think Detroit is irreversibly screwed. CMV.### Assistant: Nothing is beyond redemption, humans are pretty good at fixing shit, although we do tend to wait till things are *really* bad before we try anything. The US made it through [The Great Depression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression), which included [The Dust Bowl,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl) I would argue that those times were way worse than what Detroit is currently experiencing. I'm sure many people though America was on the brink of collapse back then as well. In the 80s DC had some of the [worst crime in history,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.) and had a similar fleeing populace, but it bounced back. Hell, Berlin came back after 2 world wars, and getting split in half for a few decades. Hiroshima and Nagasaki came back after getting decimated by nuclear bombs. Bottom line, I wouldn't be shocked if in the next 5 - 10 years there was a huge push to fix Detroit. Yeah, it's a shit hole, but we've had (and fixed) shit-holes throughout history.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Well, as fucked up and racist as your logic is, if all of the black people were replaced by white people, wouldn't that fulfill the needs for "redemption" in your eyes?### Human: If we are going to throw if statements out, then if Detroit didn't ever elect a democratic black mayor and didn't demonize white people in Detroit and didn't push for unions, Detroit wouldn't be a shit hole.### Assistant: The race riots of the 60s and 70s and "white flight" certainly played a part.

### Human: CMV: All medical offices (doctors offices, etc) should be required to provide you a cost estimate before any procedures are done.### Assistant: I think one of the main problems, and one that is difficult to solve, is that it converts a medical decision into a financial one. Good teeth can be postponed, but not most other kinds of surgery. The private insurance model has introduced price inflation as a problem. Not intending to be political about it, since public funded insurance has its own problems too, but it means that the estimate can easily shock you into silence, like the infamous $75,000 snake-bite bill that circulated reddit a month or two ago. The normal reaction to a bill like that is to "think about it" for a day or two, and then your relatives get to "think about" the funeral director's estimate, too. And what might seem to make it less severe, but actually causes more confusion is that most 5/6-figure medical bills are eventually settled for far less. They're inflated because they're the first move in a negotiation game designed for professional insurance adjusters, not some guy with an ulcer.### Human: I don't think it's necessarily wrong for medical decisions to have a financial component. If we're going to respect patients as adults making independent decisions for themselves, it seems like withholding information in order to get the result we want is disrespectful. For instance, there are some very cheap old drugs for managing cholesterol, and some very expensive new drugs. Why shouldn't the cost of the drugs be a part of the conversation as well as the potential effectiveness? We let people make more dangerous decisions all the time for reasons of money. I can buy an old cheap car without good airbags or crumple zones because I'm budget constrained. We don't say I'm doing anything morally wrong because I trade off a little bit of safety for money.### Assistant: We have been making used cars incrementally more expensive over time as we come to understand the risks to both the driver/passengers and others, and we have to pay to inspect them and repair them until they're considered roadworthy. Airbags and crumple zones--if they're not already regulated in all markets--could soon be regulated like seatbelts, brakes and emissions. I think that's a red-herring, though. I haven't bothered to own or drive a car for a year now because the costs aren't worth it where I live (parking is disgustingly expensive, and I can walk or take the train to work). But I can't legally choose not to live. As a matter of fact, it was only yesterday that assisted suicide was rejected by my country's government. Imagine if I was legally required to own a car: wouldn't it be different, now?### Human: I assume that you are legally allowed to refuse medical care which you know is necessary to save your life, no? I don't know which country you're in, but most countries have also repealed prohibitions on suicide (not that they're enforceable.) I think there is also a decent case for permitting assisted suicide. At least in my jurisdiction, vehicles are also grandfathered in. I can legally drive an original Ford Model T if I am so inclined. I think [the proposal which is discussed at length in this podcast is quite interesting,](http://freakonomics.com/2015/08/27/are-you-ready-for-a-glorious-sunset-a-new-freakonomics-radio-episode/) though I can see why many people find it repulsive. >Why don’t health insurance companies offer bonuses to patients who are willing to forego standard end-of-life medical care? When a patient receives a terminal diagnosis, I have to believe that the healthcare companies have actuaries and data sets that would give them guidance on what the next 6-24 months of medical care would cost. For patients willing to skip this type of care my idea is for a bonus according the following formula: immediate bonus = 50% of (actuarial underwriting of standard medical care – hospice care). The patient maintains control over the optionality, but an immediate benefit opens up to them (one last grand vacation, a lasting legacy for the next generation, etc). The health insurer gets an actuarial gain and makes progress towards disincentivizing excessive consumption of health care in the final months of life.### Assistant: > Why don’t health insurance companies offer bonuses to patients who are willing to forego standard end-of-life medical care? Because its insanely illegal. I work on the reinsurance side of things and my team usually sends up about a dozen proposals like this a year for discussion purposes, none of them are remotely possible under the current regulatory environment but I always live in hope that something might change. Insurers are not permitted to incentivize specific interventions even at the physician level. Even healthy living incentives can only be achieved via premium discounts and then only on the group market, EG - insurers can discount a premium if an employer bans smoking around their building but can't base that on the efficacy of the program nor provide some form of refund based on efficacy. The unrealistic ideal would be a dynamic co-pay based on your estimated QALE with intervention adjusted for lifestyle factors; if you are healthy and young then you would pay almost nothing for a heart transplant if yours fails, if you are a retired morbidly obese smoker then you will be paying almost all cost out of pocket when your heart fails. An enormous part of the current cost problems we face are with end of life care and the absence of any of the consumption restrictions that exist in every other country in the world, physicians treat far more aggressively (IMHO violating their oath, frequently end of life treatment reduces QALE) and we keep throwing interventions at people when hospice or home palliative care would be objectively a better choice. Beyond the cost problems end of life care creates (~3-4% of health consumers consuming nearly half of total healthcare consumption per year) for elderly patients providing such generous benefits via Medicare [worsens inequality and harms intergenerational mobility](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9158965), this really needs to be addressed as we migrate to a universal system as its neither economically nor morally justified to subsidize the wealthy at the expense of the poor in this manner.### Human: Oh, I know it's super illegal. I think there's a cold-hearted utilitarian case for changing the law. Though I can see issues of undue influence on the part of family members being a reason that this isn't the greatest policy idea as written. Maybe require it only be done as an advance directive?### Assistant: > I think there's a cold-hearted utilitarian case for changing the law. I know one of the nightmare scenarios for "cold-hearted utilitarianism" is when a mostly healthy patient enters a hospital, and the doctors come to the conclusion that their organs can save many more patients in need of them. "Slippery slope", perhaps, but I'm game for any insight into how we prevent what appears to be a logical conclusion.### Human: Rule utilitarianism is pretty good about evading that problem, which is a variant of the classic [trolley problem.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Transplant) Rule utilitarianism is the ethical system I apply when dealing with matters of law or policy. It essentially says that we should act according to the set of rules whereby maximum utility is obtained. The rule of "don't intentionally kill people" is probably one of the best moral guidelines out there. It's worked robustly over centuries of law and in basically every society. You'd basically never convince me to give up that legal guideline from a utilitarian standpoint. I'll also point out that utilitarianism is hyper-empirical. Hypotheticals that are divorced from reality are generally not persuasive to someone operating from the utilitarian worldview.

### Human: I think Reddit encourages polarization and groupthink. CMV### Assistant: All I can say is that Reddit, even outside /r/changemyview, is waaaaay better than Youtube comments.### Human: That's a useless comparison though. Pretty much any site has better comment sections than Youtube's.### Assistant: I came from Youtube... Nothing is worse than *that* place.### Human: Any local or state news site with comments.### Assistant: Oh God, it's so true. It's like Youtube, except the people making comments are grown adults with money, power, and voting rights, rather than teenagers.

### Human: CMV: people who oppose immigration are selfishly excluding other humans from sharing the opportunities they enjoy because they fear their own living standards might be lowered.### Assistant: I feel like this centers on the definition of "selfish." Imagine you have a pizza with 8 slices. A person asks for a slice. You have extra slices, so I agree it could be considered selfish not to give him one. But now imagine hundreds of people all want slices. There are WAY more people than slices. They say "let's chop up the pizza in to hundreds of minuscule bits." Is it selfish if you say no? Or what if you say, "hey, everyone can have pizza, but I need time to bake more for everyone. Form a line and each person gets a slice when it's their turn." The latter seems reasonable to me, not selfish. Immigration is the similar. Any given country can only accept a sudden influx of additional people wanting a piece of their economic "pie" before the size of each slice becomes so small it's no longer valuable. As years pass a country's economy will grow and its capacity for more immigrants may increase, but this takes **time** - just like baking more pizza in the above. This is why most people aren't opposed to slow, legal immigration, but they do oppose sudden influxes of refugees or mass immigration. I don't think this is a selfish opinion. It's simply realistic.### Human: You are assuming a zero sum game. That is the fallacy in arguing against immigration. The only way that immigrants become nothing but a burden is if you don't allow them to legally work.### Assistant: He's not though, hence the baking more pies analogy.### Human: Precisely - the speed of growth isn't instantaneous. Imagine immigrants like an investment - each costs $X up front (in social services, etc), but over time most of them get jobs and return that $X and some to the country's economy (thus causing growth). Each country can probably afford to front a lot of $$ for some number of immigrants each year. But there is a cap - if there's a sudden influx of people that costs more than an economy can handle, the upfront costs will outpace the returns. Then everyone suffers (including potential immigrants). It definitely sucks if you're one of the people trying to immigrate, but I don't think it's *selfish* per se of the people already inside to say "we need to impose reasonable limits on the number of people on the boat, otherwise the entire thing sinks and we all drown."### Assistant: Sure, but that applies to refugees not immigrants. Refugees come with the shirt on their backs, immigrants generally have some money or family to help them get started. I though the discussion was about immigration. In regards to social services the only real expenditure or investment for immigrants in the US is on public education and the only way that becomes a complete cost instead of investment is if you deport people after educating them. It could even be argued they help pay for it through paying rent and their landlord pays property taxes off of that income.### Human: Immigrants come with these things because (in the US at least) immigration policies favor those who have them. If you have money/skills/family you are more likely to to get in. So of course this looks like the demographic. If you removed these policies and opened the gates, there would be a lot more "refugee-like" immigrants. Most people in the world live on only a few $$ a day and have few skills relevant to the US workforce market. The costs of healthcare, education, housing for all of them would be significant.### Assistant: Who is suggesting we open the borders and give them all free housing and healthcare?### Human: If you live in the US or Europe, there is already free education (most schools do not require proof of citizenship) and healthcare (if you show up to a hospital they treat you even if you can't pay). And unless we want mass increases of people living in the streets there needs to be more homeless shelters as well. These services (and others) cost money. My argument is it is not selfish to limit immigration to a number below the max of what said services can reasonably afford.

### Human: CMV: What happened to Native US americans was a genocide, and Andrew Jackson was the American Hitler.### Assistant: Most of the deaths are laid at the foot of disease rather than deliberate action, even the smallpox blankets are relatively few in number compared to the actual atrocities of the Holocaust. And most of it centuries before Jackson was born. To call Jackson the American Hitler is to either overvalue Jackson, or underrate Hitler's (and the rest of the Nazis) Final Solution, let alone the consequences of the rest of the Second World War. You can call out Andrew Jackson for his activities without making that unnecessary comparison.### Human: I don't think the comparison is improper at all. In terms of land and property appropriations, and in terms of violent extermination, they are quite close. The claim that disease wiped them out is debatable, considering the destruction of their food sources, and their removal from their land.### Assistant: For Andrew Jackson to Hitler? They are nowhere near close. Talking about the devastation of post-Columbian contact is one thing, but to put it onto Jackson? That's where I'm having a problem. And no, if you want to debate the outbreaks of epidemics in the Native American populations, try /r/askhistorians### Human: Is it the numbers you have a problem with? If so I'm sure someone has a source for how many natives died as a direct result of white action (raiding parties, etc).### Assistant: But is Andrew Jackson responsible for the actions of all whites?### Human: He's white, so obviously.

### Human: [CMV] I think tattoo artists should not ink drunk people.### Assistant: Actually the majority of legit tattoo places will turn away people if they suspect they are drunk. Besides the fact that people are more likely to agree to a tattoo they will regret, alcohol is a blood thinner which can cause people to bleed more while getting the tattoo, a health concern for the artist. But as for actually *requiring* them to give breathalyzers and sobriety test? That's a totally unfair responsibility to place on tattoo shops which usually run on a very tight margin already. At the end of the day if you are the one who drank to much and decided to get a tattoo. That's your responsibility and your decision to live with, not the artist.### Human: Yeah I do agree breath test is an unfair responsibility, I think some sort of test should be in place. I'm unfamiliar if the 'touch your nose and walk in a line test' the police do is accurate, or even real (is it only in movies?.) Perhaps that could be done. I know the respectable parlors will turn someone away, but there are those parlos out there trying to cash in on these drunks. By opening to 4am, in a street lined with bars and don't give one if someone is drunk. So if there was a reasonable test, that I think it should be the artists responsibility to do it.### Assistant: Police really do use the field sobriety test, but even then failing it is only considered probably cause to bring them in and perform a BAC test, not a final determination of the persons sobriety. I honestly don't believe that there are that many tattoo shops out there preying on drunk people. I actually know a few people that are tattoo artist and they all take it pretty seriously. Morally i do agree that if someone is clearly black out drunk, the artist should refuse, but I still feel at the end of the day you are responsible for your own decisions and the artist shouldn't be forced into a situation where they could be punished legally for inking an intoxicated person.### Human: I still do not understand why any authority uses the field sobriety test as you've described it, handheld breathalyzers exist and are muc faster than having someone walk in a straight line### Assistant: The hand held ones are not totally accurate and can only be used as probable cause to bring someone in for a BAC test. Also you can refuse to take the breathalyzer but you can't refuse the field sobriety test.### Human: You can't refuse a handheld here, then they take you back for a blood test if it's over .05 on the handheld. Refusal or inability to give a handheld reading means they take you back to the station for a blood test.

### Human: CMV: Primates are non-human persons, and we should no sooner perform invasive experiments on them than we would a human who cannot give their informed assent.### Assistant: So I work in a research lab, specifically with mice. I've talked about this non-human primate issue with a lot of people I work with, all of whom have phds in neuroscience or related fields. The consensus is that it's fucking horrible and 100% necessary. In research, we try to use models that use either no animals or the ones that have the least-developed brains. No one wants to use non-human primates, it is not ideal and people are researching ways that we can avoid this in the future. But the science just isn't there yet. When you say we shouldn't perform any more invasive experiments on non-human primates, you are simultaneously saying that you want less effective, possibly more dangerous medications on the market, more dangerous human research, and less effective cancer/diabetes/HIV research. As drugs move through trials, they start with no animals, then rodents, then larger species, then primates, then humans. Primates are an ESSENTIAL step because they're similar to humans in ways that other animals just aren't. If we move from a larger species, say a rabbit, right to human testing, you are endangering lives of humans. So should we stop developing drugs until we find a better way to test than on primates or should we risk the lives of human participants in studies? Those are your two choices. This might seem simplistic but it really is the case for major research. We're at a point in science where we CAN'T stop non-human primate research.### Human: > When you say we shouldn't perform any more invasive experiments on non-human primates, you are simultaneously saying that you want less effective, possibly more dangerous medications on the market, more dangerous human research, and less effective cancer/diabetes/HIV research. That's one way of putting it. I could similarly tell you that by refusing to perform experiments on unwilling/unassenting human beings (the comatose, the mentally retarded, etc.), you're depriving medical knowledge of plenty of valuable research--maybe even more valuable than primate research--and that, as a result, people die for lack of less effective HIV/etc. treatment. For me, the most salient difference between "risking the lives of human participants in studies" and continuing with primate research, is that, in a lot of cases, a human can give informed consent. A primate can't.### Assistant: A mouse can't give informed consent either and they experience the basics of why we find primate testing horrible: fear, anxiety, pain, and ultimately death. They're social creatures with a hierarchy. Is it ok to use them just because they can't perform the same high-level tasks that non-human primates can?### Human: Yes, it's ok to use them.### Assistant: Do you not see that as contradictory? The very reasons you propose make testing on primates unethical apply to lesser creatures, yet you're okay with that. It sounds more like you're working backwards; i.e. apes look and act similar to humans, so there must be *something* wrong with testing on them.### Human: No, I don't. My original post already speaks to why I think primates meet a minimum level of person-like-ness, such that I'm uncomfortable saying their lives *lack* whatever it is human lives *have* that makes the latter inalienable, sacred, etc. I'm not saying I know exactly what that quality is, but there's no way to slice it such that humans obviously have it and apes obviously lack it. But I have no problems experimenting on mice, squishing bugs, eating chicken, etc. By the way, a book that really turned me around on the varieties of consciousness, from the rock to the ant to the human, is Douglas Hofstadter's "I Am a Strange Loop," in which he advocates a fluid spectrum of consciousness-having across animals and other intelligent "systems." It's a good read, and he's hardly a crank or even an animal rights activist.### Assistant: > such that I'm uncomfortable saying their lives lack whatever it is human lives have that makes the latter inalienable, sacred, etc. I'm not saying I know exactly what that quality is, but there's no way to slice it such that humans obviously have it and apes obviously lack it. I can't read into your mind and figure that out for you, but without defining what quality it is that qualifies a life as "sacred" (I don't use that sarcastically, I'm just not sure of a better term) I don't see how you can draw a line and say that it's unethical to test on one creature but ethical to test on another. I agree that consciousness exists on a fluid spectrum, but where are you drawing the line that makes it not okay to test on an animal? There was a parrot that was capable of making associations (I believe specifically that it saw a documentary about Jane Goodall and her primates, then saw her in person and asked why she didn't have any monkeys), could we ethically test on it? In fact, I think the fluidness of the spectrum is an argument against it being unethical to test on primates. There don't appear to be huge jumps in the level of consciousness, so how do we define where that line is? Are all primates equal? I honestly think it's just because of the degree to which primates remind us of ourselves. They look like us, their societies are vaguely reminiscent of us, and we've done a large amount of research into them.### Human: > without defining what quality it is that qualifies a life as "sacred" (I don't use that sarcastically, I'm just not sure of a better term) I don't see how you can draw a line and say that it's unethical to test on one creature but ethical to test on another. But we draw similar lines all the time in our ethical lives without defining specific qualities. Even your phrase, "I can't read into your mind," is suggestive of it. We interact with other people all the time, and I can't know what, if anything, is going on in their heads, but I have to make certain assumptions that I can trust them, that they're basically good, that they're like me. It doesn't involve pinpointing any piece of evidence or crucial qualities, it's just part of the leap of faith that comes with leading an ethical, social life. I agree that the fact that primates remind us of ourselves make them seem more "person-like" than parrots, irrespective of their comparative intelligence, but I don't mind having those traits as part of the constellation of features that makes up "personhood". As I said elsewhere, I would draw the line at the great apes, while also acknowledging that any such line is bound to change over time, and in different cultures. Fatal medical experiments in the first half of the twentieth century--on non-assenting Jews, indigenous Latin Americans, black people--make it clear that ethical standards in medicine evolve. I'm not declaring an end-all-be-all definition of personhood, but I think we know enough now about the great apes that we cannot justify denying them personhood any longer. EDIT: Also, needless to say, any line-drawing is going to be imperfect. When you say > the fluidness of the spectrum is an argument against it being unethical to test on primates. There don't appear to be huge jumps in the level of consciousness, so how do we define where that line is? you seem to be suggesting that, because we are going to have to make an arbitrary cut-off, which will necessarily be imperfect, we should stick to the intuitive status-quo. But again, it's a status-quo that's already changed even in the past 75 years, and that will probably change again. Imperfection should not preclude improvement. I think we can let the great apes into personhood, and it would be a moral improvement on planet earth. We don't have to make them equals, but we can stop killing them for science.### Assistant: > I have to make certain assumptions that I can trust them, that they're basically good, that they're like me. It doesn't involve pinpointing any piece of evidence or crucial qualities, it's just part of the leap of faith that comes with leading an ethical, social life. It definitely does involve pinpointing evidence and crucial qualities. They are human, thus they are largely like you. It's not really a leap of faith, the odds that they share a belief set that is largely similar to yours is very high. The odds that they grew up in a society that is more similar to yours than it is to that of an ant is very nearly 100%. If that wasn't true, you would treat each person you met like they were a wild animal, but we don't because statistically they're going to be incredibly similar to you. > I agree that the fact that primates remind us of ourselves make them seem more "person-like" than parrots, irrespective of their comparative intelligence, but I don't mind having those traits as part of the constellation of features that makes up "personhood". Then why aren't parrots invited to personhood? I don't see the distinction between a parrot and an ape, other than we're more closely related to apes. > Fatal medical experiments in the first half of the twentieth century--on non-assenting Jews, indigenous Latin Americans, black people--make it clear that ethical standards in medicine evolve. I'm not arguing that standards don't evolve. I just don't see any way that testing on humans in lieu of great apes is more ethical, unless you think that great apes are higher than humans on the consciousness scale. > you seem to be suggesting that, because we are going to have to make an arbitrary cut-off, which will necessarily be imperfect, we should stick to the intuitive status-quo. This is where the disagreement is. I don't believe in an arbitrary distinction, I believe in a concrete and measurable distinction. If we can establish what that distinction is, and can say that because of that distinction the lives of great apes are as valuable as human lives, I would agree that testing on them is unethical. As it stands, yes, they are more self-aware than other animals, but the degree of harm caused by testing on a great ape compared to the degree of harm caused by not providing the greatest degree of testing we possibly can are not equal. Is it unfortunate that it is necessary to test on them to ensure medicines are safe for human consumption? Yes. Do I believe that it would be more ethical to unleash possibly harmful medications on the world's human populations than it is to test them on great apes? No. If the hypothetical medicine is safe, then it will most likely be safe for apes as well. If not, then we either allow some great apes to die, or we allow some humans to die. Which would you prefer?### Human: > unless you think great apes are higher than humans on the consciousness scale I definitely don't. A lot of people here have accused me of it, though. I wouldn't celebrate a live ape over a dead human, but I think we cannot ethically kill apes for science, even if it would make utilitarian sense. For the same reason, I don't think we can kill human people when it makes utilitarian sense (i.e. might save lives). You're making an "ends justify the means" argument, I'm saying they don't. > any way that testing on humans in lieu of great apes is more ethical Well, we already do test on consenting humans, so it's not an either/or distinction. In the very rare cases where we do test on non-human primates first, it's always subsequently followed by human trials. The majority of drugs, of course, already go to human testing without non-human primate testing. My opinion is that it is more ethical to test on a consenting primate (us) than a non-consenting primate (them). > I believe in a concrete and measurable distinction. I think we're stumbling over the difference between arbitrary and concrete/measurable. I agree with the statement quoted above, but just because we make a concrete, measurable distinction doesn't mean it's not arbitrary. In this field, we once made an arbitrary distinction between prisoners and the free, between indigenous people and western, between Jew and Aryan, etc. Those are concrete, measurable distinctions, but they are also arbitrary. In a real sense--admittedly, a pedantic one--our distinction between Homo sapien and great ape is arbitrary. If we glance holistically at the entire animal kingdom, we're virtually indistinguishable. I realize we're not going to agree, and I think you make some good points, but I'm not convinced that you truly see no difference between a parrot and an ape when it comes to personhood. Intelligence is only one of the constellation of features that makes apes like us; parrots lack many of the others. So maybe you'll indulge me in a thought experiment. Presumably we agree that it's wrong to experiment on non-consenting human beings. I'm wondering if you can think of any biological condition a great ape might hypothetically exhibit that would convince you that it's unethical to run non-consenting experiments on them, as well. For example: If they used a complex symbolic language? If they walked upright on two legs? If they shared enough of our DNA that we could successfully mate with them (like horses and donkeys)? If they were hairless? If they looked *exactly* like us, yet with the same ape brains? If we encountered *one* ape who could learn English? Presumably, there's a set of hypothetical biological conditions out there that would reach an event horizon of personhood for *you*, personally. For me, great apes already cross that event horizon of personhood. Even if you disagree, hopefully you can see that such a horizon exists for you, too, and that our difference is therefore one of degree, and not category.### Assistant: > For the same reason, I don't think we can kill human people when it makes utilitarian sense (i.e. might save lives). You're making an "ends justify the means" argument, I'm saying they don't. I'm not making an ends justify the means argument, what I'm saying is that the medicine needs to be tested. That is undebatable. The question becomes who or what do we test it on? The ends justify the means arguments are typically only relevant when a course of action is optional. Testing the medications isn't optional, I'm saying that testing it on apes is preferable to testing it on humans because the human lives are more valuable. > Well, we already do test on consenting humans, so it's not an either/or distinction. In the very rare cases where we do test on non-human primates first, it's always subsequently followed by human trials. They would be tested on primates because they have a potential to be dangerous, and probably a fairly substantial one at that. I would honestly question the ability of someone to give consent if they were to consent to being in a trial for one of these. "Yeah, we've got this new Alzheimers Drug and we think there's about a 12% chance that it will cause 72% of the people taking it to become riddled with tumors. But hey, there's an 88% chance that no one will be riddled with tumors, who wants to sign up?" No one sane is the answer. > I think we're stumbling over the difference between arbitrary and concrete/measurable. I agree with the statement quoted above, but just because we make a concrete, measurable distinction doesn't mean it's not arbitrary. In this field, we once made an arbitrary distinction between prisoners and the free, between indigenous people and western, between Jew and Aryan, etc. Those are concrete, measurable distinctions, but they are also arbitrary. In a real sense--admittedly, a pedantic one--our distinction between Homo sapien and great ape is arbitrary. If we glance holistically at the entire animal kingdom, we're virtually indistinguishable. The argument about it being arbitrary just descends into non-sense. Why is killing people wrong? It's entirely arbitrary, other animals do it all the time. Why is stealing wrong? The government takes all kinds of money out of my paycheck, but when I do it it's wrong. Why do we even think about whether testing is ethical at all? Ethics are just arbitrary distinctions between behavior we decide is right and wrong, and there is no definitive dividing line between that which is "right" and that which is "wrong". Everything we do other than eating, drinking, sleeping, and screwing is arbitrary. We decide to do it because. The distinction between great apes and homo sapiens is relative. If we're comparing a human and an amoeba, yes, the differences between us aren't very large. If we're comparing a human and a neanderthal, the difference between humans and apes looks much larger. Hell, we share 70 something percent of our DNA with bananas, why don't we give them personhood to? We're back at this horizon. A horizon is a well-defined point that divides between two things. It is not "ah well, it seems like we're somewhere around that line. Let's flip a coin and see which side we're on." It would be "This situation meets criteria a, b, c, and d. We're on the far side of that event horizon." > I'm wondering if you can think of any biological condition a great ape might hypothetically exhibit that would convince you that it's unethical to run non-consenting experiments on them, as well. Sure. At the point that it can be proven that a) They are capable of giving consent (currently they are not, so their lack of consent is irrelevant), and b) they are capable of a level of consciousness comparable to a human, and c) the level of unhappiness/grief caused by testing on apes outweighs that of testing on humans. Alternately, at the point that there is a similarly accurate non-human analogue that is less conscious than great apes. It's a matter of necessity for me, not one of ethics. I wouldn't agree with testing on them if it weren't necessary to ensure the safety of humans, and I don't agree with allowing humans to consent to that any more than I agree with allowing people to sell their organs.### Human: > I'm not making an ends justify the means argument That's exactly what you're doing. Not that there's anything wrong with that argument, I just disagree. In your view, the means (killing apes, who cannot consent) are unfortunate, but justify the ends (medical knowledge). And the course of action is quite obviously optional. You just don't *like* the other option. I'm not sure why you'd argue otherwise. Your example of an Alzheimer's drug doesn't *at all* resemble what actual drug tests look like, so I'll skip it. > Hell, we share 70 something percent of our DNA with bananas, why don't we give them personhood to? I think you're being absurd because my argument is making you uncomfortable. It's patently obvious that apes are like us, the question is how much like us they need to be before you're willing to offer them the protections of personhood. And your qualifications--thanks for giving them--are easy to reply to. In (a), you're saying the opposite of what I think you mean. Lacking the ability to consent is precisely why you shouldn't experiment on something--like the comatose, mentally handicapped, or to use *your very example*, the person in your Alzheimer's study who is "not in their right mind." If it were proven that apes could give informed consent, that would actually be a mark in your favor! As for (b), most primatologists agree that great apes can achieve the intelligence (and presumably something like the conscious experience) of a 2-6 year old human, the age depending on who you ask. We can say two years old if you like. Still, that's more than many mentally-handicapped/comatose humans! So I think (b) has been shown. And, even though "level of unhappiness" can't actually be measured, I don't think you really believe (c), which suggests that if we discovered an alien species as conscious and intelligent as us, it would be OK to experiment on them with impugnity so long as it hurt us less than it hurt them. That's a pretty ethically dubious stance. If you really do believe (c), I can see we're going to disagree on quite a lot, and might as well quit here.### Assistant: > And the course of action is quite obviously optional. As is breathing, technically. Scientific research is going to happen, and is optional only in the silliest and most technical sense of the word "optional". > Your example of an Alzheimer's drug doesn't at all resemble what actual drug tests look like, so I'll skip it. Yes, it does. > Eighty-two percent of primate procedures in the UK in 2006 were in applied studies, which the Home Office defines as research conducted for the purpose of developing or testing commercial products.[38] Toxicology testing is the largest use, which includes legislatively required testing of drugs. > The drug tenofovir has had its efficacy and toxicology evaluated in macaques, and found longterm-highdose treatments had adverse effects not found using short term-high dose treatment followed by long term-low dose treatment. This finding in macaques was translated into human dosing regimens. That is the number one use of non-human primates in research, to test and make sure that the drugs are not going to kill people. > I think you're being absurd because my argument is making you uncomfortable. It doesn't make me uncomfortable. I'm being absurd because your argument is absurd. You're proposing that there's some quality to great apes, which you cannot identify, that qualifies them for personhood. We share lots of qualities with lots of animals (and plants). What is so special about great apes, other than they look and act like us, that makes them eligible for personhood? My arguments are absurd because I don't have anything to argue against other than "Apes should be people because I say so". > Lacking the ability to consent is precisely why you shouldn't experiment on something So.... we shouldn't experiment on rats or bugs or parrots either? They can't consent, and they certainly feel pain. There's a reason why that isn't the sole criteria. > and presumably something like the conscious experience So is that the dividing factor here? That the animal experiences a consciousness similar to ours? One of the prime examples of our self-awareness is an awareness of our own mortality. I haven't seen anything where a non-human primate seemed to be conscious of the fact that they will die. Some of these primates don't even seem to understand the concept of death, ignoring rotting corpses near them. Yes, they likely have a consciousness more similar to ours than other animals, but that's a relative measure; there are a large number of animals who could be said to have a consciousness "similar to ours" depending on how close you require that to be. Other animals experience things like sadness, that is not unique to primates. > which suggests that if we discovered an alien species as conscious and intelligent as us, it would be OK to experiment on them with impugnity so long as it hurt us less than it hurt them. That's a pretty ethically dubious stance. Not really. If we found a race of aliens who were taxonomically similar to us who, for instance, did not feel pain then yes, it would be far more ethical to conduct a painful experiment on them than it would us. I'm not proposing that we willy-nilly conduct random experimentation on them, but if we were to arrive at a point where it was necessary to conduct an experiment for the furthering of essential research, then yes, I find it more ethical to experiment on them.### Human: OK, I'm trying to take your arguments seriously, but since you're willfully misconstruing mine, I'm done here. You can't employ rhetoric against willful mishearing. All I'll say is that if my argument is absurd, it's one I happily share in absurdity with Richard Dawkins, Peter Singer, Steven Wise, Douglas Hofstadter, Jane Goodall, Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, and others (I know, I know, appeal to authority fallacy!). I'm happy to join the many mainstream biologists, philosophers, doctors, and law scholars who agree that personhood is definable beyond the human, and that by far the closest and most deserving contenders are the great apes. And I have the analytic and empathetic powers to recognize that those who disagree with me aren't just being absurd.

### Human: CMV: There is no ethical difference between defending yourself with lethal force and asking someone else to do it for you (American gun ownership rights).### Assistant: As a society, we cede certain functions to the state - like law enforcement and military action, for example. The question here is *which* functions we do that with. Gun advocates tend to believe that they are better off defending themselves as one among many in an armed populace. Gun control advocates tend to believe that they are better off with the state defending everyone in a less-armed or unarmed populace. The ethical distinction comes from who is exercising what power. If you threaten me and I call the police and a police officer shoots and kills you, I have appropriately participated in the peacekeeping system we have created a society. There is no ethical fault on my part, though it's certainly possible that the officer acted inappropriately. Note that police officers do not arrive on your doorstep and kill someone if you ask them to; they make their own observations, draw their own conclusions, and make the choices they deem appropriate. If you threaten me and I shoot and kill you, it is *possible* that I acted appropriately and *possible* that I did not. By pulling the trigger, I make myself subject to the behavioral scrutiny that, in the previous example, would fall upon the officer. In the first situation where I call the police, my behavior is unquestionably both legal and ethical; in the second situation where I kill you myself, a substantial set of secondary questions of law and ethics immediately apply to me in ways that they otherwise would not. That's the difference.### Human: > In the first situation where I call the police, my behavior is unquestionably both legal and ethical; in the second situation where I kill you myself, a substantial set of secondary questions of law and ethics immediately apply to me in ways that they otherwise would not. While more investigation may be warranted if I defend myself rather than have the police defend me, if the answer to "was it ethical to use deadly force to protect myself" comes out the same how is it ethically different if I killed the assailant with a gun, a vase or a phone call to 911? I realize that I am focusing on ethical differences, rather than practical differences.### Assistant: The ethical difference is the intervening action of another moral agent. If calling 911 summoned killer robots, you'd be absolutely right that it would be ethically no different than shooting someone. However, police officers aren't killer robots, they are humans who have the capacity to make ethical decisions and if they decide to kill someone it is their responsibility, not the responsibility of the person who called them.### Human: As a private citizen, I also am a human with the capacity to make ethical decisions and face responsibility. There is nothing inherently more ethical about a police officers judgement than my own.### Assistant: I generally agree (with the caveat that police may be better trained to make ethical decisions of this particular nature in less time), but I took the OP to be saying that calling the police is no different than shooting someone oneself. That is, I think he was saying that someone who calls the police is as ethically responsible as someone who just shoots their attacker and not that police officers and citizens face the same responsibility if they shoot someone.### Human: I'm pretty sure what he was trying to get as was that if the outcome of a single scenario was predetermined to be either a) the homeowner has the opportunity and kills the burglar or b) the police come, and inevitably kill the burglar there would be no ethical difference between exercising your right to self defense by carrying it out yourself as opposed to using an outside agent.### Assistant: It could be he was, but that is a wholly imaginary scenario. One can never know the future so the situation that one could actually face is that a break in occurs and you have many options, among them: a) shoot at burglar or b) call police In this situation the ethical ramifications for each option are different even if both a) and b) end up resulting in the death of the burglar.### Human: When discussing ethics its usually necessary to have predetermined outcomes, to prevent exactly the dilemma you're describing. You'd literally go around in circles forever arguing without doing that. Outcomes aren't predetermined in reality, so arguing the ethics of an actual self defense shooting where the victim shot the burglar in good faith is pretty pointless.### Assistant: The way I see it, calling the police is a moral and generally justified response to a threatening situation. Shooting a person can be but is not always. As a private citizen, I am guaranteed to have acted morally if I call the police rather than shooting someone, but not guaranteed to have acted morally if I shoot someone rather than calling the police.### Human: Self defense scenarios are always pretty chaotic, so provided you are adequately prepared and do whatever is necessary for an optimal outcome for yourself, its morally justified in my opinion. I'd rather not shoot a burglar, but if I do, I'm going to feel a-ok with myself afterwards since I'm mentally prepared to do what I need to do, whether thats call the cops or pull the trigger.### Assistant: I fully agree that in a situation where you feel threatened, the best strategy is make every effort to kill your opponent and stop once you feel safe, but it certainly doesn't always have to come to that. Also, speaking from the experience of every soldier who I've heard talk about the mental effects of killing, you won't feel a-ok with yourself afterwards.### Human: It doesn't HAVE to come back to it, but if its necessary its moral. Also, "a-ok" from a justification perspective, not saying there wouldn't bee feels involved. I am a soldier.

### Human: CMV: I don't think sexism towards woman is still an issue at large today.### Assistant: If you're not the target of discrimination, it's easy not to see it. But if there are people saying "I'm discriminated against, I suffer because of problems in this culture which are about bigotry; here's how, and here's what I want to see to stop it" then you have no reason not to listen, not to believe their testimony, and not to try to stop it - whether the testimony is that of a woman reporting sexism, a person of colour reporting racism, a person with a physical disability reporting attitudes they face, a trans person reporting transphobia, a gay person reporting homophobia, or anything else (or indeed a combination of any of the above - WOC are seeing discrimination from what to them seems like a white middle class feminism that doesn't care about them, for example, and that's something feminism needs to take note of). If you listen to people talk about their experiences with sexism and take what they say at face value, that's how your view will be changed. If you dismiss it as "not important" or trivialise testimonies or try to explain them away, you're part of the problem. Also bear in mind you might consider a rape joke to be insignificant, but all too often the language used in "lads' mags" about women is the same language used by rapists about their victims; making a joke that from your point of view is a bit tasteless but not that significant could well be a trigger for a rape survivor's PTSD, or the justification a male listener uses later when they rape someone. There's nothing innocent about rape jokes where the victim is the punchline. Edit: on the topic of actually listening to women who talk about sexism, see the @EverydaySexism account and hashtag on Twitter. There are so many examples there, including one that was just posted about the UK Small Businesses Directory in which the website has the following text on the "register your business" page: > Please note: this is a serious website for serious men with serious businesses. > If you are just a little housewife running a little play business from home earning some pin money whilst your man is out earning a living - please don't register you ~~latest hobby~~ business here. Now, that's just one of numerous examples of sexism in the western world (like I said: UK) in which a small business run by a woman is "little", earns "pin money" and is her "latest hobby", and only men have serious businesses. This isn't insignificant or isolated, it is part of a pattern of oppression.### Human: While I agree that OP is not aware of todays examples of sexism (for both sides) I really don't think that I have to accept every opinion as a fact and take it seriously. And that goes for every topic not only sexism. If someone explains a problem s/he has to me then I listen to them and their arguements. If they make sense to me then I take them seriously, else I don't. And just because I happen to be not in the same group as the complainer does not mean I'm incapeable of understanding the issue at least on the surface, that's what we have empathy for. I would even take my own "not belonging to the group" into consideration and accept that there may be more to the issue than I can see or have experienced. But that consideration does not overrule every judgement of myself.### Assistant: >I really don't think that I have to accept every opinion as a fact and take it seriously. I don't think that's what /u/chilari is saying. You don't have to agree with it, but you should at least acknowledge it and recognize that you are likely not in a position to make the sort of judgment that the other person is making. They may be hypersensitive, or maybe not, but that is not entirely your prerogative to make. You don't have to bend over to what they're saying, but don't immediately disregard it as nonsense either because *in general* people are not going to play the "discrimination card" when they honestly do not feel that they are being subjugated.### Human: I think that's pretty much my stance (which I tried to explain in my post) to such stuff. I don't consider myself alknowing and am very carefull to judge stuff in moderation. I much rather give the benefit of a doubt than judging a person to be stupid, incompetent or whatnot. But to generally say statements like this: > If you dismiss it as "not important" or trivialise testimonies or try to explain them away, you're part of the problem. seems to be just as extreme if only in the other direction.### Assistant: Trivialising or dismissing claims without investigating them is a silencing tactic. It tells people they're not important enough to be listened to, and it tells people not of that group that it's acceptable to ignore the suffering of others. Explaining away is the worst of those three - you're not trying to engage, you're not listening, you're just trying to make yourself feel better about whatever suffering other people encounter. One individual engaging in silencing of this manner might not be a big part of the problem, but they are still a part of it. I've seen it explained as a travellator - you know, like what you get in airports. The travellator of bigotry travels towards bigotry (whether sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, whatever). It might not travel very quickly and the speed it travels depends on where in the world it is, but it does travel towards bigotry. Those who allow silencing, who ignore issues, they're the people standing still saying "I'm not part of the problem." But actually, the people who are trying to move away from bigotry - the people speaking out, taking action - are moving against the flow and the people standing still are blocking them, slowing them down.### Human: > Trivialising or dismissing claims without investigating them is a silencing tactic. So, is there is a thin line between not-feeding a troll, by dismissing it and oppressing genuine people? This has bothered me a lot. Especially in a setting like the OP links to. As someone who has never heard of the phrase, "I’ll just have to take your silence as consent" in the context of a rape-joke and always thought of that as deriding passiveness, and eliciting action in the audience, i will think of this as a troll. Hell, i am sure i will have used it and people will have thought i am making a rape-joke when i have no idea about it. I am not sure if the person who made that statement is in the same boat as I am.

### Human: CMV: "Social Justice Warrior" (SJW) and "Feminazi" especially are both slurs that shouldn't be used seriously by anyone who claims to be trying to have a rational and open discussion on anything.### Assistant: >It's as if I was discussing race and I started calling black people "darkies", or discussing abortion and calling people who are pro-choice towards abortion "baby-killers". It's fairly common in the pro choice movement to call the pro life movement anti choice. It's fairly common in the media to label any religious person with strong beliefs fundamentalist. It's fairly common within the pro life movement to name people pro death. It's fairly common in the republican party to call opponents socialists. It's fairly common in the democrat party to call its opponents bigots. It's fairly common in the feminist movement to call its opponents rape apologists. And it's fairly common in certain anti feminist movements to call them feminazis. Unlike with race and sex and such, innate characteristics that we can't control, in politics and social activism you're expected to be able to take a few insults. Insults and rudeness are fairly routine in every group, adults included. If it's immature, the majority of adults are immature. If that's how you're defining it, well, not sure how valuable immature is as a term. As to why, people are rarely trying to win over the other side. They try to fire up their supporters and win people who are hanging in between.### Human: You offered a description of how people act, but you're attempting to convince someone of how people ought to act. Those are two different things.### Assistant: OP described how people react to insults- with mocking and cries of immaturity. If I can show that people in general act by insulting one another and not mocking insults then clearly OP is incorrect.### Human: But you didn't show that he was factually incorrect, you just showed how there are other situations where it is used differently. You were trying to say that his view on how insults are generally used is wrong, but that's not his position he's trying to change. That's just an anecdote. You're attacking the wrong argument.### Assistant: If OP believes rational and open discussions can't include emotion and insults then they're incorrect. It can often be very logical and open to insult people. People use emotion to carry out their goals rationally. They are open about their feelings, disgust and hate. Genuine debate often includes some roughplay.### Human: You're still attacking the wrong argument.### Assistant: Not by my perspective. OP is saying that in open and rational debate people who use insults are seen as immature. I am saying that in open and rational debate people who use insults are seen as mature adults. How am I incorrect?

### Human: I think there should be a way to tag posts as reposts, similar to NSFW. CMV.### Assistant: Repost are valuable to many. The very fact that a repost gets the thousands of upvotes they get means they are valuable. The standard voting system does just fine in managing posts.### Human: >Repost are valuable to many. I've only been on reddit for about a year and is say that at least a third of the posts on the front page are reposts that are of no value to me. I have no idea what the numbers are for everyone else. Thousands of upvotes means it was valuable to thousands, but how well would original content of comparable quality do in its place? >The standard voting system does just fine in managing posts. Not for me it doesn't. I'd love to know if something were a repost before clicking on it so I don't have to waste my time.### Assistant: You are not reddit.### Human: Read my original post again and please tell me where I claimed that my views reflected the entirety of reddit's. I was quite clear that I personally think that this system would benefit those who disagree with reposting while leaving others completely unaffected. How would this have a negative impact on anyone? Why would any feature need a majority of the communities support in order to be implemented?### Assistant: All of your arguments are saying that it affects you, and that you want the change. You're not offering any solid arguments as to why it would be better *for the community* to tag things as reposts besides this: >while some people benefit from seeing a repost for the first time, EVERYONE benefits from original content Which is at least partially true, but factor in individuals who want to see the reposts and who don't mind the reposts. We have no idea what the *majority* of this website thinks about reposts. Personally, I would dislike having additional tags on posts that I would find unnecessary. I've never been upset by something being reposted.### Human: >You're not offering any solid arguments as to why it would be better *for the community* to tag things as reposts I'm a member of the community, and while I'm sure that my views don't reflect that of the majority, it would be a stretch to say that I'm on my own. I think the number of people who are bugged by reposts is probably around 25%, but that is a very rough guesstimate based solely off what I've seen in the comments of reposts. >Which is at least partially true, but factor in individuals who want to see the reposts and who don't mind the reposts. We have no idea what the *majority* of this website thinks about reposts. Theoretically these people would be unaffected since they could just ignore the tag if reposts don't bother them. There may be a number of people who downvote everything with a repost tag, but if the number of people doing that is significant then they are probably representing a larger minority than we previously assumed. >Personally, I would dislike having additional tags on posts that I would find unnecessary. I've never been upset by something being reposted. Out of curiosity, how long have you been on here and how many hours a week would you estimate you spend on here? Do you think that if the number of posts you recognized as reposts (that you'd seen on here before) doubled that you'd still not be annoyed?### Assistant: Re: The last bit, I've had an account for (I think?) a little over 2 years, and I probably spend an embarrassing 3+ hours a day browsing shit when I'm not busy. No, I probably wouldn't be annoyed.### Human: Well maybe I am part of a fairly small minority afterall.### Assistant: You're not. Reposts are annoying as hell, and people comment when there are reposts quite frequently. I've been on reddit longer than both of you combined, and can say this with confidence.

### Human: CMV I think unpaid internships are immoral and companies are perpetuating them to reduce the risk of hiring graduates.### Assistant: Yes, it sucks not to be paid when you work. The intern knows he will not be paid, and still agrees. From the intern point of view it is like he will be trained to do a job, and get experience in a field: - If I get an unpaid internship, I probably didn't find a paid or interesting one. - Well if I have no experience maybe I will not find a job anyway so i might as well get experience for getting a real job afterwards. - When college is that expensive, and it didn't get me a job... Maybe the opportunity to be eligible for a job without having to pay for it is not the worst. From the company point of view, it seems that they don't want to take the risk to hire and pay a guy with no experience. OK that sucks. But you can't change the way they think, and if you forbid them to get free interns, they might as well not get interns at all. which would harm the interns who still agree to get an unpaid experience. Sure not all companies would stop hiring interns, but some probably will, or hire less interns. In the points above, I didn't address the level of the intern (which is probably not that different from the one of some of the paid employees), and I didn't address the teaching the employer can provide to the intern. I think the moral aspect can be answered by knowing the intern thinks it still benefits him.### Human: > if you forbid them to get free interns, they might as well not get interns at al I strongly disagree with this statement. The sheer amount of work hours that interns put in every year indicates that companies really value this labor. It should not be free labor. I've seen the numbers but can't find them unfortunately, I'll update if I can find it.### Assistant: I just bring you attention that I followed as: > Sure not all companies would stop hiring interns, but some probably will, or hire less interns. . >Companies really value this labor They value intern labor because it is low priced. If internship paid less than 500$/month were forbidden, **some** companies would find getting an intern is not profitable. Some companies would still use paid interns. but the number of interns would be lower for sure.### Human: Perhaps, but it might even be a good thing as to reduce the number of potential low-quality internships out there. But that's just a supposition.### Assistant: I would be ok with every one getting high quality internships, but once again, if one doesn't get a high-quality one, a low-quality is better than nothing.### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: Ellen Pao shouldn't have quite her job and surrender to the internet mob### Assistant: You have to remember that Pao is human too. Dealing with that kind of inhuman harassment is incredibly stressful and debilitating, and I can't blame her for stepping down. She's probably realized that being CEO of Reddit is not worth the absurd amount of strife she's faced from users who are, quite frankly, shitheads, but users who make up a vocal percentage of the userbase and users who have been relentlessly going after her (and, of course, many of these users are powerful enough with computers to make her life a never-ending nightmare). It's like the GamerGate victims: many of them shouldn't have "given in" to the angry hords of numbskulls, but personal feelings of well-being can often trump standing up against the shittiness of facing a crowd you'll never win over.### Human: This I can absolutely understand, but I just don't like this trend I'm seeing. It's not so long ago when all the Tim Hunt controversy happened when he was forced to quit his position for the twitter mob only to be revealed that it was all load of bullshit. I absolutely get that it might not be worth it to be constantly harassed, but this is scary precedent to hold. I just think people should stick to their guns, eventually things have to turn one way or another. Maybe staying out of comment sections could be some sort of solution, but that would probably be hard to do as reddit's CEO.### Assistant: > I just think people should stick to their guns, eventually things have to turn one way or another. Maybe staying out of comment sections could be some sort of solution That's impossible if it spills over to the real world. Real addresses, real names, real consequences. I don't like the precedent any more than you do, but it's up to the individual to decide whether this level of hostility and scrutiny is worth risking one's life over. Ellen received death threats! WTF?! It only takes one lunatic to ruin her life.### Human: > Ellen received death threats! I agree with what you're saying, but I'd just like to mention: I wish people would stop making such a big deal out of internet "death threats." They're so common and so empty, there's no reason to take them seriously. *I've* gotten death threats and I'm nobody.### Assistant: > I've gotten death threats and I'm nobody. Damn. That sucks u/warsage. The internet sucks sometimes. > They're so common and so empty, there's no reason to take them seriously. I have to disagree with this. You've received maybe a dozen, tops? First, that's already more than anyone should receive. Second, Ellen received many, many more. Her family was threatened as well. I'd do what she did. Edit: I missed a word.

### Human: CMV: I do not think the term "cisgender" is correct.### Assistant: You seem to be confused about what the term means. You write this: >Am I in the right to be labeled as something I dont want to and hasnt been really asked upon the mayority of straight people? > (What label would you prefer?) Being simply called straight? "Cisgender" does not mean "straight." It means that you identify with the gender that you were assigned at birth. A person with male genetalia who identifies as a male is "cisgender." A person with male genetalia who identifies as female, (or at least non-male) is better described as "transgender." A person with male genetalia who identifies as male and is attracted to others who identify/present as male is best described as cisgender & homosexual. The term has nothing to do with whether you're straight or not. Do you understand that distinction?### Human: I'm in mobile right now so I cant give you any deltas, sorry. I think that why I dislike the word is simply by the current circlejerk around radical feminists and whatnot.### Assistant: >I think that why I dislike the word is simply by the current circlejerk around radical feminists and whatnot. I'd encourage you to get out of the circlejerk, then! The term "cisgender" is an etymologically accurate term that conveys different information about a person than the words "male," or "straight." It's in no way used as a slur or as a derogatory remark. It comes up frequently in feminist circles because discussions of identity are highly relavent, and using accurate language is important in such discussions to avoid confusion or marginalization. Disagreeing with feminist philosophy doesn't mean that the word isn't correct, however.### Human: I think why there is a negative reaction from those who were once considered just 'an average person' to now be labeled cisgendered; is because people naturally don't like to be hit with lables that put us into certain social groups. While this is the correct use of language people will naturally always shy away from lables and postholeing, usually when they don't understand the label or why they have suddenly been given it. And when people push lables on others and say "oh well you are cisgender" the natural response is to think 'no I'm not, I'm just another normal person , why am I now begin hit with this' and to push back against the label.### Assistant: Would you also argue the same about the word straight? Cis is just the counter to trans. And whenever i see it used its only to avoid linguist fallacies with words like normal, average, biologically etc. Its problematic to use a word to describe one thing, but don't use an opposite word to describe the opposite. It gets misunderstood and messy. It would be the same as saying an average person when meaning a white person in the context of race discussions. All my friends understood why i call them cis sometimes, because they know its important for me to have a non degatory and non missunderstandable description for the differences between me and them. People having a problem with the use of cis are bigots in every single case i experienced, and i don't think such a behaviour is even defense worthy.

### Human: CMV: I think that TED talks suck.### Assistant: I think that you have to distinguish between TED talks and TEDx talks. The difference in quality is stark.### Human: I double-checked the ones I have seen and most of them are TED talks, especially the ones I saw a long time ago.### Assistant: Which TED talks did you watch?### Human: All the ones I watched fit into this mold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0FDjFBj8o Edit: Shameless theft from an earlier poster whose post got deleted### Assistant: This is a Tedx talk...### Human: He's not saying that's one of the ones that sucks. He's saying that guy's description of TED Talks is accurate to his view of them.### Assistant: Sorry, I missed that. He didn't answer the question though.### Human: The answer is "I've seen enough of them"### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV:Most of the new jobs being created after the recession are low wage "McJobs"### Assistant: Where do you live. There is a problem with debate on jobs on a national level in that jobs are not spaced out evenly throughout the country. I believe there has been a high account of good jobs created here in California where as other states may not be doing as well. With that said all this stuff is highly politicized. In my opinion the economy is doing better than conservatives are leading on especially considering the state of the economies of many of the world's other wealthiest countries.### Human: I live in Georgia and the capital (ATL) is considerably better than the rest of the state. I moved here from a medium sized city with a handful of good employers. Im shocked at how many young people here have really good jobs.### Assistant: same in Florida. Orlando has the lowest unemployment rate in the state but it is all 10 dollar an hour jobs. You are SOL if you want to make more than 30k a year. Meanwhile in South Florida things look better wage wise.### Human: Tampa Bay area was really bad for youth unemployment, but things have been swinging the other way really hard as of late. My experience after graduating was a bit unique, but I was able to find a great sales job post-Uni.### Assistant: Do you know what types of industries are popular in Tampa, especially ones hiring recent grads?### Human: Well, inside sales positions abound, but there are a lot of corporate IT service companies in Florida. It is one of those things where you have to poke around in industries related to your studies. I wish I could find the article in question, but The Economist actually had a great piece about how the Southeast in general is having a bit of a revival. Students with high debt are making their way here despite lower incomes because the income/COL ratio is better than other parts of the country. EDIT: I feel stupid for not bringing this up, but there is a pretty big medical industry here. Medical devices, repair, cleaning, hospitals and private practices that need doctors and nurses and support staff, etc.

### Human: CMV casting a huge 27 year-old as a 17 year-old when age is a big plot-point is ridiculous (the Boy Next Door)### Assistant: I'm not saying it would never be an issue but people have different features that can make them look younger or older. [Look at this](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a4/d3/77/a4d37705a80032f0c7e8d6c8b3da01f6.jpg). Would you be able to guess these two men are pretty much the same age?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I agree with what you are saying , but i dont think he was the best guy for the role . I look at Ryan Guzman and it looks like he was hand chosen by Jennifer Lopez because she is "comfortable" with him for those scenes . As for the impression they want to give with this particular case ; the dont want to romanticize this "type" of relationship nor promote underage sex even if it is consenting. You dont want to make it too "real" because you may alienate the audience. Lastly the trailer gives away too muvh and the movie looks terrible C- but thats just my 2 cents.### Human: Why does any of that mean casting this guy didn't make sense? Making some basic inferences from that trailer, the fact that he looked like a hot guy in his 20s is the reason J-Lo's character has any interest in him in the first place. Yeah, sure, a movie where a 44 year old woman trolls for regular looking high school boys and then bangs them might creep audiences out...but that's just not what's supposed to be happening in this movie. At all.### Assistant: Thats exactly what's happening , they just gloss over it and jumped to the creepy obsessive part . I didn't say it makes no sense i said its zero effort in making the character "real" I dont like it for other reasons , the poor casting just makes it easier!

### Human: CMV: Both Republican and Democratic political parties are corrupt. They are two sides of the same coin.### Assistant: It's important to understand what exactly we mean by corruption. I think that the broad generalization of "the system is corrupt" isn't necessarily a helpful one because it doesn't address what is actually going on clearly enough. "Political corruption" in the United States, particularly at higher levels, doesn't generally mean that politicians are lining their own pockets or personally profiting off the positions they take. Corruption mostly constitutes an allegedly improper relationship between the political positions a politician takes and the donations which are made to their political campaigns. It's important to keep this in mind, because the #1 goal of politicians is to get elected, and get re-elected. Campaign contributions are a mechanism for making that more likely, because a well-funded candidate can run ads to get their positions out, tell their story, and attack their opponents. But at the end of the day, that's all the money is doing. The money isn't buying your vote or anybody else's. The votes cast by constituents are the things that *actually* elect politicians and keep them there. As a result, if you gave most politicians a choice between taking a position that will lose $10 million in campaign contributions versus taking a position that will lose 10% of their vote, they will sacrifice the money every single time. I live in DC and know tons of people who work or have worked on the Hill, and they uniformly tell me nothing gets their boss's attention more strongly than a sense that large numbers of their constituents are upset about something. As a voter, you have a voice. And if you can convince a politician that some position you care about will impact their odds of getting elected, you will gain their ear much more strongly than if you bundled $50,000 in donations to them. If one of the parties seems to advocate principles you generally agree with, give them the votes they need to make those principles a reality, and do your best to punish them electorally when they depart from them. I mean, much as I despise the Tea Party, they are living proof that this works. I guarantee to you that the Republican Party's major donors did not want a government shutdown in 2013. I also guarantee that they do not favor debt ceiling brinksmanship as a political tactic. But because a very large, very loud portion of the GOP's constituents demand those things, they happen.### Human: I liked your response and you made me see some of the nuances of the political process... but I don't think you addressed something. To me, it seemed you made the argument that money doesn't influence politicians that much – you argued that politicians are more concerned with getting votes. I think you overlooked the feeling that most people have, which is that this money does influence politicians in one way or another. What wasn't addressed was why do these corporations and lobbyists donate money if they are not also benefiting from it? They can't just be giving away free money or out of some sense of good will to politicians. I think another one of these reasons is that I think so much of politics remains behind the scenes, combined with the fact that most people are politically unaware of what their politicians do. So unless an issue is very 'hot' in the public mind, politicians may not feel that their chances at re-election are at stake if no one is paying attention to what they're doing. Therefore, they can be influenced by the money as long as the general public doesn't get wind of anything they strongly dislike. This is why I think the politicians can just say what sounds good and people will vote for them based on this, rather than look at the specifics of their voting record.### Assistant: > I think you overlooked the feeling that most people have, which is that this money does influence politicians in one way or another. What wasn't addressed was why do these corporations and lobbyists donate money if they are not also benefiting from it? They can't just be giving away free money or out of some sense of good will to politicians. No question, my argument definitely wasn't that money has no influence. Money influences politics, I'm not out to change your view about that. And you are definitely right about the effectiveness of corporate influence on less high profile issues. I'm focused on two related points instead: first, that even though money influences politics, so do votes. Policies that benefit the middle class can be fought for by voters, and voter organization and engagement can (and do) affect policy on those issues. Second, and relatedly, if enough voters demand a change to campaign finance, it can happen. It *did* happen, already, with McCain-Feingold; but the changes enacted were deemed unconstitutional. If you elect politicians who want to take on campaign finance reform (and are thoughtful about how to do so within the bounds of the first amendment), it can happen. Voters have the power to fix the system, but they vote for politicians for whom this is not a priority.### Human: I see what you're saying. I wonder if part of the sense of politics being corrupt is that it seems to me the citizenry is distracted by issues that are relatively unimportant compared to others. There is so much focus on LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, illegal immigration, foreign policy, and the like. I don't want to say that these issues are unimportant, but I think that relatively they are trivial. Maybe I think that economic issues are ultimately more important than any of the other issues, but we don't focus on this as much as others, which allows people who benefit from the current economic system to go unaddressed.### Assistant: But these are the things that people are concerned about. Democracy is supposed to give attention to the things that the voters want attention devoted to. If the government focused on the issues that you want, even if that went against what the majority wants, then actually that would be corrupt. What if one of these people said that their issues were really important and you were "distracted"? Their opinions are just as important as yours.### Human: I think that would require everybody to be equally educated on the issues to make an informed decision. Is the question of abortion more important than the economy? I don't think so. I think if people were more educated this could change, at least then people could make the most informed opinion. Of course everything will continue to be subjective to one degree or another.### Assistant: You are saying that if people were more educated they would agree with you? Maybe or maybe not. So what are you saying, that you should get more votes than people who are not educated? Are you saying that you should get to decide what an "informed" opinion is and the government should respond to this rather than those with "uniformed" opinions even though they outnumber you? If more people care about abortion, and vote for candidates accordingly then this is their democratic right to influence the government. A democratic government is not designed to do what is "right" but what the majority wants. You can disagree with this design, but you can't call it corrupt for doing what it was designed to do.### Human: Nope, it means that people should be equally educated, or there should be certain standards of education so that people can engage intelligently in a political process.### Assistant: You are not addressing my point. What if a majority disagrees with you? Lets assume that this majority is entirely uneducated and you are the most highly educated person in the country. Do you believe that the government should side wth you, or the majority? If you believe the former then what you want is not democracy. Your education point is irrelevant because the current education system is under the jurisdiction of the government, which is voted on by the voters. If you don't like the current education system and think it should be changed even though the voting public does not want this, then what you are asking for is not democracy. But really I think you are using the word "educated" to mean "agrees with you," which it doesn't.### Human: >If you believe the latter I think you mean *former*...### Assistant: yep

### Human: CMV: Arguments in favor of increased gun control coming from the direction of "saving lives" are flawed### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: If we consider rights as merely privileges, though, doesn't that prevent us from decrying people for violating the rights of others? A rapist denies their victim the right to bodily integrity, among others. A murderer denies their victim the right to life. A thief denies their victim the right to property. If we don't believe that rights are intrinsic to individuals, whether or not others acknowledge them, how can we be justified in moral outrage of any kind?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Why should we care about harm? The only reason I can think of is that people have something very much like a right not to be harmed. But that brings us right back to where we started. Besides, pure, non-rule utilitarianism provides no checks to a scheme which does grievous harm to some person, so long as it provides an equal or greater advantage to some other person. And, utilitarian moral calculus being such an imprecise art - subject as it is to each actor's view of what constitutes harm or good - it's (relatively) easy to find justifications for acts which, under other moral systems, might be considered abhorrent.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: No I don't think you are. Nor am I. The way I see it, every moral view of the world - utilitarianism, virtue theory, Kantian consequentalism, divine command "theory," and all the rest - eventually reach a point of absurdity. Utilitarianism can't justify why harm should be avoided and good promoted. Virtue ethics can't justify why virtue is a worthwhile goal. Kantianism can't justify the categorical imperative. At some point, every theory hits a wall and has to admit that at its core is something nebulous, ineffable. What seems clear to me, though, is that if we do away with the idea of natural rights entirely, every one of the theories breaks down immediately. Even pure egoism relies on man's supposed right to do whatever he can to advance himself. The other theories take natural rights as a sort of foundation, upon which they build their castles in the sky. They all require that at least some rights exist, however much they may pretend that they don't. Your thoughts?### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: Sting operations always amount to entrapment and should be abolished### Assistant: I understand the legal/ethical points you are raising, but many sting operations are often very clearly not entrapment. For example, if the police send underage employees into a bar that doesn't card, that's a sting, but it's not in any way entrapment. Similarly, if they have an undercover officer approach a drug dealer and ask to buy drugs, that isn't entrapment either.### Human: Δ Fair point, I should have made the distinction. I'm talking about cases where the police help set up the crime. Although couldn't it be said that in your scenarios, it encourages "survival of the fittest"? The sloppy ones get caught but the rest get to use the case to learn how to operate more secretly.### Assistant: The question isn't "would they have done this if they knew it was a cop" it's "would they have done this if it was anyone else". 1. If the police approach you, you can say no. I can ask you for $1,000 and an all expense vacation to Russia, or I can ask you for an illegal firearm. You can say no. 2. Looking to buy something is a crime. Attempting to buy an illegal firearm is a crime. You don't need to actually make the transaction. You just have to be willing to do it and take substantial steps (like approaching someone to do it). 3. If they wouldn't have done it with w cop, they would have done it with an illegal dealer, that's all that needs to be proven.### Human: Yeah but what about bait cars? Yes the person stealing the car has committed a crime, but whose to say they would or wouldn't have if the police didn't go out of their way to set up a ridiculous scenario where a car is running with the door open? People don't tend to do that accidentally, and this guy may never have thought about stealing a car in his life until the opportunity is given to him.### Assistant: All they did was leave a car running, that happens every day in America. All you had to do was walk away. Entrapment occurs when: - The police CAUSED you to commit a crime **AND** - You would not have done the crime otherwise. Basically, if you have the reasonable ability to say no, you were likely not entrapped. The guy who never thought about stealing a car, if given the same external scenario, would have stolen a car. They may have set up the scenario but they didn't put you in that car.### Human: Name a scenario where the police cause you to commit a crime that you couldn't say no. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I can't think of a single one.### Assistant: Absolutely. I'll give you a few. - A snitch (also agent of the police) tells you to commit a crime or die. (except murder) - An irresistible impulse. Would a reasonable person be able to resist? Most people can walk by a car that is running and not steal it, but if a car approached you and offered you $100,000 to have sex with a stranger, most people would at least admit it would be a tempting offer. - An undercover offered to sell you some pot, you said no, but they kept asking.... and kept asking.... and followed you for hours..... and kept asking. Eventually you bought $10 to shut him up. Thats overcoming resistance. It is reasonable to assume that you would not have bought that pot in normal circumstance. - You are at a gun show and a guy offers you a machine gun (Class III) for just $500. Obviously you want a machine gun but there are two problems, you don't have a class 3 and you don't have your ID on you. The FFL dealer tells you that you don't need it in this state, suspicious you go up to the officer at the show and ask him, sure enough he tells you that this is a class 3 state and you don't need an ID or a class 3 permit. So you buy your machine gun. You are later arrested by a different officer at the show. Thats entrapment because its very likely that had the cop told you that it was illegal then you likely would have walked away. (Don't confuse that with a cop saying they don't know or not telling you, thats not entrapment because you were just ignorant of the law)

### Human: CMV:If New Zealand change their Flag because it is 'anachronistic', then they should change their colonial name too.### Assistant: "New Zealand" was not a Dutch "colonial" name, since New Zealand was never conquered by the Dutch, settled by them in appreciable numbers early on, or incorporated into the Dutch colonial empire. It was merely the first European name given to the country by the Dutch sailor Abel Tasman, who did not formally claim the country and never returned to it. Today, the names "New Zealand" and "Aotearoa" (the Maori name) hold equal status in the country. Just as the Maori gave Aotearoa its name when their earliest ancestors sighted it and imagined it to look like a long white cloud, "New Zealand" holds value as the first name given to the country by European explorers. New Zealand/Aotearoa today is a nation primarily of both these cultures, and both names are historically important in this sense. The Union Jack on the other hand is a reminder and clear symbol of New Zealand's history as a part of the British Empire, and ties New Zealand inextricably and visibly to a foreign nation that held ultimate power over the country for over a century. It was foisted onto the country reluctantly, equally on the part of the British Empire initially (who viewed NZ as too far away and lacking value), the existing European settlers (who were happy enough not living in the shadow of the British Empire), and the local Maori chieftains (who signed the Treaty of Waitangi under terms that they thought were somewhat different from what they turned out to be). Ultimately, the indigenous Maori people were dispossessed and mistreated under the banner of the British Empire, as were people elsewhere in the world. While our culture might derive much from Britain, our modern values do not reflect those of the British Empire very much. The name and flag are not equivalent in any manner, in my opinion. Personally, as a New Zealander, I think that the flag debate is a waste of time, and totally unimportant. I don't really see the need for any change as it stands. We are a sovereign nation, with or without the Union Jack on our flag. But I think that there is far more cause for parting with the Union Jack than the name "New Zealand", if it were a choice between one and the other.### Human: How is "Aotearoa" pronounced?### Assistant: Eh A Tee A Rower (Edit - See comments below - my knowledge may be outdated). I might think of a better way to do that, or hopefully someone else will chip in with correct pronunciation codes.### Human: I believe it's [aɔˈtɛaɾɔa] in Māori, (and usually) /aʊtɪəˈroʊ.ə/ in New Zealand English.### Assistant: I'muna have to take your word for it.

### Human: Communism will never succeed due to human nature, CMV.### Assistant: Okay, let's talk about communism for a second. And by communism, I mean Karl Marx "Communist Manifesto" style communism. Here's the part most people miss: Marx himself said there are prerequisites that are required for Communism to exist. The main one being: * Over-industrialization of **every** society on the planet. At the time, industrialization was spreading like wildfire. Marx saw an inevitability in that every country and society on this planet would industrialize and mass-produce goods. This leads to: * Over-production of basically any goods you want. When this over-production takes place, it leads to such a mass production of everything that there is literally enough of everything in the world for everyone. A society taking over the means of production is **NOT** communism: that is socialism. Socialism was like a stepping stone between capitalism and communism. Capitalism happens, which leads to over-industrialization, which leads to over-production; eventually the workers get fed up and take their own factories over (socialism) for a brief period of time, until they're shut down permanently. At that point, there isn't really a need to work. Yes, people will still need sources of food, and would work together collectively to ensure it. But otherwise, there's no need to make stuff, because there is literally enough stuff for everyone in the world to have. That was his view. He thought this was a historical inevitability. Now, is this plausible? We know now that there were two major flaws to his thinking: 1) that every society would industrialize (some are left agricultural and are mined for their resources- most 3rd world countries, for example), and 2) that government would never protect the common man, only the wealth of the rich (the government instituted labor laws, etc). Here's how I'm going to change your view: communism, will not work, but not because of human nature. Marx wasn't stupid, he knows people are selfish. Marx thought this wouldn't matter because of the over-production of goods (and if he was right, it becomes a plausible scenario). Marx was wrong because he did not correctly evaluate the political climate- he didn't realize 3rd world countries would be kept unindustrialized to basically steal their resources, and he didn't think the common man would ever be protected by the government in their labor.### Human: Isn't the keeping 3rd world countries unindustrialized by exploiting their resources and populace due to the greed of their governments/trans national companies? Thereby going with OPs human nature problem? EDIT: Not necessarily disagreeing, just after clarification, you make some interesting points.### Assistant: To clarify, I think people generally misunderstand the *kind* of person Marx was. He saw himself as a social scientist, not an activist. He studied history, and thought it was moving in an inevitable direction. He wasn't advocating we instill Communism, he was showing the flaws of capitalism and arguing that it was *literally* historically **inevitable.** In the actual Manifesto, 95% of the text is just a critique of capitalism, and a good one at that. He doesn't mention the future of society until towards the end, and doesn't spend much time elaborating. The only reason I mention this was to show that Marx wasn't stupid. He knew how people were, and he was counting on that greed to driving capitalism to such a huge extent it would create over-industrialization. He was *counting on people being overly greedy.* If anything, he was wrong, because political parties sprang up protecting the common man, which shows that people weren't as greedy as he thought! If we want to phrase his failure in terms of human greed, it's more likely that he overestimated rather than underestimated it.### Human: I see your point, and somewhat agree, but I am not sure I agree completely. I think that greed is still therefore one of the major problems with communist theory, as it is what has been preventing over industrialisation. Marx did put greed into the equation, but he was wrong in *how* the greed would impact society. However my opinion has altered somewhat (not completely), in that Marx miscalculating seems to be the major issue here, my main difference is that greed is still a cause of a problem. Human nature is therefore still partially to blame, but I concede that other factors, a flawed theory being the primary one, are more significant. Tbf I can't say that I have studied Marx's theories in great detail, I am somewhat going by your word here and my own fairly immediate reactions/arguments with my Geography studying flatmate, and I am certainly no social scientist, so I am probably wrong! Wish you could award half deltas### Assistant: Haha I understand. I would recommend reading Marx first. There's a lot of people that say a lot of incorrect things regarding Marxist theory, and there's a lot of recent historical baggage that makes simple analysis of what he actually wrote difficult through a 3-rd person. Don't worry about the delta- if I got you interested enough to actually check it out, I've done my job!

### Human: CMV: I'm a moderate conservative, and cant see how Bernie Sanders would benefit me.### Assistant: I mean, for someone like Bernie Sanders, you may have to look outside your personal bubble. Like for some people, they may not give a damn about legalization of marijuana - but if they knew that it may affect your life positively by reducing Cartel presence - maybe they'd vote in favour of legaization. So I'll focus on healthcare. You did state you have a good healthcare plan - great. Bernie hasn't completely explained his healthcare plan but I suspect he is looking towards a more European style (maybe will settle for Canadian). In such a system 1) If you lose your job you'll still have healthcare coverage 2) You probably won't have high deductibles, or other costs except for small administration of medications. 3) You would be able to choose your doctor and not have to deal with nonsense 'this hospital isn't affiliated with this insurance program' 4) There potentially will be greater state involvement to reduce healthcare costs and that will mean more services, and also reduction of unnecessary services. 5) This will be more related to your children or children's children, health tends to be much better when there is less income inequities. That includes for all income groups (divided in quintiles). The research is easy to find with the key words "The Social Determinants of Health". So, Sanders and Social democratic governance is much like reducing crime by legalization of marijuana. These interventions have direct and indirect effects that can really benefit everyone. I don't think it is a secret that it is aimed mostly for lower-middle class folk. As a Canadian, making 90k combined isn't a big deal. Even with a higher effective tax rate, I know that my basic neccessities are met and social care is there in case of disability, health etc. If I were to move to America, I would be afraid that even with some cheaper goods and services I could easily 'slip' through the cracks and be in a bad spot. I'm hoping Bernie can help plug in those slips.### Human: Thank you for this very well thought out and detailed answer. I think these are definitely some ideas I'll be considering! I think all too often I wake up and take for granted that I have a good job with healthcare and the like. If I were to lose my job having something to fall back on would certainly be important.### Assistant: One thing to bear in mind, even if you're not directly paying for your health insurance, your employer is and that cost is part of their calculation in how expensive it is to keep you working there. One of the reasons wages have stagnated over the past few decades despite rising productivity per worker is because a lot of the additional value is being eaten up by cost of insurance. If insurance is covered federally, not only does the cost of healthcare come down and, perhaps, not rise as rapidly, but over time you will see wages start to grow as well once health insurance is no longer on the table as part of your compensation package. It will also help small businesses greatly. For small business owners, one of the hardest things about getting and keeping good talent has been having health insurance available for them. When you're small the insurance is even more expensive. Covering health insurance makes it easier for small businesses to compete with big guys for quality hires. And lastly, no other developed country in the world expects employers to pay for health insurance as part of their costs of doing business. Take that line item off and prices of production come down, making our exports cheaper and more competitive. Last I studied the topic in 2008, a $5,000 of the cost of a Ford automobile could be traced to covering Ford's healthcare plan (way too long ago for me to find a citation unfortunately). That is, in Bernie's terms, HYUUGE! They'd still pay some amount in taxes to finance the health plan, but it will be much smaller as a share.### Human: You've certainly given me something to consider in terms of small business. I haven't really thought of the small business being impacted in terms of the healthcare debate, and now I kind of feel like a good because of it. Your thoughts on a small business not having to pay for an employees health benefits, thus increasing their take-home pay, and helping the small business as a whole, have earned you a !delta and thanks for the response!### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Hot4_TeaCha. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Hot4_TeaCha)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

### Human: CMV: Being a dick to cops at traffic stops and constantly stating your rights is usually unnecessary.### Assistant: The guy might be an extreme example, but I'd argue the police could make their own job much easier by not insisting he, or anyone else, sacrifices his rights for their comfort. For instance, why should he open the window all the way ? There's no real reason he should insist on that. He could've asked his question and be done with it. It would've taken two minutes, tops. You also seem to expect much more of any one plain non-police citizen that you expect from police officers; I don't see them waving some of their prerogatives to make anyone's day "easier", but you'd have everyone else bend over backward to help them. When they *do* wave their prerogative away, it's considered a *huge* favour you should be really thankful for (or even beg for). The truth is, unfortunately, that they are not your friends and they hold considerable power over you. They're not there yo make anyone's life easier. In such situation, there's really no point in volunteering anything more than what is strictly necessary. There's just no such thing as an unwarranted but reasonable pat down. Edit: I want to be clear that there's a polite way to stand your ground on such matters and that screaming isn't one. There's no need to be needlessly antagonistic, but it seems to me like police officers consider anything short of complete and total submission to be an act bordering aggression. That's the problem.### Human: I think part of the issue that a lot of civilians don't understand is that cops view everything differently becuase of what they see/deal with daily. Your example about rolling down the window: you think "no big deal, the guy doesn't have to roll it down if he doesn't want to" the cop is thinking "what is this guy hiding that he doesn't want me to see? Is it a gun? Is my life in danger?" Immediately a simple thing like not lowering your window has the cop on edge.### Assistant: It's a window, you can see through it. That's kinda its function### Human: That's not really my point though. Yes you can obviously see through it, but the cop is thinking "why are they being defensive". It's not really a visual thing as much as a psychological thing.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: It's aggressive to ask someone to roll down their window a little more, in order to have a civil conversation? I think it's more aggressive to tail a cop car. If a friend came to your car to ask you a question, would you only roll down the window 1"? It's unusual behavior that comes across as suspicious, because it's unnecessarily defensive, and it's the cop's job to act on or investigate suspicious behavior.

### Human: CMV: Assuming that all gun owners / carriers / enthusiasts are redneck republican patriot "gun nuts" is just as bigoted and ignorant as assuming that all muslims are terrorists, or any other "All X are Y" assumptions### Assistant: Can you find examples (aside from Reddit comments) where this claim is made? Like, for instance, many people know that someone like Dianne Feinstein had a concealed carry permit and no one would consider her a "redneck republican patriot gun nut" I think people also realize there is a sizable contingent of hunters who are not "redneck republican patriot gun nuts". And what about illegal gun-owners (such as gang members)? Or are you not including those? Do you have any legitimate examples that support your point that people feel this way?### Human: I think that all dogs are adorable, but I also believe that all cats are shit.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Wise words.### Assistant: I have both and i am inclined to agree

### Human: I believe hunting as a sport should be done with only a bow and arrow CMV.### Assistant: The animal will potentially suffer a great deal more with hunters with poor bow and arrow skills. The merits of it might include being humane rather than just hunter side skill? Edited to add: some support for the argument that it is less humane from the SPCA: http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-RSPCAs-view-on-bowhunting_368.html http://kb.rspca.org.au/Why-do-some-hunters-use-a-bow-and-arrow-and-is-this-type-of-hunting-humane_541.html### Human: The animal is likely to suffer more even with kickass hunting skills. Even if the arrow is a clean shot, the animal with suffer for a good while before it dies. I've not hunted with a gun, I assume it works similarly, but after getting a clean shot on a deer, I'll usually wait an hour or so before I go looking for it. It will more than likely have run a good distance and if you try to follow it, you're likely to drive it further than you would if you just left it. Mainly saying this to say that the deer is going to suffer pretty badly after having an arrow run through its organs.### Assistant: thanks, I was not familiar with the process it just seemed very likely to be the case that the animal would suffer more, but it is good to have someone more experienced support it too :) This is anecdotal, I remember the story of someone locally hunting the rabbits that over populated our university campus with a bow and arrow, and they found a bunny with an arrow through it's back wandering around injured. I guess it ran off and the hunter was unable to retrieve it. It seemed questionable (never mind hunting on campus!).### Human: Yes, having spoken with a family member who hunts on the reg with a rifle, you are going to shoot a deer in pretty much the same place with a gun as a bow (unless you're trying to be a dick and shoot the deer in the face). So the deer is going to suffer either way it seems.### Assistant: No, it does not work that way. At all. (I apologize for english units, but thats all the reliable information I could find quickly, so we will stick with them for comparison). When you hit a deer or elk with an arrow, the arrow delivers somewhere around 70 ft*lbs of energy. The arrow enters the target, and like a knife slices vital organs such as the heart and blood vessels. Often it takes as much as 30 minutes for the animal to bleed out and die. They tend to travel very far during that time as well. When you hit a deer or an elk with a 30-06 round, it can potentially deliver around 2800 ft*lbs of energy. [This is what happens when a bullet strikes flesh](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8E138NgyFs). The target will die often within a minute. Long story short, using a rifle is FAR more humane.### Human: Sorry but this is nonsense. I tell you why. Flesh generates viscous drag. It is in that regard more similar to a fluid. The resistance is proportional to the square of the projectile's velocity. Something really fast will create a lot of resistance. Compare for example a bullet shot into water with an arrow (or harpoon) shot into water. That means that kinetic energy does only give you a measure of penetration/damage/what have you if the projectiles in question are similar in speed and mass. A measure that will give you a better clue in comparing arrows to bullets would be momentum.### Assistant: How would that be better? If you know velocity (and hence viscous force) then kinetic energy will be proportional to stopping distance in the body, but momentum will be proportional to stopping time. I'd say distance is clearly more relevant for deciding damage.### Human: Kinetic energy is how much energy a moving body can carry, momentum determines how that energy is delivered. Momentum would be a far superior measurement in determining this because it tells you the mass in relation to/ combined with the velocity (being measured in kg m/s). In other words, momentum works better because you're trying to measure how the object carried itself through an obstruction. Measuring in kinetic energy would only be appropriate if you want to calculate energy transfer from the projectile to the body.### Assistant: KE = 0.5\*m\*v^2, so kg (m/s)^2 ....### Human: I don't understand what your point is, kg m/s and kg m/s^2 are not the same thing. I don't know if you believe they are, but that's the point I got from your lack of explanation. If you shoot a rifle, the bullet and the recoil have the same momentum but the bullet has more kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is defined as the work needed to accelerate a mass to it's claimed velocity from rest, elaborating on my statement: >Momentum would be a far superior measurement in determining this because it tells you the mass in relation to/ combined with the velocity Kinetic energy will tell you the mass in relation to/ combined with acceleration. Or put more simply, kinetic energy will tell you "it took 90 kJ to get that mass up to speed" where momentum will tell you how the object is moving using units that will more appropriately measure impact.### Assistant: My point was that kinetic energy involves the speed as well, so your argument doesn't make any sense. Both momentum and energy are "mass combined with the velocity". I think I made a pretty good case for why energy would be more important if you could only know one. It is more directly related to the penetration distance. Making the incredibly crude assumption of a constant resistance force in the body, the penetration would be directly proportional to the kinetic energy. That constant force would be doing work on the bullet, W = F*d --> d = W/F & W = KE by energy conservation, so d = KE/F. Now, obviously, the resistance to the bullet's motion is *not* constant as the bullet slows down, nor do all bullets stop in the body. But the details of the bullet/body interaction have to do with bullet shape, the composition of the flesh, etc. That's a complicated problem. So far you haven't given any argument as to *why* the momentum determines the damage. You've just said that it is "the mass in relation to/combined with the velocity", which, while true, does nothing to help me see why momentum carries so much information about damage.

### Human: CMV: The active opposition to gay marriage in America cannot be accurately considered a religious belief### Assistant: Note: yet another ex-christian atheist. The comparison to shaving, eating shellfish and other Old Testament commandments is a bit misleading. Exactly which of the Old Testament laws Christians/Gentiles had to follow was a big source of disagreement in the early church. Most churches reference Acts 15 on the issue, which is written in response to the question of whether Gentiles had to be circumcised. Basically, the council decides not to force Gentiles to get circumcised or follow other laws, except (Acts 15:29): >You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. Since most interpret homosexuality as being in the class of sexual immorality, this applies as one of the few laws to hold over from the OT.### Human: Like you say though, "most interpret homosexuality as " meaning it's not about what the religion **actually** says, it's about personal bigotry being slapped onto the bible. Now, if there was an actual text that condemned homosexuality (maybe I donno like on the 10 commandment or something) we could clearly show it as a religious argument and it wouldn't be an issue. Much like pro-slavery people using the bible as proof despite the fact that the argument just doesn't hold water. When most people look at the new testament they see thinks like "Love thy neighbor" and stuff like that, there is no room for "God hates the gays" in that religious narrative. Looking at it that way, I have to say that the shaving, eating shellfish and all those fun bits are just as valid as the anti-homosexuality.### Assistant: > Now, if there was an actual text that condemned homosexuality There are [multiple verses that condemn homosexuality](http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Homosexuality/). >When most people look at the new testament they see thinks like "Love thy neighbor" and stuff like that, there is no room for "God hates the gays" in that religious narrative. God in the Bible doesn't hate anyone, at least in the New Testament. Homosexuality is described as a sin.### Human: I don't see any of those verses as anti-homosexual. It's almost like bigoted people are reading into the verses and finding meaning when they aren't actually there, just like I can read it and see no condemning of it at all. I mean **I BELIEVE** the first one is talking about telling the truth. If I honestly believe that 100% who is to tell me I'm wrong? That's kind of the entire problem about using text to justify action. Plus you never address the point that, if they ARE going to discriminate using the bible (new or old, the only way they would be able to do it from a religious perspective is if they followed **every other single law in the old or new testament** which no one does, hence any ghost of a "religious stultification" for their bigotry.### Assistant: >1 Timothy 1:10 - For whoremongers, for **them that defile themselves with mankind**, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is **contrary to sound doctrine** How can you not see that verse is anti homosexuality?### Human: Don't defile other men? Consensual kinky sex doesn't seem to fall into that catagory. Seems like it's just saying not to rape :) How on earth can you see it AS anti-homosexuality?### Assistant: Honestly I think you're being intentionally obtuse, so I'm not going to try to explain this to you.### Human: That's exactly my point. Any idiot can twist and misquote the words from a book to make it mean exactly what they want. There is 0 reason to take the bible seriously on really any front besides a personal spiritual guide. As such, there is no reason to give credit to anyone using the bible as proof homosexuality is immoral.

### Human: CMV: I think that drug testing recipients of government benefits is a terrible idea.### Assistant: It depends on whether your political viewpoint would prefer fewer false-positives or fewer false-negatives. For some, they would prefer to deliver assistance to as many people as possible in order to ensure that everyone who needs it is getting it. If they deliver to some people who don't deserve it, that's unfortunate, but they see delivering to those in need as more important than the mis-delivery of aid to those who don't. An alternate viewpoint is that you want to avoid any moral hazard of giving aid to anyone who doesn't deserve it, and would prefer to put a lot of rigor into selecting who does and does not get aid. In that way, you ensure that only deserving people get aid - even if some who are deserving do not get it. For some who hold this viewpoint, it might be worth much higher administration costs to ensure that only the deserving get aid - despite the fact that it means that the costs are higher and some who are deserving won't get aid.### Human: > For some who hold this viewpoint, it might be worth much higher administration costs to ensure that only the deserving get aid - despite the fact that it means that the costs are higher and some who are deserving won't get aid. Thing is, this would be the exact group who wants a *smaller* government and who would also *cut* social program spending... Catch-22.### Assistant: Not necessarily, a reasonable person would look at the things that are important to them (i.e. reducing government spending vs. a discerning aid program) and weigh their importance against each other before coming up with a personal stance on the issue.### Human: GOP and reasonable don't happen together, that's why Trump has a 55% approval rating in the party### Assistant: Ive talked to people who leaned heavily conservative and were very reasonable. On the other hand, ive talked to plenty of extremely unreasonable people, both liberal and conservative, and it definitely falls on both sides of the aisle. I will concede though, that in my experience the most reasonable people ive met leaned left to some degree. The Trump number doesnt quite mean what people purport it to mean, but it is upsetting.### Human: Look, I appreciate you trying to be diplomatic about it. But there's a reason I left the GOP when I was a much younger man . . . they turned bat-shit crazy and decided policy, facts and governance just don't matter anymore. Movement conservatism is broken beyond belief, and Trumps' popularity is proof of that. Now, he won't win the nomination, but the fact that at any point someone that unfit for office is the party leader should scare the crap out of whatever two or three GOP faithful still care more about governing well than about winning elections.

### Human: CMV: There is no sound biblical argument that makes being trans-gender morally wrong.### Assistant: I'm not a Sunday school teacher, so I have a question: does the Bible treat sex and gender as different phenomena? Because if the Bible treats sex and gender as the same thing, then having a vagina, for instance, means that your gender is female, and as such a person with a vagina who engages in sexual acts with other vaginal people is homosexual, and who wears clothing meant for men is cross-dressing, whatever they believe themselves to be. I'm definitely a hippy liberal, by the way, which doesn't excuse my ignorance.### Human: There is no one who is arguably transgender in the bible, so it's difficult to say.### Assistant: Then it's likely that past commentaries have interpreted sex and gender as the same thing, which is the root of the controversy. Sorry, I haven't been of much help.### Human: You have been of some help. ∆ In that if sex and gender are considered the same thing, then it implies a biological definition of gender.### Assistant: So do you now believe that the Bible does condemn being transgendered?### Human: no, not really due to some of the other points that have been made in this thread. The most important ones being on the definition of gender. At the moment, I put it in the same class of things as severe depression and ADHD rather then things that are morally wrong. While it does certainly lend it's self towards doing things that are wrong, so does ADHD so there is not much room for complaint there.### Assistant: So you now believe that being transgendered is a psychiatric disorder, and you didn't believe that before?### Human: I was not sure what it was. However, I knew that based on my observation of the bible what it could not be.

### Human: I believe that those with mental illnesses should not be allowed to own firearms CMV### Assistant: I don't think we can apply a blanket rule here. Here's a list of existing state laws on [possession of a firearm by people with mental illness](http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx). You can see that it tends to vary widely. Not everyone with a mental illness constitutes a danger to themselves or others. Apparently, only [4% of violence in the US can be attributed to people with a mental illness](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/health/a-misguided-focus-on-mental-illness-in-gun-control-debate.html?_r=0). From the same source: >All the focus on the small number of people with mental illness who are violent serves to make us feel safer by displacing and limiting the threat of violence to a small, well-defined group. But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force. Should mental illness be accounted for in firearm sales? Absolutely. Should it always necessarily preclude firearm ownership? No, I don't think so.### Human: That definitely addresses the danger to others part of my view, but what about the danger to themselves? People with mental illnesses have a much higher suicide rate than people without, does owning a firearm not make suicide easier to carry out "on a whim"/without having to try as hard?### Assistant: I did mention that people with mental illnesses are not always a danger to themselves. While it is true that the vast majority of suicides can be linked to some sort of diagnosable mental disorder, it is also true that [the vast majority of people who experience a mental illness do not commit suicide](http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_suicide.php). Furthermore, [gun availability increases the incidence of suicide](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/) even when controlling for mental illness. Given that a) most people with a mental illness do not die by suicide, and b) mental health differences do not account for the differences in suicide susceptibility between gun-owning and non gun-owning households, we shouldn't needlessly restrict non-dangerous people from owning firearms.### Human: ∆ You have convinced me that restricting guns would not only inhibit those who should be able to own them, but also that restricting guns to mentally ill people would not have much of an impact on suicide rates or on violence rates. Well done and thank you### Assistant: > will mental illness are much more dangerous to themselves and others if they own a firearm. With a gun, it is very easy to hurt someone on a whim with little regard for the consequences and not easily stopped. I That was suspiciously quick. There's a difference between gun violence and un-predictable gun violence. When people talk about making tougher gun ownership laws they aren't doing it to stop gang violence or domestic violence or anything like that, they are trying to stop instances where unstable people will just randomly shoot people indiscriminately (hence the many mentally unstable related shootings we've seen over the past 20 years) It's to stop the fear that your high school, college, movie theater or elementary school is going to be shot up randomly by some rouge kid or some mentally unstable adult. It isn't meant to make gun violence go down by gigantic percentage points.

### Human: CMV: Communism can work. If it were not for Stalin and Liberal Reforms, the USSR would be successful### Assistant: First, I don't think this is downvote bait; you may not have frequented this sub very often, but nothing you've said is downvote worthy. That said, I've always had several problems with the Communist worldview. For starters, let's talk about the complete abolition of the state. How does the society then defend against external threats? You can't achieve 'little c' communism as you define it, because there's always someone out there willing to take what your society (theoretically peacefully) creates. Second, while C/capitalism certainly doesn't contain all the answers, the Euro states have already shed light on how the way forward may appear; not as any one, pure, ideological system, but a mixed blend of socialist programs with capitalist economic principles. To boil down Communism's failures to one man (Stalin) is both fallacious (because it ignores, among others, Mao) and a judgement on the system itself; if it's flawed enough that one man can functionally alter the course of the proposed evolution of man, that's a judgement on the philosophy as a whole, is it not? One individual cannot ever impede a free capitalist society in such a way, due to the nature of elections, competition, and free markets. As such, capitalism (in a purist sense) is clearly superior to communism (in a purist sense) because communism invites an inherent power vacuum.### Human: > How does the society then defend against external threats? You can't achieve 'little c' communism as you define it, because there's always someone out there willing to take what your society (theoretically peacefully) creates. Hmmm, well the state should be abolished when capitalism ceases to exist, or in other words, the world becomes socialist. At this point, if everything is owned democratically, then it would be very difficult for a nefariously motivated individual or group to be able to override the majority in a Soviet council, or even take over certain factories or depots for guns to become independent. Ideally, the workers would be armed with guns, originally as to overthrow the ruling class, but also to protect themselves from capitalist invaders, like how it is currently in the U.S. I contend that if the state has been abolished, the current conditions that have warranted that will also make it suitable for armed workers to 'take care' of counter revolutionaries, (those who want to take away from society) But I would agree that, if the state is abolished at the wrong time, way too early, the communist society would become very susceptible to other militaries of capitalist powers. >Second, while C/capitalism certainly doesn't contain all the answers, the Euro states have already shed light on how the way forward may appear; not as any one, pure, ideological system, but a mixed blend of socialist programs with capitalist economic principles. I am aware of it. And I do think they are making progress, and likely the world will be shifting towards their model. However, let's say that automation does come. The EU mixed economy, like you implied, has appeared to be successful and stable, but how would it solve for automaton putting millions of workers out of work? Also, I do not know if the EU currently suffers this, but the US and Australia suffer political corruption, lots of it. Even with some 'socialist principles' the main capitalist backbone of the system means there will always be corporate powers who wish to take control of the government. And they have, in these countries at least. Lobbying, CEO's of carbon, water, and food companies becoming top advisers, and just the drive for profit has already infested our systems. Capitalism functions on greed. Even with the EU's model, businesses will be looking for the lowest bidder to exploit, or outsource to other undeveloped areas like China and Africa. Exploitation will continue to exist. I do like the EU's model, mostly because it means that the possibility of achieving full socialism through reform is much more likely, and they have, for now, been the places of the highest Human Development Index. I still though do not see how it could last. >To boil down Communism's failures to one man (Stalin) is both fallacious (because it ignores, among others, Mao) and a judgement on the system itself; if it's flawed enough that one man can functionally alter the course of the proposed evolution of man, that's a judgement on the philosophy as a whole, is it not? One individual cannot ever impede a free capitalist society in such a way, due to the nature of eating contests, competition, and free markets. As such, capitalism (in a purist sense) is clearly superior to communism (in a purist sense) because communism invites an inherent power vacuum. I'm just focusing on the USSR for now. The future Communist leaders like Mao were influenced by Stalin, not much by Lenin IMO. I tried not to boil it down to one man, because like I said, it was a combination of heavy factors that contributed to the USSR's demise. The USSR had a very rough start when transitioning out of pre capitalism, had gone through several wars and the Nazis that cut swathes into the USSR, competition with the U.S. which had suffered nothing, and later liberal reforms to salvage the USSR. I think these conditions have put extreme stress on the political stablity, which had allowed Stalin and future leaders to consolidate their power. It was the same thing with Adolf Hitler. Germany had gotten the short end of the stick after World War I and the German Republic had been heavily corrupted and unstable, which had allowed a fascist regime to take control. If this had happened to the US, I believe consolidation of power would have occurred as well.### Assistant: > Hmmm, well the state should be abolished when capitalism ceases to exist, or in other words, the world becomes socialist. At this point, if everything is owned democratically, then it would be very difficult for a nefariously motivated individual or group to be able to override the majority in a Soviet council, or even take over certain factories or depots for guns to become independent. Ideally, the workers would be armed with guns, originally as to overthrow the ruling class, but also to protect themselves from capitalist invaders, like how it is currently in the U.S. I contend that if the state has been abolished, the current conditions that have warranted that will also make it suitable for armed workers to 'take care' of counter revolutionaries, (those who want to take away from society) Several things are problematic with this paragraph. First, you implicitly state that in order for communism to work, it must perforce be worldwide government. This would involve the deaths of many hundreds of millions of people, if not billions; if that's a requirement for the communist ideal to come to fruition, then again, I question the inherent superiority of its' philosophical objectives. Second, we have real world examples of failed states; while in the communist theory the state fails voluntarily, the simple truth is that when you remove power structures, *something* comes along to fill that vacuum. Boko Haraam, ISIL, and Hezbollah are simple examples of extremist groups that move to fill these voids. Third, you use the example of workers taking justice into their own hands. In every single example of popular revolution in the modern age, from the French Revolution to the present, 'worker justice' ends up meaning mob rule. The state, whatever other failings it has, is the only proven mechanism by which disparate factions can reasonably seek to achieve justice that isn't simply formalized revenge. To quote John Adams "If Men were Angels, no government would be necessary." > I am aware of it. And I do think they are making progress, and likely the world will be shifting towards their model. However, let's say that automation does come. The EU mixed economy, like you implied, has appeared to be successful and stable, but how would it solve for automaton putting millions of workers out of work? By raising taxes on the means of productions to levels the US experienced post new deal and instituting UBI or negative income tax. Thus, the benefits of socialism with the upward mobility of capitalism. > Also, I do not know if the EU currently suffers this, but the US and Australia suffer political corruption, lots of it. Even with some 'socialist principles' the main capitalist backbone of the system means there will always be corporate powers who wish to take control of the government. And they have, in these countries at least. Lobbying, CEO's of carbon, water, and food companies becoming top advisers, and just the drive for profit has already infested our systems. Capitalism functions on greed. Even with the EU's model, businesses will be looking for the lowest bidder to exploit, or outsource to other undeveloped areas like China and Africa. Exploitation will continue to exist. Again, you make the dual mistake of assuming that there can be no tempering of political theories and ideologies, and that any system devised by man is "perfect". Another favorite quote of mine can be bastardized here; capitalism is the worst system of economics ever devised by man - *except for all the other ones*. Very few individuals (certainly not I) claim that capitalism, (especially pure capitalism) is perfect; however, it's far better than the alternatives that have been attempted so far. The other side of your mistake (and it's an easy one to make in this day and age) is forgetting that capitalism can be and is regulated; we have severe issues in this country that, left uncorrected, could easily destroy the system, but when and if society at large finally wakes up and votes for real reform, the system can be returned to a more equitable balance. > If this had happened to the US, I believe consolidation of power would have occurred as well. While possible, it also ignores the fact that democratic, capitalist countries outside the purview of the US can and do work; it's worth noting that China has retained a top down Communist political system while implementing capitalist economic principles in certain areas, and this has resulted in massive benefits for the population at large. If capitalism was a clearly flawed socioeconomic theory, then it would fail far more often than it succeeds; it hasn't. Communism, on the other hand...### Human: > First, you implicitly state that in order for communism to work, it must perforce be worldwide government. This would involve the deaths of many hundreds of millions of people, if not billions; if that's a requirement for the communist ideal to come to fruition, then again, I question the inherent superiority of its' philosophical objectives. Not necessarily. Like Karl Marx said, capitalism is doomed to fail at a certain point, and the next biggest hump would have been automaton. A peaceful strategy for a Communist state could be to simply "wait it out." >Second, we have real world examples of failed states; while in the communist theory the state fails voluntarily, the simple truth is that when you remove power structures, something comes along to fill that vacuum. Boko Haraam, ISIL, and Hezbollah are simple examples of extremist groups that move to fill these voids. >Second, we have real world examples of failed states; while in the communist theory the state fails voluntarily, the simple truth is that when you remove power structures, something comes along to fill that vacuum. Boko Haraam, ISIL, and Hezbollah are simple examples of extremist groups that move to fill these voids. [Consent of the governed.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed) Power only exists because people recognize the power and the authority, and the decisions that authority makes. If the population is reeducated to understand their role in a Communist country, and know when their state should cease to exist (this for all members of society, workers, scientists, and soldiers) then if one wishes to fill the vacuum of power, the people could simply "not consent" and they would have no power. No one would recognize them. >Third, you use the example of workers taking justice into their own hands. In every single example of popular revolution in the modern age, from the French Revolution to the present, 'worker justice' ends up meaning mob rule. The state, whatever other failings it has, is the only proven mechanism by which disparate factions can reasonably seek to achieve justice that isn't simply formalized revenge. To quote John Adams "If Men were Angels, no government would be necessary." Tyranny of the Majority. Huh. Well, all I can really say is, if the majority truly believes in the action they wish to undertake, then to stop them would appeal to minority interests, which is undemocratic. I don't really know any other way to counter this. One could say that the morality of a society is defined as the morals of the majority. Like if most Native Americans of the U.S. thought killing animals was immoral, then a analysis of the moral system of the Native Americans about animals would only take the majority into account, and that is killing animals is immorals. What is moral is in the eyes of the beholder. >By raising taxes on the means of productions to levels the US experienced post new deal and instituting UBI or negative income tax. Thus, the benefits of socialism with the upward mobility of capitalism. Can you elaborate on mobility? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. >Again, you make the dual mistake of assuming that there can be no tempering of political theories and ideologies, and that any system devised by man is "perfect". Another favorite quote of mine can be bastardized here; capitalism is the worst system of economics ever devised by man - except for all the other ones. Very few individuals (certainly not I) claim that capitalism, (especially pure capitalism) is perfect; however, it's far better than the alternatives that have been attempted so far. The other side of your mistake (and it's an easy one to make in this day and age) is forgetting that capitalism can be and is regulated; we have severe issues in this country that, left uncorrected, could easily destroy the system, but when and if society at large finally wakes up and votes for real reform, the system can be returned to a more equitable balance. But the alternative system has existed on a large scale during a time where the entire world was tryinng to stop it, and where extreme stress from external factors had destabilized it. The current Western countries have not faced the stress the USSR had. The only country close was Germany, which, after world war I, had destabilized and allowed a fascist regime to take control. It recovered after massive amounts of financial aid and more after world war 2 and then the dissolution of the USSR. Doesn't Australia already have regulated capitalism? Yet it still suffers similar problems to the US. It might even be the same for Canada, though I know little about them. What you claim is that these problems can be fixed if a society wakes up and votes for reform. However, like I said, capitalism still functions on greed, no matter how much you regulate it. Regulation can slow or stop the negative effects, like you said. But politicians are still going to be corrupted and lobbied by corporate and financial interests, they will still lie. Politicians are going to only be rich wealthy people, because the average joe cannot afford to campaign. This argument hinges on the "lucky altruistic politician in a shark tank" that will come up, be truthful, be elected and not be seen as a shill, somehow go through a gridlocked congress which will still be dominated by the rich and corrupted, and make reform. You also assume that the rich is going to always represent the interests of the US population, including the workers. Can this be said for most of the time? Especially since their success hinges on expensive campaigns with good funding? >While possible, it also ignores the fact that democratic, capitalist countries outside the purview of the US can and do work; it's worth noting that China has retained a top down Communist political system while implementing capitalist economic principles in certain areas, and this has resulted in massive benefits for the population at large. If capitalism was a clearly flawed socioeconomic theory, then it would fail far more often than it succeeds; it hasn't. Communism, on the other hand... They have worked, in good conditions. Like I said eariler, most of the western countries had never undergone the extreme stress the USSR did. European countries never individually lost over 30 million people in 3 decades, they never had the entire world turn against them, they never had dramatically revolutionize a system in a few years after 2 consecutive wars with no industrial development to support them to good standards. The closest were France and Germany, which received massive aid afterwards and went through reconstruction, after turning to dictatorships as an answer. Capitalism has proven itself to work, but only in favorable conditions. I don't think it would be fair to call China a Communist state anymore. While they had implemented reforms including privatization and capitalist backbone, they no longer represent the interests of the workers. There is no worker council system, and China faces the problem of foreign businesses exploiting the workers for low wages with the Chinese government actually supporting it for money. They are not very progressive, as opposed to the former USSR which had free healthcare, education, and abortions. I would even go so far to say that the capitalist backbone is now more prominent than the socialist principles. The loss of worker councils and foreign interests taking control already shows that workers are no longer having democratic control of most means of production. There are documentaries on this, including one about Nike, and they interviewed the workers, who say they have no more voice at all. They even said that the Chinese army (?) was making sure they worked and they were being paid by businesses to control them. I can send it to you if you want. China has seen great growth because of capitalism, but at a cost of what I think is the original intentions and goals.### Assistant: > Not necessarily. Like Karl Marx said, capitalism is doomed to fail at a certain point, and the next biggest hump would have been automaton. A peaceful strategy for a Communist state could be to simply "wait it out." At bottom, however, you're still failing to acknowledge the underlying point; if communism or Communism or any version in between is truly the superior ideology, it wouldn't have to wait for all the other competing ideologies to die off, whether due to old age or violence. Marx' view of sociopolitical power structures is clearly evolutionary; if we're going to apply simple evolutionary law to political structures, (eg survival of the fittest), then why does communism rely on no competition, whatsoever? This seems suspect, to say the least. > Consent of the governed. Power only exists because people recognize the **power** and the authority, and the decisions that authority makes. If the population is reeducated to understand their role in a Communist country, and know when their state should cease to exist (this for all members of society, workers, scientists, and soldiers) then if one wishes to fill the vacuum of power, the people could simply "not consent" and they would have no power. No one would recognize them. (emphasis added) Two things. One, your second sentence is crucial; people recognize not only the authority of their government to do certain things, but also the *power* of the same to do things, regardless of whether they agree with the things being done. This is the chokepoint through which every. single. Communist. state. has failed to pass; inevitably, the leaders of the People's revolution realize they've been handed absolute power, even if it's only *supposed* to be temporary; you know what they say about absolute power. > But the alternative system has existed on a large scale during a time where the entire world was tryinng to stop it, and where extreme stress from external factors had destabilized it. The current Western countries have not faced the stress the USSR had. The only country close was Germany, which, after world war I, had destabilized and allowed a fascist regime to take control. It recovered after massive amounts of financial aid and more after world war 2 and then the dissolution of the USSR. First, if you increase the landmass of the European countries to make a country the size of the USSR, you start getting towards that massive number of casualties; it's unfair to say no single European country had losses on the Russian scale without acknowledging that Russia is so much larger. Second, communism *didn't exist for all that long*. If we're strictly talking about the USSR, it won the civil war in 1922 and dissolved in 1991, a run of only 69 years; not even an average human lifespan. In contrast, America is a "young" country...and 240 years old next year, having been democratic capitalist republic for the entirety of that existence. The USSR had plenty of satellite republics and international support, not to mention China; to claim that 'the whole world' was against it whitewashes the balance of power, especially during the Cold War. >Doesn't Australia already have regulated capitalism? Yet it still suffers similar problems to the US. It might even be the same for Canada, though I know little about them. Again, you're looking for a utopian environment, and it just doesn't exist; to seek a government where corruption isn't a problem on some level, sooner or later, is to ignore basic human nature. > What you claim is that these problems can be fixed if a society wakes up and votes for reform. However, like I said, capitalism still functions on greed, no matter how much you regulate it. No, you've got it wrong. **Humans** function on greed. Only, that's not what it's always referred to as. Enlightened self interest. Ambition. Communism relies on the greater angels of our nature (altruism) while conveniently ignoring the baser ones. What you're not acknowledging is that there is no such thing as governmental stability in human history. A nation state may last a decade, a century, a millennium, or more, but it will one day end. How it ends varies, but it usually has something to do with structural failures of government. By claiming that capitalism is somehow doomed to this failure, you're not pointing to any inherent flaw in capitalism, but merely an inherent flaw of human political structures. > I would even go so far to say that the capitalist backbone is now more prominent than the socialist principles. The loss of worker councils and foreign interests taking control already shows that workers are no longer having democratic control of most means of production. This last line is the biggest scam in all functional "Communist" governments - democratic control of means of production? Since when has there ever been an election in a Communist country? (Here we're talking North Korea, China, the USSR, and Cuba, primarily). It's really difficult to know the democratic intentions of a group if they're never actually allowed to hold elections, wouldn't you agree?### Human: >At bottom, however, you're still failing to acknowledge the underlying point; if communism or Communism or any version in between is truly the superior ideology, it wouldn't have to wait for all the other competing ideologies to die off, whether due to old age or violence. Marx' view of sociopolitical power structures is clearly evolutionary; if we're going to apply simple evolutionary law to political structures, (eg survival of the fittest), then why does communism rely on no competition, whatsoever? This seems suspect, to say the least. The current world system is capitalism. It has been for the last century. Before that, the world system was feudalism and traditional economies. Capitalism didn't rise in just one country and stayed in one country for a century, capitalism swept the most powerful areas of the world, specifically Europe. Right now, feudalism on a large scale in today's world would not be possible. Same with traditional economies So, capitalism is a world system, that is run by the international bourgeoisie, and produces the international proletariat. How can an international system be overthrown in only one country? How can countries be abolished, if there are still countries? How can a classless communal society exist, if there are classes and property? The bourgeoisie is an international class - how can you abolish it in one place? That's like curing yourself of blood poisoning, but only in one toe. The 'former' proletarians are still proletarians. You haven't abolished capitalism entirely. [World communism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_communism) is a goal of socialism. Socialism and communism cannot exist in one or two countries while a directly opposing system surrounds them, just like feudalism and traditional economies cannot do the same. Capitalism will likely not be able to survive in one country if the entire world was socialist. >Two things. One, your second sentence is crucial; people recognize not only the authority of their government to do certain things, but also the power of the same to do things, regardless of whether they agree with the things being done. This is the chokepoint through which every. single. Communist. state. has failed to pass; inevitably, the leaders of the People's revolution realize they've been handed absolute power, even if it's only supposed to be temporary; you know what they say about absolute power. That's why worker councils, i.e., Soviet councils existed, to be a checks and balances of the workers vs the leaders. It's also not just one person managing the state, various political positions exist, akin to something like the U.S. legislative and executive system. If they realize they have been handed absolute power, they should know that the power ONLY exists because the people being governed accept it, even if they disagree, like you said. You have those who will enforce your power, like the military or the police. But those people only enforce your power because they too, recognized it and accepted it. Look at it this way, if all of a sudden everyone in the United States refused to recognize Obama and his power, including the military, and they choose not to listen to him, then Obama has no power and cannot exert force or wishes, and nothing he does will be enforced. >First, if you increase the landmass of the European countries to make a country the size of the USSR, you start getting towards that massive number of casualties; it's unfair to say no single European country had losses on the Russian scale without acknowledging that Russia is so much larger. Second, communism didn't exist for all that long. If we're strictly talking about the USSR, it won the civil war in 1922 and dissolved in 1991, a run of only 69 years; not even an average human lifespan. In contrast, America is a "young" country...and 240 years old next year, having been democratic capitalist republic for the entirety of that existence. The USSR had plenty of satellite republics and international support, not to mention China; to claim that 'the whole world' was against it whitewashes the balance of power, especially during the Cold War. Should it not be death's per capita, rather that landmass, that allows comparisons of this type? And where did you learn that, I was unaware of that information. Look at stress again. The U.S. never faced massive casualties except in the Civil War, and the British didn't torch everything they owned, except the capital of course. The U.S. even faced decades of isolationism, had an open landmass and few neighboring countries that allowed Manifest Destiny to occur. It took them more than a hundred years anyway to take the torch from Great Britain and become the world superpower. The US had ideal conditions for it's growth, almost perfect. While you are right that the USSR lasted an incredibly short time, it also became a superpower in a incredibly short time. The level of industrialization that the US achieved in 200 years was achieved by the USSR in 20-30. >Again, you're looking for a utopian environment, and it just doesn't exist; to seek a government where corruption isn't a problem on some level, sooner or later, is to ignore basic human nature. But in a country where the need for personal material and financial wealth is virtually eliminated, exactly WHAT would corrupt a government? What would drive them to abuse the system?### Assistant: > The current world system is capitalism. It has been for the last century. Before that, the world system was feudalism and traditional economies. Capitalism didn't rise in just one country and stayed in one country for a century, capitalism swept the most powerful areas of the world, specifically Europe. Capitalism, however, allows for other forms of government, including monarchy, theocracy, and yes, "C"ommunism, to coexist with it. "c"ommunism, as you define it, cannot tolerate the existence of any of these, much less capitalism. I admit to being somewhat mystified that you argue that capitalism has held sway for the last century even though the USSR, once again, was a major world power and clearly not capitalist at all, especially in the early years. If you include China in the mix, the USSR and China had nearly 890 million people out of a total population of approximately 3 billion in 1960; that's roughly a third of the world's population in a clearly non capitalistic state within the last 60 years, not century, so claiming capitalism has had global hegemony in the last century is clearly false. > World communism is a goal of socialism. Socialism and communism cannot exist in one or two countries while a directly opposing system surrounds them... China and Russia have been traditional centers of power, not satellites. They dictate the conditions around them, not vice versa; Ukraine being a perfect current event example. > Capitalism will likely not be able to survive in one country if the entire world was socialist. Absent violent overthrow, I don't agree; capitalism has shown to be one of the best methods of improving economic conditions of any practicable sociopolitical platform. It does not depend on exterior forces to survive and thrive. > That's why worker councils, i.e., Soviet councils existed, to be a checks and balances of the workers vs the leaders. It's also not just one person managing the state, various political positions exist, akin to something like the U.S. legislative and executive system. They were created, but to say they existed is to elide the fact that they vanished almost as soon as they appeared in the Soviet consciousness; to quoth Lenin (who you say was doing just fine until Stalin barged in) ""history of all countries bears out the fact that through their own powers alone, the working class can develop only a trade-union consciousness." *What is to be Done*, 1902. From wikipedia, for the sake of speed: "That is, history had demonstrated that the working class could engage in local, spontaneous rebellions to improve its position within the capitalist system but that it lacked the understanding of its interests necessary to overthrow that system." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy#Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union The idea that Soviet leadership truly trusted the proletariat has always been somewhat suspect. > If they realize they have been handed absolute power, they should know that the power ONLY exists because the people being governed accept it, even if they disagree, like you said. You have those who will enforce your power, like the military or the police. But those people only enforce your power because they too, recognized it and accepted it. You're assuming, first, that military and police are all that good at *thinking*; second, you're making the mistake that even if they think - as opposed to following orders - that they *agree* with you. Finally, remember that in modern times, it's not necessary to have a majority agree; military hardware is designed with the term "force multiplier" in mind. If you're so right about how it's possible for consent of the governed to actually function, how come every communist state has reverted to authoritarianism? > Should it not be death's per capita, rather that landmass, that allows comparisons of this type? And where did you learn that, I was unaware of that information. Fine, going by the Third Reich's numbers in WWII, they lost 10% of their total population; in comparison, Russia suffered 13.5%. Large real number difference, but not statistically significant in terms of culture shock; going back to WWI, the German Empire lost around 3.5% of its' population versus Russia's 2%. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties If you want to compare on that basis, Russia has no argument for any especial consideration of hardship. > The level of industrialization that the US achieved in 200 years was achieved by the USSR in 20-30. The Second Industrial Revolution didn't even start until 1860; this was when steel began to be mass produced. To say that it took the US that much longer is to ignore that the technical processes literally didn't exist until much closer to the time the USSR was interested in developing. > But in a country where the need for personal material and financial wealth is virtually eliminated, exactly WHAT would corrupt a government? What would drive them to abuse the system? Power? Needs and wants aren't the same thing. As the saying goes, the man least qualified to lead is the one who wants to the most, and communist regimes have a bad habit of putting those individuals to the forefront.### Human: >They were created, but to say they existed is to elide the fact that they vanished almost as soon as they appeared in the Soviet consciousness; to quoth Lenin (who you say was doing just fine until Stalin barged in) ""history of all countries bears out the fact that through their own powers alone, the working class can develop only a trade-union consciousness." What is to be Done, 1902. >From wikipedia, for the sake of speed: "That is, history had demonstrated that the working class could engage in local, spontaneous rebellions to improve its position within the capitalist system but that it lacked the understanding of its interests necessary to overthrow that system." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy#Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union The idea that Soviet leadership truly trusted the proletariat has always been somewhat suspect. It does not state that the Soviets lost power during Lenin's rule, but you seem correct about the lack of trust in the proletariat. If you show me that Soviets really did vanish or lost power during Lenin's rule, then I would concede this point. >You're assuming, first, that military and police are all that good at thinking; second, you're making the mistake that even if they think - as opposed to following orders - that they agree with you. Finally, remember that in modern times, it's not necessary to have a majority agree; military hardware is designed with the term "horse multiplier" in mind. If you're so right about how it's possible for consent of the governed to actually function, how come every communist state has reverted to authoritarianism? Well, you are right about that. That would mean that a civil war would have to take place. Most of the people would likely revolt, and there would have to be some people in the military to do the same thing. According to Marx, the proletariat would be armed, and thus they should be able to engage the military. In a socialist society, the workers control the means of production, but the state owns it. The state's ownership is an extension of worker ownership. They give orders to the workers to make what they say, and how much, to fill status quos. If a civil war occurs, the state will lose almost all production, and workers will likely shift it for their own needs. The loyalist military would have to capture means of production in order to sustain themselves, while the workers who have revolted control most of it, and thus they are able to sustain themselves. Add this with the same fact that the workers are armed, it would be extremely difficult for the state to win. This is opposed to a capitalist civil war in which companies will work for whoever is willing to pay. The state in a capitalist civil war already controls some means of production, and the workers do not control any, the companies or rich individuals do. I contend that a socialist civil war would be far more successful for the proletariat than in a capitalist civil war. That's a good point. The USSR is authoritarian in the beginning, since they owned everything and controlled the economy, but Stalin did further that point... Well look at Germany, after World War I. The people resorted to authoritarianism because of the intense stress put upon by the war and their loss. The USSR turned to authoritarianism when Stalin took control likely for the same reason, the past 2 wars put much stress. World War 2, a dire situation in which the largest enemy of Communism was standing head level to them and willing to destroy the Soviet Union must have allowed Stalin to do the same thing. It's the same thing after 9/11, the stress put upon the American people allowed Bush to invade the Middle East and pass the Patriot Act, which we struggle to remove this day. Stress makes all people turn to authoritarian answers, and it is difficult to take back the power away from the government. >Fine, going by the Third Reich's numbers in WWII, they lost 10% of their total population; in comparison, Russia suffered 13.5%. Large real number difference, but not statistically significant in terms of culture shock; going back to WWI, the German Empire lost around 3.5% of its' population versus Russia's 2%. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties[2] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties[3] If you want to compare on that basis, Russia has no argument for any especial consideration of hardship. That's for Germany, and I think Germany suffered a similar situation to Russia, which is why they turned to authoritarianism, except West Germany received massive financial aid by the US and underwent reconstruction. >The Second Industrial Revolution didn't even start until 1860; this was when steel began to be mass produced. To say that it took the US that much longer is to ignore that the technical processes literally didn't exist until much closer to the time the USSR was interested in developing. Ok, you are right about that. US also suffered a civil war there too. [ They finished reconstruction in 1877 according to wikipedia.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era) This is assuming the U.S. did not grow during reconstruction period. At the end of the 19th century, while the U.S likely had 23 years to jump on the industrialization bandwagon, Russia was still a country of farm plowers. According to this paper: >In the United States, the first factory system appeared in Waltham and Lowell in the 1810s and 1820s in the textile industry. The factory system then spread to the chemical and metallurgical industries in the 1840s and to all market-oriented industries by the 1860s and 1870s (Nelson, 1980). This American model of manufacturing, which included mass manufacture by power-driven machinery and interchangeable parts, was dominated by machine processes. Machine processes dictated the nature and organization of production, although there was no uniformity in production layout or methods between different industries. For example, in the textile industry, machines almost immediately created a sequential manufacturing process that was characteristic of that industry. In iron manufacturing, however, a standard factory layout, because of the new machines, took a long time to develop and there was little uniformity in factory organization until the end of the 19th century. http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/industrial.htm The U.S. would have likely reached a good level of industrialization at the end of the 19th century. Contrary to what the paper says, lets assume the U.S. did only have 23 years to industrialize. I do not know the exact date for when Russia started industrialization, but I will assume that it did not happen during World War 1 or the Civil war. The USSR was created in 1927. The USSR was able to match and even out-manufacture Nazi Germany during the middle-end of World War 2. I will say that it reached a good level of industrialization in 1945. 1945-1927 = 18 years, which is very similar to 23 years. So, by me being generous and pushing the date of US industrialization by several decades, they maintain a similar time frame. This means that the planned economy was able to at least MATCH the capitalist economy of the US, even after 2 wars. And again, I was pushing the dates contrary to the paper. >Power? Needs and wants aren't the same thing. As the saying goes, the man least qualified to lead is the one who wants to the most, and communist regimes have a bad habit of putting those individuals to the forefront. Ok, power, in other words in the context of the consent of power, the want for people to accept you as a leader and consent to you as a leader, and thus an ability to use that consent and make things happen to your will. Material things are likely not wanted, so just power itself is what is wanted? Well, I don't really have a counter argument, I guess I concede this point, but I always thought that people want power not just for the approval of others but to get something they wanted in a material, or even sexual sense. For Hitler, it was so that he could wipe out the Jews. For Andrew Jackson, it was so he could wipe out the Native Americans and destroy the Bank.### Assistant: > If you show me that Soviets really did vanish or lost power during Lenin's rule, then I would concede this point. Wikipedia, on how Lenin handled the CCCP and the Central Committee: The system had many faults, and opposition to Lenin and **what many saw as his excessive centralisation policies** came to the leadership's attention during the 8th Party Congress (March 1919) and the 9th Party Congress (March 1920).[9] At the 9th Party Congress the Democratic Centralists, an opposition faction within the party, **accused Lenin and his associates, of creating a Central Committee in which a "small handful of party oligarchs ... was banning those who hold deviant views."[10]** *(emphasis added)* That seems to pretty definitively show that Lenin was making Soviets irrelevant, wouldn't you agree? > Well, you are right about that. That would mean that a civil war would have to take place. Most of the people would likely revolt, and there would have to be some people in the military to do the same thing. According to Marx, the proletariat would be armed, and thus they should be able to engage the military. Here you should remember that Karl Marx was talking about armed insurrection in the late *18th century*. If you have a hundred workers with single action rifles versus twenty soldiers armed with the same, the outcome favors the workers. If you have a hundred workers with small arms facing tanks, how exactly do you expect that to play out? You should look up the term force multiplier (especially as regards technology), and think about the ability of a small, well equipped force versus a mass of underequipped, disorganized mob. Because that's basically the scenario in any modern popular uprising. > The state's ownership is an extension of worker ownership. *Only if the will of the state accurately represents the will of the people, instead of the leadership.* >That's for Germany, and I think Germany suffered a similar situation to Russia, which is why they turned to authoritarianism, except West Germany received massive financial aid by the US and underwent reconstruction. British losses in WWI were equivalent to roughly 2 percent of their population (versus Russia's just under 2 percent, via the same source). In WWII, Britain lost far less in terms of population, but suffered severe shortages and devastation of material on the scale of what the USSR experienced. Additionally, it's worth noting that Poland suffered more losses as a percent of population and was taken over by the USSR; I just don't think this argument holds that much weight, frankly. > So, by me being generous and pushing the date of US industrialization by several decades, they maintain a similar time frame. This means that the planned economy was able to at least MATCH the capitalist economy of the US, even after 2 wars. And again, I was pushing the dates contrary to the paper. On a macro scale, we agree; see my comments previously for a discourse on anything *less* than macro scale. > Well, I don't really have a counter argument, I guess I concede this point, Not to be snarky, you've conceded quite a few points. Has your view changed at all?

### Human: Batman would be an astronomically better character if he didn't exist within the context of the DC universe, CMV### Assistant: Okay, as far as "Superman should just beat the shit out of Joker every time he escapes" goes, I don't have much of a response. Except, Superman is generally a more reactionary hero than Batman, and doesn't seem to keep tabs on all the villians at large. And I can imagine Joker escaping at a time when Superman is busy fighting Braniac or General Zod or something, so he has to deal with the primary threat first. And of course, Superman would never outright *kill* the Joker. But you're right, in this respect, Batman would be a little more believable in a world without superpowers. However, I still don't think he would be a better *character* outside of the DC universe, because this would mean giving up the relationship between Batman and Superman, something I think is *foundational to both characters*. What makes Superman a great character? It's that, despite having the powers of a *fucking god*, he's always maintained his humanity. It's part of the reason it's so important for him to have a secret identity; without an "ordinary" life as Clark Kent, he'd soon loose touch with the concerns of "ordinary" mortals. Just read Kingdom Come to see what I'm talking about. Now, why does Superman have so much respect for humanity? Part of the reason is the way he was raised, of course, but the other reason is: Batman. Superman *admires* Batman for his courage, dedication, and convictions--in the superhero world, Batman is Superman's one link to humans, and he's a perpetual reminder of the abilities of "mere mortals". Batman keeps Superman humble. I don't think it's a coincidence that Batman and Superman don't team up in Kingdom Come. Now, what makes Batman a great character? You said it yourself: he's a self made man. It appeals to the best in us all. He wanted to become the greatest crimefighter known to man, and spent years training in order to make it happen. What else it great about Batman? His *obsession*. He is single-mindedly devoted to being Batman, and nothing distracts him from that task. Now, without any other superheroes, this is impressive enough. But add Superman to the mix, and it becomes *amazing*. Think about it: Batman lives in a world where a man can *fly, shoot heat rays, and kick criminals into orbit* and he *still* thinks to himself "I must learn jiu jitsu, dress at a bat, and beat up petty criminals. I can make a *difference*. I can be **significant**." *That's* obsession. *That's* dedication. If Batman in the Nolanverse is impressive because he has become the most perfect crimefighter in the world, Batman in the DC universe is more impressive because he still *tries* to become the best crimefighter in the world, despite KNOWING HE WILL NEVER BE AS GOOD AS SUPERMAN. The relationship itself is also fun to explore. There's an interesting dichotomy between Batman and Superman; I've heard it described as "one is a god trying to be a man, the other a man trying to be a God." Superman puts an incredible amount of effort into maintaining a civilian life as Clark Kent, probably to the detriment of his crime fighting, because he *wants to be human*. Batman, meanwhile, often neglects his life as Bruce Wayne in order to be a more effective Batman; in fact, he frequently views his "ordinary" life as a distraction from his "real" life as Batman. Batman wants to lose himself in the role, to leave his "human" side behind as much as possible. So when Superman and Batman team up, they each see in the other something they want for themselves. I think it's one of the most fascinating relationships in comics. So that's why Batman is better in the DC universe. The DC universe adds subtleties to Batman's character, and Batman grounds the DC universe. And the relationship between Batman and Superman is too good to give up.### Human: To the extent that anyone born into billions can be described as "self made."### Assistant: i think "self made" in regards to his training### Human: He was still trained by others after spending a shit ton of money to travel the world to reach them.### Assistant: still he pulled through it all. let's settle on the fact that he shows a good amount of dedication :)

### Human: CMV: The influx in gays, lesbians, trans, gender fluid, etc etc. is not because we are now a more tolerant society, but because we have created a culture that rewards people simply for being different or going against a norm### Assistant: You seriously think that a community of people who are more likely to be [homeless, unemployed, and live in poverty](http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/02/18/report-trans-americans-four-times-more-likely-live-poverty) is being rewarded for existing? It is literally legal to fire people because they're trans or gay. It is legal to deny people housing because they're trans or gay. These groups are ostracized and made fun of on a regular basis simply for existing. As far as I know, nobody has seriously proposed some sort of special "trans only" bathroom. In fact, all trans people want is to use the bathroom they feel the most comfortable in, the bathroom where they're less likely to face harassment. And yet, this desire has sparked national debate on if they should be allowed to pee in peace. When was the last time your right to use a bathroom was a hotly debated topic?### Human: The issue with this gender fluidity concept is where does it stop - I have a penis, but I identify as a female - does that mean I can use the female bathroom? It should be a hotly debated topic because men and woman using the same bathrooms opens up a whole new door for sexual harassment and abuse for criminals who "identify as a female"### Assistant: > It should be a hotly debated topic because men and woman using the same bathrooms opens up a whole new door for sexual harassment and abuse for criminals who "identify as a female" That is absurd. I have never heard anyone having an issue with homosexual men using the men's room due to harassment considerations, despite the fact that there are 3x more homosexuals than trans in the population. The harassment argument is a red herring thrown out by the people who are against letting them use their gendered bathroom. It has no actual validity, but its the only argument they can put forward without being called a bigot.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Three of those are about video taping, which is already illegal. One is about assault, which is already illegal. One is about nothing at all, which isn't a problem. I'm not sure what you think you found here. People who commit crimes will still be charged for them. How many cases of crimes in bathrooms already exist. I doubt 5 changes those stats at all.

### Human: CMV: As a black American, I don't want my slave last name.### Assistant: I think you're also discounting the possibility that one of your ancestors chose your last name: "[Upon emancipation, freed slaves found themselves having to choose surnames since they'd most often never had any before](http://www.quora.com/How-did-slaves-get-their-names). It was not at all uncommon to choose the surname of their last owners, or even famous historical figures, such as [George] Washington or [Thomas] Jefferson. Even "Freeman" became a popular surname choice among those recently emancipated." So it's entirely possible that the name you see as a relic of slavery, is in fact a name chosen by one of your ancestors- perhaps the first choice they were ever able to make for themselves. I'd do some research and make sure you're not actually undoing one of the most empowering and important choices in your family's history. That being said, if you do decide to change, I'm going to agree with /u/AntiChri5 that "Lord Thundercock the Incredible" has an impressive ring to it.### Human: There is really no practical way to know if this is the case or not. But even if they did freely choose a name upon emancipation, it wouldn't seem to me like a very informed or totally open choice, since the only knowledge they likely had of the world was what was allowed by their former 'master'### Assistant: > But even if they did freely choose a name upon emancipation, it wouldn't seem to me like a very informed or totally open choice, since the only knowledge they likely had of the world was what was allowed by their former 'master' Which would make keeping it all the more important. Changing that name isn't going to make what happened to his/her ancestors any less horrifying. Our history is what it is, for better or worse; when we attempt to whitewash it- to "edit out" the unpleasant parts, we lose something important, and something that's irreplaceable. Even if the name was given directly to his/her ancestors by their former owner, it's still one of the most important and fundamental links to his/her past that there will ever be.### Human: >Changing that name isn't going to make what happened to his/her ancestors any less horrifying. Our history is what it is, for better or worse; when we attempt to whitewash it- to "edit out" the unpleasant parts, we lose something important, and something that's irreplaceable. So then why change the German flag after WW2?### Assistant: That's not really an accurate analogy. The Nazi's changed the flag in 1933 from [The German Flag](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Flag_of_Germany_%283-2_aspect_ratio%29.svg) to the infamous [Nazi flag](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Flag_of_the_NSDAP_%281920%E2%80%931945%29.svg). After the war, they simply changed it back.### Human: Germany's also engaging in some very serious white-washing for various reasons. I think your point still stands, that removing any indications whatsoever of Nazi-ism is detrimental to the state.### Assistant: > Germany's also engaging in some very serious white-washing for various reasons Uh? Nazi history is all over the school curriculum and museums. Do you have any specifics in mind?### Human: That it's illegal to produce, stock, import or export objects which contain any symbol of the Nazi party, including flags, slogans, insignia, uniforms, and forms of salute, as well as anything that's close enough to be mistaken for any of those. This law carries a punishment of up to 3 years in jail plus a fine. So basically any kind of actual representation of Nazis.### Assistant: That seems more like an attempt to destroy people that still hang onto that ideology than to whitewash history. Trying to prevent history from repeating itself is not at all the same. We ban the sale of ivory not because we are trying to remove any evidence of what we have done to elephants but to protect elephants now.

### Human: CMV: Society's unjustified support of the American military only leads to it taking advantage of us### Assistant: Speaking for the troops, it's not really fair to condemn us for the war. We don't choose the mission. To paraphrase Shelley, ours is not to reason why. Ultimately, the military is under civilian control. If you oppose the war, you'd be better off looking for culprits in Washington than in Bagram. At any rate, the rah rah flag waving patriotism is all well and good, but it doesn't really help soldiers at all. I disagree with your personal connections argument as just not having the data to back it up. [This article raises an interesting point.](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-troops-the-real-one-percent/) I totally disagree with him that the military is the *real* one percent or that its the real divide in America or any of that nonsense, that's just disguised attempts to bash Occupy. However, his point that the America public is by and large isolated from war is valid. The military is a small community. In Vietnam, the draft meant you could do one tour in country and be done. In Iraq, soldiers were sent back time and again because we didn't have an influx of new manpower. Say what you want about the draft, it did make sure that the American public was connected to war in a very real and tangible way. The average voter is less likely to be ok with invading foreign lands if there's a possiblity he might end up in the suck too. It's easier for politicians and diplomats to stomach the use of military force when they know their constituencies don't *really* care.### Human: > ours is not to reason why That seems like a really poor way to justify someone joining the military without any concern for what the military actually does, or why it does so. And in my opinion, the poem wasn't implying that it was a good thing. Edit: My point, which isn't made all that well in this post, is that the quote has a lot of context and I don't think it's wise to use it to make your point here. Basically I don't like how alone, it implies that soldiers shouldn't question their orders at all, when they absolutely should.### Assistant: What the military does and why changes every couple of years, and the why will always depend on who you ask. I'm no op but I don't think he replied to justify enlistment but rather to explain the civilian-military divide### Human: > What the military does and why changes every couple of years, and the why will always depend on who you ask. I'm not really sure what your point here is. Are you saying that since it's hard to keep track of, people should ignore the issue entirely? > I don't think he replied to justify enlistment but rather to explain the civilian-military divide Sure, it seems that way to me too, but the quote is being used out of context to further his point. In this usage, he's basically implying that soldiers shouldn't question their orders, where as the poem uses it in a far more negative way.(Whether it's intentionally negative, is up for interpretation.) Maybe I'm being a little unfair but he really didn't need that quote there.### Assistant: My point is that people don't often join to support the current mission but more out of a sense of national duty, patriotism, family history, and personal career benefits (in whichever combination they personally value most). Most people don't consider the specifics of the politics involved when enlisting in the all-volunteer force.### Human: I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but if you join the military solely out of patriotism or what have you without actually know the politics/motives behind what you're fighting for, doesn't that prove how dangerous blind support of the military can be?### Assistant: Blind support for anything is dangerous, no question there. BUT our military members cannot possibly foresee what the world will look like 3-4 years out, so their decisions must be crafted on their own personal circumstances, not a twisted desire to support a war effort that many on reddit seem to dislike.

### Human: CMV: Reddit picks on fat people because they are an easy scapegoat and socially acceptable target for hatred, not because of any legitimate concerns.### Assistant: I'm not here to disprove your theory, but rather to ask for some insight. You talk about obesity in tandem with depression. Okay, that's logical. I can see why one may lead to another in this day and age. More importantly, one can imagine that 100 or even 50 years ago, without the awareness to diagnose someone with depression, a LOT of people went without help and we would never know, because the depressed wouldn't report their issue. Currently, you could say we're experiencing in our society a trend of "depression acceptance", because it's a problem that's always been around that demands attention. In the case of obesity, however, we know for a fact that our current 35% rate is a new occurrence; obesity is measurable in a way that depression never could be. It is, one could say, the fault of modern, unhealthy food and modern, unhealthy eating habits. So why are obese trying to make obesity an acceptable characteristic? It's NOT an unaddressed, ancient issue, it's a new one. Why should we as a species allow it to become the new standard? Fat acceptance is the first "civil rights" movement directed toward people who are A) Not born that way and B) Able to change, so why should it be taken seriously?### Human: >So why are obese trying to make obesity an acceptable characteristic? Are they really? Working in research of obesity I have never come across the HAES movement outside of scant posts by idiots on Facebook or people decrying how bad they are on reddit. >It's NOT an unaddressed, ancient issue, it's a new one. Why should we as a species allow it to become the new standard? A new one driven by socioeconomic change overlaid on biological vulnerability. So in reality, it's a bit of both. >Fat acceptance is the first "civil rights" movement directed toward people who are A) Not born that way and B) Able to change, so why should it be taken seriously? Understanding why people are fat, especially at a population level, is not the same as accepting obesity, lets clarify that. What proportion of obese people do you think would truly say they didn't want to lose weight?### Assistant: Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't HAES about how one must take steps to be healthy at whatever size they are, and not (necessarily) that they couldn't be healthier at a different size. I've also rather seen HAES restricted to a smaller range of "sizes" and not literally every size. But I haven't really read much more about that, so my epxerience in this regard is lacking.### Human: You're right, I should have clarified that a bit better. HAES *is* about that, although that shouldn't mean people shouldn't be aiming to lose weight as well. One can be metabolically healthy and overweight/obese and still be at greater risk of disease compared to those of normal weight but with (near) identical metabolic parameters. I suppose I was more using it as a shorthand for the reddit-centric view of HAES, which is a armies of women loudly proclaiming they can be healthy with a BMI of 60, rather than what it actually is, which is much closer to your observation.### Assistant: That seems to me like a fairly reasoned take on health. Of course one cannot be morbidly obese and healthy, but just because one is of "normal" weight doesn't necessarily mean they're healthy. I've seen thin people think they don't need physical activity. And people who are fairly active, but either have trouble keeping weight on, or struggle with dropping those few kilos. They're usually much happier working towards their fitness goals, and not thinking *only* about the weights. And generally have better results than if they just focussed on the weights.

### Human: CMV: The wife of the judge who accepted bribes to jail youths should not be punished.### Assistant: Generally, we don't allow people to profit from illegal activity, even if it was unwittingly. For example, let's say I'm a thief, and I steal a diamond ring, which I turn around and give to my wife. If the police catch me, my wife should not be allowed to keep the diamond ring (or even half the diamond ring) because she was unaware of the original crime.### Human: Yes, but I think this is much different. In the hypothetical this woman became a housewife and lost several years of career advancement, making her just as much a victim of the husband. I think it is morally wrong to take away this money that she "earned" for being a housewife and sacrificing her career so that her husband can go further in his.### Assistant: It's true that the wife is a victim, just like many of the people this judge sent to prison are victims. But you seem to argue that the wife should get preferential treatment in the settlement of the assets. Why should one victim get half, while the other hundred victims share in the other half? Especially considering the wife likely had it much better than all those kids that were sent to prison without cause.### Human: I don't think that the wife should get half, and the rest of the victims share the other half, I think it is the governments responsibility to pay for all the years in jail the people suffered, I just also think that the husbands assets should be taken by the government to help pay. There is no way that whatever he was bribed is enough to pay the children who were jailed unjustly. For example if he accepted 50k for every kid he sent to this prison, that doesn't mean that each kid should just get 50k. They should get much, much more. And because this judge is a government official, it is the governments responsibility to pay each of these children a fair amount. Even if that amount is millions per year. So say he jailed 10 kids, for 50k each that is 500k. That 500k should go to the government to help pay the children, NOT to be split between them.### Assistant: > So say he jailed 10 kids, for 50k each that is 500k. That 500k should go to the government to help pay the children, NOT to be split between them. So if the family has less than 500k in assets, you are OK with the wife getting nothing? If so, I actually agree with you. Let's say he's been accepting 500k in bribes for 10 years, thats 5 million dollars. When he is arrested, his family has 2 million dollars in the bank, and another $1 million in assets (house, cars, etc). Some of that money was spent on fancy restaurants, vacations, trips, clothes, or other things that you can't get back. So you have $3 million in assets in the family's name. You know he took over $5 million in bribes. By saying the wife should get half of the existing assets, you are saying that she gets to keep $1.5 million, along with whatever benefit she derived from the spent money (clothes, trips, dinners, parties, etc). I'd argue that the wife should get half of anything left over after all the bribes are repaid. In all likelihood though, this would leave the wife with nothing.

### Human: CMV: The European Union is a Good Thing (from a Leftist perspective)### Assistant: There are at least three possible objections I can think of to the EU in its current form that people on the left sometimes make. The first is one you allude to above, i.e. that the EU's institutions are not democratic/not sufficiently democratic. There are several ways one might develop that objection, but the most obvious way seems to point to a disconnect between the average citizen in an EU country, and how EU policies are actually made and implemented. The second sort of objection arises if you're just generally suspicious of very large political institutions. On this view, the larger the organization, the more damage it can do when it screws things up, people tend to screw things up, so we should minimize the potential damage by not having very large political institutions, and by dispersing that power over smaller jurisdictions instead. (This sort of argument may also imply that power should be dispersed as much as possible within nations as well as between them) Finally, some people on the left argue that the EU is run mostly by people who want to implement (and have suceeded in implementing) neoliberal economic policies/austerity/etc. and that this harms the most vulnerable people in society. That might be an argument for reform of the existing institutions, or for abolishing them, depending on how optimistic you are about the possibility of change.### Human: In response 1) The "Democratic Deficit" argument is a valid one, but one where the blame is often misdirected. That is, the blame is directed towards the European Union as a whole, rather than those who are upholding that Democratic Deficit. In an ideal situation, the European Parliament would be the chief legislative power in the European Union, as it is the direct link between the common European Citizen and the Union, that is not the case however. Without delving too deep into the decision-making process of the European Union, one must remember that the Council of Ministers (a representative body of the various National Governments) and the European Commission, a body selected directly by the European Council (the 28 heads of Government/State in the case of the Commission President and High Representative) and the governments of the Member States. It is, in fact, the National Governments who are the driving force behind the European Union. Whether this is ideal or not or direct enough, from a Democratic standpoint, can be argued, but i wouldn't go as far as saying that the EU is undemocratic. 2) That is a very subjective and personal point. When is a political institution "large"? I live in a country of 5 million people, and to me the United Kingdom seems like a large political institution with 10 times the population of my country. Is this an argument against large nations as well as the European Union? There, of course, need to be the correct amount of checks and balances, but as far as i can see the fact that the 28 member states are represented equally in both the Commissions and the Council of Ministers make sure that small political institutions (states) are guarded. In the same train of thought, there are some problems that have to be solved on a very large scale. For example in the case of climate or trade. Here the European Union can provide the necessary framework for those 28 countries to unify in action and voice and project themselves more powerfully onto the world stage. 3) Again, the EU is not responsible for that, rather, it provides the framework for that action to take place. The fact that EU was founded as an economic and trade community probably gives it an institutional bias towards those areas that are traditionally represented by orthodox economic thought, but i don't see that as a complete argument against whether or not the EU can be changed. My country recently elected a liberal government with a national conservative coalition partner and i am directly opposed to many of their views, but that doesn't mean i want to secede from my country.### Assistant: >European Union can provide the necessary framework for those 28 countries to unify in action and voice and project themselves more powerfully onto the world stage. I haven't observed much unity lately, have you? The inability to come to shared agreements regarding the refugees has been very unimpressive.### Human: > I haven't observed much unity lately, have you? The inability to come to shared agreements regarding the refugees has been very unimpressive. The failure to use the framework lies with the users, and not the framework. I think most can agree that the EU provides an excellent framework for solving this crisis, but that there has been lacking political will to do so from some states. This is a fault of the state and not the framework.### Assistant: Hmmm... Well, what good is the framework, if it doesn't assist when unity is needed?

### Human: CMV: DFS sites like Fanduel are no different than the stock market and should not be banned### Assistant: Though investing does look like gambling, there is a major difference. When you by stock, you're actually investing in a company. That company uses your money to finance projects, acquire assets, etc., that creates additional money. Depending if the project succeeds or fails, your investment might grow or shrink, but it's still an investment and not a gamble. Betting on sports outcomes is nothing like that. Investing in a team would mean that you are paying for new equipment or new coaches or something with the promise that if the team wins you make some money back. But, that's not what sports betting is. The team doesn't see any benefit, only your shady bookie.### Human: Agreed, but would you say that both are essentially left to chance? You can research both stocks and player performance but at the end of the day anything can happen, I'd say there is at least an argument for some similarity, would you agree?### Assistant: To the individual taking the risk, there's not a huge difference. To society, there's a pretty big difference. Investment creates jobs and infrastructure, even if the investor ultimately loses. Gambling just shifts money around, often from people with poor judgment to people willing to take advantage of people with poor judgment - it has no substantial societal value. I still think gambling should be legal, but I see a huge difference between gambling and investing.### Human: It can have value to an individual that learns to make money from it. I can see some parallels to people that learn to corner the market or beat other businesses to stay relevant. It teaches you to study, predict opponent moves, weigh many different factors, complex math, and probably more that I don't know since I've never done any sports betting.### Assistant: Right, but gambling is zero sum. For someone to win at gambling, someone has to lose. Some individuals can come out ahead because of it, but for society as a whole it's neutral at best and arguably detrimental. Investing is not zero sum. For an investor to do well, nobody needs to lose anything. A company sells stock for money. They might use that money to build a factory. In that factory, they hire workers who have jobs because of the investment. They build products that the company sells to customers who are happy to trade money for the goods. Some of that money gets paid back to the people who bought stock. Everyone comes out ahead. Of course it's possible that the company can't find customers for its product, or the factory burns down and the investment becomes worthless. Money can be won or lost, but success is not dependent on other people failing. In gambling, the best you can hope for is someone else who takes a bad bet against you.

### Human: CMV: "Sexual orientations" such as demisexual (being attracted to people after forming a strong emotional bond) and sapiosexual (being attracted to people who are very intelligent) are not legitimate sexual orientations, but ways for straight people to feel "special". Instead, they are preferences.### Assistant: Well using your definition of orientation, your view is simply a truism. So the important question is: what makes something a sexual orientation? You say it is something that defines which sex and/or gender you're attracted to. I'm guessing the reason for this is that as a straight guy, I would never consider a sexual relationship with another male, but I would be willing to ignore my preference for burnettes if I was dating a blonde. Here's the thing though: what about *really* strong preferences? I'm willing to say that I would never have a sexual relationship with a morbidly obese woman. How is this any different from not having sex with a guy? In a sense, 'orientations' are just extremely strong preferences that define the ways we look for a partner. Whether that be by eliminating all people who are obese, all people or aren't intelligent, all people who I don't have strong bonds with, or all people who aren't a given sex/gender, I can't think of any reason these are inherently different. I might be much more capable of empathizing with one because I understand it better, but I have no way of knowing how another person feels attracted to another, and I'm in no position to make statements on who is making it up (as I'm sure a few people are) and who isn't.### Human: I completely understand what you're saying, but I'd like to explain where my definition comes from. You say that "'orientations' are just extremely strong preferences that define the ways we look for a partner", and that makes sense, but scientifically (or at least according to my limited knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong), the goal of any species is to reproduce, and the primal need for a partner is driven by the primal need to reproduce. Only certain sexes can reproduce with one another, and sexual orientations (or at least under my definition) determine whether a person can reproduce with another. For instance, a heterosexual can reproduce with a person of the opposite gender, but a homosexual has no ability to reproduce with the desired partner. Stating that one is "demisexual" doesn't mean anything as to whether or not one will be able to reproduce with their desired partner. Really good argument, but I think it's *just* short of a delta.### Assistant: That definition is perfectly valid, but you have to realize then by your definition there are only two possible sexual orientations and your view is simply a fact. This also would make being bisexual a preference, not an orientation.### Human: I feel like bisexuality is able to fit into the definition without demisexuals being able to fit into the definition. Bisexuality means that you can reproduce with some of your desired partners and not with others, but demisexuality doesn't make any mention or hint as to whether or not you can reproduce with your desired partners. In order to know this, you have to have an "actual" (under my definition) orientation such as bisexuality or heterosexuality.### Assistant: This excuse for "bisexual" seems pretty weak. It also means that there's no real distinction between asexual and homosexual, as far as "orientation" goes, because in *neither* case you are able to reproduce.

### Human: I believe Black Friday is a detestable corporate made tradition that turns people into mindless consumers and allows companies to force employees away from their families just to make more sales CMV### Assistant: Hello, I work in retail at the corporate level. From everyone I have talked to over the years, it's not crazy to say that we as a group do not like Black Friday. We'd really generally prefer it didn't exist. If the government declared that Thanksgiving lasted until 10 AM on Friday, that would be awesome. That said, every year we spend a huge amount of energy trying to figure out what all of our competitors are going to do, we open earlier, and we offer deeper discounts. Why? Because if we didn't, we would get death threats. You have to understand: right now, the US consumer is trained, drilled, and focused on nothing so much as getting a deal. They see the attempt to charge higher prices as a personal affront. You want to know what happens to a retailer that doesn't buy in to the "All Sale, All The Time" mantra? Ask JCP's shareholders how they feel about a stock price that's down from $40 to $7 in the space of 18 months. Years ago (pre-2009 crash), one of the retailers I worked for tried not to have sales on Black Friday (their concession was to open two hours earlier) and the feedback was crazy negative. Customers thought we were trying to rip them off. We had people swear they would never shop our brand again. And you know what? Long run, retailers don't make any extra money. Every study that's been done on the matter basically says that the shift towards Black Friday has actually been a rearranging of consumer traffic from early December forward into November. It's just a matter of - you can't be the only one not to do it. Retail is so competitive right now - reduced consumer spending, greater expectations of deals, more competition from internet retailers - that there's no room to be the last one to the party. It's not driven by corporations - it's driven by consumers. Believe it or not, for a lot of the country, they LOVE waking up at 2 AM to shop. I don't get it. But we're not the ones trying to create the frenzy.### Human: This. I hate when people think that these corporations are full of evil people that sit and concoct devious ways to seperate you from your dollar. The truth is they are trying to survive just like you. Are there bad people who take advantage of others? Absolutely. But they dont create the demand. You do.### Assistant: >The truth is they are trying to survive just like you. I'm sorry, but this seems ridiculous to me. Walmart apparently had a 15 BILLION dollar profit at the end of 2012. Target had close to 3 billion dollars profit. Apple had a 25 billion dollar profit. A lot of the people on the bottom are "just trying to survive," but the corporations themselves are doing quite well for themselves. I'll even question your "you create the demand" statement. I'm sure that's true, in large part, but you're neglecting to mention the massive advertising budgets these companies have to instill that desire and create the drive in people to create a demand. >http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/full_list/### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: That is true, I suppose.

### Human: CMV: I believe that the improvement and proliferation of 3D printing technology is inevitable, and will make most current methods of gun control/prohibition impossible. Governments need to acknowledge this and address the root causes if they wish to treat gun violence as a major public concern.### Assistant: The barriers to 3D printing guns are in materials, not printers. Right now, we don't have a plastic that holds up to the forces of exploding gunpowder anywhere near as well as steel, which is why we keep using steel. I don't see this changing anytime soon. Right now, the glock and it's knock-offs are using as much plastic as possible in construction. Magazine bodies, frames, triggers, and a few internals are made of polymers, but the slide, firing assembly, barrel, and springs are all still metals.### Human: A fully functional, fully plastic handgun has been assembled (less a useless block of metal to satisfy regulations, but that is totally unnecessary). But more importantly, the only regulated part of a gun (in most cases) is the frame/lower receiver; functional lower receivers have been printed as well. Also, there are plenty of 3D printers that work in steel; one team made a fully 3d printed 1911 (less the spring, I think) entirely of metal.### Assistant: Those fully functional, fully plastic handguns are known to explode in your hand after a shot or ~~two~~ eight. Call me crazy, but I want my guns to fire more than three shots before simply not working at best or blowing my hand off at worst. [Source](http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/14/3d-printed-gun-stands-up-to-federal-agents-testfiring-except-when-it-explodes-video/) At some point, it stops being "3D Printing" and becomes "Home Metalurgy" or "Home Manufacturing" which is, I think, distinct.### Human: From http://boingboing.net/2013/05/21/modified-liberator-gun.html, one lasted nine shots, and they only stopped because the sun went down. And this is just the first wave. And again, plastic is not the only material; guns have been entirely printed of metal.### Assistant: And again, companies have been "printing" metal guns since 1911; not that new for a company to be using manufacturing machinery to make guns. Even if you can do it at home, cost of materials and shipping make it rather impractical. There will also likely be all sorts of agency monitoring of people who order small amounts of steel (relative to the hundreds of pounds typically used for day to day manufacturing) should that be the case.### Human: What about people who decide to order small amounts of steel to print art/hardware/dinnerware/toys/etc?### Assistant: What about people who use e-mail and phone calls to talk to family, friends, banks, suicide hotlines, phone sex services, doctors, nurses, lawyers, or any other non-terrorism uses, in the NSA example? Just because the government tracks every single steel shipment for potential illegal firearms doesn't mean they follow up on it.### Human: In your email example, they can to a degree see what the email is doing and how it is being used. With the steel, it gets to the persons house and unless the agency is watching what happens in there, there is no way to see what a person does with it.

### Human: I believe that bicyclists need to follow the same set of rules that cars or motorcycles do while on the road, up to and including minimum speed, lane splitting, signaling, and traffic signs. Failing that, they need to stay off of the road. CMV.### Assistant: You're basically arguing that people should follow the law, so that's a tough one to debate. Ha! I happen to agree with you, I hate nothing more than entitled people -- *in general*. The only thing I can question is the minimum speed. It would be impossible for most people to meet the minimum speed. Such a policy would be discriminatory against out of shape commuters, and it would incentivize people not to bike. The side of the public roads is legally for bicyclists travelling at any speed. Drivers need to watch for them and share the road. Oppositely, if bicyclists want to drive on the big-boy street, they need to follow the law.### Human: Minimum speed has nothing to do with being discriminatory against anyone,it has to do with the fact that most bikes can't achieve those speeds. When was the last time you saw someone riding at 30mph? * I mean it's ridiculous to think "Oh yeah, bikers shouldn't have to follow the minimum speed because it's discriminatory against out of shape bikers". Homey, the minimum speed is most unreachable by any biker. You do realize you are comparing motorized vehicles to pedal power right?### Assistant: The roads with minimum speeds are almost all already legally bike free. All roads that don't have posted minimum speeds don't have minimum speeds. In the US at least### Human: I've never seen a road with a posted minimum speed in the US. I didn't know that was a thing.### Assistant: Mostly major highways, the only one I've ever seen is "minimum speed 40"

### Human: CMV: Ignorance of the law IS an excuse. In fact, it's probably the best excuse.### Assistant: While this is the way it is typically phrased, I think the real intent behind that is to simplify the concept that "it's impossible to *treat* ignorance of the law as an excuse, because anyone could claim to be ignorant of any law, no matter how obvious or obscure it might be, which would make it impossible to enforce laws at all".### Human: No one believes the assassin didn't know murder is illegal. Everyone believes the farmer didn't know his seasonal puddle is a body of water. Unfortunately, if you want to draw a line, it's gotta be somewhere in between.### Assistant: > Everyone believes the farmer didn't know his seasonal puddle is a body of water. It's his job to know. A farmer has to keep himself up to date to the regulations that affect him, this includes many regulations on environmental protection. Just as any German motorist can't just say that s/he didn't knew that you have to have a reflective vest in your car since last year. If you want to drive a car it's your responsibility to keep yourself up to date on driving regulations.### Human: I recently went to a department of agriculture meeting at my state Capitol. It was made pretty clear that even the senator was a bit fuzzy on the laws, and that they weren't even sure what the department was all responsible for. (They didn't realize puppy mills are a responsibility of that department to regulate.) It made it very clear to me how convoluted the laws can be if even *they* aren't fully aware. The farmer should know all he can, but I think there's a lot more to it than that and sometimes things fall through the cracks.### Assistant: This is probably a main reason why businesses who are found out of compliance are typically informed and given a reasonable amount of time to comply before there are any legal consequences.

### Human: CMV - in a truly libertarian economy, unions would rapidly become very powerful players, leading to a restablishment of a welfare state### Assistant: > unions get more and more effective the larger they get. At heart, they are simply rebalancing the power between a huge corporation and a single worker. Your thesis is a little all over the place, but this statement,in particular, is idealistic. Recently, Unions in LA demanded the right to negotiate for less than minimum wage for their workers? Why? Because they are losing members and by having union workers paid less, they would be more likely to have union people hired, and thus, union membership rolls would swell, and unions would earn more money. In other words, they were incentivized to act like the profit making organization they claimed to be fighting against. In any case, Libertarians don't have a problem with private sector unions. But they tend to dislike laws that force people to pay union dues, even if those said people don't feel like the union is representing them in any meaningful way.### Human: What is the possibility of having competing unions in the same industries? I'm pretty unfamiliar with how they work, but would that be a workable system?### Assistant: That has happened- I'm thinking of the many railroad unions that formed in the 20th century. However, they tend towards regionalisation. The NY union took over a fair bit of the New England area, Chicago area union got a big chunk of the northern mid-west, etc. So, they tend to end up like cable companies- while there are multiple ones in theory, they don't tend to actually compete with each other in many areas.### Human: Any idea why they don't tend to overlap geographically? Aware of any examples of that actually happening?### Assistant: They don't always end up geographically isolated- most of the time they end up politically divided. The reason that the Chicago union was separate from the NY union was simple- the workers in NY required different things from their counterparts in Chicago. Chicago in the late 19th, and early 20th century was the hub between the Western cattle market and the country's demand for meat. It's workers where concerned about the dangerous conditions they worked in (think safety-free, large band saws that were used to cut entire cows in half, and large meat hooks that whizzed past your head), and with the extreme quotas they where under. They were required to move X pounds of meat per hour. Since meat spoiled quickly, they need to get as much meat moving as quickly as possible. Whereas, the NY workers had different standards entirely. NY was, and still is, a major hub for commodities shipped from all over the world, and was staffed by poorly treated immigrants. They were paid by how accurately, quickly, and by how much freight they moved per 12-18 hour shift. The NY workers unionized because they were under-paid, over-worked, and were the recipients of serious discrimination. The Chicago workers unionized to make their quotas physically possible, and because their work environs were dangerous. The two unions had entirely different goals- thus, they never overlapped. Of course, political divisions aren't unique to unions- any group of people that forms together in an attempt to regulate the in-group's quality of life must necessarily be small enough to be responsive to the in-group's needs, whilst also being large enough to be an effective force against the out-group. If they get too many members, they can't meet their needs. If there's too few people, or too many small groups, they can't effectively resist the out-group. Thus, unions tend to be separate, large, and geographically divided groups- is just the must effective organization. ------ Now, as far as examples of overlapping smaller unions, NYC in the late 19^th, early 20^th century is a great example. New York had several de facto unions that were created by immigrants who felt, and honestly were, abused by their employers. These groups of immigrants pulled together to help each other compete for jobs and homes, but they weren't as concerned with how it effected their employers. Often times, employers would play these groups against each other. The result was violence (granted this probably wouldn't happen today), discrimination, and very little in the way of actual benefits. Since no single group had enough people, no one could demand change. They just weren't effective. It took the creation of individual, large, trade-based unions to create better work conditions. TL;DR: It takes a majority of workers to make a union effective. Multiple unions in one trade undermines the purpose of a union. It creates unnecessary tensions between employees, and make majority resistance difficult- if not impossible.### Human: Very informative, thank you. I only regret having this lower down in the threads... hope more people see this.

### Human: CMV: Zoos and aquariums are good for conservation and worth having even at the expense of the animal's happiness.### Assistant: I would start by saying that much of the "majesty" of seeing animals is lost in a zoo setting. That is a major trade-off for the ease/convenience from our perspective. Also, I am not convinced that zoos make most people love animals. Let me expand... Most animals in zoos live in sub-optimal conditions. For example, animals like bears or wolves that have a natural home range of dozens of several square miles live in tiny enclosures that they can fully explore in 5 minutes. Further, many zoo animal species aren't endangered or even seriously threatened, just "exotic." Clearly, places that provide captive breeding for eventual re-introduction into the wild are beneficial, but most zoos that I am aware of aren't doing this. And from a conservation biology standpoint, captive breeding is pretty low on the totem pole of conservation strategies-- it is often a last resort. Zoos did play a role in rearing California condors, for example. But there was a clear end-goal, not just 'let's lock up animals so people can gawk at them.' In my experience, zoos don't do much for getting people interested in conservation. IMHO, it instills/furthers the idea that conservation is a far off thing that has no relevance to normal people. Animals are often depressed and/or exhibit behaviors not normally seen in the wild. I see a lot of pointing and laughing, and I'm just not convinced that there is some romantic take-away of passion for conservation when most people visit zoos. Finally, I think that animal sanctuaries which temporarily house injured animals or permanently house animals that are non-releasable are okay as long as the animals' welfare is given serious consideration. I think these, at the very least, offer the same conservation education opportunities as zoos but would focus more on local animals and have few, if any, ethical concerns or quandaries. Further, there are plenty of opportunities to see wild animals up close: guided hikes, natural areas with trails, getting engaged with local groups like for herping or bat groups. For example, I believe that both kids and adults come away way more satisfied *and* educated when they spend a night helping mist-net and measure bats than they ever do seeing bats in an enclosure at the zoo.### Human: How many people can ever afford to travel to and see anywhere near the number of animals you can in a weekend trip to the local zoo? Sure seeing a lion in the savanna is more majestic, but its an impossibility for most people, let alone seeing a dozen similar animals.### Assistant: How often does the average person go to the zoo? I love animals (I LOVE THEM), but as a 23-yo, I've only been to zoos a handful of times. We could do without them.### Human: I go at least once a year, minimum.### Assistant: But my point is that we can do without them. They might entertain some people, but they aren't a necessity by any means.### Human: I think they are for a couple of reasons. 1. They are places of research. 2. They breed/protect endangered species. 3. Other reasons mentioned in post.### Assistant: To your second point, breeding endangered species in captivity is, in my opinion, pretty pointless. They can't be released into the wild and if the only purpose of having them is just to say they aren't extinct, I don't see the point. The animals don't know they're endangered now do they care. And having the animals locked in captivity impactful to their happiness just for the sake of people saying they saved the species. They species doesn't care, I'm sure if they're good ng to go extinct they would rather do it in the wild and now over a drawn out period in captivity.### Human: But... They can be released into the wild. I don't know why you're so sure they don't.### Assistant: When it comes to predators, they typically do not survive. And most animals born in captivity do not stand nearly as good a change as natural born animals. They don't have the same drive to secure territory nor do they have the same motivation to mate or the natural fear of larger predators. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080123-carnivores-wild_2.html### Human: I notice that's only talking about mammals.

### Human: CMV: Donald Trump is going to plunge our country, and the world, into ruin.### Assistant: >It is a very dark day for America, as well as the rest of the world. This is outrageous hyperbole. >While I don't really care about Roe v. Wade or gay marriage, although I do support both of them Please stop believing everything the media tells you. Liberal media bias is real. I'm done arguing that it's not. It's abundantly, overwhelmingly, face-slappingly obvious. Please try to better inform yourself using alternate sources. Hint: If every article you read on Trump selectively edits his words, brings up "racism" or "sexism" or literally compares him to Hitler (as someone who doesn't even like Trump, people who unironically compare him to Hitler actually ENRAGE me. It's idiotic and so insulting to history) then please stop and consider the source and consider that if you aren't paying for a product, YOU ARE the product. Trump is literally the most gay-friendly Republican candidate in history, full stop. Trump has literally never said anything in opposition to gay rights, and quite the contrary, he made it clear both before and after Orlando that he supports the gay community and considers them part of the America he wants to protect. Please educate yourself about this. Roe v. Wade scaremongering is also silly if you stop and think. If you want to argue that Republicans in general will overturn, then fine. But it's obvious to anyone with a brain that Trump is not an evangelical Christian true believer and has been pro-abortion in the past. It's so, so obvious that anything he's said about abortion has been pandering to conservative extremists. I'm 99% sure Trump personally does not care about abortion, except possibly late-term abortion, and even then probably not as much as he's pretended to in order to win support of Bible-thumpers. Trump is a more socially progressive and libertarian candidate than almost any Republican candidate has ever been, which contributed to his popularity among independents and his being elected. Please stop pretending he is Literally Hitler. Hot damn am I sick of hearing/reading this hyperbole. >In addition, the reason the U.S. Is so successful is because it had European allies. This is just ridiculously wrong. Like, opposite-land wrong. The reason the U.S. became a world power was due to abundant resources and industry at home and a long policy of isolationism before and through WW1 and WW2. And if you mean "allies" in the sense of military allies, like, literally nothing about the U.S.'s success at home came even partially from "European allies" (unless you want to argue France helping us in our war of independence counts, which, okay) The fact is that the U.S military has been propping up NATO for a long time with no real equivalent "payment" from Europe except the hope that if America sticks around, bigger problems won't develop that we'll have to clean up later anyway. >We've lost those, and now it is us, Russia, and China against the world. We've lost our European allies? Seriously? What does this even mean? No we haven't? >Nuclear war is very much possible. Nuclear war has been possible for a long time, I seriously doubt the mere fact of Trump getting elected is enough to set it off. I need more than this bald statement with no explanation. >And don't forget, our Vice President-elect is a young earth creationist! We can say goodbye to science education! Sigh.### Human: > Trump is literally the most gay-friendly Republican candidate in history, full stop. Trump has literally never said anything in opposition to gay rights, and quite the contrary, he made it clear both before and after Orlando that he supports the gay community and considers them part of the America he wants to protect. Please educate yourself about this. He's *never* said anything in opposition to gay rights? His Supreme Court nomination list has several picks that oppose the *Obergefell* gay marriage decision, and some who even argued for sodomy laws. He has also stated he is for "traditional marriage". His stance that the issues of LGBT rights should be "left to the states" is nothing less than a declaration that LGBT people are not deserving of equal rights throughout the United States promised to them by the 14th amendment, but can instead be oppressed by their states. That combined with his pick of Pence does not reflect someone who is very concerned with LGBT rights.### Assistant: Someone opposing the supreme Court decision is not in any way necessarily opposition of gay marriage. The judicial branch doesn't make law, they reaffirm it. And there is an argument to be made against that decision, as unfortunate as it may be.### Human: What possible argument is there for sodomy laws? The point is that Trump has positioned himself to not have the support of LGBT people who care about these rights, and that he is a far cry away from being LGBT friendly.### Assistant: I didn't say anything you are arguing against. I'm talking gay marriage, not sodemy, and I didn't say trump was pro lgbt (though I think he's neither pro or anti). I'm not the person you originally responded to.

### Human: I believe Digital Piracy is wrong, and needs to be stopped. CMV.### Assistant: Here's how I look at it. The entertainment industry (and others fighting against digital piracy) has a serious economic problem. The product they make used to be tied to a medium (DVD, VHS tape, Cassette, etc.). Then technology evolved and their product is available for free to anyone who knows how to use a computer. This greatly affects their supply and demand. It's a drastic change in supply. Yet, they wish to maintain the price of the product they sell as if this didn't happen. I've said this here before, but I think it's a good example. Imagine a company that makes bottled water. They charge a premium for the water because everyone wants water and theirs is good. Then, the dams break and streams of fresh water flow through every town. All of a sudden water is free for anyone motivated to go collect it themselves. meanwhile the water company is running through the streets calling them thieves, etc. The mistake that the water company makes is trying to vilify people who gather their own water. They've got to justify their high prices, or LOWER THEIR PRICES. It's basic marketing/sales. There are a couple of companies doing a good job adjusting. For instance, spotify offers streaming music at what I think is a very reasonable price. I pay for a premium account. Also Netflix. They are even beginning to create their own content and have become THE company to watch in the digital media space. When your product becomes readily available overnight, the appropriate reaction is to adjust your pricing, adjust your offering and figure out a way to adapt. Major film studios and record labels built their entire businesses on the price of their product, so I understand their need to resist the change, but to blame the customer seems a poor solution and a failing strategy. Offering the product at a price that is more in line with supply would be better. I don't feel that digital content should be free, I just think it's the distributor's responsibility to come up with a way to charge for it that people will be happy with. It's not the responsibility of the individual customer to protect the profits of any company. Think about that. It's a crap strategy that will never work. These companies have to adjust or make room for companies that will.### Human: > Imagine a company that makes bottled water. They charge a premium for the water because everyone wants water and theirs is good. Then, the dams break and streams of fresh water flow through every town. All of a sudden water is free for anyone motivated to go collect it themselves. meanwhile the water company is running through the streets calling them thieves, etc. Just to be clear...the company legally owned the (now broken) dams, right? They had rights to the water, and anyone who disagreed with their prices/policies can purchase bottled water from another vendor...right? I mean, you aren't speaking of "digital products" as a naturally occurring phenomena like water? There aren't fields and streams of untamed internet space where Dreamworks Movies naturally spawn, fully produced with no expense incurred to anyone. That water in the dam...did it require millions of dollars to purify, flavor, filter, and drill/extract? An expense incurred by the water purification company and sold to willing consumers? If I'm following you correctly, let me turn the metaphor around: Your apartment/home is flooded with water, and all of your possessions are washed out into the public street. You run around frantically, trying to collect your possessions, but people keep dashing out and taking your clothes, your CDs, your electronics... ...when you yell at them to give back the product or at least pay you for it, they ignore you and laugh with glee at their new-found "free" product. ... I suppose my issue is that a product (even a digital "intangible product") is created using a standard model with substance. A company/individual puts real currency into the development of a product, and the sale of that product ideally returns what was initially invested. By failing to trade "real money" for "intangible product", you are removing money from someone's pocket because the entire process for creating the "intangible product" required "real money".### Assistant: I gotta agree with this. The water analogy depends on the product being water. A toy company's storage facility breaks. People could not just run around grabbing toys and claiming them. Better analogy: A fruit company's storage facility breaks. All the fruit is unrecoverable because it's going to spoil in the next few hours, and it doesn't cause additional economic damage to the fruit company if people were to grab the fruit and use it. They still may not simply take the fruit, because that fruit belongs to the company. Putting aside the morality of the fruit company's decision *not* to allow people to just take the fruit and use it, the fruit's ownership doesn't change just because it becomes easily and cheaply available to people. Taking it would be theft. Whether copyright infringement is *immoral* is another question, but the cornerstone of western property rights is the principle of exclusivity. If I own a house, it doesn't cost me anything if you come stand on the property and don't touch anything. However, if I don't want you doing that, then I have every right to make you leave, and *you* are in the wrong for violating my property rights.### Human: I see your point, and this analogy makes a bit more sense. Still...the rotting fruit is owned by the company. What if they wanted to boil it down and make some side product? What if they wanted to generate a huge, ridiculously sized smoothie for their paid employees? What if the CEO has a fetish for rotting fruit, and wants to swim naked in a pond full of rotting fruit? The fruit is his...it isn't public domain. He never said it was free, he never said random people can take what they want. If you create/produce something amazing that people want (at your own expense), are you obligated to give it up freely to anyone who wants it?### Assistant: If it costs you *literally nothing* for them to have it, and they weren't going to buy it from you anyway, what's the problem? The only people who could possibly be harmed are the ones providing the bandwidth, and they don't seem to mind.

### Human: CMV: The constant ringing of church bells, particularly at sections of each hour is rude and intrusive### Assistant: Why church bells specifically? A lot of other establishments have bells that ring every hour. There are many clocks that do, either in your home, or in public. Think Big Ben. This seems more like your opinion, which I think we will be unable to change. Yes, it is annoying, no doubt about it. But it's also a relatively harmless tradition, I think, from a time where access to clocks and alarms was not ubiquitous. I personally enjoy the sound of bells. I went to a college that had a giant clock tower that would ring every hour on the hour and I always enjoyed the rhythmic tranquility and the reminder of the passage of time.### Human: I guess church bells specifically because they seem to me to have a more intrusive intention than a clock tower such as Big Ben. To me it seems as though the regular ringing is a gesture of dominance of the particular religion over the surrounding area and I think it's wrong that it's so acceptable that such an assertion of a particular theology is allowed. On the other hand though you've definitely opened my eyes to the fact that it's a throwback to times where many actually used the bells to manage their time. I guess you've split my view currently and I'd really appreciate more insight.### Assistant: > To me it seems as though the regular ringing is a gesture of dominance of the particular religion over the surrounding area and I think it's wrong that it's so acceptable that such an assertion of a particular theology is allowed. This interpretation of the bell-ringing phenomenon seems very improbable to me. As far as I know, bells have no theological significance outside [some select traditions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_bell_ringing); I think they are, as you said, simply a throwback to an age before the advent of wall clocks and watches. In other words, church clocks are no different from their secular counterparts, and you seem to be projecting an intent that is not really there.### Human: I don't think clock towers are any less intrusive, but there are a lot more churches than clock towers. This CMV is about churches. You are trying to say they are right because others do the same thing.### Assistant: You are trying to force an issue that is not unique, and apply it to a singular group. If you find bells signaling the time to be obtrusive, you should therefore hold all forms of time tolling to be equally obtrusive. Instead the argument is being made that you find churches to be abnormally obtrusive, despite the fact that their actions are equivalent to any number of secular scenarios. So do you feel that churches are intrusive only because of their religious connotation, and not because the ringing of bells to tell time are uniquely intrusive?### Human: I just find any obnoxious noise at every hour intrusive. I think the OP mentioned churches because many more of us live closer to churches than clock towers.### Assistant: I think that bells serve an important community purpose and can be relied upon in the event of a failure of the cellular networks. It is important for a community to be universally aware of the time, and a sound played at a designated time continues to be the most effective way of reaching the vast majority of the community. It is also uncommon for public clocks to toll every hour, 24 hours a day, just like it many communities use sirens to designate the hour, but not after certain times.

### Human: CMV: Politicians and pundits should make public bets when they have disagreements about measurable impacts of policies.### Assistant: Betting on politics is not just an example of conflict of interests, it is to me the exact same thing as plain corruption: having a personal financial interest into political decisions and commentary. You're idea is to get information and make them focus on important stuff. Putting more money into the system is the opposite of that. What we need to achieve that is more financial data on what's happening (personal, company and party finances). And faking the stats, or labeling failure as success is already more than enough to cope with. If we need a financial risk on someone's shoulders for us to call bullshit, that would be really sad. Betting is perfect for impredictable and meaningless events like sports or random stuff like cards or dice. For serious stuff that's ok if we don't have a part in it, not too widespread, and if it's not too much money.### Human: This is potentially a bigger concern, if it were enacted ineffectively, but I don't think it's really as big a deal as you make it sound. Firstly, potential corruption effects would be taken into account in the betting. Politicians aren't stupid, and would know if the other side was likely to sabotage the policy or the measurement. Given what's at stake here, such a corruption would be tantamount to voting fraud. Secondly, this can easily be seen from a perspective of adding accountability. It might be sad if we need a financial risk on someone's shoulders to call bullshit. It doesn't mean it's not true. People objected to Nate Silver betting on the election in 2012, because of the financial conflict of interest. The obvious solution here, would be to randomly bet on one side or another, at the odds he was given. That way, he wouldn't know if he's winning $9 for $1 on Romney, or $1 for $9 on Obama, and his incentive is to give an accurate report, not sway things one way or another. There are ways to design bets to minimize corruption.### Assistant: Thinking outisde of the box or giving up on idealist views is ok with me. But betting on policies or fining politicians destroys the idea of achieving something big in politics and renders the whole thing trivial. We want our system to deal with the more important stuff, because this is what matters on the large scale. We have to be the ones that set the goals by demanding to deal with these. In a system where personal interest or pressure run the show, there is an **incentive to focus on the most menial things** (to be able to show an easy success), and to label failure a success. We should not accept that politicans and the media set our agenda so often. The frustration that comes from seeing them not caring about anything but their career is huge, but the answer has to be a political and social one, not financial. That's ok in the business world by definition but not in politics.### Human: Your third paragraph is where the crux of your argument seems to be based, so I'm going to respond to those two points. The rest seems to predominately be about how you feel about it, and not whether it would be effective or not. **1) An incentive to focus on the most menial things** If a policy demonstrates strong odds of being a success, then that's fine. If it doesn't show a clear benefit in the betting markets, then maybe it's not such a good idea to implement that policy. I don't have a problem at all with politicians focusing on boring policies that show a good benefit. **2) An incentive to label failure a success** Since there are going to be people betting differently on any given policy, each side will have an incentive for the outcome to be closer to their side. If the definition of the measurement doesn't seem fair to either side, then they're not going to bet. These are going to be well-defined ahead of time to prevent that exact problem, counter to existing incentives, where politicians are under no obligation to record exactly what they expect a policy to achieve.### Assistant: **tl/dr: I give my opinion on how the system should be, I say that your idea drives the whole system in the opposite direction, even though it could resolve part of the problems.** It is well thought out, so it could be effective regarding accountability. I was arguing that despite winning in the narrow field of individual direct accountability (which is already big), the broader consequences for the whole system are catastrophic. It's like saying that paying students a little (like $1 or $2 an hour) in junior high and high school will make them happily stay. Yeah that solves the problem of skiving (right word?). But that says that education is worth very little and that students ought to be working for 6 or $8 an hour instead of studying. Same thing for chores. If you pay your young kids $5 to do something in the house, that teaches them the value of work and money, great. But that says also that if they want to earn something, they'd better find something outside for $10 **instead** and not do your work. The other way is to not pay them for chores and teach them that it's also their duty to take part, and that it's not like work. I am not saying putting money into the system is inefficient or bad, I say it destroys core values at the same time. Sometimes it is ok sometimes it is not.

### Human: CMV: GMO's are beneficial to the human race and people who are afraid of them are basing their opinions in assumptions and paranoia instead of facts.### Assistant: GMO in itself is not inherently good or bad, it's a tool and just like every other tool it can be used for both positive and negative things. One genetically modified carrot might be perfectly healthy while another one can turn out poisonous. And the problem is, as I understand it, that there is not enough science being done on *each* individual modification to determine if it is safe for our health and for the environment. You can't simply conclude that all GMO's are good or bad. Certain big companies ignore this and just want to push out new products before enough testing has been done to determine if their specific product is safe or not. Such tests take a very long time. I don't have an example but I'm sure I've heard of some health experiments that are going on for 10+ years to be able to provide reliable results. ^(Edit: grammar)### Human: > One genetically modified carrot might be perfectly healthy while another one can turn out poisonous. Why? Unless the modification to the genetic code is a section of DNA that makes the carrot produce a poisonous substance, how would this happen?### Assistant: By exactly what you said. Genetics are very complicated, and messing with one small piece could potentially effect other pieces. There is an ongoing study in Russia on domestication using foxes. They have been using selective breeding to encourage tameness, and interestingly their foxes are getting that curl in the tail that huskies get. Who would have seen that coming?### Human: Selective breeding is different from genetic modification in a lab environment in that you cannot control all of the variables. The reason the tame foxes are getting a curl in their tail is due to the fact that a majority of the tame wolves had a genetic predisposition to have curled tails. Correlation does not equal causation. When you add a gene that makes corn produce chemicals which are natural herbicides, it does not also spontaneously start to glow on the dark. If the foxes had been genetically modified to be less inclined to violent/wild behavior, they would not suddenly have more curly tails. Genetics don't work like that. Edit: > Genetics don't work like that. /u/jimmypesto10 pointed out that unrelated traits can be affected. I have addressed this below.### Assistant: > Genetics don't work like that. Yes it does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiotropy### Human: Perhaps I should have phrased that differently;Genetics, by and large, don't work like that. If there was a case in which a change in one trait caused harmful effects in the resulting product, the resulting genetic change would be discovered and avoided. Companies which do this test their products. If they didn't, people would be able to point to a single case in which negative traits have arisen in GMOs. However, no such cases exist.### Assistant: Err pleiotropy isn't at all uncommon. The fact there hasn't been a case of it rearing it's ugly head is probably a combination of luck and how little GM has actually been done. If you are suggesting we wait for a disastrous pleiotropic modification to be out in the wild, potentially destroying food supplies, so that we can maintain profits in the here and now then you aren't being at all reasonable. The reality is we don't understand genetics particularly well beyond the most basic concepts. We certainly don't have any idea of what every single gene does or even how genes interact with each other. Navigating this field in such a blind manner is inviting disaster.### Human: > The fact there hasn't been a case of it rearing it's ugly head is probably a combination of luck and how little GM has actually been done. GMOs are incredibly widespread. They account for over 80% of all corn and soy planted in the US alone. The reason no disasters have occurred is because the people who do this know what they are doing and they test their products before they are sold. We are not navigating the field of genetics with only a basic knowledge of what we are doing. If we didn't know what the genes we use in GMOs do, then the entire GMO industry would not exist.### Assistant: Right but a small number of GM crop varieties are actually produced they just account for a substantial proportion of the US crop yield. As more companies get involved in GM the number of varieties will increase and the chance that one of them is dodgy will increase. This is also not mentioning the fact that pretty minimal modification is generally done with these plants, splicing in genes is a fucking pain in the arse so if you can get the product you want without splicing loads of genes in, you accept it. That will most likely change paving the way for extensively modified crops. And I think you overestimate how much people know about genetics. We know the base codons and perhaps a fair few of the actual genes but fields like epigenetics are currently growing hugely. Even ignoring all that the biochemical effects of what we are doing are pretty unknown. A protein produced in one plant may have a vastly different effect when produced in another plant due to post-translational modifications or just unintended interactions. Basically we know enough to make changes but not enough to know that we aren't fucking up. The whole testing thing I'm skeptical of. A similar industry was Pharma and the testing was pretty poor until the thalidomide scandal happened. Considering the poor quality of oversight that other branches of the government have over industries, I'd be shocked if GM crop producers were properly monitored to ensure adequate testing. Even if testing is adequate we just have no idea whether there are dormant modifications that will become active later in life. Another consideration is that introducing mutations could cause genetic instability. You would suddenly have a chunk of a chromosome that was particularly unstable and so mutations could more easily occur there. Basically there is a veritable potential can of worms### Human: > Right but a small number of GM crop varieties are actually produced they just account for a substantial proportion of the US crop yield. No, a small number of varieties are sold, as in, the ones which produce the most food and are the safest. > As more companies get involved in GM the number of varieties will increase and the chance that one of them is dodgy will increase. This is also not mentioning the fact that pretty minimal modification is generally done with these plants, splicing in genes is a fucking pain in the arse so if you can get the product you want without splicing loads of genes in, you accept it. That will most likely change paving the way for extensively modified crops. More companies does not imply worse quality, in fact, it demands the opposite. Competition demands high quality or a business will fail. > And I think you overestimate how much people know about genetics. We know the base codons and perhaps a fair few of the actual genes but fields like epigenetics are currently growing hugely. Even ignoring all that the biochemical effects of what we are doing are pretty unknown. Yes, they are growing, and thus we will learn even more about genetics, however this does not mean that the fact that we don't know everything is dangerous. The fact is that if a company distributes a product which ends up harmful to people the company suffers, and thus it is in their best interest to test their product as well as the fact that the USDA tests these products, which ensures that they are safe. >A protein produced in one plant may have a vastly different effect when produced in another plant due to post-translational modifications or just unintended interactions. Allow me to quote /u/MacStylee once again: RNA polymerase doesn't come along and go, Woah, this sequence was inserted by Monsanto, those guys are dicks, let me just add a bit of cancer here. > Basically we know enough to make changes but not enough to know that we aren't fucking up. The whole testing thing I'm skeptical of. A similar industry was Pharma and the testing was pretty poor until the thalidomide scandal happened. Considering the poor quality of oversight that other branches of the government have over industries, I'd be shocked if GM crop producers were properly monitored to ensure adequate testing. Even if testing is adequate we just have no idea whether there are dormant modifications that will become active later in life. Again, GMOs are tested exhaustively and no negative health effects have been discovered. At all. >Another consideration is that introducing mutations could cause genetic instability. You would suddenly have a chunk of a chromosome that was particularly unstable and so mutations could more easily occur there. Basically there is a veritable potential can of worms. These products are sold every year. They do not reproduce, they cannot mutate, The plants themselves are often infertile and the contracts that are signed when these products are sold strictly forbid attempting to breed genetically modified plants.### Assistant: While I agree with the main point of your argument, it is important to note that infertile plants have never been sold on the market. Anyways, there is little evidence of gene flow from soybeans because of their self-pollinating nature (gene flow could not be detected at 10 meters planting distance). As for maize, teosinte is pretty much nonexistent in the wild now, so gene flow isn't really a concern. I can't say much about cotton. These three crops make up the majority of GMOs.### Human: > While I agree with the main point of your argument, it is important to note that infertile plants have never been sold on the market. Really? I could've sworn that I have read about infertile plants being sold. I'll see what I can find. In any case, this still means that there's not a lot to worry about regarding cross-pollination.### Assistant: It's called the terminator gene, by activists. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/terminator-seeds.aspx Basically they said they would never commercialize it. Sometimes companies research things that they never release.

### Human: CMV: God is a bad theory to explain life and the universe### Assistant: > If God is all powerful then can he create a stone even he can't lift? If he can create such stone but can't lift it he's by definition not omnipotent and if he can't create such stone he's also not omnipotent. What's usually meant by "omnipotent" by theists is the ability to do anything *logically* possible. BTW, it's more useful to simply call yourself an agnostic rather than an agnostic atheist.### Human: I don't call myself agnostic because by definition it doesn't answer the question of belief at all. Usually I call myself just an atheist, but unfortunately it's a very misunderstood and loaded term when it literally only means "not-theist", like "asexual" is "not-sexual".### Assistant: > by definition it doesn't answer the question of belief at all Yes it does, because the concept of knowledge contains in itself the concept of belief (if someone knows X, then he necessarily believes X).### Human: If someone knows X, then they believe X. True. But if someone believes X, they don't necessarily know X. If you say you won in a lottery I may not believe you but at the same time I cannot know you didn't.### Assistant: > But if someone believes X, they don't necessarily know X This is of course true, because to know X, X has to be true. But nobody is going to believe X and simultaneously think X is false; so nobody should think they believe X but don't know X. > but at the same time I cannot know you didn't. If you have good reason to think he didn't, then yes you can. To know X, you don't have to think not-X is impossible. (For example, I know that Jupiter is the fifth planet from the sun, but I don't think it's *impossible* that there's a planet among the asteroid belt that scientists haven't discovered yet.)### Human: u/laughinpolarbear is using belief and knowledge, to indicate degrees of certainty. Rather than "translate atheist" --if you will-- into without belief, it could easily be translated to with out theology or with out faith. What it comes down to is the notion of special knowledge leading to a few different kinds of religious beliefs. Gnostic theists: these are the guys that claim to have special knowledge of the divine, many evangelicals/baptists/fundamentalist religions fall into this category. Then you have agnostic theists: these are the people, who would say things like it makes me feel good to believe, some new agey/spiritual but not religious people fall into this camp. They tend not to make specific claims about deities, or if they do it is a kinda we are all worshiping the same thing in our own way. They believe in the power of belief. Agnostic atheists: Here we get people like u/laughinpolarbear, they don't practice or have leaning to any faith, not opposed to the idea out and out, but there is nothing leading them to suppose any religion has any legitimate truth claim, thus if there are an arbitrarily large number of possible deities then the notion of picking the right one becomes vanishingly small, so you might as well run your life the way you want unbeholden to any religious sect. Lastly gnostic athiests: I have never met one of these. These would be people to know for certain that not only is any one particular god not real, but that any potential deity is also not true. Meaning one can have or lack a faith or a theology with or with out any degree of certainty.### Assistant: And that illustrates exactly why such a scheme is not useful. On the one hand you lump the many people who are on the fence about whether or not God exists together with the many people who are 99% sure God doesn't exist all under the broad and cumbersome label "agnostic atheist", and on the other hand you have the label "gnostic atheist" for a position that virtually no one holds.### Human: I disagree with your assessment of usefulness. The two completely different questions those answer give more information about the person. Generally speaking, the agnostic atheists and agnostic theists are the more open minded crowd. You can usually talk to them. But the gnostic atheists and gnostic theists usually end up being a waste of time.### Assistant: Do you agree with either of these two claims? * Virtually no one is a gnostic atheist. (Two people in this thread have said this to me now.) * Being on the fence about God's existence is a very different position from being 99% sure that God doesn't exist.### Human: >* Virtually no one is a gnostic atheist. (Two people in this thread have said this to me now.) I would agree that the number of atheists who proclaim to know that no gods exist are likely low enough to be considered a minority within the whole atheist population. But I don't consider the number so small that I could reasonably describe it as virtually no one. >* Being on the fence about God's existence is a very different position from being 99% sure that God doesn't exist. I agree. But I don't agree that is what agnostic means. Agnosticism relates the nature of knowledge about the various gods. To be agnostic is to hold the position that it is unknowable and can't be proven. It may be true or it may be false, but you can't claim to know for sure one way or the other. One can be an agnostic concerning a god. That person can then either believe or not believe in that gods existence.

### Human: CMV: I don't believe illegal immigrants in America deserve citizenship more than those who go through the legal process### Assistant: It isn't about "deserving" it more than those who go through the legal process, it's about pragmatically solving the problem. A decade ago we had an economic boom while Mexico was struggling. We were starved for unskilled labor, and our immigration quotas/laws didn't really reflect the needs - the only viable paths were family connections or educated white collar jobs / schools with sponsorship. Unsurprisingly, illegal immigration filled that gap. Now that our economy sputtered and we have less demand for those jobs, illegal immigration is declining. None of those are perceptions; it happened. It would have been nice to fix that problem in our immigration laws before it happened, but it happened. Ok, so now we have a group of people that have been here 5-10 years and are contributing members of society, many with children whom do not remember their homeland, and are undocumented and in the shadows. Mass deportation isn't productive for the nation as a whole, nor the people it affects. A combination of punitive fees (most solutions being proposed include fines of $5-10k), proof of productive/gainful employment, and a path to citizenship seems balanced to me and doesn't somehow shortchange other immigrants. Every country everywhere does and has the right to factor in the nation of origin (along with a million other factors) when granting entrance/visas/citizenship for obvious reasons (treaties, culture, threats, etc) - and the United States & Mexico-Carribean have always had very intertwined histories / cultures / people / trade. This idea that lenience on a particular situation is somehow "unfair" to people from other nations and other means of entry is nonsensical... they don't have any more of a "right" than anyone else.### Human: As long as there has unemployment in America we have never been starved for unskilled labor. The problem is American citizens would rather collect welfare than spend 10 hours in the sun working.### Assistant: Are you saying that when I was unemployeed recently, I should have taken that job to swing a hammer instead of waiting for an accounting job to come my way? I mean, I did go to university for an accounting degree. And have 7 years experience in the field. But if you say so, the next time I'm unemployeed, I'll take the first unskilled laborer job that comes my way.### Human: You have a skill. There are plenty of unemployed people who have no education and no trade experience. They should be working the fields instead of buying lottery scratchers with our taxes.### Assistant: Welfare isn't about fairness. It is the acknowledgement that if we do not help the poor and unemployed buy food and shelter then we will pay just as much or more locking them up after they steal or engage in illegal activities to pay the bills. Personally I'd rather pay to educate someone because education is an investment with limitless potential. Prison is a dead end. And before you tell me that we shouldn't be giving money to people who are too lazy to work or to those willing to engage in a life of crime, I'd like to hear your suggestion on what to do with the people on welfare. Kicking people off welfare and letting them fend for themselves would be catastrophic to our economy and way of life. I can support welfare programs without also endorsing laziness. I don't like lazy people, but I hate anarchy even more. Unfortunately there are no great options.### Human: I guess I just don't feel like compromising with those who would otherwise threaten violence and theft. If we don't give them our money, they will forcibly take it? I say I'll keep my money and invest in a gun and some home Security. I'm not sure how it would be catastrophic. There used to be lots of charities and mutual aid societies before the government edged them out. Honestly if the government didn't lay totally unfounded claim on so much unowned land, those people could all move out of the cities and homestead some of that land with a little house and farm to feed their families.### Assistant: >There used to be lots of charities and mutual aid societies before the government edged them out. Do you have a source on that? Are you saying that charity would be capable of picking up the slack caused by cuts to welfare benefits? Because if you are, I would love to know why you think that. I see a lot of conservatives say this like it is fact yet I've never seen proof. It's all based on gut feeling, from what I can tell. And it is very likely that the amount you pay in taxes is less than the monetary value of the government services and public infrastructure you use.

### Human: CMV: There's nothing wrong with language death and attempts at revitalizing dying languages are a complete waste of time and effort.### Assistant: As a linguist who has worked on a documentation/revitalization project, I feel like I should chime in here. For what's it worth, I agree with your general sentiment that there isn't a particular moral imperative to save languages. We don't need them to exist - as long as we have one to communicate with, we'll be just fine. Having said that, many people do want their own languages documented or revived for personal reasons, which I respect. Sometimes communities organize their own revitalization efforts, and sometimes even pay linguists to help them (this happened at my former university, where I participated in the documentation/revitalization project). As linguists, we do have independent reasons for wanting to at least document these languages before they die (and ideally preserve or revitalize them for later study). Each language that exists contains structures that may not be present in any other language. Studying human language is one branch in the pursuit to understand the human mind. By examining structures present in human languages, we learn interesting things about the boundaries of cognition, and about how the human mind is organized. For every language that dies, that is a potentially huge amount of data that is lost. Science is all about data. Losing access to data is not a good thing, and if we want to know as much as we can about a subject, we have to make sure we have good access to good data.### Human: I'm curious what you mean by: > Each language that exists contains structures that may not be present in any other language. What kind of structures? Grammatical? That likely isn't the case, and if one were to claim it is, I'd like to see a single example.### Assistant: I'm not a linguist but I've found a [great video](https://youtube.com/watch?v=QYlVJlmjLEc) by Tom Scott on such structures### Human: While this guy is engaging, I don't think he's actually presented any structures that English can't have / other languages uniquely have. To break down his four examples: 1. Time-Independence: well, first of all, despite what he's suggesting, "I dance" is not strictly present tense, though we would call it simple present. It could mean "habitually / regularly" (e.g. not strictly in the present) tsk tsk bad-middle-part guy... Furthermore, what's the difference between saying "I dance" and "wo tiaowu" which is "I dance" in Chinese? Conjugation doesn't necessitate connection with time. 2. Clusivity is NOT confusing in English. If someone comes up to you and says "we've just won the lottery," and it's someone you've never met before, context will probably tell you that "you" are not part of the "we." (See Grice's maxims) Plus, you could be more specific and say "my wife and I" or whatever if you wanted to be more explicit. What is inherently better about including this meaning in grammar / syntax? 3. Absolute direction - even according to this dude, absolute direction IS present in English (NESW). As far as "your brain just handles it", I'd like to see some sort of evidence for this. 4. Evidentiality - he even says "you can do this in English but it's not required" - again, see point 2 - just because something isn't "baked" into English syntax doesn't mean that it isn't a feature of the language. If you're interested in this kind of stuff, look up the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the arguments that many many linguists have made against it. (Edit: format)### Assistant: Generally, when we talk about what structures are present or absent in a language, we're talking about what is grammaticized in that language. Evidentiality is very easy to express in any language, including English, but it isn't a grammaticized feature of English. This might seem trivial, but it has a lot to say about biases present in the human mind. Slobin (iirc) wrote a paper about what sorts of features are and are not amenable to grammaticization cross-linguistically, which I think is a really interesting idea.### Human: Sure, I take your point about what is and isn't expressed grammatically (though I still think that my criticisms of points 1 and 3 in that video still stand). I'm not saying that differences in syntax between languages are trivial -- on the contrary, I'd say they're incredibly interesting. I am however saying that no known structures are unique, nor do differences in grammar preserve any "wisdom" of a culture that could not be expressed in another language with a different syntax. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts to the contrary-- especially with regard to what you said about syntax displaying bias in the mind.

### Human: CMV: Chariot for Women is a discriminatory business idea and it should not be allowed.### Assistant: Yes, it's discriminatory, but so are many things. The better question is: is there a significantly weighted and valid reason for this this discrimination? It's no secret that the majority of female complaints with Uber (as in, officially logged to them) deal with harassment. A company has looked at this and seen a demand - a market - and decided to capitalize on it. It discriminates in the same way as any other demand isolates a particular want or desire, we just have a heightened sensitivity to it because, historically, it has been used negatively. If a similar demand exists for men, then there's a market too. My suspicion is most men feel generally safe within the norm. I also suspect, that in order to compete for these female customers, Uber and other customers will ramp up the safety and quality of their rides, and men will benefit from that as well. Competition begets better results for everyone in this respect. You're correct in that now there is this easily identifiable group of women predators can hone in on. This is something that, legally and ethically, the company will have to take into account. The question is, on balance, does this outweigh the specific tailoring of services to women with heightened safety concerns? Maybe, but not definitely, and it's one of those things I'd rather see play out, especially if it'll have long-term tangential benefits to *all* riders across *all* businesses due to a desire to remain competitive on the market. Slipper slope need not apply.### Human: I think you make a great point that we must weight the benefits to society of this app vs. the disadvantage. There is a clear problem: Uber is not safe and does not provide a safe envairoment for all its user (riders and drivers, also men and female). It is true that this problem disproportionately affects women. However it is not only women, drivers have been harassed times by drunk/ shitty riders. There have incident of bar drivers: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35410676 http://www.techtimes.com/articles/128652/20160128/drunk-doctor-assaulting-uber-driver-in-viral-youtube-video-apologizes-i-am-ashamed.htm Will an female only uber reduce violent/harrasing. yes. Will it stop it: No However drunk women can still harass drivers, there can be female driver/riders that are criminals, and a men could just simple impersante a driver/rider. Not only is this app, not solve the problem outline above. It also doesn't solve the problem for 50% of the population(all men). Further more, this app alienates man and targets them as harassers, criminals and rapist.( which is obviously not true most men are pretty cool people). This app also does not target the main stopping harassment and violence. It just segregates men and women pretending that the problem is not there. By segregating man and women the problem won't go away. We must learn to live together in our in our diversity. Finally there are betters ways to tackle this issue: more background checks(for riders and drivers), reference system(for riders and drivers), working along with authorities and law enforcement( panic buttons, calling 911 in precaution), Having private security that will deploy if there seems to be a problem.### Assistant: > Will an female only uber reduce violent/harrasing. yes. Will it stop it: No It's not realistic to only find a solution that solves 100% of the problem. There isn't a way to completely eliminate the problem of violence, harassment and assault. So if there is a method to reduce this problem, why take issue with it especially as others have pointed out, it reduces the problem for a segment of the population that is disproportionately affected by it.### Human: Just out of curiosity how would you feel about an all white uber? Black people commit a disproportionate amount harassment and assaults, so an all white uber reduces the problem for a segment of our population, no?### Assistant: the two situations aren't really the same. The reason why women are more likely to be victims of harassment and violence is because there is a vulnerability factor. I think we can all agree that women compared to men are usually smaller in size and tend to possess less strength which makes them more likely of a target. When you look at blacks vs whites committing crimes, its a socioeconomic problem.### Human: > I think we can all agree that women compared to men are usually smaller in size and tend to possess less strength which makes them more likely of a target. Well, i'm a 6 foot tall muscular male with facial scars, so i guess even "Uber for men" would refuse to serve me since a lot of men would find me "scary".

### Human: CMV: Anarcho Capitalism and Libertarianism don't have a solution to complex pollution problems.### Assistant: I'll just point out that your view of libertarianism is somewhat skewed. The majority of libertarians aren't anarchocapitalists, but are rather minarchists, who have perfectly good answers to this. Even in Ancapistan, there will be ways to recover damages via some equivalent of courts. The idea that because each person's damages are very small, they can't recover damages ignores the concept of class action suits. There's no intrinsic reason why people can't group together to recover damages using whatever mechanism Ancapitstan uses for purpose. Futhermore, if that doesn't work, the people will kill them.### Human: >I'll just point out that your view of libertarianism is somewhat skewed. The majority of libertarians aren't anarchocapitalists, but are rather minarchists, who have perfectly good answers to this. Which would be? >Even in Ancapistan, there will be ways to recover damages via some equivalent of courts. The idea that because each person's damages are very small, they can't recover damages ignores the concept of class action suits. There's no intrinsic reason why people can't group together to recover damages using whatever mechanism Ancapitstan uses for purpose. I am not sure you understand what a class action suit is. A class action suit is were a group of people sue a another party not were a single party sue a group of people. And again, how would that work? Each individual actor is not causing any damage, its the accumulated action of all parties that causes action, so each indivudal party can't be suit for damages. >Futhermore, if that doesn't work, the people will kill them. Well, if people use force against people they don't like, wouldn't having a government then not preferable?### Assistant: There's no reason in Ancapistan why a class action suit couldn't be brought against a group of people. Indeed, it is only the structure of states and the rules about how their legal systems work that prevent this. I will also point out that, while many ancap theories don't accept things like imprisonment for crimes against others, they do accept that social ostracism (not just boycotting) is very effective against aggressors. Let the farms try to farm without anyone selling them fertilizer. Let them try to use their tractors without being able to buy gas. And, indeed, let them try to sell their goods without customers. As for using force, ancaps aren't against using force, they are against initiation of force. They are generally very much in favor of using force to *respond* to aggression. Governments, on the other hand are extremely prone to initiating force against people, and by their nature aren't subject to defending against them, because they tend to accumulate overwhelming force. Of course, so are people, but individuals that initiate force are much less of a problem, even in aggregate... according to that world view. Personally, I disagree, as I'm a minarchist. I think government's purpose is exactly to deal with protecting property rights (including against diffuse sources of damage) and protecting against initiation of aggression. They are a necessary evil (just don't forget that even necessary evils are evil).### Human: I feel like you are ignoring what I've already stated. First of all, each individual actor is not causing any damages, the damage is caused by the actions of all actors together, but as no actor is responsible for the action of others, you can't sue them together - and even if you could, the transaction and legal costs would make it completly unrealistic for someone to sue everyone in his region for small damages for investigating and legal costs far exceeding any reward. Second of all, and I have already said this twice, neither customer nor suppliers are the people affected by the pollution so the boycott of the people would be of no use. Many villages already protesting and boycotting large scale animal farms without them being bothered very much. Their market is the entire world and their supply store is too. I don't really want to get into the discussion about the morality of the use of force. I seeking that someone changes my mind about anarcho capitalism and libertarianism that rejected enviromental regulation.### Assistant: In the example you gave, the harm was local. I agree that it's very hard to deal with global harm, but I will point out that governments are not dealing very well with global harm either. It's a hard problem no matter how you deal with it. The customers not being the ones suffering from the harm is irrelevant. Someone is suffering from the harm, and those people can band together to seek recompense from those who are causing the harm. The fact that no individual one of them is causing *much* harm (it can't actually be zero, or the sum would be zero) isn't a major problem, either. Now, you might ask, "Would any particular ancap "state" have mechanisms that could effectively resolve this property damage?". But I can make a similar statements about government states. Many of them have no effective ways of handling it either. Any group will have to develop mechanisms to deal with harm caused by a person (or group) to another, or they will not survive as societies. AnCap societies are no different. As for "libertarians", I think I've already adequately answered that. Preventing property damage (whether direct or diffuse) and aggression against others (whether direct or diffuse) is a role that most libertarians (who are minarchists) view as being something that the government should do. There are many other things that libertarians *don't* think the government should do (that all existing governments do), but providing an effective justice system is not one of those illegitimate government activities.### Human: >The customers not being the ones suffering from the harm is irrelevant. Someone is suffering from the harm, and those people can band together to seek recompense from those who are causing the harm. Imagine the following situation; there are a hundred farms in a given area and they all release nitrate into the groundwater. The total amount of nitrate released into the groundwater is 0.4 mg/l. This is not harmful. Now there is a boom in ranching and some shepards and cow ranches come into the area. Let's say another hundred people. Suddenly the amount of nitrate in the groundwater 0.8 mg/l and this harmful. Who are going to sue? Again, each individual actor is releasing an amount of nitrate into the water that is not harmful and he has no responsibility for the action of others. Are you going to sue everybody now? Okay, lets say you do that. Now you'll have to figure out who is polluting. How are you going to do that? Hire a detective? So you hire a detective for a lot of money to investigate a single farmer to find out how much nitrate he releases into the groundwater? Let's say you do that. Then you hire a lawyer, you have to go court and thats a lot of costs for a small damage. You are not going to do that, spend thousand and thousand of dollar to be compensated for damages, right? That doesn't make sense, does it? So what now? Does the farmer pay for all the legal costs, the investigation and everything. Is that the solution? Think about if that makes sense to you. >Now, you might ask, "Would any particular ancap "state" have mechanisms that could effectively resolve this property damage?". But I can make a similar statements about government states. Many of them have no effective ways of handling it either. Yeah they do. It's called safety limits and are enforced. The river in my city used to be dirty and now its clean because of them. Thats how statist society take care of the problem.### Assistant: If 0.8mg is dangerous, 0.4mg is also harmful, just below the threshold if what people are willing to tolerate. Even if that weren't true, each party is contributing to the harm once it exceeds the threshold. Governments manage to do it, for a fee (taxes). There's nothing about a government that intrinsically can't be done (sometimes quite a lot cheaper) by a private entity. If the damages are properly accounted for (by whichever if the many proposed justice systems), then the transgressors would indeed pay the fees. The first few times this happened, it might be a little messy, but once a precedent is set, few farmers will be willing to risk the cost, as it will be known that this discharge is not permitted. The same as if a government set a regulation, but with the benefit that actual harm had been proven, and politics aren't involved. The notion that governments have done kind of magic that makes them impossible to replace is an idea than ancaps reject. Again, though, most libertarians are in favor of having a government for exactly these purposes.### Human: >If 0.8mg is dangerous, 0.4mg is also harmful, just below the threshold if what people are willing to tolerate. Even if that weren't true, each party is contributing to the harm once it exceeds the threshold. That's not how safety limits work. A substance can be harmless or even benefitial under certain threshold and harmful after another. Thats the principle drugs are working with. So the premise even remains. For fun you can imagine the very same scenario but with fluoride instead of nitrat and suddenly you have situation were the released amount is even benefitial but after a new group of people comes in, it becomes harmful. What now? >Governments manage to do it, for a fee (taxes). There's nothing about a government that intrinsically can't be done (sometimes quite a lot cheaper) by a private entity. If the damages are properly accounted for (by whichever if the many proposed justice systems), then the transgressors would indeed pay the fees. I have yet to hear a convining argument how you going to properly account for damages in such a situation in a realistic way. Either you have a situation were you could literally hire thousands of lawyers and investigators and then slam the farmers with thousands of euros of legal costs for hundreds of dollar in costs or it would impossible to act against pollution from many non point polluters because you wouldn't be able to afford it. What is it? Take in mind that if you say its the first option, that would als open the entire world to sue anybody all the time and burden him with the costs. The amish could sue everyone with a car all enternity. >The notion that governments have done kind of magic that makes them impossible to replace is an idea than ancaps reject. But governments have tools that ancaps don't. Thats the point. They can set regulation applying everyone.### Assistant: It's pretty clear how to assess damage for contributions to a damaging level of pollution. Entities are responsible in proportion to their contribution to the damaging total. As for hiring tons of lawyers and investigators, it's unlikely that things would get that far, because people are generally rationally self-interested. If you prove that one of them is doing this, and communicate it to others, they have a choice of whether to comply with the restriction under proposal, or face the damages if they don't. But, yes, if it got that far, making them pay the fees is how it would most likely be done (social ostracism is another suggestion by some ancaps that don't like the idea of any force structures). Is it "fair"? Maybe, maybe not. But they are the ones that initiated aggression against others by polluting, and my concern about being fair to them is strictly limited.

### Human: I think the word "Pansexual" is a meaningless term for people who need to feel special. CMV.### Assistant: The term pansexual is meant to be even more inclusive than bisexuality because it encompasses sexual attractions to trangendered and genderqueer people, thus going beyond the binary/dioecious model of sex phenotype.### Human: Why then, are there not terms for homosexuals and heterosexuals who will date a person of the opposite or same sex while ignoring the gender dynamic. In such thinking we should have a lot more terms Gender-Hetero Gender-Bi Gender-Homo Heterosexual ? ? ? Bisexual ? Pansexual ? Homosexual ? ? ? Otherwise we're not really including gender in the definition of sexual orientation, in which case pansexuality *is* the same as bisexuality.### Assistant: Androsexual (attracted to masculinity, regardless of gender) and gynesexual (same with femininity) are two terms that come to mind, though they don't quite mean what you're looking for.### Human: Is there a term for being attracted to androgynous people?### Assistant: Skoliosexual would be attracted to non-binary people? I'm not sure many people use any of these words much, though. I use androsexual sometimes to describe myself, but mostly I just identify as "queer." (Though, in everyday conversation in the non-queer world, I use "gay" because it's much easier.)

### Human: CMV: It's usually unwise to begin reading a fantasy saga like A Song Of Ice & Fire or the Kingkiller Chronicle until it's either complete, or been abandoned### Assistant: It's OK to appreciate a book even if it's not finished. Reading a REALLY GOOD unfinished book may be better than reading a mediocre finished one. In other word: it's about the journey, not the destination.### Human: > In other word: it's about the journey, not the destination. It's about both. A really great journey can indeed be ruined by a bad choice of destination. > Reading a REALLY GOOD unfinished book may be better than reading a mediocre finished one. But that's a false dichotomy. There are so many books that are both amazing *and* finished. And I have a finite amount of time to spend reading. So on average, for each unfinished book I choose to read, that's one finished book I'm missing out on. Couple that with the fact that I hate having loose ends that aren't tied up in books (to me, it feels sloppy, even when it's intentional), and that makes it highly unappealing to start series that I expect never to be completed.### Assistant: Say, fantasy is my favorite genre. I am an avid fantasy reader. Game of Thrones is easily in top 10 fantasy books every written. Top 50 for sure. I have already read ~500 fantasy books. Why should I bother with 501st best Fantasy book if Game of Thrones is available (albeit unfinished.)### Human: It's possible to group books into general categories ("amazing", "terrible", "mediocre", etc.), but I don't think we can meaningfully apply ordinal rankings to them. Even if we agree that the rankings are intended to be subjective, I don't think it's a useful model to use. If you asked me for fantasy recommendations, I could give you five, but I wouldn't say that they are my "top five, in order". (Most people can't - even if they *say* they can, when quizzed about it, their rankings are shown to be inconsistent. This is something that is pretty easy to do a blind test for, though that's overkill for this discussion). Even if we could, the rankings are inherently subjective, so there's no way to know where a given book falls on the rankings before reading it. That means you have to use heuristics to estimate how much you will enjoy it beforehand, and /u/princemephtik is saying that one of his/her heuristics is whether or not the book is complete.### Assistant: At some point heuristic are all I need. Quality drop of in Fantasy is very apparent after some point. If you had read 500 fantasy books you will know how difficult it is to fimd quality 501st book. At that point it would wrong to avoid Game of Thrones (known quality book) just because it's unfinished in favor of heuristicly worse books.### Human: > heuristicly worse books The whole point is that "is this book/series finished" is itself part of the heuristic. > known quality book Known by *whom*? Saying that it is a "known quality book" ignores that enjoyment is subjective, and what others may consider to be "quality" may be something that's unsatisfying to me, or to /u/princemephtik, or to the hypothetical friend whom he/she is advising in the original question.### Assistant: >> heuristicly worse books >The whole point is that "is this book/series finished" is itself part of the heuristic. But other heuristics can override this. Which is my point. >> known quality book >Known by *whom*? Saying that it is a "known quality book" ignores that enjoyment is subjective, and what others may consider to be "quality" may be something that's unsatisfying to me, or to /u/princemephtik, or to the hypothetical friend whom he/she is advising in the original question. You would agree that i can use many heuristics to decide if a book is quality or not TO ME.### Human: > You would agree that i can use many heuristics to decide if a book is quality or not TO ME. Yes, the heuristics that predict enjoyment/satisfaction are subjective and differ from person to person. You are welcome to use whatever you want to determine quality for yourself. Normally I'd just say "let's agree to disagree". But this is /r/changemyview, and I'm arguing the position of the original post, so hopefully you can convince me (or OP) not to use this heuristic. :)### Assistant: >> You would agree that i can use many heuristics to decide if a book is quality or not TO ME. >Yes, the heuristics that predict enjoyment/satisfaction are subjective and differ from person to person. You are welcome to use whatever you want to determine quality for yourself. Right, but I am arguing that when making a person decision, you should not weighing "incompleteness" too heavily.

### Human: CMV: Engineers and MDs are not scientists (except those conducting empirical research).### Assistant: I think your view indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what engineers and MDs actually do. Very few problems in the world of engineering actually work out to a solution the way a textbook says they should. I imagine this is also true of medical practice. Problem solving involves the acquisition of empirical data through (often extensive) field testing, in conjunction with the development of increasingly physically representative models (physical, conceptual, mathematical, etc) until an acceptable result is obtained. This process is executed based on a foundation of years of empirical data - a good engineer is one who has seen so many situations that they can quickly identify exactly what data is required to arrive at a good solution. We don't just read answers out of tables, as some seem to think. Very few problems have that kind of simple solution. Scientific testing and empiricism play a fundamental role in the work of an engineer.### Human: I've responded to this idea elsewhere ITT. My response is that what you describe is missing an element or two of what we, as a culture, think of "scientists" doing (and that's what this is really about; what we decide this word means). Note that everything you said can be applied to farmers, bakers, gardeners, house framers, apartment cleaning services, and probably dozens of other professions. If that's your description of "science," then there's relatively little that isn't "science." Which is one direction to take, but I think a not-very-useful direction.### Assistant: I feel like house framers are not doing field tests to develop problem-specific solutions based on physical principles. What you're defining as science is essentially "looking for general solutions", which is mathematics. Science looks for individual solutions to specific questions.### Human: I disagree with your last statement. Science, I think, is always looking for generalizable principles. I think most scientists would agree that using the scientific method to solve a problem for one person, in a way that won't help anyone else, is much less "sciency" than using the method to form an empirically-supported theory of the underlying principles generating that person's problem, which could later potentially be used in interventions with a large number of other people. Science is, I think, all about the general, even though it's necessarily done with some scope of the specific.### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: Women should be free to breastfeed in public whether they cover-up or not.### Assistant: Not trying to change your mind but change your perspective. What anyone "should be allowed" to do in public or not is dictated by prevailing norms of that specific society. Which is why some societies frown upon kissing someone else in the mouth in public. While others frown upon clothing that is considered "too short or immodest". And i am not talking about regressive societies. In America for example, men are expected to wear knee length swim wear while in Europe, men wearing really short swimwear or thongs is perfectly acceptable. Or consider that in Europe, greeting someone else by kissing them on the cheek is a standard way of greeting. In the US, if someone did that in a corporate setting, they could easily get accused of making inappropriate sexual advances. So can one make a CMV argument that "men should be allowed to kiss women on the cheeks in the US because it is a standard greeting in Europe"? The reality in America is that society is a fair bit more conservative than Europe in terms of acceptable levels of nudity. Which is what makes this topic controversial as *it makes the average person uncomfortable*. In itself, is flipping out a breast (especially to feed a child) wrong? No, absolutely not. It didn't harm anyone. But then in this context, there is no right or wrong. Just an arbitrary line that society drew. And mind you, even in the same society, this line kept changing over the years. The "middle ground" answer or suggestion would be - sure, breast feed your kid in public but cover up a bit instead of letting it all hang out. Because then you are trying to make a statement and not trying to just feed your kid.### Human: I believe that we're beyond something being culturally unacceptable in one area and acceptable in another. We're able to draw conclusions based on reason. While I'm not disagreeing with you that American society is more conservative than it's European neighbors and flipping out a breast might raise some eyebrows, I'm under the impression that these are things reasonable people like us can be more accepting of. Imagine a place where all the male inhabitants were expected to keep their hands in their pockets when in the presence of women. Until one day, a group of redditors on CMV in this island alternate reality had a discussion as to why this obscure act was still being practiced. Ultimately they realized they could break the cultural restraints on matters like these and be more accepting.### Assistant: I am totally with you. I am only saying that pragmatically speaking, there is a difference between breastfeeding in public and exposing breasts in public while breastfeeding. It can be done discreetly too with a bit of covering. A crude analogy - say you needed to "adjust" your penis in your underwear or even needed to scratch it. You would still exercise some discretion and do it discreetly. What i find in some cases is women deliberately exposing their breasts as if it was a defiant act. Fair enough, there is nothing wrong with it. But there is nothing wrong with someone scratching their balls in a very obvious way in front of others either. Or farting or burping loudly in public.### Human: Breastfeeding without a cover is not the same as publicly scratching your balls, adjusting your penis, farting, burping, or even defecating as someone else mentioned. But I do agree that it doesn't make sense that women can't show their breasts unless they are breastfeeding. One cannot be allowed without the other.### Assistant: Actually the other example was about publicly defecating which becomes a public hygiene issue and is hence not a good analogy. However, scratching your balls in public is indeed a good analogy. Just because you can doesn't mean you need to do it openly. Or you can be a bit discreet about it. To be honest, i will readily concede that sometimes, a nursing mother will just not be in a position to cover up and if the baby is hungry, it needs to be fed then and there. No waiting. My only minor point was about the women who seem to be doing this as some kind of a symbolic gesture. They are doing a disservice. If more women would feed their babies in public but in a relatively discreey way, it would pave the way to broader social acceptance where people would see this as a commonplace occurrence and over time, would just stoolp noticing. Rather than this over the top way of trying to effect change.### Human: If you're talking about how to tactfully change the view of society towards breastfeeding I completely agree with you. I actually didn't think of it that way.

### Human: I believe that the Federation's laws against genetic enhancements are ridiculous. CMV### Assistant: Julian Bashir provided an alternate argument against genetic enhancement, analogous to those used against performance-enhancing drugs on Earth in the pre-warp era. If genetic enhancement for children became the norm, parents would be pressured to have their children genetically engineered as well, just to keep up. Twentieth-century Earth explored the dehumanizing effects of such an outcome in the film "Gattaca", among others. That's not to mention that genetic enhancement is inherently quite risky and can have serious side-effects. For these reasons, genetic engineering remains illegal so that it doesn't become a necessity for success.### Human: Genetics is already *terribly unfair*. People are born idiots or geniuses through no fault of their own. Genetic Engineering could easily make the world far more fair than it already is. Not to mention the benefit to everyone of increasing intelligence or other traits. If dangerous side-effects are what you are worried about then you can just ban untested or dangerous ones like we already do with drugs.### Assistant: If an unintended side effect or consequence of taking a drug occurs, then that person may die or face debilitating problems. The obesity drug phen phen caused heart problems. The pain killer Thalidomide caused babies to be born disfigured. The insecticide DDT had reproductive effects for both men and women. Now, imagine if you had a drug that didn't just side effects in the user, but had the capability to affect the user's entire *bloodline*. Instead of just the user and possibly their children being affected, it's the rest of a person's genetic progeny. A drug used on a human needs only to keep that person living for a century (maybe two in the distant future). A poorly conceived genetic manipulation may have mutations and permutations lasting millennia. Given that, how do you even test something like that? You cannot ethically test on humans, since the issue of consent definitely comes up -- Someone born two generations from now cannot consent to being a genetic guinea pig -- and even then, what happens if it turns out there's a problem? Today we have a problem where plenty of people don't know who their parents are. Once you let the cat out of the bag, you might never be able to put it back in. Some test subject's kid, born with perfect beauty, strength, and intelligence, would likely be very attractive to the opposite gender. Who is to say that they wouldn't go out and have unprotected sex, and unwittingly spread some horrible genetic disease to countless unknown children?### Human: What you say is already true of random mutations. Besides the worst case is they remove the gene when they decide to reproduce or just make the carriers sterile. Presumably we wouldn't even be using genes that weren't known to be safe (in the star trek universe at least, genetic engineering was relatively successful and by the time it was outlawed there had been tons of real world tests.)### Assistant: The laws banning it were caused by genetic engineering causing a war that nearly destroyed the human race. I don't think you can ignore the real risks in-universe. Besides, how can you make carriers sterile when I've already mentioned that you can't neccessarily know who is carrying it? And how do you prove something is safe if you can't run tests? And how do you run tests if you can't ethically do so? Beyond that, what about the political ramifications of building a "perfect human" for a certain society? Mao's genetic superman and Stalin's genetic superman and Hitler's genetic superman and our genetic superman may all be different, so the very essence of a person may be changed to fit the political reality of the time. 200 years ago, a woman might be genetically engineered to be more meek, more subservient, and more obedient. A chinese man of 300 years ago might be genetically engineered to genetically "know his place" in society, as confucian thoughts dicatate. A black slave might be genetically engineered to be dumb, subservient, and incredibly powerful. That's an awfully powerful weapon to wield, and brings up a different idea altogether: Can you "cure" being indoctrinated at a genetic level into a certain political philosophy? What if the genetically engineered neo-nazis are totally dedicated to their cause and strongly oppose being genetically reprogrammed?### Human: That's a completely different argument though. And something that happened 400 years ago. At this point they have a much more stable civilization, have gotten used to co-existing with entirely different races with entirely different traits and genetic abilities, and they have much more advanced technology to do it properly (I remember in Enterprise there was a man who tried to modify augments to be much less aggressive.)### Assistant: There's all sorts of arguments to make. Since you didn't really address any of the points I made anyway, and I didn't feel like just reiterating the ones I'd already made, I went somewhere else. In the future, we know there are still evil men, so it's not as if someone couldn't genetically engineer a group of worshippers, so I don't think the ethical point is moot.

### Human: CMV: I don't understand how GMO labelling would be a bad thing. People would actually realize how much GMO there are. In term of PR, advocating against labels seems like there is something to hide### Assistant: People are free to purchase food with the *optional* label "GMO-free" if they have ideological reasons to avoid GE cultivars. This is how it works for kosher, halal, and organic: consumers with specialty demands get to pay the costs associated with satisfying those demands. *Mandatory* labels need to have justification. *Ingredients* are labeled for medical reasons: allergies, sensitivities like lactose intolerance, conditions like coeliac disease or phenylketonuria. *Nutritional content* is also labeled with health in mind. *Country of origin* is also often mandatory for tax reasons - but that's fairly easy to do because those products come from a different supply chain. **There is no justifiable reason to mandate labeling of GE products, because that label does not provide any meaningful information.** [GE crops do not pose any unique or elevated risks.](https://proactiontranshuman.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/why-am-i-pro-gmo/) Mandatory labels are a form of compulsory speech and require justification, while voluntary labels are an elegant solution to market demands. Every crop should be regulated on a case-by-case basis. Even then, genetic engineering is a lot more predictable and much more thoroughly studied than [conventional breeding methods which rely on random mutations](http://imgur.com/G93R6Z3). Asking for a GMO label is sort of like asking for a label on cars depicting the brand of wrench used to build them; "GMO" labels do not help you make an informed decision: * There are many varieties of non-GE and GE corn with different characteristics - any given GE corn will be very similar to its non-GE parent, but that parent is very different from another non-GE corn *and they are all labeled "corn"*. Moreover, GE soy doesn't resemble GE papaya *at all*, so why would they share a label? * Many GE endproducts are chemically indistinguishable from non-GE (soybean oil, beet sugar, HFCS), so labeling them implies there will be testing which is simply not possible. * Most of the modifications made are for the benefit of farmers, not consumers - you don't currently know if the non-GE produce you buy is of a strain with higher lignin content, or selectively-bred resistance to a herbicide, or grows better in droughts. * We don't label other developmental techniques - we happily chow down on ruby red grapefruits which were developed by radiation mutagenesis (which is a USDA organic approved technique, along with chemical mutagenesis, hybridization, somatic cell fusion, and grafting). * Once again, there are *zero* ecological or medical concerns which are inherently present in all GMOs. Currently, GE and non-GE crops are intermingled at several stages of distribution. You'd have to vastly increase the number of silos, threshers, trucks, and grain elevators - drastically increasing emissions - if you want to institute mandatory labeling. You'd also have to create agencies for testing and regulation, along with software to track and record all of this info. Mandatory labeling in the EU was pushed through by lobbying from organic firms, and it was so difficult to implement that it ostensibly led to bans or restrictions on cultivation and import of GE crops. Instituting mandatory GMO labels: * would cost untold millions of dollars (need to overhaul food distribution network) * would drastically increase emissions related to distribution * contravenes legal precedent (ideological labels - kosher, halal, organic - are optional) * stigmatize perfectly healthy food, hurting the impoverished * is redundant when GMO-free certification already exists Consumers do not have a right to know every characteristic about the food they eat. That would be cumbersome: people could demand labels based on the race or sexual orientation of the farmer who harvested their produce. People could also demand labels depicting the brand of tractor or grain elevator used. People might *rightfully* demand to know the associated carbon emissions, wage of the workers, or pesticides used. But *mandatory* labels are more complicated than ink - have a look at this [**checklist of changes required to institute labeling**](http://i.imgur.com/ntnGPFd.jpg). [Here is a great **review of labeling**](http://www.cast-science.org/file.cfm/media/products/digitalproducts/CAST_Issue_Paper_54_web_optimized_29B2AB16AD687.pdf), and [here's **another more technical one**](http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF14/20150618/103641/HHRG-114-IF14-Wstate-GiddingsV-20150618.pdf). **Organized movements in support of mandatory GMO labeling are funded by organic groups**: * [Vermont Right to Know GMOs](http://www.vtrighttoknowgmos.org/who-we-are/#supporters) * [Just Label It](http://www.justlabelit.org/about-just-label-it/) * [US Right to Know](http://usrtk.org/donors/) Here are some [quotes about labeling from anti-GMO advocates](http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GLP-right-to-know-infographic.pdf) about why they want labeling.### Human: You appear pretty clearly and justifiably on the side of "GMOs are fine, everyone needs to calm down." Which I am too. But there are a lot of questions that Anti-GMO folks raise and while I disagree with most of their issues, I remain convinced that this is not as black and white an issue as we're led to believe. I would argue that the biggest issue in the GMO debate is information - average civilians don't know what's being done to GE crops, all we have is trust that the FDA has our backs and that Monsanto and other companies investing in GE food aren't somehow screwing us over. There is also the lack of understanding that genetically engineered crops are often in fact generally safer and better for the environment than their non-GE counterparts. Long story short I think the crux of the anti-GE movement is a lack of information. I don't see how withholding information solves anything - I think the more information everyone is given the more likely they are to come to the most rational conclusion. In this case I believe that to be that GE crops are in fact better versions of crops we already use.### Assistant: How does a label give us any insight into how the FDA approves new crops? If the FDA is fucking us then we have *way* bigger problems than GMOs.### Human: My point is that we don't need the labels to 'protect' us. It doesn't matter for that purpose. But there is nothing wrong with having more information available### Assistant: The in depth comment I believe discussed this. Essentially it boils down to: where is the limit of what information should be provided? Should the brand of the tractor, the wage of the worker, etc etc be on the label? Read that section again, I think he answered your concern fairly well.### Human: Brand of the tractor has absolutely no affect on food. Wage of the worker might be an interesting thing to know though. GMOs are apparently (according to the **vast** majority of studies I've read) fine, but that's only current GMOs, we have no idea what kind of stuff they will come up with next and I don't trust them or the FDA to protect me as they have screwed up many times in the past (not with GMOs) . I'm not against GMOs as a thing, I"m against who controls and regulates them.### Assistant: So because the current regulatory agency has made mistakes, and/or missed things, we should create a new one from scratch that will then work perfectly?

### Human: CMV: Putting aside cost, tax policies, implentation, etc. I believe Sanders' free college proposal is fixing a symptom, not the problem, of education in America. We should be focusing on fixing K-12, not making college free.### Assistant: I agree with you that the solution doesn't lie in "free college for everyone", but improving K-12 education doesn't solve the problem either. There are two benefits of college education. Increasing skillset, making you more productive, and competitive advantage against other job applicants. The fundamental problem, what drives people to college who "shouldn't go", is employment. If you want to have a respectable living wage with a decent standard of living, you pretty much need to go to college. (There are some industries that are overlooked and underserved like the trades, and we should encourage people to get into them, but that isn't going to solve the entire problem). 30 years ago, manufacturing was strong, people could graduate from highschool, start working immediately, and expect a decent living wage and some opportunities for advancement. Blue collar work like manufacturing is a fraction of what it used to be in the US, what with outsourcing and automation. No matter how good the K-12 system is, it doesn't bring those jobs back. There are two facets to this, worker productivity adding value to the economy, and competition, a higher qualified-worker-to-position ratio leads to lower wages. Improving K-12 education could improve workers productivity, but it won't change the competitive advantage aspect that drives people into the "pay to play" system.### Human: > K-12 education could improve workers productivity, but it won't change the competitive advantage aspect that drives people into the "pay to play" system Why not? I'm not saying it definitely would, but think of this - manufacturing jobs naturally followed from a high school education because you learned everything you needed to know for an entry level position in high school. As we transition to a service economy, shouldn't we make the basic skills for entry level positions in the service industry a priority in k-12 education? Many schools tout "college and career readiness", but focus almost exclusively on the skills and knowledge one needs for college.### Assistant: I think an argument would have to be made on whether or not K-12 could feasibly add more curriculum to teach the skills you refer to that would be needed in a service industry. In my opinion, shifting the design of K-12 would either result in eliminating programs that are already being cut (arts, crafts, home ec., workshops, etc.) or confer a greater, more intensive work load on High Schoolers when many students already struggle to graduate. There is also the question of whether or not we should, as a society, use schooling to primarily promote education and knowledge or job-readiness. It's a dynamic universities have been put through since their conception, and we now see universities as places to get a degree to earn money when they used to prioritize the betterment of individuals in society to be better citizens. Or at least that was the intended purpose.### Human: I know that our danish gymnasiums are at a higher level of education despite being for the same age so its definitely possible. Also you could remove history from the corrigilum http://www.edutopia.org/blog/teaching-history-outside-the-box-dan-carlin### Assistant: Gymnasiums are not for all people right? There is some sort of selection before gymnasiums so you have to take care when comparing it to highschool. Bad history techers that force you to lean an endless amount of dates are not a good reason to remove history from the curriculum.### Human: Maybe, the argument is more that if they don't remember history anyway it might be easier to just remove it. If they don't want to change it. I love history so i would preferer that they change it. But yeah kinda ish, in Theory, but in reality 75% of danes takes gymnasiums. So it should be possible, you could also make special classes instead you know for better and worse students, thereby providing better education for all### Assistant: Oh okay that's a little different from Switzerland then. I think we have around 20% of people going to gymnasium and the gymnasium diploma allows admission to universities. Everyone takes 6 years of primary school together, then we enter secondary school where we are split into two tiers. After two years those 20% go to gymnasium. The others take one more year in secondary and then go either to a higher school (for example for IT or teaching) or to an apprenticeship which is also accompanied by two or three days of school per week. Once you have your apprenticeship you can usually go to a higher school specific to your job (for example a higher level of nurse) or rather jobs that build upon yours or you can just work or you can go to a school that is more or less gymnasium for adults where you still get your diploma and gain admission to universities. I'd say maybe 40% just work, 40% go to a trade specific school and 20% get their gymnasiun diploma. I like that idea of a second path to uni if you want. Some people don't have the drive at a young age so they can go learn a trade first and if they later realise that they like learning after all or want to specialise they can still do it. Somewhere after the apprenticeship or after gymnasium males waste a year in the military, which is unfortunate but a good majority still wants it as proven by last years vote.### Human: Tbh, your system sounds a hell of a lot better, because it weeds out all the people who aren't sure that they want something acedemic, sparing a lot of money, and makes sure we don't waste so much time

### Human: CMV: Gandhi does not deserve the level of respect and admiration he is given### Assistant: If we were looking at this as one isolated piece of history, you are probably right that Gandhi would probably be just a name students memorize for a history test and then forget. However, seeing history in a bigger picture can show us why he is revered historically, at least from a US perspective (I still think his teachings would be fairly useful philosophically, but that's beside the point). Gandhi's success in India caused people to believe that pacifisism could work in settling conflicts, regardless of the actual reasons why he succeeded. This belief helped inspired MLK and his leading of the civil rights protests. There were plenty of African-American sympathizers who wanted to return the violence that they were receiving, and this could have escalated into a second Civil War. It wasn't easy convincing all those people that peaceful protests were the answer, but thanks to Gandhi, MLK had someone he could point to and show this community that this approach could work. Had Gandhi not been successful and this second civil war began, many many more lives would have been lost that Gandhi could have managed to save in India. I can't say I know enough about the British/India relationship to know if any of your above points and conclusions are correct. However, even if Gandhi himself didn't single-handedly cause the British to leave, enough people BELIEVED he did to inspire future peaceful resolutions to warrant him being honored in history. I know you said in your post that peaceful resolution doesn't always work, and it clearly doesn't. However, attempting a peaceful resolution doesn't mean you're locked into that course of action forever, especially if the group in power is severely abusing them. It's hard to imagine any country that would have hundreds or thousands of its citizens killed without any retaliation because of Gandhi's teachings, like you mentioned in your post. What it does prevent is total revolution over smaller things, like hot button political topics. Peaceful protests like Gandhi performed, are almost always the first step in solving conflicts, and perhaps has saved many many lives over the years. EDIT: u/teerre made a similar point to me and posted before I did (not to mention said it better), that's what I get for trying to eat and Reddit at the same time.### Human: >This belief helped inspired MLK and his leading of the civil rights protests MLK is another example along the lines of Gandhi, though less egregious. MLK was to the American power structure what Gandhi was to the British; a way to co-opt a potentially threatening movement and bring it under control. At the time you had groups like the Panthers calling for open revolt and on the other side you had MLK advocating for peaceful protest. The option was to either keep fighting the civil rights movement and risk sending more people to the militant side or to embrace MLK who at least was willing to deal for a place at the table. In both cases of MLK and Gandhi, yes I agree non-violence saved lives...in the outset. How many more lives have been sacrificed because structures of oppression weren't destroyed by what these movements should have been? Just because a resolution was peaceful does not mean it was successful. If the fundamental structures that cause the oppression that you protest against are intact then a peaceful resolution is nothing more complex than those power structures having found a way to co-opt and dilute the movement to change them. >However, attempting a peaceful resolution doesn't mean you're locked into that course of action forever, especially if the group in power is severely abusing them. I'm not saying that a peaceful resolution equates to failure but that a peaceful resolution that doesn't significantly impact the power that is abusing the people who are protesting is, objectively, failure.### Assistant: Peaceful protest brought thousands, if not hundreds of thousands into the civil rights movement that wouldn't have been involved otherwise. The black panthers and violent protests couldn't of done that. Sure peaceful protest gave the government a way to accept change and save face at the same time. That isn't something to hold against peaceful protest, its one of the strengths of peaceful protest. Which Ghandi demonstrated. Edit: can't figure out how to quote on my phone, but what do you argue should these protests have been? You don't say.### Human: I'm not trying to say what they should or shouldn't have been. I don't have the knowledge to make an informed comment on that part of the problem. The Black Panthers effectively did do that. The American power structure had two basic choices; keep fighting the black community or start dealing with the Civil Rights movement. If the government chose to keep pressing and not dealing they would have essentially confirmed what people like the Panthers were saying, namely that the state wanted black people to be an oppressed group and they'd have been right. It would have fed into the Panther's and other black radical's narrative and given them support from the black (and possibly white) community. They were already preparing for a revolt, many black radicals advocated for going out and buying guns to fight in what they saw as the time coming when they'd have to literally fight for their rights. So the state took the road of recognizing and legitimizing MLK and the Civil Rights Movement because they represented something that was not a significant threat to state power. Desegregation may not have been super popular with many white voters but the idea of a full-blown civil insurrection from groups of black radicals and their supporters was even less appealing. It also had the effect of giving people ammunition to delegitimize the black radicals' case because "Look! Progress!" Advocating for violent revolution is harder when you've got something to lose so the state just gave the black community a shitty, broken chair at the end of the table but it was more than they'd had so many didn't want to lose it. >Sure peaceful protest gave the government a way to accept change and save face at the same time. That isn't something to hold against peaceful protest, its one of the strengths of peaceful protest. Which Ghandi demonstrated. Unless the change is just in personnel. If the Nazis had, after losing the war, said "Ok, we give up. We'll fire all the leadership and let regular Germans take over, we'll change the flags, banners, signs, and the name" but many of the same policies and systems were in place I don't think most people would agree that meaningful change had taken place.### Assistant: I think you have given a good argument for why the existence of the Black Panthers was beneficial; i.e., it encouraged the government to make a deal with the more moderate elements. I do not think you have made a good argument for the existence of the moderate elements being bad. What do you think would have happened if there was no MLK, and the Black Panthers _actually_ went to war with the US government? Sure, it would have been shit show, but they wouldn't have won! Black Americans are about 12% of the population, what do you think was going to happen in an all out conflict? After they had killed a bunch of 'innocent' middle class white Americans... would the other middle class white Americans REALLY have said "Sure, now we understand. Let's give these people what they want"? I want you to find me a single instance of this happening in history. The Kurds don't have independence, the Palestinians don't have their own country, the Tamil Tigers lost... I mean, what is the end game? I see a strong pattern of terrorism causing the dominant culture to enact increasingly harsh measures to deal with the problem. It is not like Black Americans were in a distinct geographic region which could be spun off in its own country. Going back to Gandhi, what do you think was wrong about the way India was formed? (I have opinions about what was wrong with it, but I want to hear your idealized case. Gandhi didn't exist; the UK responded the way you want them to, and...?)### Human: I'm not here to quarterback decisions I wasn't around for the making of. My basic point is that Gandhi's success was due in large part to a geopolitical accident and that his ideology prescribed a lot of people getting hurt or dying for the cause. He made unfounded assumptions about how people would react and what outcome a particular act might have. >Going back to Gandhi, what do you think was wrong about the way India was formed? Again, India was left with many of the systems of government and institutional ideas and methods that the British used. They're not only not Indian but they were built on racist and oppressive views of how the world worked. There was little attempt to build up a truly Indian system of government, largely because the Indians who came to power after the British were ones that the British allowed to take power again because the British knew they would be more hospitable to their interests.### Assistant: >I'm not here to quarterback decisions I wasn't around for the making of. This just comes across like you are not willing to actually engage with my argument. There is no 'ideal' case, where you never have to compromise, and everything you want works out. If you cannot give me a realistic, achievable, end goal, then your point of view is worthless. > Again, India was left with many of the systems of government and institutional ideas and methods that the British used. They're not only not Indian but they were built on racist and oppressive views of how the world worked This is incredibly vague and basically answers nothing. What SPECIFICALLY was bad? What SPECIFICALLY 'Indian' aspects would you have incorporated? You have just given me buzzwords, no answers. You do know that India is a democracy, right? In what way was the UK able to put Indians 'hospitable to their interests' in power? Sure, lets say they rigged the first election (I have never heard anything to support this, but sure, lets assume that it is true.) Ok, what about all the other elections after this point? Were all of them rigged too? My, the UK does have a lot of power. Are you aware the India was not exactly friendly to the west during the cold war? It was Non-Aligned during the fifties and sixties, enacted socialist policies in the 70s, and went to war with a US ally in 1971. What a pawn of the UK! Not the mention that, from my point of view, the most relevant form of oppression in India is the caste system, and THAT is Indian through and through. A more "Indian system of government" sure sounds a lot like a government which recognized the caste system in a more formal way, or at least didn't have affirmative action for Dalits.### Human: >This just comes across like you are not willing to actually engage with my argument. You're right, I'm not. Because prescribing what should have happened from the comfort of the 21st century with access to unlimited knowledge about the past is pointless at best. I'm not interested in making myself feel better by calling people who made the best decisions they could with what they had available to them stupid. >This is incredibly vague and basically answers nothing. What SPECIFICALLY was bad? Most of the structure of the government of India at the time was built by the British mainly for the purpose of facilitating their hold on power and exporting resources. The laws and courts were set up with this in mind and not for the benefit of the people actually living there. If you're looking for the exact name and enaction date of laws I can't give you that. >What SPECIFICALLY 'Indian' aspects would you have incorporated? Not being Indian or living back then I couldn't answer that question. >You have just given me buzzwords, no answers. Because you're asking a vegan how to cook a steak; I can tell you if it's raw or burned but I couldn't tell you how to cook it just right. >In what way was the UK able to put Indians 'hospitable to their interests' in power? The British decided who was and was not part of the "legitimate" protest movement and they also [drew the blueprint](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montagu%E2%80%93Chelmsford_Reforms) for how India would be handed over. This allowed them to dictate terms as to how that happened and let them preserve people who were favorable to their interests. >Ok, what about all the other elections after this point? Were all of them rigged too? My, the UK does have a lot of power. If you can ensure that the people who go into power initially are friendly, they can continue to set up the process such that friendly interests keep rising to the top. They don't have to rig elections. When you write the rules, everything is legal. >Not the mention that, from my point of view, the most relevant form of oppression in India is the caste system, and THAT is Indian through and through. A more "Indian system of government" sure sounds a lot like a government which recognized the caste system in a more formal way, or at least didn't have affirmative action for Dalits. All very true. Not sure what relevance it has to this discussion, but true.### Assistant: Maybe I need to step back and go through my point of view in more detail. I think our epistemologies are so different that I am having difficulty communicating with you. 1) Are you working with any sort of consequentialist system of ethics? As in, when you say Gandhi was 'bad', do you mean that the consequences of his actions were bad for India/the world? If you do not mean that, what do you mean by your point of view? 2) If you are working in such a framework, surely what is achievable matters, right? As in, someone who is 'corrupted' or 'moderate' but is able to actually achieve his goals is better than someone who is ideologically pure, but totally fails at achieving his goals. The first individual's actions resulted in positive change, the second's did not. 3) This is why I am trying to focus on what is achievable. Since I do not see any _achievable_ end goal for the Black Panthers alone, I regard the existence of the moderates like MLK as a good thing. I suspect that without them, the result would have been additional oppression and violence against Black Americans. Basically, I don't see how you can consider these issues irrelevant. Feasibility seems totally integral when considering change. Which isn't to say I don't 'understand' someone like Malcolm X. I can look at him sympathetically, and understand all of the issues which led him towards his beliefs (at least intellectually). I don't blame him. But, on the other hand, I am glad that someone like MLK did exist, because I think it lead to more positive change. If you think that the Black Panthers COULD have accomplished more on their own, well, then that is the argument you need to make; you have not made it yet. On to more specific points about India: You have made a claim that the UK set up a government friendly towards itself. I have made the claim that the actions of the post-independence Indian government seem to contradict that. If the UK had set up a friendly government, I would have expected India to side with the West in the cold war. This is not what happened, leading me to believe that the UK had less influence over the post-independence India than you are claiming. Again, this isn't to say the UK didn't have a cultural effect on India; it is obvious that it did. Some of this was probably bad, some of it was probably good. Do you think that the UK style of parliamentary democracy is bad?### Human: >Are you working with any sort of consequentialist system of ethics? As in, when you say Gandhi was 'bad', do you mean that the consequences of his actions were bad for India/the world? If you do not mean that, what do you mean by your point of view? I'm not claiming Gandhi was inherently a bad person. I'm saying that his actions and beliefs were detrimental to his goals and as such he does not deserve the veneration that he gets. > 2) If you are working in such a framework, surely what is achievable matters, right? As in, someone who is 'corrupted' or 'moderate' but is able to actually achieve his goals is better than someone who is ideologically pure, but totally fails at achieving his goals. The first individual's actions resulted in positive change, the second's did not. Without any context, yes I agree. However in the Indian context Gandhi's success pre-empted what likely could have been a success for people who were less interested in a friendly relationship with Britain and more interested in true Indian independence. Because he succeeded (using the term loosely) it prevented others from reaching a solution that could have been better. > 3) This is why I am trying to focus on what is achievable. Since I do not see any achievable end goal for the Black Panthers alone, I regard the existence of the moderates like MLK as a good thing. I suspect that without them, the result would have been additional oppression and violence against Black Americans. I mean I can speculate on what may or may not have happened if this or that happened but I don't see that as helpful. All I did was point out that MLK's situation was very similar to that of Gandhi's and the outcome was also quite similar. > Basically, I don't see how you can consider these issues irrelevant. Feasibility seems totally integral when considering change. It is but it's not the only thing you need to consider. > Which isn't to say I don't 'understand' someone like Malcolm X. I can look at him sympathetically, and understand all of the issues which led him towards his beliefs (at least intellectually). I don't blame him. But, on the other hand, I am glad that someone like MLK did exist, because I think it lead to more positive change. If you think that the Black Panthers COULD have accomplished more on their own, well, then that is the argument you need to make; you have not made it yet. I don't know that they could have. I *believe* they could have but I have nothing objective to back that up with. > On to more specific points about India: You have made a claim that the UK set up a government friendly towards itself. I have made the claim that the actions of the post-independence Indian government seem to contradict that. If the UK had set up a friendly government, I would have expected India to side with the West in the cold war. This is not what happened, leading me to believe that the UK had less influence over the post-independence India than you are claiming. India was not a puppet government nor did it take marching orders from London. The British tried to set up a government that would at least head off the kind of anti-British backlash that they might expect if India were to drive the British out by force. It didn't guarantee hospitable relations for the next six decades. Simply because a country is friendly doesn't mean it's going to take your side in every geopolitical dispute. > Again, this isn't to say the UK didn't have a cultural effect on India; it is obvious that it did. Some of this was probably bad, some of it was probably good. Do you think that the UK style of parliamentary democracy is bad? Being an anarchist I tend to lean towards the idea that any style of government is bad.### Assistant: Can you provide some bit of evidence that the British government tried to set up a favorable government for themselves? You have Gandhi, who supported capitalism but absolutely despised the british industrial system, and thus would not trade with Britain, and Nehru, who, while supporting the British industrial system in India, hated capitalism itself. Neither of those options are favorable to Britain interests. And they adopted Nehru's, socialism, directly harming Britain, only because Gandhi was shot by a religious extremeist. I don't really see how Britain was involved in this### Human: The British wrote the blueprint for how the new Indian government would be run and constructed in the [Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montagu%E2%80%93Chelmsford_Reforms).### Assistant: Reading all your responses I feel as though you argument boils down to (from the original comment i responded to) "structures of oppression weren't destroyed by what these movements should have been?" Sure some structures of oppression weren't destroyed by MLK and the civil rights movement. But unquestionably, both Gandhi and MLK pushed civil rights forward. There were success, albeit not perfect success. Progress is slow, sometimes painfully slow. You seem to argue that since Gandhi and MLK did not achieve sweeping immediate and perfect change their peaceful protests shouldn't be given the status they are. As other commentators have said sweeping radical change, through more dramatic methods such as those argued for by the blank panthers aren't realistic goals. Gandhi and MLK achieved tangible results. You also refuse to says what these movements should have been. We are making an argument that Gandhi, MLK, and peaceful protest were successful. You are saying these men and peaceful protest were not successful, but fail to define what success would have been. Unless defined as "destroying structures of oppression". However, Both Gandhi and MLK destroyed structures of oppression, which would make that argument of yours mute. Your argument seems to be MLK, Gandhi, and the peaceful protests by them weren't successful since they weren't perfect and still left things to be done. Sure they left things to be done, but each man and peaceful protest still moved equality and fairness further by a large margin. And did so without violence.

### Human: I find Sam Harris' indictment of the Muslim world and Islam as a religion (as advanced in The End of Faith) to be quite convincing. CMV.### Assistant: I've done quite a lot of reading on Sam Harris, and written a few pieces on his work that I can link you to if you're interested. Since the post addresses Sam Harris' view of Islam rather than critiques of Islam per se I think it's worth talking about Harris' approach to scholarship first. If you do a little bit of digging into Harris' sources and his approach to quotations, it's very hard to reach a conclusion other than he simply isn't acting in good faith; very often he will quote a couple of words of another author and not provide the context for his quote. So, for instance, in one of his articles he claims that a certain Muslim scholar 'simply declares' Islam to be intrinsically rational; if you manage to look up the piece (it's by Ziauddin Sardar and it's in Volume 448 of Nature), you'll find that actually Sardar relies on quotes from the Qu'ran to back up his point - no scholar acting in good faith would call this 'assertion' to make their point - they would instead treat the argument on his merits. He's extremely contemptible of people working in terrorism studies in particular, and has a specific rivalry/hatred of Scott Atran. The problem is that Harris is essentially a blogger and polemicist, whereas Atran is a highly serious and well-regarded social scientist and psychologist who has done very rigorous work on the motivations of suicide bombers, has met many religious extremists personally, speaks fluent Arabic, risks his life and has had his work published in peer-reviewed journals. Harris just presents no new evidence of his own and, ironically, merely asserts that his interpretation of the motivations of terrorists is the one which people should take seriously. Harris' critique of Atran is that he completely discounts the role of ideology in terrorist motivations, whereas a cursory glance at Atran's research gets you to the opposite conclusion - he says that ideology is one motivating factor amongst many. Not meaning to bore you with details here, but the more you check Harris' footnotes the more you come to the conclusion that he's not really being honest about his sources, or at the very least is guilty of very, very lazy scholarship. That alone should make one sceptical of taking his claims on face value. Now, to take the argument on its merits, I don't think that many people would dispute that the Middle East is Serious Business, and that a huge part of it is to do with the means by which religion makes problems intractable (actually a lot of Atran's research deals with how to solve these seemingly intractable problems). The problem is that Harris is defeatist; he claims that there is something intrinsic or inherent to Islam that means that cultures who adhere to the scripture would never be capable of what he deems to be civilised, acceptable behaviour. One of the biggest problems is that Harris uses his critique of Islam to offer support to western foreign policy, which has a habit of inflaming the sort of terrorism he claims to be against. He's written some articles discussing torture which are, quite frankly, morally indefensible. He claims, for instance, that the Iraq war was a fundamentally humanitarian effort. There's nothing more to this than pure colonialism, and whilst Harris makes some kind of effort to make himself seem like a Good Honest Liberal, the fundamentals of his writing amount to little more than apology for neo-conservatism. I suppose if you are a neo-conservative yourself, you will think that Harris is a breath of fresh air, but to claim that an entire group of people united only by adherence to a common faith can't 'handle' democracy is juvenile. One might have said the same about the French when their revolution went through so many troubles (to put it lightly). Here's a couple of pieces I wrote. I'm not trying to self-promote, I just think that they're relevant. The former is on Harris' writing in general, the latter is on his horrendous arguments in favour of torture: http://enduringengland.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/messiahs-versus-naughty-boys.html http://enduringengland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/sam-harris-and-ethics-of-torture.html Theodore Sayeed, to my mind, has written the best takedown of Harris' writings, which are linked here: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered.html http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/sam-harris-in-full-court-intellectual-mystic-and-supporter-of-the-iraq-war.html### Human: >Harris is essentially a blogger and polemicist ...and a neuroscientist. Hard to take your criticisms seriously when you too tend to gloss over certain things.### Assistant: But that isn't at all relevant to the field we're discussing.### Human: Neither is calling him a blogger and a polemicist to discredit his perspective. I would never describe someone as "just a blogger" unless that is literally all they do, because it makes them seem dime-a-dozen: literally anyone can be just a blogger. Not everyone is an accomplished neuroscientist. Now, I'm not saying Harris's expertise in neuroscience makes him right in his political opinions, but to attack him for "lazy scholarship" and then exclude the fact that he is a professional scientist and scholar is simply poisoning the well, and indicative of a biased perspective.### Assistant: > Neither is calling him a blogger and a polemicist to discredit his perspective. He is just saying that, in the field of social science and whatnot, Sam Harris is a blogger and polemist, and that's all there is. His knowledge of the topic is simply lacking. Much like Dawkins is a brilliant evolutionary biologist, but when it comes down to history, he feels comfortable with making statements like "atheists don't bulldoze churches or anything". > and then exclude the fact that he is a professional scientist and scholar First, that isn't what poisoning the well is. Second, "scientist and scholar" is not analogous to "magician and wizard", and you can't just be bitten by a radioactive Marie Curie and gain science-based superpowers. When your study lacks scientific vigor, and your knowledge of the topic is insufficient, that's all you are - a polemist.### Human: >social science and whatnot Please, be more specific: what scientific field exactly is it that Sam Harris is lacking in compared to Sardar? >First, that isn't what poisoning the well is. Yes, it is. The tone was dismissive, and the description was limited to exclude any information that might make someone take Harris seriously. Someone who didn't know who Harris was would think "Oh, just some random guy with a computer and internet connection then." >Second, "scientist and scholar" is not analogous to "magician and wizard", and you can't just be bitten by a radioactive Marie Curie and gain science-based superpowers. When your study lacks scientific vigor, and your knowledge of the topic is insufficient, that's all you are - a polemist. Except he hasn't proved this is the case: simply that he dislikes Harris's attitude toward Sardar's assertion. You can argue that Harris should have gone into more detail about WHY he dismissed Sardar's assertion, but not that the assertion was dismissed out of lack of knowledge on the topic. Read Sardar's "proof" yourself, and then tell me if you think Harris was wrong to dismiss it.### Assistant: I am not taking issue with the fact that Harris has a different conclusion to Sardar. I'm taking issue with the fact that he says that Sardar 'simply declares' Islam to be intrinsically rational. A simple declaration does not look like this: >It is tempting to blame Islam itself [for the decline of science in Islamic cultures]. There is something in the teachings of Islam, the argument goes, which does not allow science to take root in Muslim societies. This suggestion not only belies history but also the basic teachings of Islam, which proclaims itself as an intrinsically rational world view. >There are some 800 verses in the Qur’an that invite the reader to think and to examine the material world, using reason to understand nature. The sayings of the Prophet Muhammad reinforce these teachings, emphasizing that understanding comes through scientific endeavour. “An hour’s study of nature is better than a year’s prayer,” the Prophet declared. He directed his followers to “listen to the words of the scientist and instil unto others the lessons of science”. And the Prophet made an essential distinction: the Qur’an, as well as his own teachings, were an invitation to reason and study what exists and can be discovered — not scientific pronouncements in and of themselves. Disagree with the conclusion, but don't misrepresent the arguments. This quote is not a simple assertion, whichever way you slice it - it's a viewpoint backed with sources.### Human: But that's like saying it's a "religion of peace" because there are X number of "peaceful passages," while ignoring all the call to arms and bloodshed. If it's a biased and cherrypicked argument, it's a bad argument with a faulty assertion. Again, maybe you're not familiar with how religious apologetics work, but for someone who is used to seeing things like this, Harris's dismissal was fine by me. I guess it would have been of benefit to those less in the know to realize exactly why Sardar's reading of the Quran is so selective, but I'm also guessing that if that was Harris's point of bringing it up at all, it wouldn't have been in the middle of making entirely different arguments: he wasn't lining up contrary arguments to knock them down, he was making his own assertions.### Assistant: I'm perfectly familiar with religious apologetics, but I'm also familiar with scholarly discourse and how to represent arguments of those you disagree with. It would, as a matter of fact, be perfectly reasonable for Person A to assert that Islam is a religion of peace based on a selective reading of the Qu'ran. It would also be completely fine for Person B to construct a counter-argument around how Person A's claim is cherry-picking nonsense and ignores the wealth of scholarship and primary Qu'ranic sources that demonstrate that Islam is not a peaceful religion. What is not acceptable is for Person B to say that Person A merely declared Islam to be peaceful, since Person A did not do that, but engaged in an argument backed up by sources, many of which are primary scriptural sources. Person B in that case would be misrepresenting Person A's argument. Sam Harris did just that, and really this point we're arguing about is not even the worst instance of Harris' misrepresentation of his opponent. You can argue that Sardar's interpretation of the Qu'ran is selective, but you can't claim that it's an unfounded assertion, which is what Harris did.### Human: What Sardar said: >this not only belies history but also the basic teachings of Islam, which proclaims itself as an intrinsically rational world view... And the Prophet made an essential distinction: the Qur’an, as well as his own teachings, were an invitation to reason and study what exists and can be discovered — not scientific pronouncements in and of themselves. This was Sardar's assertion, based on his cherry picking of the Quran. I'm not sure what makes you think Sardar was saying something different, but that's what I read, and that's what Sam Harris dismissed. Sardar did not simply say "There are some passages in the Quran that support a rational worldview." If that had been his point, you're right, Harris would have been wrong to say what he did. What Sardar DID say was that "the basic teachings of Islam proclaims itself as an intrinsically rational world view." and "The Prophet made an essential distinction: the Qur’an, as well as his own teachings, were an invitation to reason and study what exists and can be discovered — not scientific pronouncements in and of themselves." That is cherry picking apologetic bullshit. That is an assertion, not about what is IN the Quran, but what it says ABOUT ISLAM. And Sam Harris was right to dismiss it. Could he have gone into more detail about it? Sure. Would it have been better academically to? If that was the point of the chapter, yes. But I'm not going to fault him for not doing so: at a certain point it just gets tiresome to debunk the same arguments again and again.### Assistant: I'm getting bored of repeating myself here. Your issue seems to be that you think that Sardar was cherry-picking the Qu'ran and engaging in religious apologetics. I don't have any problem with that opinion, because you're talking about the substance of Sardar's argument. Harris' claim, however, was that Sardar's assertion was literally of no substance, which is not true, and evidenced by the fact that you're engaging with his claims. One more time - Sam Harris did not dismiss the argument, he claimed that there wasn't even an argument present in the piece itself. And just so we're not distracted from the wider picture, Harris' piece in the Huffington Post went on to make a bunch of other claims about the piece that are in my view even worse misrepresentations than the comparatively minor one we're arguing over here.

### Human: CMV: US women should register for Selective Service and, in a time of war, be drafted as 15% of the force.### Assistant: The Excellence Argument????? If we ever get to a point where we need to draft people, we aren't looking for only the good people. We are simply looking for people.### Human: Fair point. Maybe I should have called it the Fewer Gomer Pyles Argument. The draft boards will be able to cut more undesirable males, and take only decent female recruits, because of the larger pool. An additional benefit is that draft boards can grant more hardship, vital skill, or educational deferments.### Assistant: If we ever have a draft, something that hasn't happened in 50 plus years the shit has hit the fan. We need everyone. Gomer is going to get a job.### Human: > hasn't happened in 50 plus years The draft ended in '73. We certainly don't want *you* for a desk job :)### Assistant: Forgive me for not checking on a source about a topic so distant that it is more or less an afterthought.### Human: He made a fair point, 1973 I Isn't that long ago. Plenty of people are still around that were alive then.### Assistant: He didn't really make a fair point if you ask me. 1973 is still 42 years ago. It's a silly response that adds nothing to the discussion.

### Human: CMV: I think Captain Janeway should have been tried in court for the murder of Tuvix and lost her commission### Assistant: I would argue that, as long as the possibility of restoring Tuvoc and Neelix existed, they weren't really dead. Star Trek has a long history of playing "Miracle Max" and bringing back people who are "dead": they did it with [Worf](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_\(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation\)), with [Data](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time's_Arrow_\(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation\)), with [Doctor Pulaski](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnatural_Selection_\(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation\)), with [Picard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_Snare), with the [three cryogenically frozen humans Data found](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Neutral_Zone_\(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation\)), and they tried to do it with [Tasha Yar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_of_Evil). As captain, Janeway had a responsibility to try and "rescue" her crew members as long as that possibility existed.### Human: Suppose that Neelix is stranded on a planet and will die unless Janeway murders an innocent third party. Surely you would agree that it would be wrong for Janeway to kill the innocent person in order to save the life of Neelix, even though there is still the possibility of rescuing him?### Assistant: > Suppose that Neelix is stranded on a planet and will die unless Janeway murders an innocent third party. > Surely you would agree that it would be wrong for Janeway to kill the innocent person in order to save the life of Neelix, even though there is still the possibility of rescuing him? Completely irrelevant and unrelated to the situation at hand. Wild hypotheticals can make any decision morally ambiguous, but that's not what happened here. The transporter malfunction, and the crew's ability to correct it is, was, and always will be, the only relevant issue. As long as the possibility of restoring Tuvoc and Neelix existed, that took precedent over everything else.### Human: It's not irrelevant - it's a thought experiment designed to test the principle that is being appealed to. If it is permissible for Janeway to kill Tuvix to save Neelix and Tuvok, then it is permissible for her to kill an innocent third party to save a stranded Neelix and Tuvok. It looks like it isn't permissible for her to do that, so we ought to think that it wasn't permissible for her to kill Tuvix,### Assistant: > It's not irrelevant - it's a thought experiment designed to test the principle that is being appealed to. > If it is permissible for Janeway to kill Tuvix to save Neelix and Tuvok, then it is permissible for her to kill an innocent third party to save a stranded Neelix and Tuvok. It looks like it isn't permissible for her to do that, so we ought to think that it wasn't permissible for her to kill Tuvix, It's absolutely irrelevant because it's completely unrelated to the matter at hand. Tuvix was not an "innocent third party", he was the combination of two innocent third parties. Janeway didn't "kill Tuvix", she rescued Tuvoc and Neelix.   If you want an accurate thought experiment, then consider this: A woman in a coma is raped by a member of the hospital staff. She becomes pregnant with twins, when a complication develops and a choice has to be made. The doctor in charge is left to make the decision: Terminate the pregnancy, killing the babies. Or... Let the pregnancy proceed, and allow the woman to die.### Human: >It's absolutely irrelevant because it's completely unrelated to the matter at hand. It is entirely related to the matter at hand. In both cases, Janeway is faced with the prospect of killing one innocent person, in order to save the lives of two other innocent people. >Tuvix was not an "innocent third party", he was the combination of two innocent third parties. Janeway didn't "kill Tuvix", she rescued Tuvoc and Neelix. Tuvix was a unique individual with his own personality and his own wish not to die. Janeway's actions undoubtedly killed him. >If you want an accurate thought experiment, then consider this: A woman in a coma is raped by a member of the hospital staff. She becomes pregnant with twins, when a complication develops and a choice has to be made. The doctor in charge is left to make the decision: Terminate the pregnancy, killing the babies. Or... Let the pregnancy proceed, and allow the woman to die. To make the case more analogous, we should imagine that the woman pleads with the doctor not to kill her, that the doctor ignores her wishes, and kills her in order to save the lives of her twins. I think most people would regard that as an unethical action on the part of the doctor.

### Human: CMV: I think we should make a return to carrying cutlery on our person### Assistant: I can't actually remember the last time I used a plastic fork. At "normal" restaurants they give you metal cutlery. At McDonalds you don't use cutlery. At various stands on the street they usually don't give you any cutlery either, they sell food you can eat with your hands. So when was the last time you used plastic forks and knives? At a picnic of some sort or at a meeting with a buffet? But these are rare occasions for most people, it would be hard to expect people to adopt a permanent habit for such rare occasions.### Human: Places in between normal restaurants and fast food, like a chinese place.### Assistant: > Places in between normal restaurants and fast food, like a chinese place. So now I have to carry a fork, a knife *and* chopsticks?### Human: Only for beginners. Expert level is just Chopsticks for everything.### Assistant: Reusable, stainless steel chopsticks. Ultra-expert level is when they are sharp to double as knives.

### Human: CMV: Minority Groups Are Justified in Believing That African Americans Should Just Work Harder### Assistant: One big factor to consider is that new immigrants are a highly nonrandom sample. It is really hard to uproot your family and move to a new country. Especially one where you're not part of the mainstream culture, don't know any of the language, and have little money or resources to start with. The kind of people who see all those hurdles and do it anyway are going to be, on average, smarter, more ambitious, and harder working than normal. Average Indians don't move to America. Exceptionally ambitious Indians move to America, because moving to America is hard and scary. It shouldn't be surprising that them and their children are unusually successful, despite hurdles of racism and discrimination. If they were going to have an average reaction to those hurdles, they wouldn't have overcome all the extra hurdles that come with immigration, and would still be in their home countries.### Human: But that's the thing isn't it? You can't cry and say "But he has it easier than me." Nobody gives a shit. In school nobody cares who's smarter. It just means you have to work harder in order to get the same grades. If you're an athlete and your genetics aren't as good as someone else, that just means you have to work your ass off more than your competition. So OP's argument that "African Americans should just work harder" is completely true. Yes. They do have it harder. So what? I still got my bachelors in electrical engineering despite being a fucking dumbass. Why? Because I put in more time than any of my classmates. Life is not fair, but it is possible for anybody to leave this world better off than they entered it.### Assistant: You're ignoring a lot of historical pushback against this. Until 1968 or so, it was common to lynch blacks who were successful, because they were seen as "uppity." In Florida for example, leaving the orange groves to try to do something else, or attempting to do another job in your spare time were met with reprisals. For example, a black man in Lake County who had managed to purchase his own grove had it destroyed, and his house burnt down. Black GI's were also common targets for lynching, because it was seen as making them too independent. The history of blacks in post-war America is largely the South attempting to beat them into the ground for nearly a century. This is pretty unique. While Asians were certainly discriminated against, poor ones were discriminated against more than rich ones, which makes perfect sense. The attempt to maintain a permanent black underclass in the south by killing anyone successful is different. Blacks have had around two generations of not being murdered for wanting to succeed. One of the first in that generation is president. Give them a bit.### Human: >You're ignoring a lot of historical pushback against this. Until 1968 or so, it was common to lynch blacks who were successful, because they were seen as "uppity. Yeah. 350 years is definitely bad. But try 3000 years. I know we should never play "Opression Olympics" but nobody has had it as bad as the Jewish population. And they still kill it in spite of all that.### Assistant: The Jewish population were typically forced out of positions where they could own property and into positions that involved equity, finances, medicine and law, in a lot of these yourself and what you know is valuable If someone burns down your practice and if you manage to escape unharmed you still have those skills Whereas in the US if a black American was seen to "rise above their station" or if a white American perceived any type of slight, the outcome was much less forgiving Black Americans were purposefully denied education, punished with death for being literate, denied property and given sub par services if any When systems are set up to make sure you stay the underclass, you can change your name and never bring up your faith to fit the majority, you can't quite as easily change the colour of your skin in a system that judges you for it Hasidic Jewish males tend to be among the poorest in whichever population they're in

### Human: CMV:What Google knows will never adversely affect you, so avoiding them because they track you is irrational### Assistant: It's not about present harm - it's about *future* harm. We don't know what our information will be used for in the future, and we don't know who will have access to it. I believe that is the much greater concern.### Human: First, I agree that we can never know what the future holds, but that's a pretty generic argument that can be used against taking any risk. We can never know the future. Your argument boils down to "Don't use Google because you don't know what the future will be". Doesn't sound convincing, right? How do you know that using Bing won't harm you?### Assistant: >First, I agree that we can never know what the future holds, but that's a pretty generic argument that can be used against taking any risk. We can never know the future. This is why you don't store/track information unless you have a compelling reason to do so. That is pretty much my country's (Netherlands) guideline on collecting personally-identifiable information in a nutshell. Basically *any* information that can be tied to a specific person is considered a special class of information and any system dealing with it has to adhere to very strict guidelines. We have good reasons for it too. It used to be that the government kept records on a person's religious affiliation as part of it's basic administration. What harm can that do, right ? So when Germany invaded in 1940 all they had to do is go to city hall in each town and collect a list of all the jews and where they lived.### Human: ∆ because of your argument that you should never record anything just in case. I hadn't thought about that. I still don't think the risk is worth switching to another search engine though (I won't even consider not using one at all).### Assistant: >you should never record anything just in case. I hadn't thought about that. >I still don't think the risk is worth switching to another search engine though (I won't even consider not using one at all). Bear in mind Google makes money by connecting the dots with your searches and companies that might make money off of you; just as well that a certain search you made, whether years ago or yesterday, could have been flagged (even something innocuous) and kept. Your searches, in a sense, are being recorded, and is available not only to the government but the highest bidder. If you would want to switch search engines, I would recommend either startpage or duckduckgo.